VISIT US ON

Boreal Priority Species - Moose:Additional Considerations for Conservation Planning A state of knowledge synthesis report from the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement National Working Group on Protected Areas and Species at Risk

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM

410-99 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9

Tel: 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca

ENTENTE SUR LA FORET BOREALE CANADIENNE. COM

410-99, rue Bank, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9

Tél. : 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca

April 2015

*Photo by Vince Crichton

i

Boreal Priority Species - Moose: Additional Considerations for Conservation Planning.

Summary prepared by Matthew Pyper, based on original report by Vince Crichton.

Suggested citation: CBFA Secretariat. 2014. Boreal Priority Species - Moose: Additional Considerations for Conservation Planning. CBFA Secretariat: Ottawa, Canada.

Copyright © 2014, the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement

ABOUT THE CBFA

The CBFA, which was signed in May 2010, includes seven leading environmental organizations, the Forest Products Association of Canada, its 18 member companies, and Kruger Inc. It directly applies to more than 73 million hectares across the country, making it the world’s largest conservation initiative.

The CBFA represents a globally significant precedent that seeks to conserve significant areas of Canada’s vast boreal forest, protect threatened woodland caribou, and sustain a healthy forest sector by laying a foundation for the future prosperity of the industry and communities that rely on it.

Forestry companies currently participating in the Agreement:

Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc., AV Group, Canfor Pulp Limited Partnership, Canfor Corporation, Conifex, DMI, Fortress Paper Ltd., Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Corporation, Kruger Inc., LP Canada, Mercer International, Millar Western Forest Products Ltd., Resolute Forest Products, Tembec Inc., Tolko Industries, West Fraser Timber Co., Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd.

Environmental organizations participating in the Agreement:

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ivey Foundation, Schad Foundation, Stand.earth, the Nature Conservancy, and the Pew Charitable Trusts International Boreal Conservation Campaign.

For further information on the CBFA, visit www.canadianborealforestagreement.com

Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Secretariat410-99 Bank Street,Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9Tel: (613) 212-5196info@borealagreement.ca

ii

CONTENTSGuidance note iii

Preamble iv

Acknowledgements v

Introduction 1

Moose (Alces alces) 1

Appendix A: Boreal Priority Species Template for Assessing the Adequacy of

Conservation Plans 6

iii

GUIDANCE NOTE

Goal 3 of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement1 (CBFA) is “the recovery of species at risk within the boreal forests including species such as Woodland Caribou”. In partial fulfillment of this goal, the signatories of the CBFA published a Caribou Action Planning Methodological Framework (CAP MF)2, which has proven to be an extremely valuable reference for Regional Working Groups (RWG) of the CBFA.

The Signatories of the CBFA agreed, as part of Goal 3 (species at risk recovery), to focus on other ‘Boreal Priority Species’ including reference to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). The CBFA’s Science Committee developed an initial draft list after reviewing Environment Canada’s Species at Risk Public Registry. NWG 2/3 recommended two categories of species be developed, with ‘Category 1’ species being a national list of priority at-risk species, and ‘Category 2’ being a species list developed by each RWG to include regionally significant species, with consideration of socio-economic factors, and in particular species of interest to local communities. Category 1 initially contained 14 endangered, 17 threatened, and 28 special concern species but was subsequently narrowed down to 14 species in total (see Appendix B for this list); the species retained were broad-range boreal forest related species that were thought to be sensitive to forest management. Category 2 was left somewhat open, but identified potential species such as moose, beaver, and arctic grayling.

From the pared down list of Boreal Priority Species, NWG 2/3 identified a subset of five species for initial pilot development. Newfoundland marten, boreal felt lichen, wolverine, and grizzly bear are included as Category 1 species, and moose as a Category 2 species, in this initial collection of boreal priority species. For each of these, the group commissioned a report by a recognized expert in the field. These reports contain information on the species’ ecology, status and vulnerabilities, and relationships to forest management, as well as an assessment of significant knowledge gaps. Based on these reports, short summaries were prepared and this document is one of these summaries.

1 CBFA Secretariat. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. May 18, 2010.

2 Antoniuk, T., Dzus, E., and Nishi, J. 2012. A Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning in Support of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, Ottawa.

iv

PREAMBLEWhen developing conservation plans for a variety of species, it can be expected that different habitat conditions are required for different species. As a result, it would be reasonable to expect that one cannot manage for all species on every hectare at all times. The end goal, therefore, is to provide sufficient habitat for these species over time and space, as appropriate for the management unit in question. As species have evolved over time in the context of disturbance regimes, the concept of the natural range of variability may be useful in attempting to integrate the requirements of multiple species3. Also, while protected areas do play a key role in maintaining populations of species, entire landscapes can and should contribute to the recovery and maintenance of at-risk species populations, as proposed by the Conservation Matrix Model4. It is the intent of this document to describe the needs for these priority species to help RWGs in their planning, by providing:

» information on the basic ecology of species and the threats they face; » an understanding of how forest management can influence habitat and, by extension,

the status of populations; » a basis to evaluate other boreal priority species requirements in relation to caribou; and » knowledge that will feed into the Protected Areas Planning Methodological Framework

for benchmark and site-specific protected area selection.

