Download A Review of Alberta`s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou

A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan
for Woodland Caribou
March 2005
www.sierraclub.ca
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
Introduction
Across Canada, 426 species have been listed under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) as at
risk of extinction. For forest-dwelling species at risk, the primary threat is loss of habitat.
Under SARA (Section 37), a recovery plan must be prepared for each species listed as endangered
or threatened. The object of recovery plans is to restore species to healthy, self-sustaining, viable
populations1. For the first 376 species listed under SARA, recovery plans must be completed and
approved by the Minister of Environment for endangered species by June 2006, and for threatened
species by June 2007.
The Canadian Wildlife Service developed a draft manual for the development of recovery plans, called
ROMAN. It mandates that recovery strategies under SARA include an identification of the threats to the
survival of the species and strategies to mitigate these threats2. ROMAN also states: ‘[I]t is now
recognized that knowledge–based, strategic thinking about what is needed for recovery of a species
should not be influenced by socio-economic considerations; socio-economic considerations should come
into play later, at the implementation/action plan stage.’3
The Species At Risk Act mandates that the recovery strategy must include an identification of the
species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible.4 Under SARA, once critical habitat is identified, if a
province is failing to protect a species at risk, the federal government has the ability to step in to ensure
its protection. 5
Across Canada, the leading cause of forest habitat alteration and fragmentation is industrial activity
occurring within forest ecosystems. (Southern Ontario is an exception, as most of the forest habitat
there has been converted to agricultural land and cities and towns). Over the last several decades,
our societal responsibility to maintain healthy ecosystems for Canada’s wildlife populations has
been at odds with social and economic interests, and many wildlife populations have steadily
declined as resource-extraction activities have degraded forested habitat. As legal means for
protecting wild species are afforded only when the species has declined to the point at which it is
considered at risk of extinction, species listed as at risk under SARA represent a threshold for
change.
Sierra Club of Canada
2
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
The Sierra Club of Canada is committed to the protection of healthy ecosystems for wildlife
populations. The Sierra Club recognizes that efforts to recover declining species populations may
challenge the socio-economic traditions and operations that have led to the demise of wildlife
populations and that have, in many places, become status quo.
To this end, we have commissioned the evaluation of recovery plans to assess the degree to which
they adequately identify strategies for mitigating threats to habitat. The evaluators were asked to
respond to ten questions developed by the Sierra Club of Canada. The Alberta draft Recovery Plan
was evaluated by Dr. Karen Beazley, whose research interests focus on landscape ecology, and by
Dr. James Schaefer, a professor of conservation biology who has studied caribou for over 20 years.
Selections from their conclusions are highlighted below. The reviewers are identified by their
initials.
Sierra Club of Canada
3
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
Alberta Woodland Caribou: A Short Overview
The boreal population of the Woodland Caribou is listed as threatened under SARA. The Alberta
draft recovery plan identifies 18 herds of Woodland Caribou in Alberta. Out of these herds, three
are deemed at risk of immediate extirpation, six are in decline, three are stable, and the population
status for six of the herds is unknown at this time. The federal government lists the following as the
main threats to the survival of Woodland Caribou: habitat destruction, hunting, disturbance by
humans (including construction of roads and pipelines), and predation (by wolves, coyotes, and
bears).6
Responses to Questions
1.
Does the Plan aim for full recovery or just survival of the species?
The vision espoused by the recovery team is to achieve, within 10 years, positive
population trajectories for the “majority” of woodland caribou herds in Alberta (p.10).
While avoiding the further loss of populations is an explicit objective, at the same time it is
stated (footnote, p.12) that the recovery team will not impose “infeasible efforts, at any
JS
cost, to preserve every herd” [sic]. Given the poor prospects (small size and declining
trajectories) of several herds and the “economic realism” of the Plan (p.11), it appears that
the recovery of some populations will not be achieved or attempted. Strictly speaking,
therefore, the recovery goal could be met with just ten (of 18) herds showing positive
population growth; eight herds could vanish under this “successful” scenario.
2.
Is critical habitat identified in the recovery plan?
Critical habitat per se is not identified in the Plan, and no rationale for its exclusion is
KB provided. The term “critical habitat” is never mentioned in the Plan, although ensuring “longterm habitat requirements” is listed as a goal.
Sierra Club of Canada
4
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
3.
If critical habitat is not identified, does the Plan articulate immediate, interim measures to
identify and protect habitat to ensure survival of the species in the short term?
The main features of proposed interim measures for critically endangered herds are: (1) a halt
to further mineral and timber resource allocations in the habitat of herds threatened with
imminent extirpation, (2) control of predators or alternate prey, and (3) the elimination of
hunting mortality. Indeed, because the prospects for several of these caribou populations are
poor (Table 2), effective interim measures may be vital to their persistence.