The boreal priority species summaries present some initial thoughts on how active, adaptive management could be applied in the context of forest management to help improve our understanding of the species’ requirements and responses to management activities.

Over time, as new scientific and traditional ecological knowledge becomes available, it is anticipated that plans may need to be adapted to account for this new information. Fortunately, forest management plans are updated on a periodic basis to facilitate periodic revision.

3 Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9:1179–1188.

4 Strittholt, J.R. and S.L. Leroux. 2012. A Methodological Framework for Protected Areas Planning in Support of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, Ottawa.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to acknowledge the work of Vince Crichton (Telonics Canada, formerly with Manitoba Conservation), who prepared and presented the source report on which this summary is based.

Through the National Working Group for Goals 2 and 3, the CBFA signatories themselves also made a significant contribution to development and review of the product. The group’s members include some of Canada’s most experienced and knowledgeable experts on conservation, including:

» Etienne Bélanger, Forest Products Association of Canada » Allan Bell, Tolko » Rick Bonar, West Fraser Timber Co Ltd. » Amanda Carr, Canopy » Wendy Crosina, Weyerhaeuser » Charles Drever, The Nature Conservancy » Elston Dzus, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. » Rick Groves, Resolute Forest Products » Pierre Iachetti, ForestEthics » Kate Lindsay, Forest Products Association of Canada » Chris Miller, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society » Rachel Plotkin, David Suzuki Foundation » Jim Stephenson, Canfor » Mark Tamas, Tolko » Meredith Trainor, International Boreal Conservation Campaign » Alan Thorne, Tembec » Jim Witiw, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd.

Finally, the CBFA Science Committee played a central role in guiding the development and review of this report. Its members include:

» Fiona Schmiegelow, CBFA Senior Science Advisor and Independent Chair of the Science Committee

» Charles Drever, The Nature Conservancy » Darren Sleep, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement » Wynet Smith (ex-officio), Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Secretariat » Shawn Wasel, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. » Jeff Wells, Boreal Songbird Initiative

1

INTRODUCTIONThe CBFA strives to set a global precedent for boreal forest conservation and forest sector competitiveness. Within the CBFA, a number of working groups, both regional (RWG) and national (NWG), carry out work to achieve the six Goals of the CBFA. NWG 2/3 is one of those groups, and this document results from its work on Goal 3, on species at risk recovery plans.

This document includes the boreal priority species summary for moose and a management plan evaluation tool, included as an appendix. The intent of the latter is to evaluate how well existing or proposed species management plans address the Goals and aspirations of the CBFA. It is the intent of NWG 2/3 that this document provides guidance to forest managers on how to integrate the needs of various boreal priority species into their conservation planning work. The summary has a standardized structure in order to facilitate reading and comparison among species.

Moose (Alces alces) - Category 2

About this species

» Moose currently occupy all provinces and territories in Canada with the exception of Prince Edward Island.

» They are the largest member of the deer family (Cervidae) and belong to the genus Alces. There are a total of 4 subspecies (gigas, shirasi, andersoni, and americana) found in Canada.

» Moose occupy a mosaic of different habitats that in some periods during their annual cycle make them generalists whereas in other time periods they are specialists. Thus, they might be considered as “selective generalists”.

» For example, aquatic habitats are used extensively once aquatic vegetation has grown, by about mid-June and into July, after which they generally switch to a diet of leaves from species such as aspen, willow, birch, and other terrestrial vegetation – but will still use aquatic vegetation.1

» The full range of moose habitat can be categorized as boreal forest, mixed wood forest, large delta flood plains, tundra, and subalpine shrub areas and stream valleys.2

» Moose have evolved alongside wildfire and have adapted to the mosaic of habitats this disturbance creates.3,4

A.a. gigasA.a. shirasiA.a. andersoniA.a. americana

Figure 1: Distribution of four subspecies of Moose in Canada (Note: Moose are now also distributed across southwest Manitoba, southern Saskatchewan, expanding in Labrador and in northern Nunavut)

2

Current Status

» The only population currently listed as endangered is in mainland Nova Scotia. » Although different jurisdictions have different issues, it is safe to assume at this

point in time moose are not at risk of disappearing, although some populations are in decline.

» The Newfoundland and Labrador government is under increasing pressure to reduce moose numbers especially along major roadways in an attempt to reduce moose/vehicle collisions.

» Moose numbers in Labrador are increasing in localized areas due primarily to an increase in forest disturbance.

» In Manitoba, populations have declined from an estimate of about 35,000 in 1991 to about 18,500 today and a conservation closure was enacted in 2011 for 3 game hunting areas and a partial closure in one whereby all hunting was curtailed for conservation purposes.

Main threats to this species

» Maintaining sustainable harvest levels remains a challenge in certain jurisdictions, particularly in Manitoba.

» Access and habitat fragmentation have been identified by most jurisdictions as a major concern throughout the range of moose in Canada.

» While forest harvesting is generally viewed as having a neutral or positive impact on moose habitat, the associated roads and trails into previously inaccessible areas promotes increased access by hunters and predators. This increased access can, and does, result in overharvesting in many jurisdictions.

» Disease/parasites – the 3 parasitic diseases of concern to wildlife managers are brain worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis), liver fluke (Fascioloides magna) and winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus).5

» Climate change, which may bring warmer spring and fall conditions, is likely to increase the risk of heavier tick infestations and subsequent moose mortality.

» Climate change also presents uncertainties with respect to future habitat. For example, a mosaic of regenerating burned and mature forest is often good for moose, but an increased frequency of large, landscape-scale fires could have negative consequences for moose.

Other key vulnerabilities worth highlighting

» If climate change vegetation models are proven to be accurate, range retractions along the southern portion of moose range may occur. However, Saskatchewan and Alberta are experiencing range expansions south into parkland and prairie regions. Climate change may increase the speed at which moose colonize Canada’s northern regions. Warmer temperatures will also increase the frequency and intensity of tick epidemics.6

What is considered important habitat?

» Habitat use patterns are primarily related to the presence, absence, and dynamics of forage and cover suitability, but also related to the presence of predators, pathogens, and moose population density.

» Physical factors, including snowfall accumulation, fire history, surface water, and temperature, all affect moose habitat use. Human activity also influences habitat selection and use.7,8

Status of Moose Populations in Boreal Canada

Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, and the island of Newfoundland – Stable Populations

Labrador – Increasing in Localized Areas

Manitoba – Declining in Accessible Areas

3

Current provincial management actions associated with this species

» Yukon: Moose Management Guidelines are in final review and harvest management objectives have been identified for a few Moose Management Units.

» British Columbia: A “Draft Provincial Framework for Moose Management in British Columbia” is currently being developed as well as an action plan for the Omineca Region.

» Alberta: A draft moose management plan has been prepared. » Saskatchewan: A 2000 Status and Management Plan for moose in the boreal forest is

available but requires updating. » Manitoba: A strategy was prepared in 2011 but it has not been approved by the current

administration. » Ontario: New moose policies and

guidelines were released in June 2009. The Ministry is planning to consider the development of new moose population objectives and harvest strategies over the coming months.

» Quebec: A 4th iteration of a moose plan is available for the period 2012-2019.

» Newfoundland and Labrador: A plan is in place that permits moose to be harvested annually on a hunter draw system which legally harvests approximately 22,000 moose per year.

What possible conservation measures could the CBFA take in relation to habitat?

» Decommissioning roads to limit access to moose habitat will help control overharvesting of this species.9

» Coordinated harvest planning that aims to reduce the total number of roads and facilitates long-term closure or reclamation of roads is also a preferred approach.

» In areas where moose and caribou coexist, consideration will need to be given to management actions for both species (e.g., reduction of moose densities, and associated wolf densities, may be required for caribou recovery).

What other measures are required to assist persistence of this species?

» The recent down turn in the logging industry in some jurisdictions, and intensive fire suppression activities has the potential to decrease high quality habitat and, therefore, reduce moose densities over the long term. Managers must be cognizant of this factor as they move forward with management programs. There is an urgent need to think longer term, for example, on a 20-25 year rather than 2-5 year time frame and to think outside the box.

» There is a need for a coordinated and timely provincial/territorial monitoring program to ensure mortality does not exceed recruitment. Such a monitoring program, in

Provincial Population Objectives in Boreal Canada

Yukon – Population objectives are outlined in the Provincial Moose Management Guidelines.

British Columbia – None at the provincial level. Some regions have developed more formal objectives.

Alberta – No objectives have been identified.

Saskatchewan – The long term goal announced in 2007/08 was 50,000 moose and at that time the population was estimated at about 45,000.