It is important to underline that the Plan recommends implementation of “a moratorium on
further mineral and timber resource allocation (sales)” in the habitat of herds threatened with
immediate extirpation (p.26). So, it would appear, the momentum of ongoing and planned
industrial development would be maintained. In the recovery plan, therefore, we witness the
JS
merging of two kinds of delay: (1) a lag in our response to the decline of caribou ('sustained'
development) and (2) the lag in the demise of caribou following habitat changes (the
'extinction debt'7). Together, they are likely to ensure the continuing decline (and perhaps
demise) of several caribou herds in the province. Moreover, this moratorium on future
industrial development is to be in effect only until a range plan is completed, a maximum of
one year (p.26), with no indication or commitment thereafter.
Finally, the initiation of “corrective actions” is prescribed as a follow-up to “habitat supply
evaluation” (p.13). What is not acknowledged in the document is that the reductions of
predators or alternate prey represent the application of “half-way technologies”8 in this case,
the treatment of the symptoms of, rather than the cause of, caribou endangerment and demise
– anthropogenic landscape alterations.
The Plan states that “...range teams must develop and recommend interim management
actions within six months of range team formation” (p.27). The Plan also calls for an
immediate assessment “...of current and potential habitat constraints and concerns (habitat
KB supply evaluation), ...and recommended corrective actions initiated” for herds deemed in
immediate risk of extirpation or in decline (p.13).
While the Plan recognizes that “...urgent, intensive, and effective management of limiting
factors will be required in order to avoid extirpation of those caribou herds that are in steep
Sierra Club of Canada
5
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
population decline, or are believed to have small population size” (p.9), all proposed interim
actions are limited in scope and will take at least six months after range team formation to be
implemented. The Plan notes that: “...some members of the Alberta Woodland recovery team
voiced strong concerns that range teams and range planning could result in undue delays in
the delivery of necessary recovery actions...” (p.16).
4.
Where critical habitat is not identified, but general habitat is, are activities that cause
destruction/degradation of habitat clearly identified?
KB
5.
Yes. Timber harvesting, oil and gas exploration and development, agricultural expansion, and
peat mining are identified as potential causes of caribou habitat degradation (p.7).
Does the recovery plan address, with strategies to mitigate, the primary causes of species
decline?
Given that habitat alterations are the principal cause of decline, some of the recovery focus is
JS
on curbing the “size, amount, tenure, and extent of individual industrial activities.” It is
recognized, however, that these guidelines have been enacted in place of broader scale,
landscape management (p.21), which is the appropriate scale for caribou conservation.
6.
Does the recovery plan address, with strategies to mitigate, other significant threats to the
species?
The Plan also identifies predation, First Nations’ hunting, poaching, and vehicle collisions as
factors affecting caribou populations (p.7). The Plan acknowledges that “...linear access
KB corridors, particularly roads, increase the exposure of caribou” to First Nations’ hunting,
poaching, increased predation, vehicle collisions, “...and to increased disturbance as a result
of human activity” (p.8).
Addressing roads and access issues is therefore key to successful caribou recovery. According
to the Plan, access issues are to be addressed in review of the industrial operating guidelines
Sierra Club of Canada
6
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
and future findings of the range teams. Additionally, Alberta’s proposed Access Management
Program “may align” with caribou recovery strategies (p.22). These proposed strategies seem
somewhat weak and disjointed given the significant nature of the access threat. A proactive
approach to recovery would also place a moratorium on the construction on new roads and
other linear corridors in caribou habitat.
Predation: “Changes in forest composition and the development of access routes are thought
to be primary causes” of the increased vulnerability of caribou to predators (pp.7-8).
Regarding predator mobility, here again, the Plan defers to the industrial operating guidelines.
Much of the Plan’s ultimate success will depend on timely and thoughtful review and
strengthening of these guidelines.
Hunting: First Nation hunting of caribou may have “significant consequences” in “some
cases,” according to the Plan (p.24). Discussions with First Nations are proposed. Such
discussions are clearly a good idea, but will likely take time to organize and translate into
reduced caribou mortality.
Poaching: The Plan states that “(p)oaching activity in Alberta very frequently occurs in
association with access routes that allow for highway vehicle traffic” (p.24). The industrial
operating guidelines are cited as the primary tool for address poaching-related access. The
Plan also proposes a review of enforcement “priorities, impediments and opportunities”
(p.28), and public education materials. Here again, some more immediate measures to
address access would seem beneficial to caribou recovery.
Vehicle collisions: The Plan states that “caribou/vehicle collisions remain a significant concern
is several areas” (p.25). Any solutions are deferred to specific range plans.
7.
Are socio-economic concerns barriers to the implementation of key strategies for recovery?