Manitoba – A provincial strategy is in development but past plans suggest a goal of at least 35,000.

Ontario – Broad cervid objectives are found within the Cervid Ecological Framework.

Quebec – No defined recovery objectives other than to increase moose populations in order to improve hunting experiences.

Newfoundland and Labrador – Historically moose have been managed to maintain a population density of 2 moose/km². This density target is currently under review.

4

addition to estimating populations, must also measure the social structure (i.e. bulls, cows, and calves).

» It is also important to have a close working relationship between forest industry companies and provincial forestry and/or wildlife branches. Good communication with regard to forest harvest plans, annual plans and 5-20 year plans is important when attempting to manage moose within forest management license areas.10

Overlap between this species and caribou

» In those jurisdictions where there are moose and boreal woodland caribou, ranges of both species overlap. However, habitat preferences for the two species differ.

» Moose and caribou share certain predators (e.g., wolves), so that an increase in moose presence in an area can increase the predation on woodland caribou.

Opportunities for adaptive management

» There is a need for adaptive management in relation to caribou and moose management, as this will help in managing healthy populations of both species. On identified boreal woodland caribou ranges, there is a need to determine how low moose populations, and therefore predator populations, need to be to retain caribou on the landscape while at the same time ensuring that moose populations remain viable. The end result must be healthy populations of both species. The challenge of achieving self-sustaining local populations of both caribou and moose will vary for each jurisdiction, since habitat, population dynamics and management context vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Other CBFA topics to consider

» Moose harvests must be managed carefully to ensure that moose populations can continue to contribute to the well-being of Canadian society. Societal demands other than hunting should be explored in management plans.

Knowledge gaps

Regular monitoring is a critical requirement for effective management of this species. Thus, sufficient annual funding for ongoing monitoring must be a priority. Inadequate funding will result in management units being surveyed perhaps every 5 years and in the interim major declines may occur that were not detected early because of insufficient funding.

5

REFERENCES

1. Jordan, P. 1987. Aquatic foraging and the sodium ecology of moose: A review. Swedish Wildlife Research 1: 119-1371.

2. Telfer, E.S. 1984. Circumpolar distribution and habitat requirements of moose (Alces alces). Pp 145-182 in Olson, R., R. Hastings & F. Geddes eds. Northern ecology and resource management. University of Alberta Press. Edmonton, AB.

3. Peterson R. 1955. North American moose. Univ. Toronto Press, Ontario. 280pp.

4. Kelsall, J.P. & E.S. Telfer. 1974. Biogeography of moose with particular reference to western North America. Naturaliste Canadien (Quebec) 101: 117-130.

5. Crichton, V. 2009. White tailed deer and brain worm in Manitoba. Manitoba Conservation. Unpublished.

6. Rempel, R. 2011. Effects of climate change on moose populations: exploring the response horizon through biometrics and systems modelling. Ecological Modelling 222: 3355-3365.

7. Peek, J.M. 1998. Habitat Relationships. Pp 351-401 in Franzmann, A.W. & C.C. Schwartz eds. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. USA.

8. Schwab, E.E. & M.D. Pitt. 1991. Moose selection of canopy cover types related to operative temperature, forage and snow depth. Canadian Journal Zoology 69: 3071-3077

9. Crichton V.F., W.E. Regelin, A.W. Franzmann & C.C. Schwartz. 1998. The Future of Moose Management and Research. Pp 655-663. Franzmann, A.W. & C.C. Schwartz eds. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. USA.

10. Crichton, V. 1998. Moose and ecosystem management in the 21st century – does the King have a place? A Canadian perspective. Alces 434(2): 467-477.

6

Appendix A: Boreal Priority Species Template for Assessing the Adequacy of Conservation PlansThe following is a template intended to be used by regional working groups (RWG) to evaluate existing or proposed conservation plans for the Boreal Priority Species (BPS) under consideration. It can also be applied to their own protected areas and caribou action planning.

1. Conservation Planning Goal & Principles

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Is the conservation planning goal consistent with the achievement of self-sustaining BPS populations within the area of assessment or area of implementation?Does the conservation planning goal address restoration and maintenance of BPS habitat?Are the stated principles consistent with the CBFA? Are appropriate spatial and temporal scales considered?

2. Review of Existing Management Policies

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Are existing provincial land use policies consistent with the stated BPS conservation planning goals? Are existing FPAC member company forest management planning documents consistent with CBFA BPS conservation planning goals?Do provincial policies adequately address cumulative effects as they relate to BPS conservation?Are there any specific policy changes that should be recommended to improve overall alignment with recommended BPS conservation or recovery actions in the area of assessment or area of implementation?Are both habitat suitability (quantity, quality and spatial configuration) and mortality risks addressed?