The recovery team is acutely aware, it seems, of the economic “reality” of caribou recovery in
Alberta. The commercial and non-commercial users of forest resources are forewarned (p.10)
JS
that access limitations or more expensive industrial technologies may be needed to support
caribou conservation. This is not surprising, given the species’ requirement for vast,
contiguous tracts of mature forest – a vanishing landscape type in the province. Indeed,
Sierra Club of Canada
7
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
range occupancy of forest-dwelling caribou is a mirror image of the extent of human
encroachment into the boreal forest.
The Plan acknowledges the very high social value of caribou (p. 9) However, the Plan fails to
include or analyze any positive economic benefits associated with caribou recovery and
KB
associated habitat protection/restoration.
The Plan also includes principles such as “economic realism” (p.11), which could undermine
the full recovery goal. The Plan states that: “(t)he recovery team does not intend to require
infeasible efforts, at any cost, to preserve every herd” [sic] (p.12).
8.
Does the recovery plan include indicators for monitoring the long-term viability of the species’
recovery?
Yes. The Plan focuses monitoring efforts on evaluating population trends: “[r]ecovery of
woodland caribou herds will be evaluated using data on adult survival and calf recruitment,
which will provide information on population trends” (p. 25). The Plan recognizes the need
KB for “measurable targets for action and evaluation” and the need for habitat planning targets if
measurable targets for action and evaluation are to be recommended (p. 20), but no specific
quantitative numerical targets are set at this time, beyond the objective of achieving “positive
population growth” (p. 11).
Population rate-of-growth is appropriately cited as the indicator of caribou recovery, as long
as it is used within an ecosystem management framework. What is not clear, however, is
JS
over what time frame population stability or growth needs to be achieved, within the 10-year
horizon of the recovery vision. Year-to-year variation in the finite-rate-of-increase can be
considerable (Appendix 1), implying that several years or decades of monitoring might be
needed.
Sierra Club of Canada
8
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
9.
JS
Would the recovery strategy, if implemented, negatively impact other species?
Control of predators (and other ungulate species) is listed as an option, particularly for
declining and critically endangered herds. Indeed, I would anticipate – given the status of
some herds and the degree of industrial development on some ranges – that reductions of
wolves (and perhaps black bears) are a strong likelihood. While control of predators is
deemed an interim measure, “periodic” intervention is not discounted (p.23).
10.
What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the Plan?
Strengths:
? The Plan provides a good overview of the threats and limiting factors to caribou
KB
recovery.
? Public education is included.
? A commitment to gather sufficient demographic information (annually, in the case of
herds facing imminent demise), in particular, adult survival and recruitment, the most
precise indicators of population trends. There is also a commitment to revise
JS
recovery actions and plans in an adaptive management context. The mathematical
model linking population rate-of-increase to landscape metrics (p.20) is a good start
to the practical application of biological knowledge (although it neglects the serious
possibility of the “extinction debt,” as acknowledged in the recovery plan).
? An invitation for a broader, multi-stakeholder approach to recovery, including First
Nations and industry. Curiously, while public consensus is clearly essential to the
implementation of recovery actions, this recommendation (p.15) may also represent a
serious weakness of the Plan, particularly if socio-economic interests from
government and industry are permitted to trump biological considerations. In my
view, there needs to be clear flow of information and recommendations from
biologists, firmly ensconced in science, which can then be considered and debated in
their broader social context – not the converse.
Sierra Club of Canada
9
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
? A realistic and practical timetable for range planning, on a herd-by-herd basis, in
addition to other activities.
Weaknesses:
? The moratorium on further mineral and timber resource allocation (sales)...” proposed
for herds at immediate risk of extinction would take up to a year to put into place,
and would not apply to herds categorized as “in decline” or of “unknown status.”
? Industrial development, and roads (and other linear corridors), are inadequately
addressed.
KB
? No specific population goals are established.
? Many recovery actions listed as “should ...,” as opposed to “will ....” or “shall....”
? The Plan is not fully consistent with the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) in that:
threats to the survival of the species, including any loss of habitat, are not adequately
addressed (SARA, Section 41 (1)).
? A rather restricted vision for caribou recovery, seemingly restrained from the outset
by “economic realism.” While industry participation, for example, is beneficial as part
of a broader debate about the value of woodland caribou to Albertans and the
JS
practical implementation of recovery actions, the fundamental premise in the
document (Section 7.4) is that we need to develop means to manage caribou in the
industrial forest, rather than manage (or eliminate) industrial activities on caribou
range.
? The view that multi-stakeholder committees should represent “... the primary vehicle
for generation of financial and other resources to support caribou research ... and
other essential activities” (p.12). While industry should be commended for its support
of caribou research in Alberta, it is the general public that benefits most from caribou
conservation. “Essential activities” strongly implies that support of conservation
studies and recovery efforts should not be left to the generosity of corporations,
however well-intentioned.
Sierra Club of Canada
10
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
? That range plans will be “implemented using existing ... company planning and
approval systems” (p.16). This is a rather nebulous statement, but it carries the
insidious suggestion that caribou recovery plans will be implemented only once
industrial approval is granted.
? While adaptive management is espoused, “emphasis on improving practices that
support caribou recovery” does not occur until 2010-11. This is not consistent with
the principle of adaptive management, where industrial activities and developments
are to be treated as an experiment. Indeed, with the widespread decline of caribou in
Alberta (as well as much data collection on that species), there seems to be ample
opportunity for critical, retrospective tests of caribou management guidelines in the
province.
Sierra Club of Canada
11
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
Conclusion
The Alberta draft recovery plan states that one of its targets is to ensure that sufficient quality habitat is
provided or developed for caribou herds (p. vii). The draft recovery plan does not itself identify targets
for habitat protection, instead delegating the task to multi-stakeholder range teams that will come into
force following the approval of the Plan.
This raises two concerns: first, as the evaluation notes, the multi-stakeholder approach is both a strength
and a potential weakness for caribou recovery efforts—the fact that industry will be a key player in the
range teams could lead to management strategies that place more emphasis on socio-economic
considerations than on conservation considerations. This is in direct contravention of the guidelines for
recovery planning, which make it clear that socio-economic concerns should not be barriers to the
development of effective recovery strategies.
Second, the Plan fails to identify adequate strategies for protecting caribou habitat in the short-term as
the range team plans are being developed. As the review notes, the Plan maintains the current
momentum of on-going development, despite the fact that the present level of development has been a
key factor in the decline of caribou populations. The Plan’s Appendix 2 gives an overview of the degree
to which industrial and development infrastructure is impacting the habitat of each herd, and highlights
that there are high levels of human disturbance (such as oil and gas development, roads and logging)
continuing in the habitat of each of the threatened herds. For the herds facing imminent extirpation, the
proposed moratorium on future industrial allocations is likely not enough to ensure recovery when there
is such a high degree of industrial activity occurring at present.
Overall, it is clear that socio-economic interests threaten to impair the scope of recovery efforts. As the
review notes, the draft recovery plan, instead of striving to manage industry to ensure the
restoration/maintenance of healthy forested ecosystems needed by caribou, seems more intent to manage
caribou within the industrialized forest.
Sierra Club of Canada
12
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
Biographies of Researchers
Karen Beazley is Director and Associate Professor at Dalhousie University's School for Resource
and Environmental Studies, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Her research interests focus on the application
of landscape ecology and conservation biology. She is co-author with Robert Boardman of Politics of
the Wild: Canada and Endangered Species (Oxford University Press, 2001), and is published in
Ecological Applications, Environmental Conservation, and Aquatic Conservation.
Jim Schaefer is Associate Professor of Biology at Trent University. He has interests in the
demography and conservation of large northern mammals, with a focus on their spatial ecology. He
has intensively studied the behaviour and habitat selection of muskoxen, and the movements and
population dynamics of woodland caribou.
Sierra Club of Canada
13
A Review of Alberta’s Draft Recovery Plan for Woodland Caribou
Literature Cited
(in addition to citations in the Recovery Plan)
Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. 2004. Alberta woodland caribou plan
2004/05-2013/14. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife
Division, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. X. Edmonton.
Caughley, G. and A. Gunn. 1996. Conservation Biology in Theory and Practice. Blackwell
Science, Cambridge, MA.
Dale, B.W. et al. 1995. “Winter wolf predation in a multiple ungulate prey system, Gates of the
Arctic National Park, Alaska.” Pages 223-230 in L.N. Carbyn et al. Ecology and Conservation
of Wolves in a Changing World. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton.
Mahoney, S., and J. A. Schaefer. 2002. “Hydroelectric development and the disruption of
migration in caribou.” Biological Conservation 107:147-153.
Schaefer, J. A., and S. P. Mahoney. 2003. “Spatial and temporal scaling of population density and
animal movement: a power law approach.” EcoScience 10:496-501.
Endnotes
1
RENEW Recovery Handbook (ROMAN), April, 2004. p.2.
Ibid., 8
3
Ibid., 33
4
SARA, section 41.
5
SARA, section 58.
6
Species at Risk website, Environment Canada,
http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/search/speciesDetails_e.cfm?SpeciesID=636
7
Tilman et al. 1994
8
Frazer 1992
2
To read the complete reviews by Dr. Beazley and Dr. Schaefer, visit www.sierraclub.ca
Cover photo credit: CPAWS-Edmonton
Sierra Club of Canada
14