7

3. Assessment Area Identification & Range Condition Evaluation (Current & Future)

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Is the assessment area defined to sufficiently incorporate predator-prey dynamics (for animal species) or other species-specific applicable landscape level influences in the regions?Does the plan have comprehensive data sets defining existing tenures and administrative / planning units that affect land use patterns and management actions? Is BPS habitat suitability adequately defined spatially?Does the plan have comprehensive spatial data sets identifying land use intensity?Does the plan have comprehensive spatial data sets of natural disturbances?Does the plan have comprehensive datasets summarizing BPS population size, distribution, population trend, areas with elevated mortality, and unique or sensitive features?Does the plan have datasets of predator (for animal species) or herbivore (for plants) distribution and density? Does the plan have datasets relating to other prey (for animal species) or alternate hosts (for plant species) distribution and density? Does the plan present plausible scenarios of future land use, natural disturbance, and climate change?Are the land use scenarios adequately linked to indicators of BPS demographics and/or habitat? Does the plan adequately identify best available (current and projected future) habitat? Does the plan define critical habitat in a manner consistent with the Species at Risk Act or other relevant peer-reviewed literature?

8

4. Defining Management Measures

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Does the plan identify areas for protection or other species-appropriate land use designation through systematic conservation planning based on important BPS values?Does the plan provide tenure specific analysis to FPAC members and/or regional working groups to support their efforts to meet CBFA Goal 1 and 3 and certification requirements?Are best management practices for BPS conservation adequately identified? Does the plan outline population management and monitoring measures for predators and other prey (for animal species) or herbivores and alternate hosts (for plant species)?Does the plan outline an adaptive management program to adequately assess implementation of objectives? Does the plan outline an adaptive management program with associated monitoring actions to adequately assess effectiveness of implementation objectives?Does the plan identify key drivers of cumulative effects on BPS in the implementation area and provide clear and effective strategies for managing those effects?

9

5. Engagement and Collaboration with Others

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Does the plan identify engagement / collaboration strategies for territorial and provincial government agencies responsible for BPS conservation? Does the plan identify engagement / collaboration strategies for territorial and provincial government agencies responsible for land use / cumulative effects? Does the plan identify engagement / collaboration strategies for aboriginal peoples?Does the plan identify engagement / collaboration strategies for overlapping tenure holders?

 

6. Socio-Economic Assessment

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Has the plan adequately incorporated assessment of the socio-economic impact of identified management measures?

10

Appendix B: Initial list of Category 1 species1,2

Common Name

Population Name

Status5 No. Boreal Provinces

Threats6

Bear, Grizzly Northwestern population

SC 2 Hunting; habitat degradation or loss associated with roads/trails for industry or recreation

Caribou, Woodland

Boreal population

THR 6 Habitat loss and increased predation, facilitated by human activities

Crossbill percna

subspecies, Red

END 1 Habitat degradation from logging; fire suppression

Duck, Harlequin

Eastern population

SC 1 Hunting; water level fluctuations from hydro and mining developments

Flycatcher, Olive-sided

THR 6 Habitat loss from logging; pesticides effects on prey; overwintering habitat loss in Andes

Goldeneye, Barrow’s

Eastern population

SC 1 Hunting; habitat loss from logging; human ‘access’ to wilderness areas; lake stocking with Brook Trout

Lichen, Boreal Felt

Boreal population

SC 1 Logging and associated microclimatic change

Marten, American

Newfoundland population

THR 1 Habitat loss and fragmentation from logging of mature conifer and mixedwood forests

Monarch SC 6 Pesticides; overwintering habitat loss in Mexico

Rail, Yellow SC 6 Wetland drainage or loss; coastal marsh habitat loss

Sturgeon, Lake All populations END, THR, SC

6 Overfishing; Habitat loss from dams and water level fluctuations; human ‘access’ to wilderness areas

Warbler, Canada

THR 6 Habitat loss from wetland drainage; forest fragmentation; roads; overwintering habitat loss in Andes

Wolverine Eastern population

END 1 Hunting; trapping; habitat loss or fragmentation from industry and roads; human ‘access’ to wilderness

Wolverine Western population

SC 5 Hunting; trapping; habitat loss or fragmentation from industry and roads; human ‘access’ to wilderness

1 COSEWIC status categories in this table include: special concern (SC), threatened (THR), and endangered (END). 2 The sources of threat information are the COSEWIC Status Reports found in the Species at Risk Public Registry of the Government of Canada.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM410-99 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9Tel: 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca