Proceedings Summary of the 2003 Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) and

Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) Workshop

September 9-10, 2003 Yellowknife, Northwest Territories

Designing Protected Areas: Wild Places for Wild Life

Canadian Council on Ecological Areas 2003

© 2003 Canadian Council on Ecological Areas

Canadian Council on Ecological Areas 2067 Fairbanks Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 5Y9

Designing Protected Areas: Wild Places for Wild Life – Proceedings Summary of the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA)

and Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) Workshop, September 9-10, 2003, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories

ISBN 0-7708-0106-4

Printed and bound in Canada

Additional copies are available for $20 CAD (includes taxes, postage and handling). Please make

cheques payable to the Treasurer, Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, 3325 Rae Street, Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 1S5

CCEA@accesscomm.ca

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the sponsoring agency of the Yellowknife workshop – the Government of the Northwest Territories’ Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development – with

funding assistance from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Appreciation is extended to workshop host Bas Oosenbrug, who with the help of Joanna Tiemessen, arranged the workshop, looked after the logistics, and ultimately made this

publication possible.

These workshop proceedings would not have been possible without the willing and timely submission of written summaries and presentations from the plenary and stakeholder panel

presenters, and breakout session facilitators.

Thanks to Bas Oosenbrug and Tom Beechey for careful review and suggestions. Any remaining errors in the workshop proceedings are the responsibility of the editor.

Designing Protected Areas: Wild Places for Wild Life

Proceedings Summary of the 2003 Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) and Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN)1 Workshop

September 9-10, 2003

Yellowknife, Northwest Territories

Compiled and Edited by Yolanda Wiersma University of Guelph, Ontario

Published by the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas 2003

1 CPAN is the Protected Areas Expert Working Group within the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) program of the Arctic Council

Table of Contents Foreword

Doug Stewart..……………………………………………………………………………iv Preface

Bas Oosenbrug, Tom Beechey and Ed Wiken. ……………………………………………v Introduction Yolanda Wiersma …………………………………………………………………………1 Plenary Presentations: Ecosystems and Northern Protected Areas Status of Northern Protected Areas: Protecting Biodiversity at the Habitat and Ecosystem Levels

Ed Wiken…………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Arctic Ecosystem Conservation: Protected Areas and Beyond Anne Gunn……………………………………………………………………………….11 Plenary Presentations: Regional Ecological Approaches Ecoregional Conservation Plan for the Southern Rocky Mountains

Brian Miller, D. Foreman, M. Fink, D. Shinneman, J. Smith, M. DeMarco, M. Soulé and R. Howard ………………………………………………………………………….15

Applications of C-Plan in Systematic Conservation Planning for the Northern Boreal Forest

Geoff Lipsett-Moore……………………………………………………………………...19 Designing Northern Ecological Areas: What Can Diversity Indices Tell Us? Yolanda Wiersma……….………………………………………………………………..24 Large Carnivores as Umbrella Species for Identifying Protected Areas in the North Dean Cluff and Paul Paquet………….……………………………………....………….28 Rapid Ecological Assessment of NWT Candidate Sites: Incorporating Biodiversity in Protected Areas Design

Steve Moore and Paul Latour……………………………………………………………32 Summary of Plenary Presenters Panel Discussion Yolanda Wiersma……….………………………………………………………………..34 Plenary Presentations: Protected Areas and Land Use Planning Evaluating Protected Areas for Conservation and Land-Use Planning in Mexico Gerardo Bocco and Gerardo Negrete…………………………………...………………44

The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area: Applying the Management Model Howard Madill…………………………………………………………………………...47 Protected Areas in the Mackenzie Valley: A Stakeholders Panel The Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy: Background David Purchase………………………………………………………………………..…52 World Wildlife Fund’s Role in Protected Areas Planning in the Mackenzie Valley Bill Carpenter……………………………………………………………………………56 The Role of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in NWT Conservation Work Greg Yeoman…………………………………………………………………………….60 A Landscape Conservation Approach and Application to Resource and Protected Areas Management in the Northwest Territories Al Richard, Bruce MacDonald and Gary Stewart……………………………………….61 Protecting Land and Water in the Deh Cho Heidi Wiebe and Peter Cizek.………………………………………………………...…64 Nành’ Geenjit Gwitr’it T’igwaa’in – Working for the Land: The Gwich’in Land Use Plan Susan McKenzie………………………………………………………………………….67 Summary of Stakeholder Panel Discussion Yolanda Wiersma…………….……………...………………………………………...…71 Summary of Breakout Sessions Brent Gurd…………...……………….…………………………………………73 Tony Turner……………………………………………………………………..75 John Vandall…………………………………………………………………….77 Workshop Conclusions Yolanda Wiersma………………………………………………………….……………..80 Appendix A List of Workshop Participants…………………………………………………………...85 Appendix B List of Acronyms Used in the Proceedings………………………………………………89

The contents of this document, including the presentation slides on the enclosed CD-ROM remain the copyright of the original authors and presenters. Any reproduction or retransmission of these

materials without their express written permission is prohibited.

Foreword Conserving lands that have ecological and cultural significance for the residents of the Northwest Territories (NWT) is a key policy commitment of both the territorial and federal governments. In 1996 the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada made a joint commitment to prepare a Protected Areas Strategy (PAS) for the Northwest Territories. At that time a number of significant protected areas existed, but the NWT-PAS came into being to ensure that the wide range of natural diversity in the NWT is adequately represented in a network of protected ecological areas. With the increasing pace and scale of development, it will become more challenging to develop northern resources in an ecologically sustainable manner. However, the NWT still has an opportunity to create a system of protected areas that not only represents the diversity of landscapes, but also meets the needs of wildlife, and in turn human society. The Government of the Northwest Territories recognizes the important role of a network of core areas in protecting biologically productive and diverse habitats and serving as benchmarks for detecting and monitoring disturbance. Through the NWT-PAS process, several large candidate areas are currently under interim protection. As the hosting agency of the workshop Designing Protected Areas – Wild Places for Wild Life, the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development was pleased and honoured to have the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas hold its 2003 Annual General Meeting and workshop in Yellowknife. The meeting provided and opportunity to exchange information and views on important ecological criteria for northern protected areas, and how those areas can be established in the context of land management in the NWT and other regions of northern Canada. We hope that the enthusiasm and open dialogue that occurred in Yellowknife can be the starting point for a truly serious discussion of what is needed to conserve the important elements of Canada’s northern biodiversity heritage.

Doug Stewart, Director Wildlife and Fisheries Division Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development Government of the Northwest Territories

Preface

Accounts of early European explorers paint contrasting vignettes of northern Canada as a vast wilderness - a region remote, hostile and seemingly barren, yet diverse and highly productive. While ecologists have come to know this region in more intimate ecological terms, its persistent, compelling wilderness character mark it as one of the last remaining pristine areas, a distinction that inspires modern efforts and obligations to conserve it. Though our ability to describe and to know this region have evolved dramatically since the early exploratory accounts, its vast area, its largely natural character, its free-ranging charismatic wild life, its surprising ecological productivity and its continued importance to Aboriginal people – all symbolize our contemporary images and conservation efforts. The Arctic and its wild life have been the domain and sustenance of Aboriginal peoples for millennia. Now compressed by technology, and increasingly threatened by development and use, Canada’s northern regions – vast and expansive boreal, tundra, and taiga landscapes and polar seas – command conservation attention like never before. Protected areas, which offer one important approach to conserving these ecosystems, have been a relatively late innovation in Canada’s last frontier. Today, although wildlife areas, national parks and other categories of protected areas exist, together they fail to represent many important ecological features and many of them lack ecological integrity with their surrounding working land and seascapes. The Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) was established in 1982 to facilitate the establishment of a comprehensive network of protected ecological areas in Canada for ecosystem conservation, scientific study and appreciation. With this mandate, CCEA has led various initiatives toward fulfilling this goal, including development and management of the Canadian Conservation Areas Database (CCAD) and the North American Conservation Areas Database (NCAD); formulation of a ‘representation’ construct for ecological areas; development of a national framework for ecological areas; demonstration of regional pilot studies for gap analyses; nation-wide terrestrial and marine ecosystem classification; and initiatives on marine conservation – work often tailored to meet conservation and biodiversity needs at regional, Canadian and North American scales. Continuing in this tradition, and responsive to northern interests and needs, the Northwest Territories, Canada hosted a workshop with the CCEA and Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) of the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Flora and Fauna program, to explore protected area needs for wild life conservation in Canada’s northern regions. This proceedings relates the presentations and outcomes of Designing Protected Areas: Wild Places for Wild Life, a highly informative and interactive gathering that probed the scientific, ecological and human dimensions associated with the planning and management of protected areas in northern and circumpolar regions. Altogether the workshop entertained 15 presentations and panel commentaries showcasing state-of-the-art work for designing and modeling protected areas, together with robust critiques and discussions of related ecological, cultural and planning issues. While much of the workshop discussion focused on the Northwest Territories, the outcome and lessons learned are very generic and relevant to widespread northern and circumpolar settings. As we adapt what we heard and as we strive to preserve everything natural that is important in the North, everyone must participate to make it happen. Only with a collective sense of community in both ecological and social terms can the many stakeholders – First Nations, governments,

industry, scientists, non-governmental organizations and individual civil interests – fulfill this important goal. In itself, the workshop provided an excellent model of how CCEA collaborates with jurisdictions and other partners to bring scientific scrutiny to planning and managing protected areas. For its part, CCEA commends the Northwest Territories and all of the workshop sponsors and participants on the openness, objectivity and consensus-based approach that they are seeking to instill into the protected areas planning process. As for motivation, underpinning it all is the moral imperative and obligation of Canadians to ensure the conservation of Canada’s Arctic, as the globally significant heritage asset that it is now, and hopefully will continue to be into the future. Bas Oosenbrug, Tom Beechey and Ed Wiken

Workshop Planning Committee Canadian Council on Ecological Areas

Introduction

Yolanda Wiersma

Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Canada

Parks and protected areas received a great deal of attention in the form of conferences, meetings and gatherings in the year 2003. The year marked the decadal meeting of the World Conservation Union conference on world parks and protected areas in Johannesburg, South Africa. Within North America, spring 2003 coincided with the triennial meeting of the Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, held in Victoria, British Columbia. In September 2003 the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) held its annual meeting in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories (NWT), and jointly hosted a workshop entitled “Designing Protected Areas: Wild Places for Wild Life” in conjunction with the Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) Experts Group of the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Fauna and Flora (CAFF) program. While these gatherings varied in size, location, and participants, they shared a common focus that protected areas are a vital part of working landscapes. As such, the presentations at these meetings included findings based on cutting-edge scientific and ecological knowledge, together with research in social sciences and economics. As well, protected areas planners are realizing the importance of local community involvement for success in the conservation of areas of natural and cultural significance. The NWT is at a significant point in its protected areas planning. Like other Canadian jurisdictions that have recently undertaken ambitious regional protected areas planning, the NWT has begun a protected areas strategy (PAS) aimed at increasing the proportion of protected areas within its jurisdiction. Unlike the processes

in southern provinces however, the NWT- PAS strives to be community-driven, while at the same time considering state-of-the-art scientific knowledge from the fields of landscape ecology, conservation biology, and wildlife management. These issues were brought together at the Yellowknife workshop, which emphasized application of science and community processes to the NWT-PAS. Participants received an overview of the PAS process (e.g., Purchase - this workshop) and an update on areas under interim land withdrawal. Conservation scientists with research experience in Australia, the United States, Mexico, and various regions of Canada brought recent research, models, and tools to the attention of the group, illustrating strengths and weaknesses of each, and suggesting how these could be incorporated into the NWT-PAS process. As well, local voices from within the Mackenzie Valley were heard on issues related to protected areas planning and future resource development activities. The CCEA is no stranger to regional protected areas planning. In an Occasional Paper from over a decade ago, CCEA described a framework for developing a nation-wide system of ecological areas (Gauthier 1992). The key concept for regional protected areas planning in this framework was the idea of “representation”, which was further detailed in another CCEA-commissioned paper (Peterson and Peterson 1991). Both papers suggested evaluating the complex issue of eco-region1 representation and establishing additional protected areas as necessary. Representation is a strategy that was also adopted by Parks Canada (Canadian Heritage 1998), which set

a goal of establishing one national park to represent each of the 39 natural regions of the country1. Peterson and Peterson (1991) suggested that representation be evaluated in relation to enduring features on the landscape, and not elements that can change rapidly, such as microclimates, and populations of plants, birds, and mammals. Others however have advocated basing representation on species assemblages (e.g., Margules et al. 1988). The late 1980s and early 1990s saw a proliferation in the literature of the use of heuristic algorithms to select minimum sets of protected areas that would capture regional biodiversity representation (e.g., Pressey and Nicholls 1989; Bedward et al.. 1992; Pressey et al.. 1993). The development of high-powered computers allowed such algorithms to be run quickly on large data sets; several of these packages (SITES/MARXAN, PORTFOLIO) have become available as free shareware, available online. Three of the papers presented at the Yellowknife workshop (Miller et al., Lipsett-Moore, and Wiersma) apply these models to North American regions. The advancement and increase of user-friendly Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology has also contributed to a proliferation of research in regional protected areas planning. This is illustrated by its use in the majority of the presentations in this volume. However, GIS analyses are only as good as the data available. In the Canadian North in particular, data are often limited, or of a very coarse scale. Users should be particularly cautious about applying data collected at one scale to an analysis at quite a different scale. As well, there has been little or no incorporation of error analysis techniques such as those outlined in Aronoff (1995; chapter 5) into GIS-based regional protected areas network 1The ecosystem classification system used by CCEA (Wiken et al. 1996), and generally accepted by most North American jurisdictions differs from the classification system used by Parks Canada (Canadian Heritage 1997).

planning. Ground-truthing of digital data is an important step in error checking. While it may be possible to develop rapid methods for conducting fieldwork (e.g., Moore and Latour - this workshop), ground-truthing is a time-consuming and expensive process. In light of limited data on a full range of biodiversity elements, some have advocated the use of focal species as surrogates for information that would otherwise be too time consuming to collect (Lambeck 1997; Cluff and Paquet, this workshop). The terminology around focal species is confusing. The term “focal species” is often used as a general term to describe umbrella, indicator, and flagship species (Miller et al. 1998/99). In terms of protected areas design, species that might be indicators of overall biodiversity may be useful for efficient identification of areas of interest. Alternatively, conserving habitat for wide-ranging umbrella species may be preferable – the assumption being that conservation of these will automatically ensure conservation of a host of other biodiversity elements. However, some have critiqued these methods (e.g., Landres et al. 1988), and few case studies using focal species have employed rigorous testing. A recent development in the literature on protected areas has been an emphasis on the concept of ecological integrity. This concept recognizes the need for protected areas to maintain natural composition and abundance of species and biological communities, together with key ecological processes, all within their natural range of variability (Parks Canada Agency 2000). The definition of ecological integrity (which was included in recent revisions to the National Parks Act) requires protected areas to consider issues of size, connectivity, naturalness, and management of human activities, such that they do not adversely affect the structure and ecological function of the areas that they were set aside to protect and to represent. The concept of ecological integrity then, moves protected areas planning beyond representation, which was the focus a

decade ago, without abandoning the idea that protected areas should be representative of wider ecological systems. Representation is still an important goal, but it should be carried out using protected areas that meet criteria for ecological integrity. Finally, protected areas planners are increasingly realizing that, while scientific and ecological knowledge is an important component, successful conservation will not occur without involvement of local communities (Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy Advisory Committee 1999; Parks Canada Agency 2000; Peepre and Dearden 2002). This point was emphasized in the Yellowknife workshop through the presentations of, and discussions following, the Mackenzie Valley stakeholder panel. Research on protected areas planning and management has come a long way in the past few decades. In Canada’s North there is a unique opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past, and those from other jurisdictions. Protected areas in the later nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century were often established in areas of high scenic value, often with low economic potential. We have since learned that many of these areas, primarily in southern Canada, are faced with threats to their ecological integrity as a consequence of ad hoc planning (Parks Canada Agency 2000). As well, few of them adequately represent the natural regions of this part of Canada.

Canada’s North is relatively undisturbed, and thus there is a chance to establish a network of protected areas that are representative of natural eco-regions, while at the same time are designed to meet criteria for ecological integrity. Still, there are challenges to be met. Resource activity is already an important part of the northern economy, and is predicted to increase. At the same time Aboriginal communities wish to maintain elements of their traditional lifestyle. A proactive plan that incorporates scientific ecological knowledge, together with information and input from local communities, can identify areas of ecological importance and ensure that these are designed and managed to maintain long-term ecological and cultural values. The proceedings of this workshop are being summarized in written and digital format. Contributors have submitted written summaries of their presentations together with their Power Point slides on the enclosed CD-ROM. Unless otherwise noted, the presenters themselves authored the summaries; in some case summaries were based on taped audio recordings of the presentations. CCEA anticipates that this document will be a valuable resource to workshop participants, as well as a wider audience of land managers beyond northern Canada, and that it will stimulate further discussion and collaboration between researchers and those working at the local level to bring protected areas through to formal protection.

References Aronoff, S. 1995. Geographic Information Systems: A Management Perspective. WDL Publications.

Ottawa, ON. 294 pp. Bedward M., R. L. Pressey, and D. A. Keith. 1992. A new approach for selecting fully representative

reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design, and land suitability with an iterative analysis. Biological Conservation 62: 115-125.

Canadian Heritage. 1997. National Parks System Plan. Parks Canada, Minister of Public Works and

Government Services. Ottawa, ON.

Canadian Heritage. 1998. State of the Parks 1997 Report. Parks Canada, Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Ottawa, ON. 190 pp.

Gauthier, D. (editor). 1992. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas Framework for Developing a Nation-

wide System of Ecological Areas, Part 1 – A Strategy. CCEA Occasional Paper No. 12. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas Systems Framework Task Force. Ottawa, ON. 39 pp.

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species; a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11:

849-856. Landres, P.B., J. Verner, and J.W. Thomas. 1988. Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique.

Conservation Biology 2: 316-328. Margules, C. R., A. O. Nicholls, and R. L. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximize

biodiversity. Biological Conservation 43: 63-76. Miller, B., R. Reading, J. Strittholt, C. Carroll, R. Noss, M. Soulé, O. Sanchez, J. Terborgh, D. Brightsmith,

T. Cheeseman, and D. Foreman. 1998/99. Using focal species in the design of nature reserve networks. Wild Earth 8(4): 81-92.

Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy Advisory Committee. NWT Protected Areas Strategy: a

Balanced Approach to Establishing Protected Areas in the Northwest Territories. Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Government of the Northwest Territories. Yellowknife, NT. 100 pp.

Parks Canada Agency 2000. “Unimpaired for Future Generations”? Conserving Ecological Integrity with

Canada’s National Parks. Vol. II. Setting a new direction for Canada’s national parks. Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks. Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Ottawa, ON.

Peepre, J., and P. Dearden. 2002. The role of Aboriginal peoples. In: Parks and Protected Areas in

Canada: Planning and Management. 2nd edition. (P. Dearden and R. Rollins, eds.). Oxford University Press, Don Mills, ON. Pp. 323-353.

Peterson, E.B., and N.M. Peterson. 1991. A First Approximation of Principles and Criteria to make

Canada’s Protected Areas Systems Representative of the Nation’s Ecological Diversity. Occasional Paper No. 11. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, Ottawa, ON. 62 pp.

Pressey, R. L., and A. O. Nicholls. 1989. Application of a numerical algorithm to the selection of reserves

in semi-arid New South Wales. Biological Conservation 50: 263-278. Pressey, R. L., C. J. Humphries, C. R. Margules, R. I. Van-Wright, and P. H. Williams. 1993. Beyond

opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 124-128.

Wiken, E. B., D. Gauthier, I. Marshall, K. Lawton, H. Hirvonen. 1996. A Perspective on Canada’s

Ecosystems: an Overview of the Terrestrial and Marine Ecozones. CCEA Occasional Paper No. 14. Ottawa, ON. 95 pp.

Plenary Presentations: Ecosystems and Northern Protected Areas

Status of Northern Protected Areas: Protecting Biodiversity at the Habitat and Ecosystem Levels

Ed Wiken………………………………………………………………………………….6

Arctic Ecosystem Conservation: Protected Areas and Beyond Anne Gunn………………………………………………………………………...…….11

Status of Northern Protected Areas: Protecting Biodiversity at the Habitat and Ecosystem Levels

Ed Wiken

Wildlife Habitat Canada

1750 Courtwood Crescent, Suite 310, Ottawa, ON K2C 2B5 Canada

Abstract

Northern landscapes and seascapes occupy very large areas within Canada. The Arctic Ocean is the largest of Canada’s three ocean territories. The diverse arctic and taiga landscapes of the north run from Labrador in the east through to the northern Yukon in the west. The landscapes cover large mainland areas as well as being inter-dispersed in a unique archipelago of islands and seas/bays/sounds. The lengths of northern coastlines are vast by world standards. There are many other superlatives for the North. The marine and terrestrial ecosystems/habitats in these settings are amongst the most pristine in the country. Being relatively less impacted then the southern parts of Canada, the northern settings such as the arctic and taiga offer many opportunities to protect natural habitats and ecosystems. Given the improved knowledge about protected area goals and designs, and expanded mechanisms to designate and establish protected areas for habitat and ecosystem purposes, there are greater opportunities to advance conservation objectives in a more progressive way then what has often happened in southern Canada. The concepts behind, strategies for, and acceptance of northern protected areas are well positioned. These protected area endeavours now constitute another important resource planning consideration along with interests such as mining, and oil and gas activities. How can protected area interests be most effectively applied? There are many agencies that have been involved in the past and they have provided a legacy of protected areas. However, what is the status (i.e., numbers, location, size, purpose) of existing protected areas? How well are terrestrial and marine habitats protected? How can these conservation agencies and others continue to work in a manner that is mutually supportive? How can resource managers address the wildlife and habitat conservation needs of wide ranging migratory species like caribou, polar bear and waterfowl? How can protected and non-protected areas be effectively integrated in land and water use plans? How will resource agencies deal with the impacts of climate change or the long-range transportation of air and sea borne pollutants? Why is it important to link local and foreign conservations interests?

Introduction Why should we care about conservation, wild species and spaces, and conservation areas in the northern latitudes? Generally, most Canadians and others view the country in the context of the more accessible and familiar land/seascapes in southern regions. However, the ecology, ecosystems, and habitats in southern Canada are quite different than those found in the north. Few people really understand the vastness and richness of the north and instead think of it as barren, snow covered, desolate, and impoverished.

The Northwest Territories (NWT) is one of several territorial jurisdictions that have a large role in conserving wildlife and habitats in the Arctic region and the northern forests. This work involves having inputs, discussions, and support from many levels of government, First Nations people, non-governmental agencies, industry, and individuals. What does this larger picture look like for the NWT? How does this affect the NWT’s efforts to conserve wildlife, habitats, and ecosystems? What are the implications on the goals with respect to regional and territorial protected areas?

The Status of Wildlife Protected Areas – the Methods and Context Assessing the current status of protected areas is a fundamental element in a logical framework of analyzing the success and directions for this particular form of conservation endeavour. Agencies, such as the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) and Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC) have advocated a periodic and robust assessment of protected area achievements and plans for all of Canada’s protected area interests, and those that address specific wildlife functions. Knowledge of the status (i.e., what types, where they are, how large they are, their purpose, etc.) of protected areas in arctic or northern regions, for example, must be couched within an understanding of what role they play and what sustains them. Figure 1 is illustrative and shows the core eight steps in understanding the context of establishing and managing protected areas. Firstly, the issues and concerns regarding wildlife conservation areas need to be understood from the many management and planning perspectives that the varied stakeholders have. These concerns include lands and waters for strict nature conservation, for managed harvesting and hunting, and for multi-resource uses. Secondly, the types of ecosystems, habitats and species need to be understood in the sense of their inherent attributes so as to facilitate appropriate forms of ecosystem management. Thirdly, the alterations and impacts on lands and waters from particularly recent and upcoming short-term (5-10 years) types of human activities need to be evaluated. The country’s lands and

waters are valued for many reasons. Some values are environmental (fourth), some are economic (fifth), and some are social (sixth). Within the latter three values, there are considerations that favour concerns, such as the conservation of inherent biodiversity, exploitation of natural resources, land use conversion and alterations, etc. For example, some people may look at wildlife as an environmental value, some may see the same species as an economic tourist attraction, and others may see the species as having cultural significance. Knowing these values provides the means to deal with perspectives and interests, and to seek ways to manage landscapes and seascapes in an ecosystematic and consensual way. On the seventh main point, examining current policies, acts, guidelines, planning mechanisms, and authorities (even pending ones), provides a means to discuss, assess, and implement actions to whatever level of certainty exists. It is difficult to think of Canada in a wider context. Most programs and efforts are spent on human activities and not on conservation. CCEA and many others have used a number of strategic information bases and assessments to interpret the status of these eight core steps, including:

1. The Canadian Conservation Areas Database (CCAD) and the North American Conservation Areas Database (NCAD).

2. The national ecosystem framework, consisting of ecozones, ecoregions, ecodistricts, etc.

3. The various national and provincial state of the environment, wildlife habitat status, and conservation area reports.

Critical Problems – a Brief Discussion Unlike many landscapes and seascapes that exist in the southern regions of Canada, the northern areas are more pristine in character having been subject to less extensive degrees of exploitation, human settlements and roads, and pollution. Relative to North America as a whole, the northern regions throughout Alaska, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and some provinces such as Quebec, remain like ‘nature’ oases. However, land and ocean use activities, the long-range transport of pollutants, and climate change can readily change this state to more advanced degrees of human impacts. What have been some of the more recurrent and problematic items that will face efforts to either enhance or improve a system of

wildlife-based protected areas in the North? A Focus on Wildlife Areas Conservation areas that serve as wildlife habitats require special designs and considerations. Too often, people assume that other conservation area designations, such as parks and ecological reserves, will do, but these types of protected areas have other design purposes and habitat considerations may be secondary. Protected areas set aside for wildlife/habitat are isolated places and are typically “stand alone” areas. They commonly need to be blended in with other land/water use planning considerations to ensure that other important habitats outside of the critical ones are maintained and managed properly, often in conjunction with other land/water use interests.

Land and Water The core success of protected areas work has been linked to the nation’s landscapes. About 9% of the land base falls within IUCN protected area categories. Of the major types of protected area categories, the wildlife grouping is the second largest. Most of these are the Migratory Bird Sanctuaries of Environment Canada, which largely provide temporary seasonal protection for waterfowl purposes. There has been little concerted attention across Canada on wildlife areas for other species. The protection of wildlife areas in the oceans and freshwaters of the country has been markedly low. While such endeavours began as early as 1919, less than 1% has been protected as a formal conservation area. It is often easier to think of either land or water actions, as departments and agencies are often mandated to be land or water based. Wildlife such as polar bears, however, requires both land and ocean areas. Multiple Scales Protected areas are often planned for within the context of their boundaries or within the jurisdiction that manages them. Many wildlife species may be temporary residents in particular protected areas in the NWT and then travel great distances by air, water, or land to other critical places in Canada, the Americas, or Circumpolar regions. For example, gray whales travel from the Bering/Beaufort Sea regions to the Gulf of California in Mexico, and snipes travel from Hudson’s Bay to southern Argentina. Beyond how species’ life cycle needs vary across local to continental scales, so do the activities that affect wildlife habitat quality

and quantity. Activities, such as farming and industrial production in distant countries, can directly and indirectly affect the overall habitat requirements of Canadian species despite what we do domestically. The transport of pesticides from agricultural operations in Mexico, via natural ocean and air currents, to Canada’s north, is one example. Establishment and Management The process of, and strategies for, establishing protected areas occupy a great deal of public and institutional attention. Management of established areas, however, is often a weakness. Questions arising about habitat or ecosystem integrity are signals about how the design, management, and care given to protected areas have failed. Wildlife and protected areas require core interdisciplinary programs that include inventories, monitoring, research, and adaptive management to be successful. While these would normally be thought of as just natural sciences themes, many social and economic themes have to be addressed as well. Conclusion A focus on designing, designating, and managing core protected and related areas for wildlife purposes has largely been neglected throughout Canada’s landscapes and especially the country’s seascapes. For biodiversity purposes, from genetics through to habitats/ecosystems, this is a vital consideration in the nation’s conservation plans and agendas. The northern parts of Canada afford many opportunities that benefit ecological goals throughout Canada and abroad.

Further Reading Environment Canada (EC). 1996. The State of Canada’s Environment. ISBN No. 0-660-16368-3. Minister

of Public Works. Ottawa, ON. 700 pp. Wiken, E. B., D. Gauthier, I. Marshall. K. Lawton and H. Hirvonen. 1996. A Perspective on Canada’s

Ecosystems: an Overview of the Terrestrial and Marine Ecozones. CCEA Occasional Paper No. 14. Ottawa, ON. 69 pp.

Wiken, E.B., J. Cinq-Mars, M. Padilla, H. Moore and C. Latsch. 2003. The State of Canadian Wetlands.

Paper prepared for the National Conference on Canadian Wetlands Stewardship: Setting a Course Together. Ottawa, ON. 16 pp.

Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC). 2001. The Status of Wildlife Habitats in Canada-2001. ISBN No. 0-

921553-30-7. Wildlife Habitat Canada. Ottawa, ON. 98 pp. www.whc.org Wildlife Habitat Canada (WHC). 2003. Report on the National Landscape Management Workshop. WHC

Technical Report. Wildlife Habitat Canada. Ottawa, ON. 33pp. www.whc.org

Arctic Ecosystem Conservation: Protected Areas and Beyond

Anne Gunn

Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, GNWT Box 1320, Yellowknife, NT X1A 3S8 Canada

Abstract

The overwhelming ecological requirement of caribou is space – the need to annually migrate across 100’s or 1000’s of square kilometres. The sheer size of the annual caribou ranges raises practical considerations for conservation including the role of protected areas. Traditional knowledge and satellite telemetry of caribou cows reveal that caribou movements and seasonal ranges have attributes that influence the type of spatial protection. The rationale for spatially managing human activities especially on calving, post-calving, and summer ranges is tied to the tight coupling between forage intake and the cow’s likelihood of becoming pregnant and the cow’s forage intake, calf growth and survival. Existing measures include managing land use activities, site-specific mitigation practices, and areas under consideration as protected areas. Spatially integrating those existing measures could depend on developing thresholds for cumulative effects from human activities and natural environmental variation. As well, integrated spatial protection could be integrated into co-management planning, which would establish explicit conservation goals and priorities. Herbivores, including caribou, do not play the most important ecological role on the tundra; that role belongs to microorganisms and invertebrates. However, caribou and their predators are conspicuous on the tundra and, in the context of land management and conservation, there is a compelling argument for conserving the caribou as a way to conserve the tundra-taiga ecosystem.

Introduction The NWT Protected Area Strategy (PAS)1 is built on, and clearly acknowledges, the perspective of the Aboriginal people and their relationship to the land. Under the PAS’s goal to protect special natural and cultural areas, two areas on the central barrens have been identified as Areas of Interest (The Waters of Desnedhe Che and the Mowhi Trail). Given the importance of caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) to northern communities, the question is how the two Areas of Interest (Figure 1) would serve conservation for the Bathurst caribou herd. A further question is whether conserving caribou will protect the arctic tundra and taiga as a functional ecosystem. Methodology The data on range use are based on between

1 See paper by David Purchase, pp.52-54 (this proceedings) on the background of the NWT Protected Areas Strategy

6 and 20 satellite-transmitters fitted to adult cows between 1996 and 2003. Gunn et al. (2001) detail the methods and results. Results and Discussion Characteristically, the Bathurst caribou herd uses a relatively large post-calving summer range (120,830 km2), based on satellite telemetry since 1996 (Gunn et al.. 2001). Although the summer range is annually variable (33-85% of the total area is used in any one year), there has been no apparent spatial shift (in contrast to the annual calving grounds). The mean overlap between years is 54% suggesting that fidelity to summer ranges is high and some form of spatial protection is tenable. If we overlay the 1996-2001 area used (buffered by 10 km) on the two Areas of Interest, only 3% of the summer range falls within the Waters of Desnedhe Che and 12% falls within the Mowhi Trail. However

Figure 1. Location of Mowhi Trail and Waters of Desnedhe Che Protected Areas of Interest within the range of the Bathurst caribou herd, Northwest Territories. if we buffer the two areas of interest with a 10 km buffer, as well as merge their western and eastern margins, (the buffered and merged area is almost 80,000 km2 compared to 30,000 km2 for the two areas alone), the percentage of the summer range within the Areas of Interest increases to 40% – an increase in protection for the caribou depending on what conditions are implicit in the protected area. Conventional spatial protection (with fixed geographic boundaries) is not easily applied to the other seasonal ranges. Although calving grounds overlap between consecutive years – only 1.4% of the combined size of the calving grounds (1996- 2000) was used in all 5 years compared to 3% for 4 years, 18% for 3 years and 37% for

1 year (Gunn et al. 2001), their boundaries have shifted in a relatively consistent direction. Such a progressive shift over decades would reduce the practicality of spatial protection with geographically determined boundaries. Similarly fall and winter ranges vary between years with sometimes little or no overlap between years. The question of how a protected area on the post-calving/summer range would serve caribou conservation depends on what happens to the caribou on the remainder of their seasonal ranges. Protected areas run the risk of becoming isolated islands unless they are large enough to encompass ecological processes or they are anchored in a wider

context of conservation and land-use planning. What will be required are other tools and strategies to manage the effects of human activities. However, integrating the different tools and approaches could be difficult across the politically and administratively fragmented landscape. A framework to integrate these different mechanisms is co-management planning. The logic is two-fold. Firstly, a co-management plan is driven by a balance between community interests and conservation. Secondly, it is the caribou themselves that integrate all the environmental changes and effects of human activities as they move across landscape. Co-management planning is underway for the Bathurst herd with a planning group representing governments and Aboriginal land claims. If we implement the array of tools (mobile Caribou Protection Measures, protected areas, cumulative effect thresholds) and manage to conserve caribou, will conserving caribou also conserve the tundra and taiga ecosystems? To many people, caribou epitomize the tundra. However, it is ecological processes, not the presence of a species, which governs a functional ecosystem. Even more so, it is the lowest turnover rates that determine persistence. The tundra is a detritus system depending almost entirely on recycling of organically bound nutrients (Brown et al. 1980). Low temperatures limit decomposition, which occurs only in the seasonally available shallow ‘active layer’. However, herbivore short-circuit decomposition by their release of soluble plant nutrients in their fecal

pellets – about 13% of annual (primary productivity is returned to the tundra as feces. Although herbivores are functionally not the most important group of organisms in the tundra – that role belongs to the micro-organisms and invertebrates, caribou and their predators are conspicuous in the context of land management and conservation. And from the perspective of Aboriginal people, caribou perform a pivotal role in tundra-taiga ecosystems. Implications for Protected Areas Design, Planning and Management Interest in protected areas on the range of the Bathurst herd is at an early stage. Thus:

• The timing is ideal to examine

linking protected areas with other forms of protection such as the mobile Caribou Protection Measures applied to the calving, and post-calving areas;

• The framework for integrating spatial protection with other aspects of caribou conservation would logically be through co-management planning which gives a strong voice to the communities; and,

• Co-management planning will provide the necessary breadth of views and experience to identify criteria and make practical recommendations for designing protected areas that will serve the conservation of caribou as well as tundra-taiga ecosystems.

References Brown, J., Miller, P. C., Tierszen, L. L., and Bunnell, F. L. 1980. An Arctic Ecosystem: the Coastal Tundra

at Barrow, Alaska. US/IBP Synthesis 12, Dowden, Hutchingson and Ross Inc., Stroudsberg, Pennsylvania, USA, 571pp.

Gunn, A., Dragon, J., and Boulanger, J. 2001. Seasonal Movements of Satellite-collared Caribou from the

Bathurst Herd. Final Report to the West Kitikmeot Slave Study Society, Yellowknife, NWT.80pp. Web site: www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/SeasonalMovementsFinal.pdf

Plenary Presentations: Regional Ecological Approaches

Ecoregional Conservation Plan for the Southern Rocky Mountains

Brian Miller1, D. Foreman, M. Fink, D. Shinneman, J. Smith, M. DeMarco, M. Soulé and R. Howard…………………………………………………………………………..15

Applications of C-Plan in Systematic Conservation Planning for the Northern Boreal Forest Geoff Lipsett-Moore……………………………………………………………………...19 Designing Northern Ecological Areas: What Can Diversity Indices Tell Us? Yolanda Wiersma………………………………………………………………………...24 Large Carnivores as Umbrella Species for Identifying Protected Areas in the North Dean Cluff1 and Paul Paquet..…………………………………………………………...28 Rapid Ecological Assessment of NWT Candidate Sites: Incorporating Biodiversity in Protected Areas Design Steve Moore1 and Paul Latour…………………………………………………...………32 1 Presenting author affiliation and address is provided

Ecoregional Conservation Plan for the Southern Rocky Mountains of North America

Brian Miller1, D. Foreman, M. Fink, D. Shinneman, J. Smith, M. DeMarco, M. Soulé, and R. Howard

1Denver Zoological Foundation

2300 Steele St., Denver, CO 80205 USA

Abstract

Decline of native species, decline of ecosystems, altered natural processes, destruction of habitat, and invasion of exotic species, pollution, and climate change threaten wild lands of the Southern Rockies. We propose a regional conservation plan to heal these ecological wounds through landscape connectivity across south-central Wyoming, Colorado, and northern New Mexico. The Network Design covers 10,429,615 hectares, or about 62% of the ecoregion, and there are management recommendations for federal and state lands (core, connection, compatible-use, etc.). We created the map using several methods. In the Southern Rockies, large carnivores have suffered despite their role in regulating ecosystem health. Thus, a key part of the plan relied on models identifying important areas for wolves and bears and models determining connections among those areas. An optimization analysis with SITES software was based on focal species, special elements, and habitat representation. The above were combined with citizen management and wilderness proposals, expert opinion, and several workshops and review periods. The plan is a continual work in progress. It emphasizes wild areas connected across geographical scales that allow ecological and evolutionary function and the restoration of healthy wolf and bear populations.

Introduction Our Conservation Plan covers the Southern Rockies Ecoregion of Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico (Miller et al. 2003). An ecoregion is a landscape that has similar topography, geology, soils, vegetation, climate, and natural processes. Growing human numbers, energy extraction, and logging are taking a severe toll on the Southern Rockies Ecoregion. Because conservation problems are regional and continental in scope, conservation plans must be larger than local efforts (Soulé and Terborgh 1999). Local efforts are important but they should be enacted with an idea of how they fit into a larger context. That is the purpose of this plan—to propose a future where humans and wild nature can live together. The Conservation Plan took form from a report by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem

Project (Shinneman et al. 2000). In early 2002, we began accumulating and sorting information. During the fall of 2002, we ran models and held workshops for expert opinion. By early 2003, the Conservation Plan was ready for peer review. It was completed by the summer of 2003 and will be printed during October 2003. Copies are available through the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (www.RestoretheRockies.org). Methods We started the Conservation Plan with two basic questions. Where should protected areas be located and how large should they be? We based our approach on the role large carnivores and interactive species play in ecosystem health, on the need for road-less core areas, and on connectivity between those cores. We have placed a good deal of

the Conservation Plan around the restoration of the gray wolf, as it is an important species for healthy ecosystem function. We combined data on representation, special elements, and focal species. Representation implies that a percentage of all habitat types are included in protection plans. We analyzed 30 terrestrial vegetation types; the information came from The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Geological Survey. For special elements, we selected Federal Wilderness Areas, unprotected road-less areas, and National Parks. Roughly 13% of the ecoregion is road-less but unprotected. Another 12% of the ecoregion is strictly protected as Federal Wilderness Areas or National Parks (with 99% of protection coming from Federal Wilderness Areas). Federal Wilderness Areas allow humans to hunt, fish, and camp, but they do not allow motorized vehicles or permanent structures. Focal species promote an important ecological function or indicate healthy, functioning systems. We used models and expert opinion to delineate habitat for bear, pronghorn, and cutthroat trout. For wolves, we used a viability model called PATCH (Carroll et al. 2003). Data from focal species, representation, and special elements were entered into the SITES model (Andelman et al. 1999). This model balances conservation value of each area against the cost of protecting it. We determined cost by human population density, road density, land-use, threats, and degree of habitat fragmentation. The ecoregion was divided into 1,000 ha cells. We performed ten runs with SITES, each with one million iterations, to choose cells meeting the target goals with minimal cost. Finally, we used a Least Cost Path model to

help identify the best linkages between core areas for bears and wolves (Singleton et al. 2001). Results We “kept” cells that were chosen by SITES in at least five out of the ten runs and which were in groups of at least four adjacent units. These covered 8,244,100 ha (49% of the ecoregion). To this information, we added least cost path analysis for dispersing wolves and bears, expert opinion about high-value areas, and forest management plans from conservation groups. The data were transformed to fit land ownership boundaries, and we propose nine different core/compatible use designations for federal and state lands. The final output covered 10,429,615 ha, or 62% of the ecoregion (Figure 1). Conclusions The Conservation Plan provides a landscape-scale vision of how land in the Southern Rockies can be designated and managed so that nature and humans can coexist. It provides a blueprint for connecting federal Wilderness Areas that are presently isolated. Such connections will allow wide-ranging animals to move throughout the region so that they can restore their ecological and evolutionary function to the Southern Rockies. Without considering the needs of these wide-ranging focal species, it is possible to have representation of all habitat types and still not have the sheer area necessary to support ecological processes driven by large carnivores and fire.

Figure 1. Location of the Southern Rockies Ecoregion (circled in white), in the context of the Wildlands Project conservation plan along the spine of the continent. Inset map (right): the wildlands network design for the Southern Rockies Ecoregion. Implications for Protected Areas Design, Planning and Management In the Southern Rockies, we blended existing biological data, ecological modeling, and expert opinion for our plan. Expert opinion is based on years of experience and it is very reliable at the local scale. Expert opinion, however, is often limited to an area where a person lives and works. An ecological model can take local information and place it in a regional

context, and it can predict future trends. Thus, expert opinion and existing biological data gave us valuable and complementary information. Because fewer and fewer people spend time in nature, the ecological models can highlight some important areas that may have been missed otherwise. This cooperative approach produced a plan relatively quickly, and that is critical given the mounting threats to nature in the Southern Rockies.

References Andelman, S. J., Ball, I., Davis, F., and Stoms, D. 1999. SITES V 1.0: An Analytical Toolbox for Designing

Ecosystem Conservation Portfolios. Report for The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. Carroll, C., Phillips, M. K., Schumaker, N. H., and Smith, D. W. 2003. Impacts of landscape change on

wolf restoration success: Planning a reintroduction program using static and dynamic spatial models. Conservation Biology 17: 536-548.

Miller, B., Foreman, D., Fink, M., Shinneman, D., Smith, J., DeMarco, M., Soulé, M., and Howard, R.

2003. A Southern Rockies Wildlands Network Vision. Colorado Mountain Club Press. Boulder, CO.

Shinneman, D., McClellan, R., and Smith, R. 2000. The State of the Southern Rockies Ecoregion. Southern

Rockies Ecosytem Project. Boulder, CO. Singleton, P. H., Gaines, W., and Lehmkuhl, J. F. 2001. Using weighted distance and least-cost path

corridor analysis to evaluate regional-scale large carnivore habitat connectivity in Washington. Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Keystone, CO.

Soulé, M., and Terborgh, J. (eds.). 1999. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional

Reserve Networks. Island Press. Covelo, CA.

Application of C-Plan in Systematic Conservation Planning for the Northern Boreal Forest

Geoff Lipsett-Moore

P.O. Box 1286, Main Station, Kamloops BC, V2C 6H3, Canada

Abstract

Systematic conservation planning requires the establishment of explicit conservation goals and priorities. The Protected Areas Working Group was established to define these goals and priorities for the Northern Boreal Forests of Ontario. Primary elements of these criteria include: the completion of representation; maximizing high quality habitat for focal species; the effective consideration of head waters and natural processes; and balancing these with the needs for equitable resource sharing with First Nations Communities. While these criteria provide the broad objectives and conservation goals, they do not provide the explicit details and methodology required to apply these goals in a “real world” environment. This paper describes two case studies: (1) an overview of the application of systematic conservation planning and the use of C-Plan to complete the Protected Area System in the production forests of NSW Australia; and (2) the subsequent adaptation of these methods to the Northern Boreal Forest in Ontario. The potential application of this approach to support the development of Circumpolar Protected Areas is discussed.

Introduction Globally, most protected areas occur in steep, infertile, inaccessible or economically unproductive areas. The challenge is to establish protected areas where they need to be rather than in those areas that no one wants. To counter the ad hoc development of protected areas, Margules and Pressey (2000) expressed the need for systematic conservation planning, which requires: (1) the establishment of clear and explicit conservation goals and priorities; (2) the development of spatially explicit data layers that reflect the distribution of elements of biodiversity under consideration; and (3) an effective means to synthesize and apply these multiple conservation goals and priorities to spatial data layers to identify candidate protected areas. This paper provides an overview of systematic conservation planning and the effective use of C-Plan, using two real world case studies: (1) the Regional Forest Agreement process in northeast New South Wales, Australia, where the methods and

decision support system were originally developed; and (2) the Northern Boreal Initiative in Ontario, Canada, where the approach has been adapted specifically for the Boreal Forest. What is C-Plan? C-Plan is a conservation-planning tool developed in Australia specifically for protected areas planning (Pressey et al. 1995) (see C-Plan web site for free software and manual: www.ozemail.com.au/~cplan). C-Plan enables the use of explicit, quantitative methods for prioritizing areas for incorporation into protected area systems. This results in more informed choices by policy makers, and greater efficiency in satisfying conservation goals. A key feature of C-Plan is the principle of complementarity, which ensures that sites chosen for a reserve network complement those already selected in satisfying specified conservation goals (Pressey et al. 1995). C-Plan synthesizes multiple conservation goals

and priorities down to a single index of irreplaceability, which can be defined in two ways: (1) the likelihood that an area will be needed to achieve an explicit conservation goal; and (2) the extent to which the options for achieving an explicit conservation goal are lost if the site is made unavailable for nature conservation. In addition to allowing for the cumulative consideration of conservation targets, C-Plan also enables the incorporation of “informing” data sets, which indicate areas considered valuable based on other sets of criteria, such as those defined by the timber and mining industries. This makes it possible for areas of high to moderate conservation value to be considered in direct relation to their potential value for other interested groups. Methods The Regional Forest Agreements – New South Wales, Australia The National Forest Policy Statement (1992) developed by the Commonwealth and State Governments, set out the broad conservation and industry goals for Australia’s native forests. The approach included three phases: (1) the Interim Assessment Process (IAP) which identified and deferred those forest areas that might contribute to a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative reserve system; (2) the Comprehensive Regional Assessments (CRAs) which compiled the best possible environmental, social, cultural and economic values of forests within each region; and (3) the negotiation of the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) – 20 year plans for the conservation and sustainable use of Australia’s native forests. Fundamental to the effective development of this process were the nationally agreed-upon criteria for the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate, and representative reserve system for forests in Australia (JANIS 1997), which outlined in detail the elements of biodiversity to be considered, the explicit conservation goals, and the

relative priority to be assigned to these. The JANIS criteria were the cornerstone of the process; they drove the collection of values for the CRAs, which resulted in the development of spatially explicit data layers and targets for all elements of biodiversity under consideration. C-Plan, initially developed during the IAP process in 1995, proved invaluable for developing protected areas options during all negotiations for both the IAP and RFA processes in New South Wales. It enabled the rapid synthesis of vast quantities of data and the evaluation of multiple, and often conflicting, conservation goals and priorities. It also enabled the effective development of protected area options while also considering other socio-economic values. C-Plan has also been used extensively in South Africa, Guyana, and also in the Northern USA and Canada. The Northern Boreal Initiative The Northern Boreal Initiative in Ontario is the sequel to the “Lands for Life” process and will result in the completion of the protected area system north of the 51st parallel. The Forest Accord specified that the protected area system must be completed prior to the establishment of a commercial timber industry. The boreal forest north of the 51st parallel is largely pristine, has substantial First Nations occupancy and interests and has limited data sets and funds. The Northern Boreal Initiative will result in the identification of candidate protected areas through the development of community based land use plans by First Nations communities in consultation with other stakeholders and government. The Protected Areas Working Group (PAWG), which includes First Nations, government, NGOs and academics, is currently developing the criteria for the identification of candidate protected areas north of 51. The criteria include: (1) the completion of representation; (2)

maximizing the inclusion of high quality habitat for focal species; (3) the effective consideration of headwaters and natural processes; and (4) balancing these with the need for equitable sharing with First Nations Communities. The first two criteria have been operationalized to demonstrate the effective use of C-Plan for the boreal forest. Representation Representation refers to the need for reserves to represent, or sample, the full range of biodiversity, ideally at all levels of organization (Margules and Pressey 2000). In the case of the Northern Boreal Initiative, combinations of landform/vegetation/age (LVAs) will likely provide the fundamental units for representation analysis. This provides a surrogate of biodiversity, with the assumption that if each LVA is represented within the protected area system, then all biodiversity is represented. The method for calculating LVA targets is described in Lipsett-Moore et al. (in press). Although this provides the basic LVA target, the vulnerability of each individual LVA to threatening processes also needs to be assessed. There is a function in C-Plan that enables the weighting of each element of biodiversity according to its vulnerability to threatening processes. This ensures that the most threatened elements of biodiversity receive appropriate conservation priority in C-Plan (see Lipsett-Moore et al. in press). Focal Species The focal species approach, developed by Lambeck (1997), builds on the concept of umbrella species. Rather than managing for all species, the focal species approach relies on the selection of those species most affected by a given threatening process. The assumption is that by providing the landscape attributes necessary to support the species most affected by a specific threatening process, then all species are provided for. In the case of Northern Ontario, forest-dwelling Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and Wolverine (Gulo

gulo) are both large, wide-ranging species sensitive to landscape changes such as fragmentation. The effective inclusion of species within C-Plan requires: (1) the development of a Species Equity Target (Environment Australia 1999); (2) the development of a spatial model assigned a range of habitat qualities; and (3) the delineation of metapopulation boundaries to which the species equity target is applied. The combination of these elements ensures that C-Plan seeks protected areas that maximize the inclusion of high quality habitat. The simple target formula developed by Environment Australia (1999) gives each species an equal chance of persistence. It also relies on basic life history data that is available for most species, such as trophic level, the average density of females in a landscape, and the mean lifespan of an adult female. In the case of woodland caribou winter habitat in the boreal forest of Ontario, the Species Equity Target of 1,066,579 ha is applied to a given ecoregion in the absence of metapopulation data. For the detailed methodology for focal species application in C-Plan see Lipsett-Moore et al. (in press). Results C-Plan has been tested at the ecodistrict and ecoregion scale using both representation targets and focal species targets. Planning units (i.e., individual selection units) of 200 ha were the most appropriate scale given the resolution of the available spatial data sets. Preliminary results for both representation and focal species using C-Plan indicates that this is a powerful tool for the identification of candidate protected areas in the Boreal Forest at the ecodistrict and ecoregional scale. The use of LVAs enables the effective identification of small protected areas such as natural environment parks, while the combination of focal species and representation enables the identification of large protected areas such as wilderness zones. C-Plan has also been tested at the provincial scale for woodland caribou

winter habitat, using a 10,000 ha planning unit (Figure 1). This clearly defines that the bulk of the remaining available winter habitat occurs north of the 51st parallel, and as such, careful deliberation will be required when selecting the balance of protected areas and forest management for this area in order to ensure that caribou persist. Conclusions Fundamental requirements for any protected area planning exercise include clear and explicit conservation goals and priorities, explicit landscape data sets, and an effective means to synthesize multiple (and often conflicting) conservation goals in a GIS environment. The systematic conservation planning approach developed in Australia and adapted for the Northern Boreal Initiative in Ontario has enormous potential for application in the many land use planning exercises occurring across the Boreal Forest. Our knowledge of the effectiveness of biodiversity surrogates for the boreal forest is in its infancy. In most cases decisions are made based on limited data and knowledge. Given the limited data and incomplete knowledge for the vast expanse of the boreal forest, when identifying candidate protected areas, we need to be mindful that: (1) we protect those elements that most need protection, that is, those most vulnerable to threatening processes; and (2) we need to “hedge our bets” and use a mix of different strategies, in this case a range of biodiversity

surrogates, in order to spread the risk of the failure of any one approach. By pre-defining explicit and multifaceted conservation goals and priorities and applying them using tools like C-Plan, we can attempt to ensure that our limited conservation capital is not squandered. Implications for Protected Area Design, Planning and Management In the case of the boreal forest, which is hampered by vast landscapes, often with limited data sets, it is frequently difficult to provide informed land use decisions. Most land use planning exercises in the boreal forest rely on a minimal number of coarse-scale spatial data sets. Many of the current land use planning exercises are based on bottom-up land use planning exercises driven by First Nations communities and the use of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). The western science approach demonstrated above provides a top-down approach, but equally, TEK can be synthesized effectively within C-Plan using the expert opinion of Elders, meshed with the technical expertise of appropriate advisors. The boreal forest and areas north provide an incredible opportunity to make the best use of both TEK and western science in informing decisions and developing protected area options that synthesize the strengths of both approaches. C-Plan, and tools like it, is a powerful way to bring both approaches together to ensure the best possible solutions.

References Environment Australia. 1999. Response to Disturbance of Forest Species North East NSW, Upper

Northeast and Lower Northeast Regions. Commonwealth Government of Australia and New South Wales Government. Web site: www.affa.gov.au/content/publications.cfm? ObjectID=8AB1B508-FE98-43DD-B0CE6E83A4BB0F88

JANIS. 1997. Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive Adequate and

Representative Reserve System for Forests in Australia. A report to the joint ANZECC/NCFFA National Forest Policy Statement implementation Subcommittee. National forest conservation reserves: Commonwealth proposed criteria. Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra.

Web site: www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm Lambeck, F. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology

11: 849-856. Lipsett-Moore, G. J., Bookey, N., Kingston S., and Shuter J. in press. Representation, focal species and

systematic conservation planning for the Northern Boreal Initiative. In: Proceedings of the Parks Research Forum of Ontario 2003 Meeting. Web site: www.prfo.ca.

Margules, C. R., and Pressey, R. L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253. Pressey, R. L., Ferrier, S., Hutchinson, C. D., Sivertsen, D. P., and Manion, G. 1995. Planning for

negotiation: using an interactive geographic information system to explore alternative protected area networks. pp 23-33 In: Nature Conservation 4 - the Role of Networks. D. A. Saunders, J. L. Craig and E. M. Mattiske (eds.). Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

Note: for further details on the Regional Forest Agreements and all associated reports contact the web site:

www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=89389274-95D8-4380-BD9BB177D644820A&contType=outputs

Figure 1. Distribution of site irreplaceability for Forest-dwelling Woodland Caribou for Ontario, where brown and orange areas represent the top 5% of Summed Irreplaceability (i.e., those areas of high quality winter habitat that would require protection either through the establishment of Protected Areas or effective Landscape Management). The existing line of continuous range for caribou is depicted as the blue/green line running west to east across the province. Existing Parks and Protected Areas are outlined in dark green.

Designing Northern Ecological Areas: What Can Diversity Indices Tell Us?

Yolanda Wiersma

Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph ON, N1G 2W1 Canada.

Abstract

Protected areas design has focused on setting targets for representation of biodiversity, but often these targets do not include prescriptions as to how protected areas should be delineated on the landscape. Principles of island biogeography theory have been applied with some success, but also with limitations. It has proved difficult to determine how to replicate reserves in terms of number and spatial arrangement. More importantly, many targets for representation often do not address issues of species persistence. A case study for disturbance-sensitive mammals of Yukon, Canada is presented, to design a protected areas network using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), which achieves representation goals for component ecoregions with reserves that are predicted to be large enough to maintain their historical assemblage of species. Simultaneously patterns of diversity are measured, and measures of beta diversity (or species turnover) are shown, as they can help resolve lingering questions about reserve design. Two commonly used methods of measuring beta diversity – regional heterogeneity and compositional turnover between non-adjacent sites – were significant predictors of the number of protected areas necessary to represent mammals within each ecoregion.

Introduction Protected areas are an integral part of an adaptive management framework, as they provide the “control” or “benchmark” against which to measure changes on the managed landscape. This is particularly relevant in the North, where a large part of the economy is based on resource extraction and eco-tourism, and there are still many communities which practice subsistence hunting and gathering. Thus, in order to make reliable inferences about the effects such activities are having on the landscape, it is necessary to compare to a “control” area where such effects are excluded. This is the role of protected areas. In order to be a suitable control, protected areas must have ecological integrity, defined by Parks Canada (Parks Canada Agency 2000, my emphasis) as: “… a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological

communities, rates of change and supporting processes.” Thus, protected areas have to meet three criteria. They must be: 1) large enough to contain species which would have been historically present; 2) large enough to allow species to persist; and 3) sufficiently replicated to represent regional biodiversity. The Yukon Protected Areas Strategy (YPAS 1998a, b) sets a goal of establishing one protected area in each of the Territory’s ecoregions (Figure 1). This study tested whether it was possible to design a protected areas network that met criteria for ecological integrity together with the constraint of having one protected area in each ecoregion. The hypothesis is that the degree of heterogeneity in species composition (beta-diversity) will influence whether or not a single protected area can sufficiently represent each ecoregion.

Figure 1. Ecoregions of the Yukon. Regions in dark orange are those that are not part of the Yukon PAS as they have been deemed to have sufficient representation with existing national or territorial parks. Methods The historical distribution of disturbance sensitive mammals (Banfield 1974) was sampled in ArcInfo using sample reserves that met minimum reserve area (MRA) requirements (± 95% confidence intervals) (Gurd et al. 2001). This created a suite of candidate reserves of three sizes (2700 km2, 5000 km2, and 13,000 km2), from which representative reserves were selected for each ecoregion using a richness-based and a rarity-based greedy reserve selection algorithm (Pressey et al. 1993). Beta-diversity was measured two ways: 1) as the ratio of regional (gamma) diversity to average site (alpha) diversity within each ecoregion (Whittaker’s beta); and 2) as compositional turnover (using the Bray-Curtis index) along south-north and east-west gradients. Results It was possible to capture the full range of mammalian biodiversity with a single

(MRA)-sized protected area in nine of the nineteen ecoregions analyzed. The remaining ten ecoregions required two MRA-sized protected areas to fully capture all species in the ecoregion (Fig. 2). Both measures of beta-diversity were significant predictors of whether one or two protected areas were sufficient within an ecoregion (Whittaker’s beta, p = 0.022; Bray-Curtis turnover, p = 0.031). Conclusions The Yukon Protected Areas Strategy goal of one protected area per ecoregion will meet the criteria for ecological integrity in 47% of the ecoregions. In the remaining ecoregions, it will be necessary to have two protected areas to capture the full suite of mammalian biodiversity. The degree of heterogeneity in species composition within each ecoregion (beta-diversity) was a significant predictor of whether one or two protected areas were needed.

Figure 2. An overlay of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity values on the ecoregions of the Yukon. Bray-Curtis values measure the degree of heterogeneity in species composition (turnover) in cells separated by 150 km along a south-north and east-west gradient. Dark areas indicate areas with high compositional dissimilarity. Dark green ecoregions are those that require more than one 2500 km2 protected area to fully represent mammalian biodiversity, others only require a single protected area. Implications for Protected Areas Design, Planning and Management In order for protected areas to serve as adequate benchmarks, they must be large enough and sufficiently replicated to meet criteria for ecological integrity. This research suggests that it is more efficient to consider minimum reserve area a priori, and then consider how many replicates of these will be necessary to capture the full range of biodiversity. Minimum reserve areas should be large enough to contain historical distributions of species (Gurd et al. 2001),

and be large enough to allow for populations to persist. This exercise was confined to mammals, which are predicted to be a good indicator for minimum reserve area, however it is not known whether a protected areas network designed to capture mammalian biodiversity will adequately represent the diversity of other species and features of interest. This analysis could be replicated with data on other taxonomic groups, to test how well mammals act as an “umbrella” for regional protected areas planning.

References Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, ON. Gurd, D. B., Nudds, T. D., and Rivard, D. H. 2001. Conservation of mammals in eastern North American

wildlife reserves: how small is too small? Conservation Biology 15: 1355-1363.

Pressey, R. L., Humphries, C. J., Margules, C. R., Van-Wright, R. I., and Williams, P. H. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 124-128.

Parks Canada Agency. 2000. “Unimpaired for Future Generations”? Protecting Ecological Integrity with

Canada’s National Parks. Vol. I “A Call to Action.” Vol. II “Setting a New Direction for anada’s National Parks.” Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks. Ottawa, ON. Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada.

Yukon Protected Areas Strategy. 1998a. Types of Protected Areas and Criteria for Selection. Technical

Paper No. 2. Department of Renewable Resources, Yukon Government. Whitehorse, YK. Yukon Protected Areas Strategy. 1998b. Planning and Establishing Protected Areas. Technical Paper No.

3. Department of Renewable Resources, Yukon Government. Whitehorse, YK.

Large Carnivores as Umbrellas for Reserve Design and

Selection in the North

Dean Cluff1 and Paul Paquet

1Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, GNWT Box 2668, Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P9 Canada

Abstract

The Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy (NWT-PAS) seeks to identify and protect biodiversity in Canada’s North as one of its goals. However, detailed distribution and abundance data are lacking for many species of concern. Furthermore, an unprecedented level of industrial development continues to occur across Canada’s Central Arctic region as the resource-based economy grows. Consequently, decisions about which lands to protect cannot be postponed indefinitely until missing information becomes available. The use of umbrella species as a surrogate for this information is an attractive solution, however, criticisms of the technique abound. We briefly review the use of umbrella species in conservation planning and consider its applicability in Canada’s North, an area still comprised of relatively pristine wilderness and not subject to the landscape fragmentation seen further south. We consider the wolf, grizzly bear, and wolverine as candidate umbrella species. We identify wolves as having the greatest potential as an effective umbrella species but incorporating multiple surrogate species is advantageous. We highlight the caribou-wolf dynamic as likely the best model for success for the north. Information gaps of this migratory caribou-wolf system still exist but they should not preclude selecting initial candidate sites for protection. We maintain that linkages are still required among any core protected areas that may be selected given the objective of conserving wide-ranging species. Finally, we advocate the integration of spatially explicit population models where time permits to increase efficiency of the conservation network.

Introduction The use of large carnivores (e.g., wolves or bears) as surrogates for the design and selection of protected areas is an appealing short cut to establish protected areas where other relevant ecological or biodiversity data are lacking. Because of the large areas these carnivores inhabit, protecting the habitat needs of large carnivores should act as an umbrella for other fauna and flora. However, empirical evidence that large carnivores are efficient umbrella species is also lacking, but what is available suggests only weak support for the concept (Andelman and Fagan 2000). While surrogate species (indicators, flagships, and umbrellas) did not perform much better than did randomly selected sets

of a comparable number of species, these surrogates were drawn from databases of candidates that included only species of concern (Andelman and Fagan 2000). Therefore, more common species that meet the same surrogate species criteria (e.g., Caro and O’Doherty 1999) could yield different results. Furthermore, the landscape in the north is virtually continuous compared to the fragmented south where evaluations have occurred. Consequently, the concept of large carnivores serving as umbrella species may still have biological utility for protecting regional biota, especially in the North. Therefore, we review criteria for umbrella surrogates and use them to rank candidate large carnivores as umbrellas for conservation planning in the Northwest Territories (NWT) and Nunavut.

Methods We considered wolf, grizzly bear, and wolverines as potential umbrella species for the north. Polar bears were not considered because they are virtually non-existent in the area of interest. Black bears were rejected as potential candidates primarily because they are not well represented on the tundra, but also because there is a dearth of information on them for the NWT. We ranked wolf, grizzly bear, and wolverine against each other based on qualitative attributes of umbrella species identified by Caro and O’Doherty (1999). Results Wolves ranked relatively higher as an effective umbrella species than barren-ground grizzly bears or wolverine in 15 attributes considered (Fig. 1). Relative rank

scores for wolves equaled those for grizzly bears and wolverine combined. Wolves received a relative rank of 24 of 30 points (80%) while grizzly bears scored a relative rank of 14 points (47%) and wolverines scored 10 points (33%). While we believe wolves are ecosystem generalists, we considered wolves as trophic specialists (i.e., they select large ungulates as prey). Therefore, as trophic specialists, wolves are also habitat specialists because large ungulates compose an important element of wolf habitat. Tundra wolves are also migratory because they follow migratory barren-ground caribou, their main prey. Consequently, incorporating caribou and wolf movement dynamics will likely increase the biological reality of these umbrellas species for conservation planning.

Figure 1. Attributes of umbrella species (from Caro and O’Doherty 1999) as applied to the three large carnivores in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Assigned rankings are relative to the three species listed. Scoring is based on yes=2, moderate=1, no=0. Parameter Wolf Grizzly Bear Wolverine Measurement characteristics represents other species yes yes yes well-known biology yes yes moderate easily sampled or observed yes moderate no accessible breeding site yes no no Life-history traits large body size moderate yes no long generation time moderate yes moderate Ecological characteristics large home range size yes moderate no Migratory yes no moderate no particular trophic level no yes moderate possibly a keystone species yes no no Abundance characteristics large population size yes no moderate wide geographic range yes moderate yes habitat specialist moderate moderate no Environmental change sensitivity not necessarily sensitive to human disturbance

moderate no no

long persistence time yes no moderate Score (perfect score = 30) 24 (80.0%) 14 (46.7%) 10 (33.3%)

Conclusions Wolves were the best single candidate for an umbrella species in the north and are likely inherently better umbrella species than bears because wolves are active throughout the year, thus representing all seasons. Nevertheless, we emphasize that wolves (canids), bears (ursids), and wolverine (mustelids) are complementary when combined as umbrella species. In fact, doing so may blend positive aspects of single species management and ecosystem management (Simberloff 1998). Caro (2003) maintains it is premature to discard the umbrella species concept given its apparent success in East African reserves initially established about 50 years ago. Furthermore, tests of umbrella species elsewhere have included only species of conservation concern. More common species meeting the same surrogate species criteria could yield different results. Caribou and wolves are abundant in the north and would be suitable umbrella species. Caribou are also highly valued by the people of the north. Ensuring protection of caribou is a priority and doing so will assist in selecting landscape units for protection under the NWT-PAS. If a wolf-caribou model were adopted for conservation planning in the NWT and Nunavut, important information gaps would require further research because the entire wolf-caribou system occupies most of the north and could not be protected in its entirety. Identification of possible migration routes and winter range refugia can likely reduce the area required for

protection. Although development activity continues to increase, there still is some time available to fill these gaps and identify candidate protected areas. Implications for Protected Areas Design, Planning and Management

• The concept of umbrella species, and the role that large carnivores may play, requires further evaluation, especially in the north where wilderness remains relatively unfragmented. However, a single surrogate species is unlikely to satisfy the NWT Protected Areas Strategy goal of biodiversity representation among protected area boundaries. Rather, two or more focal species will likely be more effective. Biodiversity in the north is relatively low and evaluations done elsewhere may not be applicable.

• Protecting the caribou-wolf predator-prey dynamic is a simple method to achieve the NWT Protected Areas Strategy goal of maximizing biodiversity within protected area boundaries, especially if decisions are required soon.

• Integrating spatially explicit population models with reserve selection tools will add biological realism.

References Andelman, S.J. and Fagan, W.F. 2000. Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or

expensive mistakes? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97: 5954-5959. Caro, T.M. 2003. Umbrella species: critique and lessons from East Africa. Animal Conservation 6: 171-

181.

Caro, T.M., and O’Doherty, G. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13: 805-814.

Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the

landscape area? Biological Conservation 83: 247-257. Suggested Readings Carroll, C., Noss, R.F., and Paquet, P.C. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the

Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications 11: 961-980. Carroll, C., Noss, R.F., Paquet, P.C., and Schumaker, N.H. in press. Integrating population viability

analysis and reserve selection algorithm into regional conservation plans. Ecological Applications.

Rapid Ecological Assessment of Candidate Protected Areas in the Northwest Territories

Steve Moore1 and Paul Latour

1EBA Engineering Consultants

#201, 4916-49th Street, Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P7 Canada

Abstract

A number of candidate protected areas in the NWT have been proposed by Aboriginal communities and consist of large tracts of relatively pristine examples of northern lands and, as such, have long-standing importance to the hunting and fishing cultures of these communities. Candidate protected areas in the NWT are advanced under the NWT Protected Areas Strategy (PAS) which involves assessing both the ecological and non-renewable resource values of the candidate site. There is limited time and resources available for these assessments, however, so field protocols must assume a ‘broad brush’ approach while at the same time maximizing information. A rapid ecological assessment is designed to describe vegetative community types and the flora and fauna present in the candidate area. The survey techniques represent the best efficiencies for gathering the greatest breath of species’ information, over a large area, in a limited timeframe, and still cover the broadest range of taxa. In addition, some survey efforts, i.e., breeding bird surveys, provide an assessment of bird abundance for each community type surveyed. Based on candidate areas already progressing through the NWT- PAS, Sahyoue-Edacho and Edehzhie, ecological assessments for individual sites include a minimum of two years of field studies, involving approximately 90 person days. For each of these sites, an average of approximately 1800 vascular plant observations, representing more 235 species have been recorded; and, approximately 600 wildlife observations, representing 102 vertebrate species.

Introduction Aboriginal communities have proposed a number of candidate protected areas in the NWT. These are large, pristine examples of northern eco-regions and, as such, have long-standing importance to the hunting and fishing cultures of these communities. Candidate protected areas in the NWT are advanced under the NWT Protected Areas Strategy (PAS) which calls for a “balanced approach” to protected area establishment. Part of this approach involves assessing both the ecological and non-renewable resource values of the candidate site. There is limited time and resources available for these assessments, however, so field protocols must assume a ‘broad brush’ approach while at the same time maximizing information uptake. Rapid ecological assessments are designed to describe vegetation community types and flora and fauna distribution and abundance within the candidate protected

area, given a limited timeframe and financial resources. The methodology has been applied to two different candidate areas: Sahyoue-Edacho, two peninsulas on Great Bear Lake, NWT, and Edehzhie, a large area (25,000 sq km) in the southwest NWT. Objectives of rapid ecological assessments are to:

• Quantify forest bird abundance by habitat type;

• Assess abundance and distribution of waterfowl;

• Describe all plant community (habitat) types;

• Describe and quantify evidence of use of specific habitat types by wildlife;

• Document areas of wildlife significance such as waterfowl staging areas, raptor territories and nests, denning areas, etc.

Methods

• Forest bird surveys use the point count method within 100 m wide circular plots; plots are located according to habitat types described in a pre-existing Landsat 5 TM- based vegetation description for the candidate protected area;

• Vegetation characteristics (habitat description) are described, according to standard criteria, within the bird survey plots;

• Waterfowl are surveyed using boat-based transects through wetland areas; and,

• Traditional ecological knowledge of the candidate protected area held by aboriginal people is directly applied to the field studies.

Results and Conclusions The approach applied to Sahyoue-Edacho and Edehzhie provides a comprehensive, rapid ecological assessment documenting the flora and fauna and plant community types for candidate protected areas. Based on candidate areas already progressing through the PAS process (Sahyoue-Edacho and Edehzhie), ecological assessments for individual sites require a minimum of two years of field studies, involving three to four field trips of two weeks each. An average of approximately 1800 vascular plant observations, representing more 235 species have been recorded; and, approximately 600 wildlife observations, representing 102 vertebrate species. Survey techniques represent the best efficiencies for gathering the greatest breath of species information, over a large area, in a limited timeframe, and over the broadest range of taxa.

Further Reading Groves, C.R. 2003. Drafting a Conservation Blueprint – A Practitioner’s Guide to Planning for

Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC. 457 pp. Ralph, C.J., Geupel, G.R., Pyle, P., Martin, T.E., and DeSante, D.F. 1993. Handbook of Field Methods for

Monitoring Landbirds. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-144.

Ralph, C.J., Sauer, J.R., and Droege, S. (eds.) 1995. Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts. USDA

Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149. Walmsley, M., Utzig, G., Vold, T., and van Barneudd, J. (eds.) 1980. Describing Ecosystems in the Field.

B.C. Technical Paper 2. Ministry of Environment, Resource Analysis Branch. Victoria, BC.

Summary of Plenary Panel Discussion

Yolanda Wiersma

Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Canada

Panel Members: Dean Cluff - Regional Wildlife Biologist, Government of the Northwest Territories Anne Gunn - Ungulate Biologist, Government of the Northwest Territories Geoff Lipsett-Moore - Freelance Conservationist and Landscape Ecologist Brian Miller - Coordinator, Conservation Biology, Denver Zoological Foundation Steve Moore - Ecologist, EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd., Yellowknife Yolanda Wiersma – Ph.D. candidate, University of Guelph Moderator: Bas Oosenbrug - Habitat Conservation Biologist, Government of the Northwest Territories (Note: Panel members are identified in the text below in italics by first name only. Audience members are identified by full name and affiliation at first reference, and first name in italics thereafter) The plenary panel discussion began with a summary statement from each of the day’s presenters. Presenters commented on their own projects and how their presentations complemented those of their colleagues. Common themes were the issues of scale, and related to this, data quality. The presentations ranged from fine-filter (small-scale) analysis – with on-the-ground fieldwork and observations, to coarse-filter (large-scale) regional modeling projects, often using GIS. Nonetheless, the presenters felt that these approaches were complementary to each other. The issue of representation was addressed by many of the presenters, and it was generally agreed that this was a worthwhile and widely accepted goal for protected areas planning. However, the issue was raised as to how representative areas are identified, especially given the coarse data sets and vast extent of the Northwest Territories (NWT). Surrogate species were highlighted as a potentially useful tool to increase the efficiency of

protected areas site selection, and potentially yield more information about habitats than what is directly available, but it was stressed that such models need to be rigorously evaluated. It was stated that cooperation between agencies and scientists would help to develop common approaches in evaluation of candidate sites. Detailed inventory and evaluation of candidate sites has the added benefit of allowing planners to test whether surrogate species are capturing the biodiversity that they are predicted to do, and to assess how much a given site contributes to ecoregion representation. Many presenters stressed the urgency of conducting good research and carrying out protected areas planning in the north in the face of increasing resource development. The floor was then opened up for questions. Bill Carpenter from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) began the discussion with a question about the practical application of the processes and techniques outlined by the

various presenters. He described the political reality of the NWT, and reminded the panel that the federal government is the manager of the lands under the Territorial Lands Act. However, the Territory has a complex inter-jurisdictional relationship between the aboriginal, territorial, and federal governments. Bill felt that the conservation planning tools presented by each of the panel members could assist protected areas planners in the territory, but that they had to be made practical and useful. He highlighted the important role that local communities play in the NWT as “gatekeepers”, and as such, successful protected areas plans require the support of the individual aboriginal communities. Protected areas planners have to “sell” their proposals to the communities, and Bill asked the presenters to comment on how each of them would do so. Yolanda responded by suggesting that one approach to “selling” a proposal was to articulate a protected areas plan that was as scientifically defensible as possible. With good science, it is possible to “sell” the plan as necessary for ecological sustainability. For some communities, goals for maintaining subsistence lifestyles are not at odds with goals of maintaining ecological integrity. For other communities, who may want to participate more in a resource-based economy with waged jobs, protected areas can still be a saleable concept because they act as the benchmarks against which communities can monitor the effects of development on local ecosystems. Geoff spoke of his work with the Pikangikum First Nations in the development of the Northern Boreal Initiative. He felt that the key to success was beginning the dialogue as early in the process as possible. He also shared how his project gave the young people of Pikangikum computer training in the use of C-Plan. Because Aboriginal youth are generally quite computer literate, they can be a useful liaison between scientists and elders of a community. Geoff pointed out

that his group simply illustrated a potential solution, and did not impose it on the community. The community still had to examine their own values, and decide how to incorporate it with work that government or NGOs were doing with respect to land-use planning. Geoff echoed the perception that there were already solid areas of commonality between First Nations and conservation groups, and that working together could produce scientifically defensible plans. He stressed that even with dialogue and involvement of local youth, the process of co-operation would not take place overnight, but rather could take 5-10 years to develop. Dean commented that local communities want to protect the air, the land, the water, and the caribou, which are common themes with what biologists and scientists want to protect. Dean felt that by emphasizing common goals, such as caribou protection, scientists might more easily “sell” other concepts, such as wolf conservation. For example, he suggested, that since collaring caribou is a sensitive issue for the First Nations, convincing communities to radio-collar wolves might yield additional data about the caribou herds that the community is concerned about preserving. Tony Iacobelli (also from WWF) followed up on Bill’s question with a question to the presenters about how they would change their presentations, which could be very technical, scientific, and academic, to bring across the main themes to the decision- makers. Anne responded by suggesting that it came down to the language. Stripping out the jargon and the technical terms would make any of the day’s presentations accessible to any audience. She stressed that often the most difficult audiences were decision-makers, as they have a very short attention span. Thus it is important to be quick, and stress a few simple ideas when talking with deputy ministers or directors. She felt that communities were willing to give more time and might be more prepared to listen, so it is possible to present more

elaborate ideas. Targeting a presentation to a specific audience takes time and careful preparation, but Anne felt that any of the talks given today could be changed and presented to any audience in an appropriate manner. Tony followed up with a question as to whether it was necessary to go “back to the basics” about the role of protected areas. He wondered whether presenters found they always had to provide evidence for a network of protected areas, or whether it was becoming much more of an agreed-upon notion. Anne felt that people had certainly heard of protected areas, and had a vague idea of what they were about. However, she felt that there was some delusion, as people think it means putting an area aside, when, in reality, the PAS has yet to deal with what the protected areas are going to be like in practice. Currently, they do allow development, hunting, and resource use. Anne felt that there hadn’t been a great deal of discussion with the NWT-PAS as to what would happen within protected areas that was different from outside them. All of the emphasis to date has been on selecting areas, getting them the right size, representing ecoregions, and making sure the interests of the community are taken care of. She felt that it was time to start thinking about what was going to be done with protected areas once they were in place. Doug Mead (representing the oil and gas industry on the NWT-PAS Implementation Advisory Committee) commented that there is really a whole suite of “gates” in addition to the community “gatekeepers” mentioned by Bill. Once a community is interested in an area and having a set-aside, they have to convince a government agency – either federal or territorial – that this is a good idea. Then the resource agencies have to decide whether the reasons to do so make sense. Following this, the process of evaluations and assessments has to take place, after which there is a final gate, when the politicians have to sign the legislation to

make the protected area real. Doug felt that the workshop hadn’t heard much about the involvement of the resource agencies in deciding whether or not to sponsor a proposed site. He also agreed with Anne that there hadn’t been much discussion about what to do with protected areas, and where the money is going to come from, after they are identified. Bas responded to Doug by explaining that once the candidate areas were extracted and withdrawn, an agency (such as Environment Canada or Parks Canada) essentially adopts it. These agencies would manage the sites. Bas felt that the types of management that would occur were still “up for grabs”, but he assumed that very little overt management would occur, and the site would essentially remain in its natural state. Bas also clarified Anne’s earlier comment about resource development in candidate protected areas. The two sites currently on the books are primarily natural and cultural sites, and as such, resource development, as long as it fits with the wishes of the communities and the intent for which they were created, will be allowed. In contrast, ecological areas, e.g., representative core areas, will have a very strict level of protection, and resource development will not be allowed to occur in those areas. Dean echoed this by stating that a lot of proposed protected areas won’t be suitable for a national park. In many cases there might be arguments against formal establishment of a park. One you set up a park, it brings with it park facilities, staff, and visitors. In some cases here in the NWT, it would be more preferable to have a biosphere reserve or a similar tool to set aside the area and leave it at that. Steve brought the discussion back to Bill’s question of how to go about deciding what areas get formally protected. Steve stated that his understanding of the NWT-PAS was that candidate protected areas were supposed to be community-driven, and as such, are typically areas that Aboriginal

communities have used historically for subsistence. When deciding what areas get chosen, we should determine whether the goal is to have an assemblage of keystone species to monitor, or to protect the genetic level of biodiversity. So far, the two areas that have proceeded through the NWT-PAS as significant natural and cultural sites, Sahyoue-Edacho and Edehzhie, are quite large, and thereby would be predicted to conserve a large amount of genetic material in the region. Thus, Steve felt that the community-driven process, which avoids agencies telling communities what they ought to be protecting, but rather has the communities telling government what they’d like to protect, might be congruent with other ecological goals. Bill responded by adding that the two sites that have been moved forward so far were not totally community driven, but had lots of work behind them that were ideas from the CWS, WWF, and DUC. Bill reminded the group that under Step 1 and Step 2 of the PAS, anyone could propose a site. Proposals will go through the NWT-PAS process provided that the regional community accepts the idea. A top-down approach, where government comes in and dictates where protected areas will be established might appear to be easier and faster, but this was the way it was done in the past, often with little success. Bill cited the example of the East Arm reserve, which Parks Canada told the community of Snowdrift (Lutselk’e) that they were establishing. The community was not on side, and there still is no national park here, twenty or thirty years later. Bill stressed that any proposal had to be supported at the community level in order to move forward, and he felt it could be done by using some of the techniques mentioned earlier in the panel discussion. Bill also clarified that the sites that had been proposed thus far were for total protection from industrial development, which meant that there was a surface and sub-surface land withdrawal. However, he acknowledged that at the end of the interim period, the sites

would come under the legislation of the sponsoring agency, and thus there might be different level of protection in place. Ruth Waldick (CWS) asked Bill what it was that he ultimately wanted to hear the panelists say. Bill responded by saying that it wasn’t a matter of what he wanted to hear the panel say. He felt that the panel members who already worked in the NWT knew what to do next. He felt that it was time to start seeing areas on maps, which could be proposed sites under the NWT-PAS. Bill felt that maybe the time was right for everyone to go to the communities together to start holding some of these basic discussions at the community level. Bill explained that WWF, CPAWS, and DUC, together with a couple of people from DIAND and the NWT-PAS Secretariat, were primarily the people that work at the community level. WWF and its partners are the ones at the front lines dealing with the communities and providing administrative, financial, technical, and political support for the community initiatives to get advanced. WWF and partners help develop the proposals and work them through to fruition. Bill concluded by saying that there were some great ideas from people on the panel, about concepts, ideas, models, or methods for proposing protected areas. He asked how everyone could work together in the future to see the ideas move forward in the NWT. Dean responded by articulating the need to address timelines. By Dean’s rough calculations, there could be a draft of a network by 2005, which could be circulated for comments. There is no doubt that once lines were drawn on a map that the issues would be contentious. By 2008, the PAS could have identified the gaps, and have a fairly fleshed-out network draft to pursue with more consultation, and which could be finalized by 2009. Allowing a year for everything to be legislated, and disregarding any political upheaval caused by an inevitable election and new government between now and then, and the possibility for devolution, means that 2010 might be a

year to work toward. Dean questioned the audience as to whether they felt 2010 was realistic, to which Bill reminded him that one had to account for the 5-year period for interim withdrawal of candidate areas. Bill suggested that instead of putting the lines on the map and then circulating it, a more appropriate strategy might be to work right in a community’s office with some of the people, and then maybe the lines would come on the map through the community’s efforts and through the assistance, discussion and input from government agencies and NGOs such as WWF. Bill cited a colleague who had calculated that at the present rate of progress of establishing protected areas in the NWT; it would take 50 years to complete anything of significance. Bill acknowledged that many feel a sense of urgency to move forward because of pressing development that’s going to occur in the Mackenzie Valley with the pipeline, but things take longer in the North. He pointed to the Dogrib land claim being celebrated this month, and reported that it had taken between 10-30 years of hard work to achieve. Despite the fact that some people in the room might be quite old by the time some of these issues were solved, Bill felt that everyone could work with a little more effort to assist to put lines on the map at an earlier stage rather than a later. He hoped to see some of the panel members at a community meeting within a year. Bill felt that by getting some of the government scientists away from their offices and fieldwork to attend community meetings, that there might be a better chance of success being achieved more quickly. Shirley Settah (Dene Nation) illustrated an example of community-driven work being coordinated by the Yellowknives Dene Nation. The Yellowknife Dene are developing an impact study on their communities in Lutselk’e and T’lico (Fort Rae Dogrib). She explained that this work is being done through the Diavik implementation committee, and that the study is monitoring the social impacts of the diamond mine on their communities. They

are quantifying how much the mine is changing their ways of life socially and culturally, how much it is impacting their language, and how much it is taking young guys away from traditional hunting and trapping. Shirley felt that the studies being done for wildlife monitoring would give a lot of information about what’s actually out there, and would give the Dene a baseline of what’s in existence now. As an example, she wondered how the mines affect the caribou, since the caribou are one of the biggest mainstays of Dene diet and culture. She felt that the Dene would be interested to see what impact resource development has on different aspects of First Nations’ life – socially, culturally, and ecologically. Shirley also explained that traditional land use areas are referred to frequently by the federal government and are based on where each First Nation goes hunting and trapping. But she stressed that if the animals stop going to those areas, the traditional land-use areas will also shift. Because of the resource development that is happening in the NWT, Shirley felt that a lot of First Nations would really like to see some kind of a baseline study, to see how resource development affects their lives. Yolanda agreed with Shirley about the importance of baseline studies, and stressed that while baselines are very important to assess what effect of mining or other kinds of activity has on the land, it is important to keep in mind that effects go on though time as well. She emphasized that you have to be able to predict with confidence that the observed declines are a result of a specific activity. Yolanda explained that if you make such an argument, then you have to know that the declines are not because of something else like climate change. This is why it is important to have protected areas that are large enough and natural enough to act as baselines. For example, if caribou were declining everywhere, it could be due to something bigger than one specific mine, so there is a need for baselines both in time, and in space. These baselines can’t be one-time studies prior to development, but have

to be large areas that are left free from development over time. Paul Latour (CWS) commented that the workshop had heard some fairly technical discussions about site selection in various parts of the world. Paul felt that between the highly technical approach, and the bottom-up, community-driven approach that is a fact of life here in the North, the endpoints were likely the same. He cited some numbers in Brian’s talk on the southern Rockies that used a complex analysis with SITES and came up with some numbers about square kilometers that were the same sorts of numbers being talked about in the NWT. Because the numbers were quite similar to what communities are proposing for sites of interest to them, Paul was not so sure that the technical approach is so far off base with the community-based approach. Geoff agreed with Paul, and suggested that when you looked at what First Nations were identifying in their land-use plans, then there was a large degree of overlap in the core areas. However, he emphasized that the boundaries are a fairly dynamic thing during the early days of any formulation of any of these exercises. Fred Beek (Saskatchewan Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch) stated that, as program manager for his province’s representative areas network, he has been faced with a lot of similar issues. He cited an example where the provincial government came in with a “top-down” plan, and it didn’t work. The Saskatchewan government is now trying a new approach in the Atahabasca Basin with phase 1 of the Athabasca Land Use Plan. Fred explained that everyone went to the table with their thoughts and ideas for protected areas, and that between the high tech approaches and the community/traditional knowledge, they matched. In Fred’s experience, the industry resources people were upset with the community-driven process because the communities were on side with the environmentalists in saying that they wanted

to protect large areas, and as a result, the industry people left the meeting. Fred felt that community-driven was the way to go. In his estimation, the job of designing protected areas and designating them down the road works and is much easier when you get buy-in from local stakeholders. Fred echoed Geoff’s comment about the dynamic nature of protected areas boundaries, and acknowledged that the Athabasca project still had some issues to deal with the final boundary selection. Because of the resources and economics derived from mining in northern Saskatchewan that go into provincial coffers, the government has to acknowledge the mining sector before protected area boundaries can be finalized, and thus getting government approval was a challenge. Fred felt that the methods presented by the various panel members were similar to those used in Saskatchewan, and that it was important to include science in protected areas planning. The communities he has worked with suggested that when you communicate the science and how it overlaps with community goals, success is a shoe-in. Brent Gurd (Ph.D. candidate, Simon Fraser University) touched on the discussion about the area of the parks and how the traditional knowledge seems to be matching up with what the science is telling us. Brent cautioned that we should be very careful about how we talk about the sizes of areas that we’re going to need, because in fact we don’t really know. He stated that there is evidence that you can’t actually conserve a provincial biota – in this sense a mammal province or an ecological province – in an area smaller than a province. Right now the focus is on conserving about 12% of the continent in parks. At this point, it’s totally open as to whether or not all of the species can be conserved within 12% of the continent, but our past experience to this point and the information we have historically, doesn’t suggest that it’s possible. Based on that, Brent commented that he enjoyed all of the presentations, and that he certainly thought the approaches and

information that people presented were relevant. However, if he had his way, he would have liked to have put everyone in a blender and then collect what came out of the other side. Everyone had different specialties and concentrated on different things. Whereas Brent felt that were basically two issues at hand. One is, what are we going to conserve and where is it; and the other is, how are we actually going to ensure that diversity is going to persist into the future? Deciding what we want to conserve is difficult, there is no science to suggest what you should conserve. Brent felt that approaches such as representation are obviously a key issue, and we really need to include into that estimates of what it’s going to take to conserve those things that are there. As far as Brent was concerned, this is an aspect of research that hasn’t really received that attention that it requires. Approaches such as representation, which he felt is an approach that is going to pull the whole thing together, really need to understand (or have some better estimates of) what it is going to take to actually conserve what is out there. Fiona Schmiegelow (Professor, University of Alberta) articulated the hope that the group was not creating the same dichotomy between protected areas and the remaining lands or intervening matrix that has been created everywhere else. She felt that one of the tremendous opportunities in northern Canada is not to do that. Studies have shown the pitfalls of that in every other system in creating isolated protected areas, and we do know what the outcome is of many of those things, and we’re still seeing the results of collapse. Fiona thought that particularly when protected areas networks are designed for northern systems, a challenge is dealing with species that are very widely distributed but often not very abundant where they occur, and dealing with large influences of stochastic process to the systems. As well, protected areas planning in the North must deal with widespread communities that do not want a protected area here, and a ravaged landscape everywhere else. Fiona

acknowledged that the focus of the workshop is protected areas, but she thought that they should not be considered in isolation from the rest of the landscape. Doug Mead commented that we have to remember that the rest of the landscape outside of the protected areas is not just going to be totally abandoned and forgotten, but rather is going to be managed by a lot of the people present, who are land managers for various kinds of government agencies. He felt that these managers would do their best to make sure that all the resources on those lands are managed properly and that the species diversity there is maintained to the extent that it can be. It’s not as if there’s 12% left, and the rest disappears. That 88% is still out there producing all kinds of resources. Doug also wanted to respond to Bill’s comment about urgency. He agreed with Bill that we need to get on with process of identifying new areas, but didn’t quite share his sense of urgency, and his implication that we need to do that within the next year or two, or it’s too late. As others have mentioned, the way the process works in the NWT, not much is going to get done in 2-3 years. It is a complicated process and clearly the communities are the key. Planners have to be working in the communities to make them understand the scientific side of the debate, and that’s not going to be something that can be done quickly. Doug felt that it would take some time to relay that information, create understanding of the process, and an understanding of what’s different between a culturally important area and an ecologically important area from the perspective of a Canadian or international sense, rather than a regional sense. Doug felt that the communities have a very regional focus, whereas many people in the room have a NWT or a Canadian focus, and that makes a difference in how decisions are made about what’s important. He felt that there was a tremendous educational effort that would have to take place over the next two to four years.

Tony argued that it would be fair to say that this jurisdiction was poised for increased development. He stated that there is an opportunity to safeguard high conservation values, whether they are cultural or ecological. However, the desired data and information may not be available to take advantage of this opportunity. Tony asked the panel how they would propose protected areas planners to move forward using the precautionary approach. Geoff felt that he would certainly advocate moving faster than not, because by default development moves swiftly. He spoke of coming from a country where the landscape has been altered to a large degree, and the challenge of trying to pick up the pieces. The same thing had occurred within the United States trying to deal with restoration. Geoff felt that it was a moral imperative to deal with things seriously in areas while they are still pristine, so that when decisions are made, they are the best possible. He felt that there was a wonderful opportunity to do something quite extraordinary across the boreal and the north, and that it was something to be dealt with and addressed sooner rather than later. Obviously in a perfect world it would be desirable to have the perfect data sets to inform decisions, but by and large planners are constrained to the data that is available. Geoff felt that it was possible to make some reasonable calls in the NWT with a lot of the data that he’d seen today, and that it would be an extremely worthwhile opportunity. Dean concurred by saying that he would advocate proceeding sooner rather than later. With respect to umbrella species, he suggested that managers should not get caught up in some of the problems and criticisms of it that have occurred elsewhere, because the NWT has a different set of circumstances. Dean felt that we shouldn’t be worried about whether one species or a set of species protects 20% versus 30%, or even start getting into the nitty-gritty of percentages. He suggested starting with identifying some areas, getting some

feedback, and going to the communities with a blank map and talking to the elders and having them draw lines on the map. Such an activity would generate a lot of interest and would be a catalyst to get things going. Yolanda felt that the best way to move forward under a precautionary approach is to use a combination of approaches, for example, combining scientific ecological knowledge with local community-based knowledge. As protected areas planning moved forward, it is also important to keep in mind the intervening landscape, and managing that to the highest degree of ecological integrity possible. Brent added that it might be useful to realize that this is probably going to be a process that hopefully is never done. A fear is that once 12% of Canada is conserved in protected areas, and there is good representation, planners say it’s pretty much done, and leave the rest of it open to be used. Brent cited that about twenty years ago adaptive management came out as an approach to accepting the fact that decisions are always made based on limited data, and that understanding might change in the future. He hoped that, as part of any protected areas system that was put into place, there would also be a process to monitor, and perhaps address those aspects on which we haven’t done as well as we would have liked to. Ian McCleod (Gwich’in Land Use Planning Board) asked Brian about the lynx that were introduced in Colorado, how they were doing and how they fit into the southern Rockies ecosystem plan. Brian explained that the lynx were re-introduced for two straight years, and then Colorado elected a Republican governor who cancelled the releases, and there have been no reintroductions since that point. The division of wildlife was finally able to convince the governor that they needed one more release, which they did last year. Brian stated that this summer they found sixteen kittens. So

the lynx are starting to find each other and are starting to reproduce. In terms of the plan in the southern Rockies, he explained that they are using the lynx as a flagship species, but not as an ecological indicator. When a species is reintroduced, it basically spends a great deal of time trying to figure out where it is and where the good habitat is, so tracking the movements may not lead to the best habitat until the introduced species become settled into definite home ranges. When they do settle into definite home ranges and increase their numbers they can be used as an ecological indicator. Brian

explained that, at this point the lynx are being used more as part of a public education and campaign strategy. But he thought that they are going to make it even though it’s tough when you introduce an animal that’s solitary, and wide-ranging and living at low density. At this point, the moderator, Bas called for a halt to further questions, and the meeting was adjourned for the day. The group was invited to reconvene later in the evening at a local restaurant for dinner and a slide presentation on the Muskwa-Kechika.

Plenary Presentations: Protected Areas and Land Use Planning

Evaluating Protected Areas for Conservation and Land-Use Planning in Mexico Gerardo Bocco1 and Gerardo Negrete………………………………………...………...44 The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area: Applying the Management Model

Howard Madill…………………………………………………………………………...47 1 Presenting author affiliation and address is provided

Evaluating Protected Areas for Conservation and Land-use Planning in Mexico

Gerardo Bocco1 and Gerardo Negrete

1National Institute of Ecology (INE)

Ministry of the Environment (SEMARNAT), Mexican Government. Periférico 5000, 04310 Colonia Insurgentes-Cuicuilco,

Mexico City, Mexico

Abstract

The presentation provides first an overview of actual National Protected Areas (NPAs) in Mexico. Basic eco-geographic data and data on NPAs are given, and the government structure for NPA management is described. In addition, the National System for Protected Areas is described with some detail. An analysis on land cover change (1970-2000) within and surrounding NPAs follows. Land cover change is used as an indicator of pressure on protected areas. Pressure is briefly discussed in terms of population density and marginality in and close to protected areas. Finally, land-use planning is introduced as a potential conservation tool for Mexican conditions. Conclusions describe some lessons for conservation planning.

Introduction Conservation policy formulation in general, and particularly protection of exceptional areas in terms of biological richness and diversity, must take into account the social actors sharing the territories where diversity occurs. In this sense, land-use planning (LUP) may operate as a convenient tool for ecosystem conservation. LUP can be conveniently coupled with other instruments, such as the management plans of natural protected areas (NPA). In many countries, this includes involving stakeholders from different cultural backgrounds. Mexico is one example that combines biological and landscape diversity on the one hand, and cultural diversity on the other. The objective of this paper is to describe how LUP is currently used in Mexico to support the management of NPAs and surrounding areas. First, we provide an overview of actual NPAs in the context of the general characteristics of Mexico. Second, we describe the National System for Protected Areas. Finally, land-use planning

is introduced as a potential conservation tool for Mexican conditions. Conclusions describe some lessons for conservation planning. Results Mexico encompasses ca. 2 million km2; 70% is hilly to mountainous terrain. Dry and semi-dry areas occupy roughly 51% of the land, whereas tropical areas are 36% and temperate and cold regions cover 13%. The population in 2000 was ca.100 million inhabitants. Sixty percent of the population is urban, and 52% inhabit 9 metropolitan areas. Ten percent of the population speaks one indigenous language and inhabits 20,000 communities. Fifty one percent of the land is communal and covers nearly 80% of forest resources. Land cover is distributed as follows: temperate forests, 17%; tropical forests, 16%; shrub-lands, 29%; grasslands, 16%; crops, 17%; other: 5%. Mexico is the 5th biologically mega-diverse (8-12% total species), with 149 NPAs. Deforestation (woody vegetation) is 500,000 ha/yr (INE, 2003).

The federal authority for NPAs in Mexico is the National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP). Figure 1 describes the area under any category of protection in Mexico. Figure 2 shows the geographic distribution of Mexican NPAs. The species in a biosphere reserve are representative of the country’s biodiversity, including those endemic, threatened, or at risk. The areas for protection of flora and fauna include habitats that ought to be preserved to insure the existence, transformation and development of key species. The national parks protect areas with one or more ecosystems that are exceptional in terms of scenic views, scientific value, recreation, tourism and historic value, existence of flora and fauna, or other quality of general interest. These are the key categories of Mexican NPAs. On this basis, the National System of Protected Areas (NSPA) (encompassing 31 Biosphere Reserves, 9 National Parks, and 8 Areas for Protection of Flora and Fauna) was created recently. According to the CONANP, the main criteria to be met by the NPAs in the system are:

• Species richness; • Presence of: endemics (species with

a restricted distribution); species at risk;

• Difference in the amount of species with respect to other protected areas previously incorporated to the NSPA;

• Ecosystem diversity; • Relict ecosystems; • Ecosystems with a restricted

distribution; • Functional integrity of ecosystems; • Relevant or fragile natural

phenomena; and, • Provision of relevant environmental

services. This is the territorial and conceptual backbone of the protection policy in Mexico, as far as NPAs are concerned. However, bearing in mind the social, cultural and environmental complexity of the country, it seems convenient to support this scheme with the planning of land-use and natural resource use in and around key NPAs. Thus, the National Institute of Ecology (INE) has cooperated with CONANP and SEMARNAT to carry out LUP in the following projects: Indigenous Biodiversity Corridors (COINBIO), Biological Meso-american Biological Corridor, and for Sustainable Development (PRODERS).

Number Category Area (ha and %)

34 Biosphere Reserve 10,479,534 (60) 65 National Park 1,397,163 (8) 4 Natural monument 14,093 2 Area for the protection of natural resources 39,724

27 Area for the protection of flora and fauna 5,558,714 (31) 17 Sanctuary 689

148 17,486,741 Figure 1. Types and extension of protected areas - nearly 10% of Mexico is protected. Source: Mexican Commission on Natural Protected Areas (SEMARNAT)

Figure 2. Geographic Distribution of Protected Areas in México - the total area protected is divided as follows: Dry and semi-dry ecosystems, 55%, tropical 35%, temperate and cold 10%. Source: Mexican Commission on Natural Protected Areas (SEMARNAT).

Major assumptions for this approach are: protecting species within habitats; adopting a geographic and ecologic perspective (eco-regions); considering the socio-economic, cultural and political aspects; working within, around and between (corridors) NPAs; and adopting a conservation strategy within that of local land-use planning. In this approach LUP at the local level is:

• Participatory; • Based on local (traditional)

knowledge; • Geographically sound (uses the

ecoregion concept according to scale);

• Analyzes social conflict because of different land-use types;

• Suggests different land-use policies on the basis of land suitability, provision of environmental service,

agreements between stakeholders.

Conclusions and Implications

• Try not to increase the gap between conservation and resource management. Rather, include conservation as a kind of management of natural resources, without excluding radically the possibility of use.

• Use the guidelines provided by the law concerning land-use planning for protected areas and surrounding areas and combine policy instruments.

• Think in terms of value for goods and services provided by the NPAs.

• Work with the people. Local communities are part of the solution.

The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area: Applying the Management Model

Howard Madill1

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Government of British Columbia

#400, 10003-110th Avenue, Fort St. John, BC V1J 6I7 Canada

1 The author did not submit a summary paper. The editor composed this summary, based on audiotapes of the workshop presentation and a copy of the author’s presentation slides.

Abstract

The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area is established through a unique model for land and resource management, which focuses on maintaining wilderness and wildlife values. The model, or parts thereof, may be useful in designing protected areas in the Northwest Territories (NWT) and ensuring wild places for wildlife continue to exist in the NWT. There is a brief description of the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area including the history and past considerations that were made when developing the management model. A detailed description of the management model is reviewed and discussed. Maintaining support for a land management model such as the Muskwa-Kechika (M-K) by the various levels of government, First Nations, the public, stakeholders and developers is key to ensure the management model will endure. First Nations participation and involvement in the M-K is discussed in detail. The presentation includes an overview of the roles various parties have in managing the M-K, challenges and issues with implementing the model, and key features for success in applying similar land management models. Evolution of the model and management area is discussed, as well as lessons learned and considerations that may have application to the NWT.

Introduction The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (M-KMA) is 6.3 million ha of protected areas and special management zones (approximately the size of Ireland; Figure 1). It is an area that has been inhabited by First Nations for thousands of years, and has been the home, workplace, and recreational area for local residents and international visitors for over a century. It is an area rich in oil and gas deposits, metallic and non-metallic resources, as well as limited timber resources. It has been viewed as one of the largest intact predator-prey systems in North America south of 60o, and is of global significance. There are features of historical significance in the M-KMA, including

hunting and trapping trails, fur trading route and trapper cabin sites, the remains of a Hudson’s Bay trading post, a historic commercial fishery site, an old wagon trail, wooden drilling platform, mining relics, and historic trails and sites. Activities that take place in the M-KMA include oil and gas, mining, forestry, trapping, hunting, guide outfitting, range and grazing, and other recreation. The M-KMA supports moose, Rocky Mountain elk, mule and whitetail deer, woodland caribou, plains and wood bison, thinhorn (Stone’s) sheep, mountain goat, wolf, black, and grizzly bear. All are in population densities of global importance.

Figure 1. Map of the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (M-KMA), located in northeastern British Columbia.

The M-KMA is a combination of parks, protected areas, Special Management Zones, and Wildland Zones with an objective to maintain wilderness and wildlife values while allowing resource development in those areas of the M-KMA designated for such purposes. The M-KMA is not a protected area itself, rather protected areas are encompassed within a larger management regime. The protected areas make up 1.64 million ha of the M-KMA (26%), special management zones make up 3.63 million ha (58%), and special Wildland Zones make up 0.92 million ha (14.6%). Protected areas and parks afford the highest level of protection; there is no resource development. Special Management Zones and Wildland Zones allow for responsible

development that respects the wilderness and wildlife values. Together these zones comprise the M-KMA model. The biggest challenge in the M-KMA is ensuring that “special” is maintained in the Special Management Zones. This is done by allowing some resource development, if it respects that integrity of wilderness and wildlife values, and ensures that they can be maintained over time. Wildland Zones are unique to the Mackenzie addition. They reflect remote and natural backcountry characteristics. Although oil, gas, and mining activity are allowed in Wildland Zones, timber harvesting is not. Only temporary roads are permitted.

Origins of the M-KMA The M-KMA came out of Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), committed to by the residents of Fort Nelson, Mackenzie, and Fort St. John. Local people, with the support of government, developed the plans locally. The purpose of the LRMPs was to provide strategic, integrated land planning direction. The LRMPs developed specific objectives and strategies to manage the land and resources in resource management zones. The process was multi-stakeholder and consensus-based. The LRMPs reflected diverse interests working together. They identified a variety of uses, and economic opportunities, that would maintain wilderness, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values. When the LRMPs were developed, there were provincial targets for protected areas of 13%. There were also targets specific to each LRMP area, ranging from 6-7%; these were due to previous land-use decisions in other parts of the province. The Fort St. John and Fort Nelson LRMPs were completed in 1997. In 1998 it was recommended to the provincial government that that M-KMA be formally recognized under the M-KMA Act. The results of the LRMP process were “made in the northeast” plans developed by those who know and value the areas. The plans were developed together with government and outside help to identify and quantify the areas. In 2001, the Mackenzie LRMP was created and the M-KMA was expanded to include the adjacent Mackenzie lands. The M-KMA Model The model has two main legislative components: the Muskwa-Kechika Management Act (M-KMAA), and the Muskwa-Kechika Management Plan, which is a regulation under the M-KMAA. The M-KMAA defined the boundary of the M-KMA as a combination of resource management zones, based on the recommendations of the LRMP tables. It put a unique local strategic planning framework

into effect. The M-KMAA also established an Advisory Board, and established a statutory trust to support wildlife, wilderness resources, and integrated management in the M-KMA. The local strategic planning framework includes 5 types of plans that are to be completed. These plans include landscape unit objectives (to direct forestry development), pre-tenure plans (to direct oil and gas development), and recreation management plans (to direct commercial recreation activities), all of which have to be put in place before certain types of development would be allowed in the M-K. Other plans, which are not pre-requisites to development, include wildlife management plans and park management plans. By law, these plans have to be consistent with the LRMPs. The Premier appoints the M-K Advisory Board. Its roles include advising government on natural resource management in the M-KMA to maintain its values; to make recommendations on planning and strategic management to ensure that activities are consistent with the objects of the M-KMAA and the M-KMA Plan, as well as approved local strategic plans; and to advise on priorities for use of the Trust Fund. The Advisory Board composed of diverse interests that reflect the diversity of interests in the area. The Board includes representation from the Kaska Dene Council communities as well as the communities from the Treaty 8 First Nations. The purpose of the trust fund is to support wildlife and wilderness resources management through research and integrated management, and to maintain in perpetuity the diversity and abundance of wildlife species and the ecosystems on which they depend throughout the management area. The government initially committed $3 million for the first two years, and is now contributed up to $1 million annually as well as up to $1 million annually in matching funds from private sector donations. The Minister of Sustainable Resource

Management is the trustee of the fund. Projects that have been funded by the M-K trust fund include: information and inventories, development of local strategic plans, predator/prey research, improved management, outreach, clean-up projects, and monitoring. There is a professorship at the University of Northern British Columbia that is sponsored by the University Trust Fund, and dedicated to research on the M-K. Issues and Challenges to Implement the Model The M-KMA model is working well, but there are issues and challenges to address. The M-KMA model provides for ways to address these issues and challenges. The M-KMA is proving to be a durable land management decision due to continuing and strengthening public support. This is due in part to public involvement in the plan from its origins. Some of the issues facing the model include maintaining public awareness, local buy-in, and political support. There is a need to identify and address access management issues, to identify and use innovative approaches and best practices, to minimize cumulative impacts, and to develop clarity on the local strategic planning framework.

Other challenges include the fact that some sections of the M-K management plan were incorporated from the LRMPs, and thus read as parts of a plan, and not in the language of a legal law. Possible Applications of the Model to the Northwest Territories

• Model is useful in maintaining public support for key land decisions.

• Model is useful in sourcing funding to advance research and management techniques.

• Model provides opportunities to maintain connectivity and continuity of management between core protected areas.

• Model can incorporate adaptive management in planning and management.

• Model can incorporate results-based planning.

• Model provides for less risk in maintaining wildlife and wilderness resources than if protected areas were managed as islands without special management in adjacent lands.

Protected Areas in the Mackenzie Valley: A Stakeholders Panel

The Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy: Background………………………………52 David Purchase World Wildlife Fund’s Role in Protected Areas Planning in the Mackenzie Valley…………….55 Bill Carpenter The Role of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in NWT Conservation Work…………59 Greg Yeoman A Landscape Conservation Approach and Application to Resource and Protected Areas

Management in the Northwest Territories……………………………………………….60 Al Richard1, Bruce MacDonald and Gary Stewart Protecting Land and Water in the Deh Cho………………………………………………………64 Heidi Wiebe1 and Peter Cizek Nành’ Geenjit Gwitr’it T’igwaa’in – Working for the Land: The Gwich’in Land Use Plan…….67 Sue McKenzie 1 Presenting author affiliation and address is provided

The Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy: Background

David Purchase1

Protected Areas Secretariat, Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Government of the Northwest Territories, Box 1320, Yellowknife, NT X1A 2L9 Canada

1 This presentation provides an overview of the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy from the Secretariat perspective. The Secretariat is a joint federal-territorial arrangement between the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development (RWED), Government of the Northwest Territories and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND), Government of Canada. Background The Northwest Territories (NWT) Protected Areas Strategy (PAS) was begun in 1996 as a response to an Environmental Assessment panel report that concluded there was not enough being done to protect important natural and cultural areas of the NWT. Consequently, an advisory committee (made up of Aboriginal organizations, the NWT Chamber of Mines, World Wildlife Fund, GNWT, Government of Canada) was formed and worked to develop the NWT-PAS from 1997-1998. Both the territorial cabinet and the federal minister for DIAND approved the strategy in 1999. The Protected Areas Secretariat (“the Secretariat”) was established to coordinate the implementation of the strategy. The Secretariat is steered by an Implementation Advisory Committee, comprised of members from 14 different organizations, including Aboriginal groups, ENGOs, territorial governments, and industry). The purpose of the NWT-PAS is to provide an overall framework and set of criteria to guide the work of identifying and establishing protected areas in the NWT. It is important to remember that the task of developing concrete proposals is left primarily to the communities, regional organizations and/or land claim bodies, and that the Secretariat is simply there to help steer and support proposals through the process.

Goals of the Protected Areas Strategy The NWT-PAS is comprised of two goals:

1. To protect special natural and cultural areas.

2. To protect representative core areas within each ecoregion.

Steps in the Planning Process The planning process follows the following eight steps:

1. Identify priority areas of interest. 2. Prepare a protected area proposal

and gain community and regional support.

3. Review and submit proposal for candidate protected area status. Proposals are submitted to a sponsoring agency; usually a government agency that has the legislative tools to help permanently protect an area that has been identified. The Secretariat is also exploring new initiatives for protection.

4. Consider and where necessary apply interim protection for the candidate area.

5. Evaluate the candidate area. Information about the area's cultural and ecological values, as well as its non-renewable resource and economic potential, will be

collected and evaluated to determine whether the area meets community and NWT-PAS goals.

6. Work with the communities and the sponsoring government agency to formally establish the site as a Protected Area, including defining final boundaries.

7. Approve and designate the Protected Area.

8. Develop and implement a plan to manage the Protected Area, monitor and review regularly.

Candidate Areas with Interim Protection Edéhzhíe (25,500 km2) is at step 5 of the PAS process. It represents the Horn Plateau ecoregion, and is sponsored by Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service). Sahyoue and Edacho (5,600 km2) were proposed by the community of Deline in 1999. Currently it is a National Historic Site under 5-year interim land withdrawal, and it is anticipated that it will be adopted under Parks Canada legislation.

Update on Current NWT-PAS Areas of Interest Special natural areas or sites of cultural significance identified in steps 1 and 2 of the planning process. These require formal support from community or regional organizations. No definite boundaries for a protected area have been put in place; the maps reflect a general area of interest so that

other organizations and/or industry can see that a community is considering it as an area of interest for protection. Areas at this stage include Pehdzeh Ki Deh, (proposed by the community of Wrigley); Mohwi Trail (proposed by the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council), Waters of Desnedhe Che (proposed by the community of Lutselk’e); and, Slave River Delta (proposed by the community of Fort Resolution).

Future Focus Increasingly the Secretariat has been focusing on a “what if?” scenario for communities within the Mackenzie Valley, that may propose candidate protected areas in advance of pipeline development. The Secretariat has spent time with partners gathering comments that were further developed into a 5-year Action Plan, which will be ready for implementation by year’s end. The Action Plan is deemed necessary for pipeline preparedness and conservation planning. The Mackenzie gas producers filed a PIP (Preliminary Information Package) in June 2003. It is expected that a regulatory Environmental Assessment will be completed by 2006, and construction is planned for completion by 2008. While

these dates may be ambitious, given the challenges of pipeline construction in the North, it sets up a schedule that the Secretariat can used as a planning guideline. The National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment (NRTEE) recommends that the federal government accelerate conservation planning in the Mackenzie Valley prior to issuing permits. The Action Plan is a strategic direction (2004-2009) for the enhancement of NWT protected areas in the Mackenzie Valley. The Action Plan includes plans for enhancing implementation of protected areas, increasing capacity, improving information requirements, and enhancing communications (both within the Secretariat, and between government agencies and NWT-PAS partners).

References National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 2003. The State of the Debate on the

Environment and the Economy: Securing Canada's Natural Capital: a Vision for Nature Conservation in the 21st Century. NRTEE, Ottawa, ON, 125 pp.

Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy Advisory Committee. 1999. NWT Protected Areas Strategy:

A Balanced Approach to Establishing Protected Areas in the Northwest Territories. Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NT. 100 pp.

Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy Secretariat. 2003. Mackenzie Valley Five-Year Action Plan

(2004-2009). Conservation Planning for Pipeline Development. 36 pp. The Protected Areas Strategy, maps, and other documents are available on the RWED web site: www.gov.nt.ca/RWED/pas.

World Wildlife Fund’s Role in Protected Areas Planning in the Mackenzie Valley

Bill Carpenter1

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Canada Postal Box 1978, Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P5 Canada

1 This presentation provided an overview of the role of ENGOs such as WWF in the NWT-PAS protected areas planning process, with a particular focus on issues specific to the Mackenzie Valley. A summary paper was not provided by the author. The editor composed the summary based on audiotapes of the workshop proceedings.

Abstract

As we seize today’s industrial opportunities in the Northwest Territories (NWT), people envision a proper balance of conservation and development – with conservation as first priority. A network of key cultural and ecological areas in the Mackenzie Valley and Beaufort Sea must be reserved now, using local land and resource-use plans and the community-based NWT Protected Areas Strategy. This adheres to the principles of “Sustainable Development”, and will help secure the long-term cultural and wildlife values that have sustained northerners for thousands of years – leaving these values intact for future generations.

Background When we talk about protected areas in the Mackenzie Valley we’re talking about moving protected areas through a very complicated democratic process and structure in the NWT. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), together with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), with Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) recently joining as a funding partner, has worked to provide administrative, technical, financial, and political support to the various initiatives in the Mackenzie Valley. Some of this work even occurred outside of the NWT Protected Areas Strategy (PAS), because there were some initiatives underway almost prior to the completion of the NWT-PAS. For example, the WWF gave funding to the Gwich’in agencies as they were preparing their land-use plan and undertaking a review of it. WWF also funded some of their Rat River headwaters studies that went into preparing the land-use plan as a package.

WWF was also instrumental in working with the community of Deline. Deline had received National Historic Site (NHS) status for Sahyoue-Edacho (Grizzly Bear Mountain-Scented Grass Hills) site, which at the time meant that the site only got a plaque to recognize its importance, but there was no protection for the land. Leroy André and I met with Raymond Taniton when he was the chief of Deline to try and convince him that if they really wanted to obtain protection, which was what the people had been asking for, there was a route through that. At that time, the NWT-PAS was just being completed, and we at WWF thought that if the community was willing to work with us, and with CPAWS involved, we could take the Sahyoue-Edacho site through the NWT-PAS to successfully achieve protected areas status. The cooperation between WWF, CPAWS, and the community of Deline has resulted in success; the site has received interim protection, and it has a sponsoring

agency, Parks Canada that has requested the land withdrawal. There are still lingering questions, such as whether Parks Canada will be able to use its legislation to provide the final protection that the community wants. A working group has been formed; Greg Yeoman (from CPAWS) is a member and we’re still working very hard to see that full protection of Sahyoue-Edacho occurs. Working within the NWT-PAS In working with the various communities in the Mackenzie Valley, we have primarily been using Goal 1 of the NWT-PAS, to advance sites that the communities already had in mind for protection, and moving them through the PAS process. One can ask why this is all occurring in an area of Canada where there is so much pristine land. Perhaps many people think there doesn’t need to be protection as rigid as is occurring under the NWT-PAS. If we had no development, that could be the case, and the land could remain pristine, but as history has shown, development is occurring. There has been release of a preliminary information package that illustrates that we are likely to have a pipeline. If we are to have a pipeline, then probably over the next 50 years (working in timeframes beyond the government’s five-year plans) there will likely to be a lot of development in the Mackenzie Valley, not necessarily just related to oil and gas. As areas are opened up, it could mean other avenues of development, whether it is a road up the Mackenzie Valley, or additional forestry or development. We have seen it elsewhere in the country, it is certainly going to occur here. So one of the things that we have talked about is that if this development in relation to a pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley is going to occur, then as a step towards bringing environmental legitimacy to this major development – which will be of a magnitude that will certainly attract world attention – it should be done right, and that means identifying

and moving areas towards protection under the NWT-PAS before development. We have had statements of support made by government officials. Minister Antoine, of the territorial government, says they are committed to establishing a network of core protected areas, as stated in the NWT-PAS, before a pipeline is built. Minister Nault of DIAND sees protected areas as a major priority because it is a priority of the territorial government and also of the First Nations. Minister Nault says that we have to be very proactive and he wants to see if we can fast track protection of some of the lands before pipeline development. Consequently, we have developed an Action Plan, which evolved out of a motion passed by the NWT-PAS Implementation Advisory Committee with a recommendation for funding. This recommendation means that there would have to be a work plan and budget, which Minister Nault requested last January/February (2003), and subsequent work has occurred to lead us to that. We, the environmental organizations, met with Minister Nault on August 22, 2003 and we reviewed the Action Plan in a general way. Minister Nault stated very clearly to us that he likes this idea of linking protected areas in the Mackenzie Valley to pipeline development. He stated that he would support it in cabinet when it goes for funding as part of the pipeline readiness. The environmental organizations have also said that they will assist in getting some money for pipeline readiness, and WWF has committed to raising over one third of the approximately $17.8 million that this Action Plan will cost over five years. So we think that is a significant effort on the part of WWF that will be part of the partnership. The partnership includes industry, government, the aboriginal organizations, the territorial and federal government and we believe that we can undertake a lot of work in the Mackenzie Valley as we move toward future development.

There are a number of initiatives under way already that would illustrate where these protected areas are; it’s not like we are starting at square one in planning protected areas. For example, the Inuvialuit conservation plans and the Gwich’in Land Use Plan were the first to identify conservation areas. The more recent work in the Deh Cho has had some land identified that is about to be withdrawn, and in the Sahtu, the preliminary draft Sahtu Land Use Plan has identified many areas that are of prime importance to the communities. WWF will continue to work with NWT communities. The power of communities in the North is very strong. The communities are the key to success in many things. I guess that is the way it should be. The Aboriginal people of the north are the people who were here first, who are the owners and the occupants of the land. There is a strong role at the community level for bringing things to completion that brings in all of the First Nation views and inputs, including traditional knowledge of the elders. I think that if we were to wonder where we go next in relation to some of the things we have heard here, I would ask the question why we have not heard more from government officials. For example, the biologists, that have some knowledge of the land, could be very instrumental in assisting to identify some of the areas that have either been missed in the various land-use plans, or areas outside of LUP processes that should be identified for protection for habitat and wildlife. The only agency we have ever really heard from is CWS, when we were working on the Edehzhie site in the early days. Certainly Mills Lake was identified as being a very important area, and CWS was interested in advancing protection of that site and it provided the administrative and technical support for identifying and promoting it. I think we could hear more from Environment Canada, from territorial officials, both in headquarters and in the regions. I think we need to start applying what we know and I think we need to start working together more to bring all of the

experts together. We have experts at the community level who are providing us with a major amount of input to identify areas and to provide all the levels of value that go into documenting why sites are so important that they should be advanced through the NWT-PAS. I think we can do it right over the next five years under this Action Plan. There may be some need to advance some sites faster than others. We could reach the stage where we have many sites lined up that could pose a problem for a sponsoring agency to ask for land withdrawals. I suspect that if we all put our efforts together, and use all of the information that is readily available, that we could come up with the final boundaries of sites within this time period. WWF has prepared a digital atlas of the NWT that could certainly be useful. It is one coarse approach to area identification but it does take the community input and regional input to further refine boundaries. Success will take the full support of the government professionals who can also assist at an early stage to work with the communities, work with some of us who are at the forefront of dealing with the community work, and if we continue on this path, we will see successes. From an outsider’s perspective, things seem rather complicated in the North. Up here, the government does not take the lead in establishing protected areas as happens elsewhere. It is rather complicated, but under step 1 of the NWT-PAS, there is very clear provision for sites being identified or proposed by anyone. A proposal does not have to come from the communities; it could come from biologists, a government department, individual NGOs like WWF, or industry. I think the key to the future is the partnerships that we have made throughout the PAS process. Minister Nault commented on how successful we have been at working with partners in industry, government, Aboriginal groups, and environmental groups. Our successes would probably astound most, because in many other areas there is more of a “them against us” perspective. We have seen other protected

areas strategies across the country where different partners have pulled out because they did not like the direction things were going. I think we do things differently here in the North. We have a perspective that we are all in this together and there is not a clear line separating all of us. WWF has said that we are not here to impede or delay a pipeline. We are here to see that we can

provide a major impetus to show that conservation can be a first priority as this major development occurs. I think that this will come to completion within a time period that illustrates that the Action Plan is just what we need. Much of the work has been completed, and now it is a matter of bringing it to fruition.

The Role of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in Northwest Territories (NWT) Conservation Work

Greg Yeoman1

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, NWT Chapter

Box 1934, Yellowknife, NT X1A 2P4 Canada 1 This presentation focuses on the roles that ENGOs play in the NWT protected areas strategy, as well as with conservation work in the NWT in general. A summary paper was not provided by the author. The editor composed the summary based on audiotapes of the workshop proceedings. The ENGOs play an important role in the NWT-PAS as one of the stakeholders. I’d like to provide a few examples of how organizations such as the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) have been involved with the NWT-PAS. When we say we provide research and technical support to a community, what does that mean? As an example, CPAWS, together with the community of Deline, WWF, and the NWT-PAS, helped to develop application binders for the Sahyoue-Edacho and Edehzhie candidate protected areas. These binders are a compilation of all the economic, environmental, and cultural information relevant to the sites, including mapping. The information in these binders represents everything needed to support the proposal to have the land withdrawn and designated for 5-year interim protection so we can do further work on it. It is a lot of work, and the key is that the ENGOs are working together with partner agencies.

CPAWS has helped to provide funding assistance, helped with organizing meetings, and funded community coordinators, who work on the files all the time. CPAWS helped fund a trip to Heritage Minister Sheila Copps’ office for members of the community of Deline to petition withdrawal of land for protection. Beyond the NWT-PAS, there are other things related to protected areas planning going on in the NWT that CPAWS is involved with. Parks Canada has identified three priority areas: the expansion of Tuktuk Nogait National Park, the expansion of Nahanni National Park, and the completion of Great Slave Lake’s East Arm Reserve. We are also working with Deline on a management plan for Great Bear Lake. The vision is to keep it clean and bountiful for all time. It is an exciting time right now in the NWT for conservation and for protected areas.

A Landscape Conservation Approach and Application to Resource and Protected Areas Management in the Northwest Territories

Al Richard1, Bruce MacDonald and Gary Stewart

1Western Boreal Program, Ducks Unlimited Canada #100, 18236-105 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T5S 2R5 Canada

Abstract

Though facing increasing development pressures, Canada’s Northwest Territories (NWT) remains a vast wilderness containing cultural and ecological areas critical to both people and wildlife. The NWT Protected Areas Strategy (PAS) engages communities, conservation groups, governments and other stakeholders in moving some of these areas toward permanent protection. Resource managers are also tasked with identifying and managing critical habitats for the many species of flora and fauna found within the NWT. An important part of the process is to identify and quantify critical fish and wildlife areas at a landscape level for both the NWT-PAS implementers and resource managers. Relevant, science-based information in combination with traditional land-use information is critical to truly advancing protected areas and sustainable development. Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) and its partners have been carrying out earth cover, water bird and water chemistry inventories across the NWT for the past five years. This information is combined with other relevant spatial data to help develop a GIS-based decision support system. To date, we have invested over $1.4 million on various inventory work and mapped approximately 12.5 million hectares of habitat throughout the Northwest Territories. This presentation will focus on how the information is being collected and disseminated as well as how it is being used to further resource management and protected areas strategies within the NWT as we strive to help communities, governments and industries to balance conservation with development.

Background The Northwest Territories (NWT) is a diverse landscape of forests and water, containing expansive world-class wetland complexes, essential to the health of North America’s migratory water bird populations. Specifically, the NWT is critical to key waterfowl species such as scoters, mallard, northern pintail, American widgeon, lesser scaup and other water birds like loons, gulls, grebes and shorebirds. Little scientific information exists on water birds and other wildlife uses on many of these key wetlands complexes, and less still is known about their values to the environment, the economy, and to society. Populations of some waterfowl species breeding in the Mackenzie Valley have been declining over the past 20 years, particularly those of scaup and scoters. The reasons for these declines

are unknown. Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) research work, currently in its third year, is collecting baseline breeding ecology data on scaup and scoter in the Cardinal Lake area, including habitat evaluation and invertebrate sampling. DUC’s Western Boreal Program (WBP) in the NWT is helping fill these information gaps. The WBP is collecting much of the required information on wetlands and associated water birds and sharing it with partners to help move conservation forward throughout the NWT. Conservation programs include protected areas and advancing science-based sustainable development and world-leading best management practices. Information collected to date has identified several world-class wetland complexes with high cultural values that warrant permanent protection. There is no question that other

critical areas exist and scientific and traditional land-use information is required to help to identify and protect these crown jewels for generations to come. DUC is committed to further developing partnerships, collection of scientific and traditional land-use information, research, education, and supporting NWT-PAS efforts throughout the NWT. It is also committed to working with industries to implement an adaptive management approach, where we will assist in the development and testing of best management practices to help ensure that the boreal forest continues to produce sustainable economic and ecological returns. Methods Over the past few years, DUC’s conservation work has expanded significantly to include the collection of other essential information such as detailed satellite-based earth-cover inventory (including wetland mapping), water bird surveys, and water chemistry data. Specifically, DUC has developed and utilizes a GIS-based TM Satellite earth-cover inventory and mapping program that provides an accurate, digital inventory of numerous earth cover classes (upland and wetland) for various planning and management activities. This regional scale inventory includes the mapping of enhanced wetland classes throughout all project areas. Project areas to date are situated throughout the Mackenzie River Valley and include the Sahtu, Lower Mackenzie, Middle Mackenzie, and Peel Plateau, consisting of 14.5 million hectares (29 million acres) (Figure 1). The final product consists of a digital earth cover dataset of the various project areas consisting of Landsat TM Classified files, change detection files, raw TM data, digital 1:50k plot map files, all spatially referenced ground-truth data (field attributes and photos). A detailed documentation of the analysis methods, products and metadata, and an ArcView project (with a customized field data extension) assembling the various layers is also provided.

Additionally, three consecutive years of intense water bird surveys with the use of DUC’s customized moving map software are part of all projects. For each of the three survey years, six individual waterbird surveys are conducted (two helicopter based breeding pair surveys, two helicopter based brood surveys, and two fixed-wing staging surveys). In addition, DUC has been conducting various aerial waterbird reconnaissance surveys on selected areas throughout the NWT. All observations are spatially referenced, entered, and managed in DUC’s Waterbird Database. These data will be used to develop a predictive model to determine where waterbird hotspots are throughout areas of the NWT. Associated with this is the water chemistry work, which provides baseline water chemistry results on a selected sample of wetland basins. To date, water chemistry work has been completed for the Lower Mackenzie Project. For each individual waterbird and water chemistry project, annual interim reports and a final three-year report are generated on all waterbird survey and water chemistry results. Over the past few years of work throughout the NWT, the results of our inventory work (e.g., earth-cover mapping, waterbird surveys, water chemistry) have allowed us to branch out into the NWT’s PAS. DUC’s NWT-PAS participation has grown and has been diverse in terms of developing partnerships, communication, funding, increasing staff capacity, and collecting information (i.e., aiding in the documentation of wetland and waterbird values). Regarding the Edehzhie candidate interim protected area, DUC purchased the Sapp Farm along Mills Lake (a world-class staging area for waterfowl), to be donated to Evironment Canada as part of the premanent protection process. DUC is also funding and helping deliver the ecological assessment of wetlands and waterbirds, and participating as a member on the Edehzhie working group. Additionally, DUC is working with proponents in the documentation of wetland and waterbird values throughout the

Sahyoue-Edacho candidate interim protected area. Regarding the Tsodehniline and Tuyat’ah (Ramparts River and Wetlands) area of interest, local communities and partners know that this is a northern

waterbird factory with cultural and ecological significance. The community would like to move forward in the NWT-PAS (Step 1), and DUC has the lead on this area of interest.

Figure 1. Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) project areas in the Mackenzie Valley, NWT. Summary Traditional knowledge and science-based inventory and monitoring information are being gathered and used to develop our conservation strategies, which include both protection and advancement of sustainable development. DUC is doing this through strong partnerships with Aboriginal groups, industry, government agencies, universities, and foundations under the guiding principles that the better the information, the better the land use decisions. We share all of this information in an atmosphere of trust, transparency, and consensus. Implications for Protected Areas Design, Planning and Management

• Work at the community level and with other stakeholders to identify areas with important cultural and ecological values around wetlands using traditional knowledge and western science.

• Collect and share science-based information (earth-cover, waterbird, water chemistry, research) to move the NWT-PAS forward, and to advance sustainable development through the establishment of best management practices.

• Increase the ability to leverage funds through additional partnerships.

• Support the NWT-PAS (expertise, funds, partnerships, information).

Protecting Land and Water in the Deh Cho, Northwest Territories

Heidi Wiebe1 and Peter Cizek

1Deh Cho Land Use Planning Committee

General Delivery, Fort Providence, NT X0E 0L0 Canada

Abstract

The Deh Cho territory occupies almost 210,000 km2 in the southwest corner of the Northwest Territories. The Deh Cho Land Use Planning Committee was established through the Deh Cho First Nations Interim Measures Agreement, signed in May 2001. Its mandate is to develop a land use plan for the Deh Cho territory that promotes the social, cultural and economic well being of Deh Cho residents and communities, having regard to the interests of all Canadians. Land-use planning is one step in the overall Deh Cho Process in which lands, resource management and governance issues are being negotiated between the Deh Cho First Nations, the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. Earlier in 2003, approximately 1/3 of the Deh Cho territory or 70,000 km2 was withdrawn from disposal and mineral staking under the Territorial Lands Act for five years. The purpose of the withdrawals is to provide interim protection to lands that are critical for harvesting, cultural or ecological reasons while the land-use plan is being developed. The Planning Committee is responsible for revising these land withdrawals through the land-use plan, based on new information gathered and a longer process of analysis and consultation. The presentation will compare the criteria used in selecting lands to be withdrawn with those to be used in the larger land-use planning process under which they will be revised. The most important information source in both cases is the traditional land-use and occupancy-mapping project that has been ongoing since 1996. Scientific and traditional ecological knowledge are being blended to ensure land-use decisions are being based on the most complete picture of ecological and resource potential possible.

Introduction The objective of the presentation is to describe and to compare the processes and information used in the Interim Land Withdrawals and land-use planning procedures. The focus is on the community-based information and priorities, which drive land-use planning in the North. Methods The Deh Cho territory covers almost 210,000 km2 in the southwest corner of the Northwest Territories (Figure 1). The traditional land-use and occupancy maps that have been compiled over the last 7 years primarily defined the land withdrawals. The maps were digitized and coded into

ArcView 3.2 for analysis. Various scales of density and home range kernel analysis were completed to identify areas of low, moderate, high and very high traditional use. This data layer was the foundation for both the land withdrawal selection and the land use planning analysis. Coarse scale timber and oil and gas potential data were used to identify important development zones for the land withdrawals. The Planning Committee will use the traditional use results, but it has contracted new research on wildlife habitat use and on oil and gas, mineral, timber and tourism potential for use in their planning process. The Planning Committee will compile summary maps of conservation and development zones, and then combine the

various layers of information into a weighted multi-criteria analysis to define a series of land-use options ranging from pro-development to pro-conservation. The Committee will present these options to communities and planning partners for selection of the most appropriate option in any given area. A single land-use planning map will be compiled based on feedback.

Figure 1. Location of Deh Cho territory in the Northwest Territories, Canada Results The land withdrawals were signed in April 2003 and withdrawn through an Order-In-Council in August 2003. Most of the withdrawals exclude both surface and subsurface development, but the surface was not withdrawn along the Mackenzie and Liard River valleys and along stretches of the Mackenzie Highway to allow timber harvesting to occur in these productive forest regions (Figure 2). Existing and candidate protected areas are also shown in Figure 2. Nahanni National Park reserve was established in 1972 and it is protected through the National Parks Act. Edehzhie and Pehdzeh Ki Deh are candidate protected

areas in the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy. The Planning Committee has recently finished its data gathering stage and is currently processing the new data. It expects to have land-use options developed early in 2004 and a draft land-use plan by 2005. Conclusions The purpose of the presentation was to explain the processes and information used to develop the interim land withdrawals and land-use plan for the Deh Cho territory. An interactive GIS demonstration of the traditional use and resource potential information was presented to show how the data layers were used to define the interim land withdrawals. This was followed by an explanation of the new information and process to be used in developing the land-use plan. Implications for Protected Areas Design, Planning and Management Land-use planning is a community-driven process in the north with a strong emphasis on traditional use and long-term sustainability. Since many of the communities still rely heavily on traditional uses, there is a lot of motivation to protect critical harvesting areas and the watersheds that sustain the fish, animals and residents. The current protected areas and withdrawn lands, which cover 50% of the Deh Cho territory, clearly illustrate this. The land-use plan will replace the land withdrawals once it has been approved. As such, the plan will need to re-assess the existing withdrawals based on the new information acquired and identify new protected areas and the appropriate legislation to secure them.

Figure 2. Interim Land Withdrawals, Protected Areas, and Candidate Protected Areas within the Deh Cho territory. Suggested Reading For more information about the Interim Land Withdrawals or the Deh Cho Land Use Planning Committee and its work, please visit the following web sites: Deh Cho Land Use Planning Committee: www.dehcholands.org Deh Cho First Nations: www.dehchofirstnations.com Government of Canada’s Deh Cho site: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/dehcho/

Nành’ Geenjit Gwitr’it T’igwaa’in – Working for the Land: The Gwich’in Land Use Plan

Susan McKenzie1

Gwich’in Land Use Planning Board, Box 2478, Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0 Canada

1 This presentation provides an overview of the Gwich’in Land Use Plan (GLUP), the Land Use Planning Board (“the Board”) and the Gwich’in planning process. The author did not provide a summary paper. The editor composed the summary based on audiotapes of the workshop proceedings and a copy of the author’s presentation slides.

Abstract

The Gwich’in Land Use Plan, Nành’ Geenjit Gwitr’it T’igwaa’in (Working for the Land), was given final approval in August 2003. It covers all lands within the Gwich'in Settlement Area (GSA) that are outside of municipal boundaries. The Plan contains background information and establishes land use zones in the Settlement Area. Its purpose is to provide for the conservation, development and utilization of land, water, and resources. The conservation mechanisms in the Plan are distinct from legislated protected areas and provide a new option for management of areas sensitive to multiple land uses in the GSA.

Background The Gwich’in Land Use Plan (GLUP) recently received final approval on August 7, 2003. The planning process however began over a decade ago, in 1992 when a comprehensive land claim agreement was signed which included a provision for the GLUP Board. The Land Claim Provision was for an interim board until enabling legislation, the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act (MVRMA), was passed. There are five members on the Board - two are nominated by the tribal council, one by the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), and one by the federal government. These four choose the Board Chair. Once appointed by the federal Department of Indian and Northern Development (DIAND), the Board works in the interest of the public; the Board is

considered an institution of public government and acts at arms-length from the Gwich’in Tribal Council, the Governtment of the Northwest Territories, and the federal government. The Board is also known as a co-management board. Members have a 3-year term. Current members are Bob Simpson (Chair), Charlie Snowshoe (Vice-chair), Fanny Greenland, Karen LeGresley Hamre, and Ian McLeod. The Board is mandated to develop and to implement a land use-plan that provides for the conservation, development and utilization of land, water, and resources. Legislation wording includes direction to develop a plan that is particularly devoted to the needs of the Gwich’in while also considering the needs of all Canadians.

The development of the land use plan occurred between 1993-1999. The Board started by considering the 10 years of planning by the Mackenzie Delta Beaufort Sea Land Use Planning Commission. The views of communities, regional organizations, industrial interests, and government departments were carefully evaluated and incorporated. Both traditional and scientific knowledge were incorporated into the plan. As well, the Board spent a lot of time going around and talking to various groups about what they would like to see happening in the GSA. The MVRMA was passed in 1998, formally creating the Board, but this did not make any difference to the Board operations at the time. Zoning within the GLUP The best available information was gathered in each of the following categories, in order to identify three levels of zoning: Forestry Sand and gravel Communication Water Oil and gas and utilities Fish Minerals Waste Management Wildlife Military activities Tourism Within each category, the communities mapped out areas of significant value and/or use. The Board then ranked the natural and cultural values of these areas with the potential for development. Areas that were given protected status share the highest cultural and scientific values. Figure 1 describes the development potential for each of the areas that were identified by the communities. Cultural and natural values were also ranked for each of these areas using a similar process (see table available on the website). For each category, numbers from 0-3 were assigned a value (0 = low value, 3 = high value) in each category (from the list above) based on known information. Numbers were added up in all categories to get overall ranking for each site. The GLUP had to work with best available information; often there were gaps. Plan Approval

The plan required approval of the Gwich’in Tribal Council, the GNWT, and the Government of Canada. The Tribal Council and the GNWT approved it in 1999. The federal government couldn’t initially sign the plan because of conflicts that the “zones of no development” had with the Canada mining regulations. A solution was agreed to between the Board and the federal government, and the plan was finally approved in 2003. This solution included four parts. First, an agreement was made that the Canada mining regulations will be amended to remove the conflict with the GLUP. Because the Board and its planning initiatives have provision in the Gwich’in Land Claim agreement, and the Gwich’in Land Claim agreement takes precedence over other legislation, the Canada Mining Regulations have to be amended. The Government of Canada had to figure out how to change legislation that was over 100 years old, and has industrial interests and lobby groups against the proposed changes. This is part of the reason that the approval process took four years. This process is started, and will take a year to complete. In order to get the plan approved while the conflict is removed, the second part of the solution called for a five-year land withdrawal of “conservation zones”. In addition, DIAND will commit funding for non-renewable resource assessments in these four large conservation zones. This will allow for more detailed planning in the future and will be completed by 2005. Finally, for final plan approval, some revisions to the wording of the GLUP were required, most significantly changing the name “protected areas” (i.e., the zones of no development) to “conservation zones”. The revisions were done to provide clarity that the legislated protected areas and the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy (NWT-PAS) are a separate process from the land-use planning process. When the Board was proposing the conservation zones, the federal government came back and said that if the Board wanted areas

removed from development, that they had to use legislated protected areas or follow the NWT-PAS. The Board recognized that the GLUP has the authority to remove lands from development activity and can be another tool for conservation measures. This does not mean that the Board will not participate in the NWT-PAS, nor does it preclude the use of legislated protected areas within the GSA, where appropriate. As well, the revisions included more detail about how a pipeline will be evaluated. Authority of the Plan and Plan Basics The MVRMA states that all licenses, permits, and other authorizations relating to the use of land and water and the deposit of waste in the Settlement Area must conform to the plan. The plan has real teeth; no regulatory agency can issue a permit that does not conform to the plan. The plan is also adaptive; it is reviewed every five years, and includes an exception and amendment process to deal with specific issues on a case-by-case basis. The GLUP is an integrated land use plan with three levels of zones. These include general use zones (57% of the GSA). In these zones, the only restrictions on development would be the terms and conditions placed on the activity by the regulatory authority issuing the authorization for development. The special management zones (33% of the GSA) allow development but may have additional terms and conditions. Finally, conservation and

heritage zones (10% of the GSA) are zones of no development. The total settlement area is 57,000 km2. An example of zone conditions governing conditions for the zones that were identified (either by the communities or in the scientific literature) where waterfowl is an important resource these rules will apply:

1. Activities requiring a permit, licence or authorization should demonstrate that there will be no adverse effects on waterfowl nesting and staging sites.

2. Any known waterfowl nesting and staging sites discovered during activities, at any time of the year, should be avoided by a minimum of 250 metres.

3. Aircraft should maintain a minimum altitude of 650 metres when flying over this Special Management Zone in June, July and August. Notices will be distributed to all air companies operating in the GSA.

The Board’s focus now is on creating a formal implementation plan for the GLUP. There is still a lot of work to do to make sure that all the regulatory authorities are aware of the plan and that they must do a conformance check before issuing an authorization for development. The Board needs to look at monitoring processes as well to ensure that the plan is effective and is meeting the objectives of the communities and other stakeholders requested within the GSA. There is still significant communication and consultation to do.

Suggested Reading More information about the Gwich’in Land Use Planning Board and the Gwich’in Land Use Plan is available on the web site: www.gwichinplanning.nt.ca

Figure 1. Identifying areas with high development potential to minimize conflicts with proposed protected areas in the Gwich’in Settlement Area (GSA), Northwest Territories.

Name of proposed protected area Oil

and

Gas

Pip

elin

e Po

tent

ial

Oil

and

Gas

Pot

entia

l

Tour

ism

Sand

and

Gra

vel /

Roc

k C

rush

Min

eral

Hig

hway

and

Bar

ge R

oute

s

Tota

l

Ran

k

James Creek 3 0 3 3 1 3 13 3 Frog Creek 3 3 2 3 0 3 13 2 Neyado Lake 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 Rat River 0 3 3 2 1 1 10 Canoe Lake 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 Travaillant Lake 3 3 2 2 0 3 13 3 Swan Lake 0 3 2 2 0 0 7 Cardinal Lakes 2 1 2 0 1 7 Bernard Creek 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 Jackfish Creek 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 Jackfish Creek Headwaters 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 Campbell Hills 3 1 3 3 0 1 11 4 Black Mountain 0 1 3 3 1 1 9 SW Mackenzie Delta 0 2 2 0 0 1 5 Beaver Lake 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 Headwaters Arctic Red River 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 Arctic Red River Canyon 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 Source Peaks 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 Weldon Creek 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 8 Mile 3 3 3 3 0 3 15 1 Husky Lake 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 Vittrekwa River 0 2 2 3 1 3 11 4 Stoney Creek 0 2 1 3 1 1 8 Three Cabin 0 2 1 0 0 0 3

Summary of the Mackenzie Valley Stakeholder Panel Discussion

Yolanda Wiersma

Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Canada

Following the presentation by members of the Mackenzie Valley Stakeholder Panel, there was a brief opportunity for the audience to ask questions from panel members. A question was raised about the extensive use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the various analyses and planning processes, and whether or not error analysis was being incorporated. Error analysis could shed light on how much confidence there might be in the results presented. Land use planners suggested that it was better to make a decision that “is kind of right” rather than no decision at all, but acknowledged that the data sets in the Northwest Territories (NWT) are extremely coarse. Because of the large extent of many of the planning areas (for example 210,000 km2 in the Deh Cho, land-use planning must be done within a framework of 1:1M scale, otherwise there is complete data overload. Planners and agencies are trying to be as accurate as possible with data such as satellite imagery. For example, at the 5-m resolution, they are trying to maintain control standards of ± 50 metres. A key issue for land-use planning and data accuracy applies not so much to the analysis of the data, as to implementation of zoning for land withdrawals. It was felt that all zoning and land withdrawal needs to be implemented on the basis of legal survey standards because of tenure implications from mineral staking or oil and gas rights. In areas of such a huge extent, it can be

difficult to accurately determine where boundaries are located, so plans should be implemented through legal descriptions of those areas, based on Canada Land Survey Standards. Inconsistencies in accuracy requirements were outlined as a frustration. For example, in the case of the Gwich’in Land Use Plan (GLUP), the federal government required the conservation zones to have a “meets and bounds” legal description, whereas in the Deh Cho, the government simply did a 1:250 000 (and eventually a 1:50 000) manual map showing the land withdrawals, even though the Deh Cho First Nation (DCFN) had attempted to convince the government to do a “meets and bounds” description. The land-use planning committees hope that any land designations are defined through “meets and bounds” descriptions that connect to latitude and longitude as control points. A question related to land-use planning was raised about overlap issues between different communities. Land claims are structured differently between groups, and the communities are the ones that have been assigned the rights. An example was given of the overlap area between the communities of Deline and Tulita. The Sahtu are in the midst of community consultation on their land-use plan, and want to make sure the overlap issue is address and entrenched in the plan. The question was asked as to how the different land-use planning boards communicate.

Members of the planning boards stressed that they are in communication with communities around the overlap areas, and that there have been many meetings between various communities. An issue was raised that some First Nations don’t yet see the value of protected areas. They feel that since they have signed a land claim, they control the whole land, and thus don’t need protected areas. The confusion over why protected areas are necessary still needs to be worked through. The time frame for land-use planning was also raised as a concern. The collection of data and conducting research is time consuming, and precedents from other land-use plans suggest that it can take a long time. The Deh Cho have been given a one and a half year time frame to complete the land use planning exercise, and it was asked whether this would be enough. Deh Cho planners concurred with the question, and noted that they were already running into problems and delays. Their committee is just getting into the “meat” of coming up with the information, and starting the analysis. The year and a half time frame came through their federal funding and was

laid out in the interim measures agreement that was signed with DCFN back in 2001. The land-use planning committee is starting to give warnings that the time crunch is on, and as they submit their interim reports, this message will be coming out loud and clear. However, until it receives a formal change to the process, the committee is working within the time frames it has been given. There is some room to incorporate new information though the revision cycle, as the Deh Cho planning process is to be finalized around 2008. The plan also has to be revised to ensure that it conforms to all of the different agreements. At this point, the committee has a three-year time frame to get the first revisions done, which will help to allow for the incorporation of new information into the revisions. After that, there will be a 5-year revision process, so there are ongoing reasons to keep bringing in new research and information. Like all land-use plans, this one is a “living document”. A successful land-use planning process will ensure that the information in the plan is as up to date as possible, and that the committee is allowed the time to continually bring in new information.

Break-out Session Summaries: Design Considerations for Northern Ecological Areas – Group A1

Brent Gurd, moderator

Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Canada

1 Nineteen people, including federal, provincial and territorial governments, NGOs, First Nations, academia and the oil and gas industry participated in this breakout session. The discussion focused on four main issues: the creation of protected areas; representation; persistence; and management of development around protected areas. Creation of Protected Areas The creation of a system of protected areas requires achieving two separate, but inter-related goals: representation and persistence. Meeting representation goals ensures that the system of protected areas encompasses the biotic and abiotic values thought to be at risk from development. Meeting persistence goals strives to ensure that the system of protected areas is sufficient to maintain these values into the future. Even to the extent that we can be confident that a system of protected areas has met these goals, protected areas should be considered insurance against a failure to mitigate impacts of human activity on ecosystems outside of protected areas. Consequently, the formation of protected areas and ecologically sustainable land-use planning outside of protected areas should not be mutually exclusive activities. Representation Of the two goals, achieving representation goals is much more tractable because data on the distribution of various biotic and abiotic values are available or can be acquired. The abundance of data on the spatial distribution of values, and the sophisticated tools that can be used to systematically identify candidate reserves with high representation, were demonstrated

repeatedly throughout the plenary session. In the Northwest Territories, as with many other jurisdictions, a primary goal is to ensure that the system of protected areas is representative of each ecoregion. While this is a relevant goal, representation should not be limited to any one scale. Many biotic values, such as wide-ranging wildlife, function at larger spatial scales and may not perceive differences between ecoregions. Representation goals should be defined at multiple scales of ecological and geological function. Persistence The North is provided a great conservation opportunity to establish a system of reserves while the landscape is still relatively intact. The irony is that such landscapes provide little information on how development may alter it. The only option is to transfer lessons learned elsewhere to the North. However, these lessons will have to be adapted to the conditions of the North. For example, in the plenary session Yolanda Wiersma used an estimate of 2,500 km2, which was generated in southern Canada, as a minimum area requirement for northern reserves. However, Dean Cluff’s satellite telemetry data for grizzly bears showed that individual bears might range over an area even larger than 2,500 km2. Clearly, estimates of ecological integrity for reserves in the south cannot be

applied directly to the North. Real data on the ability of species to persist in fragmented landscapes is rare for any part of the world. Methods for converting southern ‘ecological units’ into northern ‘units’ are necessary to make the greatest use of what data are available. Managing Development Around Protected Areas The low population density and highly migratory nature of many species of wildlife in the Northwest Territories may require very large protected areas on the scale of hundreds of thousands of square kilometres to meet persistence goals. To the extent that such large areas will not be socially or economically feasible, more creative approaches to managing the development of northern areas will be necessary. This is not to say that protected areas should not be created, only that land-use planning of the landscapes between reserves should be cautious when there is uncertainty that persistence goals have been met. One advantage of northern development compared to that of the south is its more localized and temporary nature. In the south, agriculture and urbanization has resulted in the permanent loss of vast areas of habitat. For the foreseeable future, development in the North will be limited to more localized, and temporary developments, such as mineral extraction, oil and gas drilling,

tourism and transportation projects, with the exception of the potential for commercial timber harvest. The tempo of this type of development could be amenable to an adaptive approach for managing development, in which land-use planning is distributed across the landscape at a spatial and temporal intensity such that northern ecosystems can absorb the impacts of development without altering ecological processes. Repeated cycles of development will also allow new agreements with resource extraction companies to be negotiated, providing the companies with the stability they require for development to be economically viable. Explicitly considering the temporal dimension of development has many advantages. First, it will help reduce cumulative ecological impacts because new development will not be initiated until earlier projects have been completed. Second, unanticipated impacts can be mitigated or avoided in future development. Third, the economic gains of development can be spread-out over a longer time period and local communities can develop the expertise necessary to derive greater economic benefits from resource extraction. Finally, planning for slower development at reduced intensity will necessarily require local communities to determine how much development is necessary or desirable. Ultimately, it is this decision that will determine the ecological future of the North.

Break-out Session Summaries: Design Considerations for Northern Ecological Areas – Group B1

Tony Turner, moderator

A.M. Turner and Associates, 87 Java Street, Ottawa, ON K1Y 3L5 Canada

1 About 15 people representing Government, NGOs, Aboriginal and Métis groups, and the Oil and Gas Industry attended this breakout session. The session began with consideration of the role western science can play in the protected area design. It was stated that protected areas should be actively chosen, and not simply be the land and waters left over after economic and industrial interests are considered. Ways need to be developed to include ecological functions and processes in protected area design. The use of focal species, such as caribou, as surrogate means to capture an ecologically functional region was believed to be important. Such an approach can include ecological process, varied ecosystems (summer and winter ranges and connecting corridors). In the absence of complete ecological knowledge, focal species ranges could be a reasonable approach to capture a broader range of species diversity and ecological processes beyond the focal species. It was also believed important to capture other elements in protected area design, such as abiotic features (e.g., physiographically significant areas) and irreplaceable elements, such as unique landforms, and biodiversity hotspots. Such an approach follows the work of Pressey and is used extensively in Australia. Under the influence of such significant threats such as climate change, which may significantly affect the North, it is believed that designing buffer zones, maintaining connectivity across the landscape, and

perhaps building in redundancy into the protected areas network are all important design criteria. One third of participants were Aboriginal or Métis and several expressed the opinion that traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) should precede the application of western science in protected area design. Traditional knowledge such as species abundance, behaviour and movement, and long-term ecological changes can provide valuable information. A major task of western science should be to validate, support or extend TEK, rather than follow a separate path. The NWT Protected Areas Strategy is intended to be both a community-driven, bottom-up approach in addition to being representative of northern ecosystems. Since Aboriginal groups dominate most northern communities, it seems logical to seriously consider TEK in protected area design. Representation, on the other hand is primarily a product of western science. Many Aboriginals do not understand western science, as it is foreign to their way of viewing the landscape. It was recognized that TEK and western science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It will be important to be flexible in protected area design, to integrate and balance the values brought by TEK and western science. Both approaches are logical and valid within the cultural framework from which they have

emerged. This balance will help to achieve the political “durability” required for protected areas to persist into the future. Although advocating the use of TEK, it was recognized that older community members are dying and TEK is in danger of dying with them. While documenting the existing knowledge is important, teaching younger

generations about the land and co-existing with wildlife are important for building TEK knowledge in the future. Because many youth leave the communities, the future of TEK is in jeopardy. Younger people also need to be educated in western science and assess how best to integrate that knowledge with TEK.

Break-out Session Summaries: Design Considerations for Northern

Ecological Areas – Group C1

John Vandall, moderator

Policy and Legislation Branch, Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, 3211 Albert Street, Regina, SK S4S 5W6 Canada

1 About 15 people representing federal, provincial and territorial governments, NGO’s, First Nations, academia and the oil and gas industry attended this breakout session. The session focused on two questions about information needs and recommendations. Question 1. What ecological information/criteria should be brought to the table when designing large northern protected areas? Ecological Information Generally, there is a lack of information on watersheds and aquatic classification. It’s desirable to have a national watershed/aquatic classification system that is nested at various scales such as is the case for the terrestrial classification system. The information should be at a 1:250,000 scale rather than 1:1M. Watersheds are identified as recognizable units by northerners, who realize the need for protecting headwaters, and thus a watershed classification would be beneficial. It was mentioned that the headwaters of Heritage Rivers should be protected. Settlement areas often overlap watersheds and they provide a framework to work across land-use planning boundaries. They can also provide natural corridors or connections between areas of interest. Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) is one agency working to fill the information gap associated with wetlands. From a regional or big picture perspective there should be information on what areas are sensitive or critical areas for biodiversity

and which ones should be protected. This information would assist in identifying potential protected areas. Industry would welcome this information since it would identify areas of ecological interest where it might not be able to develop. The sooner this information is available the more certainty and clarity it brings to the table. Just as there should be information on core-protected areas there should also be information on the ecological values of non-core areas. Similarly, information is required on what conditions (guidelines/best management practices) should be included on a license or permit that authorizes use or development, say within special management areas. For example, are there conditions that should be tied to the movement of the caribou herd? Candidate protected areas should be assessed as to how representative they are of the broader landscape. Land-use and protected area planning should also be aware of trans-boundary issues; for example what is happening upstream and downstream

along major rivers. It was recognized that land-use planning and protected areas planning need to set long term goals, identify research and information needs and conduct follow-up monitoring. Communities should be involved with monitoring and assessment to determine whether their expectations are being met. Cumulative effects should also be assessed. This monitoring information would assist with plan review that should be conducted, say every five years, as part of the adaptive management planning process. Whenever environmental research is conducted the results should be made available to communities and others who are involved in the land-use planning process. Research needs and research proposals should be discussed with the communities (e.g., DUC involves its partners in setting up research projects). There should also be a commitment to multi-year research and funding. Capacity/Access to Information The strength of land-use planning and the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy (NWT-PAS) is the high level of community involvement. For communities and individuals to be effectively involved in land-use planning they have to have access to ecological information. The community may not have the awareness, capacity or training to access or utilize existing data. Given the number of planning and implementation initiatives underway and various levels of governance, time and support for individuals to participate in planning initiatives is also a growing problem. To adequately participate in planning processes these capacity issues need to be addressed. Education, training and support should be provided to communities and individuals on an on-going basis as part of the land-use planning processes.

Ecological Integrity There are several unresolved issues related to ecological integrity and protected areas. What areas currently have integrity and are representative of the broader landscape and should therefore be considered as a protected area? How do you assess the ecological integrity of a candidate area, or a system of proposed protected areas? How can you maintain ecological integrity and how do you conduct monitoring? Do existing protected areas meet ecological integrity objectives and community expectations? We also need a methodology to assess the implications of proposed land use plans on ecological integrity. Land-Use Planning and Protected Areas Planning for ecological integrity requires a large area that encompasses all stages of succession and one that can be managed as a dynamic ecosystem that is allowed to change over time. It was noted that we should be creative in our concept of protected areas and that they be placed in the context of the broader landscape and other community and economic values. Land-use planning provides an opportunity to do this. Using zoning, land-use plans can designate areas of development and non-development and provide interim protection. For resource development like oil and gas, one can limit the ecological impact by not only zoning but also by controlling the rate of development. For example, developed areas might have to be reclaimed before new areas can be developed. Protected areas are but one tool on a continuum that can contribute to landscape protection. The suite of protected areas should be broadened so long as they have strong legislative foundation. Do protected areas always have to control both surface and subsurface resources?

Planning for protected areas in the context of land-use planning has its advantages. Rather than focus on individual protected areas, land-use planning provides an opportunity to address all resource values. All sides get something through the land use planning process – protection and economic

development. Land-use planning should have effective and creative zoning, long term institutional arrangements to resolve land use conflicts, and stable funding. For example the Muskwa-Kechika area in British Columbia (BC) has its own legislation and funding arrangement.

Question 2. Have you any specific recommendations for workshop organizers or the CCEA?

• For the North, we need to take the opportunity to plan for protected areas in advance of development.

• We need to think big! For example, look at how to protect and manage the whole of the Mackenzie Mountains that traverses the BC, Yukon and Northwest Territories boundary. It should be considered a single planning entity and address resource development and tourism, as well as protected areas. We also need to consider connectivity of this area with other areas such as Great Bear Lake and right up to the Arctic coast.

• For communities to be involved in the planning process they need support and funding to build their capacity to effectively participate, better access to information, and the ability to manage areas and conduct monitoring.

• Capacity is an issue at the community, agency and government levels.

• For the Northwest Territories (NWT) there needs to be a stronger link between land-use planning and the NWT-PAS. This would provide an opportunity to share information and learn from one another. The PAS could provide an opportunity

to assist with information sharing and the capacity-related issues. Perhaps protected areas meetings should involve representatives from Department of Education to assist with capacity needs.

• Greater effort should go into education and training of land and resource managers just as there is technical training to support major new economic development.

• Land-use planning efforts need to build on what is currently available but also identify information gaps that should be filled by future research or when funding is available.

• In many respects the NWT’s efforts in land-use planning and the NWT-PAS, because of community involvement, may be ahead of other jurisdictions. This is a key strength to build upon.

• Planning needs to not only think big, but also long term. We need to recognize other values – economic and cultural. In planning for ecosystem protection we need to think of all the tools available to get the job done, not just protected areas but also interim measures and the creative use of zoning.

Workshop Conclusions

Yolanda F. Wiersma

Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Canada

The 2003 Canadian Council on Ecological Areas Workshop “Designing Protected Areas: Wild Places for Wild Life” touched on a range of issues. These can be grouped under three areas: 1) Challenges to Protected Areas Planning, 2) Research Needs, and 3) Strategies for Success. Within each of these areas, the discussions throughout the course of the workshop shifted between scientific ecological dimensions and human dimensions of protected areas planning. Some of the findings from the conference apply specifically to protected areas planning in the Northwest Territories (NWT.) More generally, many of the challenges, research needs, and conclusions can be applied to protected areas across Canada, particularly in northern zones of the country, and further to conservation planning in the circumpolar world. Challenges to Protected Areas Planning Scientific Ecological Dimensions

Anne Gunn (this volume) articulated the unique challenges to design northern protected areas to conserve wide-ranging and migratory species, such as birds, whales, and caribou. She suggested the use of management strategies such as co-management, and setting thresholds for cumulative effects from human activities (e.g., Weaver et al. 1986). Moreover, she pointed out that protected areas planning still focuses on large, charismatic species, when smaller, less visible organisms often mediate ecological function. Dean Cluff

(this volume) suggested the use of focal species as surrogates for other biodiversity elements. While the literature suggests that there is much confusion over how these should be identified and applied (Simberloff 1998; Lindenmayer et al. 2002), rigorous studies, such as those proposed by Cluff, may provide the model validation for the use of focal species that has been called for in the literature. Both Gunn (this volume) and Cluff & Paquet (this volume) emphasized that even for well-studied species, specific knowledge about denning sites, migration routes, and wintering areas is often limited. In designing protected areas for the North, there may be opportunities to learn from the mistakes made in southern Canada, where protected areas were established on an ad hoc basis, in areas of economically non-productive land. Lessons learned from protected areas planning in southern Canada, the United States, and Australia were presented in the plenary session (Lipsett-Moore, Miller et al.). We now know that protected areas must take into consideration attributes of minimum size, placement, and connectivity. Wiersma (this volume) emphasized the importance of considering minimum size of a protected area (e.g., Gurd et al. 2001) before addressing how many of these are required to meet representation requirements, which is the second goal of the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy (NWT-PAS) (Purchase, this volume). However, we do not know how well ecological strategies from southern Canada can be extrapolated to the North (Gurd, this volume).

Good science is necessary to ensure that protected areas can serve as suitable ecological benchmarks in the face of resource activities (Arcese and Sinclair 1997). There is a range of computerized tools, such as SITES (Miller et al.., this volume; Andelman 1999), C-Plan (Lipsett-Moore, this volume) and PORTFOLIO (Wiersma, this volume; Urban 2001) that can be used to increase the efficiency of reserve site selection. However, the output from these computerized models are rarely validated with independent data sets; which is an important step that should be taken. While protected areas will serve as important benchmarks, participants in the workshop were reminded in the plenary session of the importance of managing outside of protected areas boundaries as well, since species and ecological process do not recognize political boundaries. There is a wealth of literature on ecosystem-based management (e.g., Boyce & Haney 1997), which can help to guide wildlife and resource managers and which should be incorporated into the management plans of protected areas once they are in place. Additionally, there are logistical challenges imposed by limited biological data in the NWT, or data of poor or unknown quality. Moore & Latour (this volume) shared methods to conduct rapid on-the-ground assessment to collect more data, but these may be expensive. The majority of presenters used a GIS-based analysis, yet few incorporated error analysis into their models (Aronoff 1995). There are also challenges related to issues of scale (Turner et al. 2001). The outcome of goals such as representation is scale-dependent. Local communities tend to think on local or regional scales, while territorial and university scientists may think on territorial, national, or even international scales. Human Dimensions In addition to the challenges posed by the scientific uncertainties and ecological

circumstances of the North, there are some challenges in the human dimension of protected areas planning. The northern landscape is vast, and relatively pristine (Wiken, this volume). However, given the increased pace of development, it is in need of protection. There was much discussion during the workshop about the specific degree of urgency to establish protected areas in the territory. The Mackenzie Valley pipeline is currently scheduled for completion by 2008, and agencies such as World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Canada have stated that they would like to see protected areas in place in the Mackenzie Valley in advance of development (Carpenter, this volume). However, participants in the plenary discussion pointed out that the realities of planning and construction in the North mean that there will inevitably be delays in pipeline construction. Further, since past experiences in the NWT have shown that protected areas planning will not work without community involvement, protected areas planning will only proceed as long as communities are willing. It was pointed out in the plenary discussion that some processes in the North, such as land claims, have taken years, if not decades, to be realized. Successes in the NWT with the interim withdrawal of lands for Sahyoue-Edacho and Edehzhie are worth celebrating, as they came through the NWT-PAS from the communities, with assistance from WWF, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), and Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) (Carpenter, Yeoman, Richard et al., this volume). Both Miller et al. (this volume) and Wiersma (this volume) emphasized the importance of setting protected areas goals within ecologically defined regions. In the plenary discussion, it was pointed out that rectifying ecological boundaries to the various First Nations boundaries within the territory pose a challenge. As well, given the importance of collaboration with local communities under the NWT-PAS, there are challenges in bringing traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and western scientific

knowledge together (Turner, this volume). The plenary discussion raised the issue that there is often a communication divide between scientists and communities. However, Lipsett-Moore (this volume), Madill (this volume), and Bocco & Negrete (this volume) brought examples from northern Ontario, northern British Columbia, and Mexico of case studies where local communities, First Nations, industry, government and NGOs had successfully collaborated to establish protected areas and/or regional management frameworks. The presentations by the two First Nations land use planners (Wiebe & Cizek, McKenzie, this volume) illustrated that the land use planning process can provide alternative forms of conservation, such as zoning strategies. In some cases, communities may not understand the purpose of, or may not want protected areas, and in some cases, protected areas such as national parks may attract unwanted levels of visitors. Research Needs Scientific Ecological Dimensions Several key research needs were identified in the workshop. One was the need to test whether conservation of focal species (such as caribou and/or wolves) will conserve the tundra/taiga as functional ecosystems. The literature includes a few papers in which focal species models have been tested (e.g., Kremen 1992; Fleishman et al.. 2000, 2001); the results from these suggest that a focal species approach should be used with caution. A further key uncertainty was the degree to which principles learned in southern Canada and elsewhere can apply to northern protected areas planning. In the face of uncertainty, an adaptive management approach should be the strategy (Gurd this volume; Vandall, this volume; Nudds 1999). Under an adaptive management approach, strategies and policies can be modified as new data is gathered, and new insights are

gained. Therefore, further research into minimum area requirements (e.g., Gurd et al. 2001), population demographics (e.g., Wielgus 2002), representation requirements (e.g., Pressey et al. 1993), responses of ecosystems to human disturbance (e.g., Rivard et al.. 2000), and focal species (e.g., Lambeck 1997) should be the research focus in the NWT in the near future. Human Dimensions The workshop group suggested that there was a need for more information on management and legislation options for establishing and managing protected areas. While this is not a scientific question, it is important to consider legislation, policy and management options that can be implemented once sites for protected areas have been identified. Strategies for Success Scientific Ecological Dimensions While the workshop presentations and discussions identified many challenges and research needs, there were also examples of successful conservation initiatives, from which strategies for success in the NWT can be identified. A key strategy suggested by the work in the southern Rockies (Miller et al.., this volume) is the blending of existing biological data, ecological modeling, and expert opinion into the planning process. Similarly, Lipsett-Moore (this volume) felt that successes in the boreal forest were due to a mix of TEK and scientific knowledge. In Mexico, Bocco & Negrete (this volume) attributed success to the inclusion of conservation as part of natural resources management, without excluding the possibility of resource use. Gunn (this volume) suggested the use of alternatives to rigidly bounded protected areas, such as mobile protection measures for wide-ranging species, or co-management planning.

The plenary discussion addressed the issue of uncertainty in the face of limited data. The consensus from the panelists was that planners should adopt a precautionary approach and that redundancy should be built into protected areas design. Two of the breakout groups (Gurd, Vandall, this volume) emphasized the use of an adaptive management approach for decision-making, which should incorporate monitoring in all protected areas. Continued monitoring can help inform decisions at various planning stages as more data is gathered. Human Dimensions Many of the strategies for success focus on the human dimension of protected areas planning. Miller et al., Lipsett-Moore, Madill, Bocco & Negrete, and Carpenter (this volume) showed that citizen and community involvement is one of the keys to successful regional protected areas planning. Local communities should be involved in protected areas planning from the beginning, and should have control over local land use planning, while considering the needs of Canadians. This type of community-driven land use planning was illustrated by Wiebe & Cizek and by McKenzie (this volume), and showed that the process is continually evolving as new information is gathered. Scientific research can and should contribute to the land use and protected areas planning processes. A key strategy identified by Lipsett-Moore (this volume) was the need to build capacity

within local communities. This should focus on education, particularly for young people. Other suggestions that came out the plenary discussion were the need to solicit expert opinion of elders, government biologists, long-term residents of the territory, and scientists (Miller et al., this volume; Carpenter, this volume). As well, it was stressed that communication with communities is important. Scientists should strive to bring their message the communities without the use of jargon-laden language. Finally, there were suggestions to consider alternatives to protected areas, such as through First Nations land-use planning (Wiebe & Cizek, this volume; McKenzie, this volume). In summary, the work presented at gatherings such as the workshop “Designing Protected Areas: Wild Places for Wild Life” can help to realize the vision for a protected areas network that conserves the ecological features of Canada’s, and indeed the circumpolar North. It is hoped that this workshop will lead to further research and collaboration between scientists in academia, government, and non-government agencies. The sharing of understanding between communities, ENGOs and government will only help to increase the credibility of proposed protected areas. Future focused CCEA meetings will hopefully celebrate more successes in protected areas planning in Canada’s northern regions.

References Andelman, S. J., Ball, I., Davis, F., and Stoms, D. 1999. SITES V 1.0: An Analytical Toolbox for Designing

Ecosystem Conservation Portfolios. Report for The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, Virginia USA.

Arcese, P. and A.R.E. Sinclair. 1997. The role of protected areas as ecological baselines. Journal of

Wildlife Management 61: 587-602. Aronoff, S. 1995. Geographic Information Systems: A Management Perspective. WDL Publications.

Ottawa, ON. 294 pp.

Boyce, M.S. and A.W. Haney (eds.). 1997. Ecosystem Management: Applications for Sustainable Forests and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press. New Haven, CT. 361 pp.

Fleishman, E., D.D. Murphy, and P.F. Brussard. 2000. A new method for selection of umbrella species for

conservation planning. Ecological Applications 10: 569-579. Fleishman, E., R.B. Blair, and D.D. Murphy. 2001. Empirical validation of a method for umbrella species

selection. Ecological Applications 11: 1489-1501. Gurd, D.B., T.D. Nudds, and D.H. Rivard. 2001. Conservation of mammals in eastern North American

wildlife reserves: how small is too small? Conservation Biology 15: 1355-1363. Kremen, C. 1992. Assessing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural areas monitoring.

Ecological Applications 2: 203-217. Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology

11: 849-856. Lindenmayer, D.B., A.D. Manning, P.L. Smith, H.P. Possingham, J. Fischer, I. Oliver, and M.A.

McCarthy. 2002. The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: a critique. Conservation Biology 16: 338-345.

Nudds, T.D. 1999. Adaptive management and the conservation of biodiversity. Pp. 179-193 in R.K.

Baydack, H. Campa III and J.B. Haufler (eds.). Practical approaches to the conservation of biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Pressey, R. L., C. J. Humphries, C. R. Margules, R. I. Van-Wright, and P. H. Williams. 1993. Beyond

opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 124-128.

Rivard, D.H., J. Poitevan, D. Plasse, M. Carleton and D.J. Currie. 2000. Changing species richness and

composition in Canadian national parks. Conservation Biology 14: 1099-1109. Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the

landscape era? Biological Conservation 83: 247-257. Turner, M.G., R.H. Gardner, R.V. O’Neill. 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and

Process. Springer. New York, NY. 401 pp. Urban, D.L. 2001. Nature reserve portfolio design. Pp. 293-305 in S. Gergel and M. Turner (eds.).

Learning Landscape Ecology: a Practical Guide to Concepts and Techniques. Springer. New York, NY.

Weaver, J. R. Escano, D. Mattson, T. Puchlerz, D. Despain, G.P. Contreras, and K.E. Evans. 1986. A

cumulative effects model for grizzly bear management in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Proceedings – Grizzly bear habitat symposium. Missolula, MT, April 30-May 2, 1985.

Wielgus, R.B. 2002. Minimum viable population and reserve sizes for naturally regulated grizzly bears in

British Columbia. Biological Conservation 106: 381-388.

Appendix A: Workshop List of Participants Akhiatak, Jack Wildlife Management Advisory Council Box 2120, Inuvik NT, X0E 0T0 Ph. (867) 777-2828 Fax: (867) 777-2610 wmacnwt@jointsec.nt.ca Beaulieu, Philip Fort Resolution Environmental Box 1899 c/o Deninu Ku'e First Nation, Fort Resolution NT, X0E 0M0 Ph. (867) 394-4335 Fax: (867) 394-5122 frewc@fortresolution.net Beek, Fred Saskatchewan Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch Room 436, 3211 Albert St., Regina SK, S4S 5W6 Ph. (306) 787-3019 Fax: (306) 787-9544 fbeek@serm.gov.sk.ca Binder, Richard Inuvialuit Game Council Box 2120, Inuvik NT, X0E 0T0 Ph. (867) 777-2828 Fax: (867) 777-2610 igc-js@jointsec.nt.ca Blasutti, Angele World Wildlife Fund Canada 245 Eglinton Ave East, Suite 410, Toronto ON, M4P 3J1 Ph. (416) 489-8800 Fax: (416) 489-3611 ablasutti@wwfcanada.org Bocco, Gerardo National Institute of Ecology, Ministry of the Environment Periferico 5000. 2do. Piso 04530 Colonia Insurgentes-Cuicuilco, Mexico DF Ph. :(52) 5554 24 53 98 gbocco@ine.gob.mx Booth, Celeste World Wildlife Fund Canada 245 Eglinton Ave East, Suite 410, Toronto ON, M4P 3J1 Ph. (416) 489-8800 Fax: (416) 489-3611 cbooth@wwfcanada.org

Brook, Lillith NWT Protected Areas Strategy Secretariat Box 1500, Yellowknife NT, X1A 2R3 Ph. (867) 669-2593 Fax: (867) 669-2701 brookl@inac.gc.ca Canadien, Priscilla Deh Cho Land Use Planning Committee General Delivery, Fort Providence NT, X0E 0L0 Ph. (867) 699-3162 Fax: (867) 699-3166 priscillac@dehcholands.org Carpenter, Bill World Wildlife Fund Canada Box 1978, Yellowknife NT, X1A 2P5 Ph. (403) 997-6335 Fax: (604) 608-3128 wwfnwt@marinenet.net Cluff, Dean Wildlife and Fisheries, RWED 600, 5102-50th Ave., Yellowknife NT, X1A 3S8 Ph. (867) 873-7783 Fax: (867) 873-6230 Dean_Cluff@gov.nt.ca Elie, Marie-Anick Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board Box 2240, Inuvik NT, X0E 0T0 Ph. (867) 777-3429 Fax: (867) 777-4260 marie-anick.elie@grrb.nt.ca Forkheim, Terry Anadarko Canada 425, 1st St SW, Box 2595 STN M, Calgary AB, T2P 4V4 Ph. (403) 231-0222 Fax: (403) 231-0356 Terry_Forkheim@anadarko.com Gaccione, Deni Parks, Tourism & Economic Development, Government of the NWT Box 130, Norman Wells NT, X0E 0V0 Ph. (867) 587-3514 Fax: (867) 587-2204 deni_gaccione@gov.nt.ca Gah, Evelyn Protected Areas Strategy, RWED 600, 5102-50th Ave., Yellowknife NT, X1A 3S8 Ph. (867) 873-7516 Fax: (867) 873-0221 evelyn_gah@gov.nt.ca

Gruben, Chucky Inuvialuit Game Council Box 2120, Inuvik NT, X0E 0T0 Ph. (867) 777-2828 Fax: (867) 777-2610 igc-js@jointsec.nt.ca Grundhauser, Tony The Nature Conservatory 1101 West River Road, Suite 200, Minneapolis MN 55415 USA Ph. (612) 331-0748 Fax: (612) 331-0770 tgrundhauser@tnc.org Gunn, Anne Wildlife and Fisheries, RWED 600, 5102-50th Ave., Yellowknife NT, X1A 3S8 Ph. (867) 873-7763 Fax: (867) 873-0293 anne_gunn@gov.nt.ca Gurd, Brent Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, V5A 1S6 Ph. (604) 291-5618 Fax: (604) 291-3496 dgurd@sfu.ca Hamre, Gordon Parks Canada Box 1166, Yellowknife NT, X1A 2N8 Ph. (867) 669-2821 Fax: (867) 669-2829 gordon.hamre@pc.gc.ca Hayhurst, Katie Yukon Government, Parks Branch, Department of the Environment V-4, Box 2703, Whitehorse YK, Y1A 2C6 Ph. (867) 667-5078 Fax: (867) 393-6223 katie.hayhurst@gov.yk.ca Helie, Robert Canadian Wildlife Service 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 3rd floor, Gatineau QC, K1A 0H3 Ph. (819) 953-7935 Fax: (819) 994-4445 robert.helie@ec.gc.ca Heron, Chris Northwest Territory Métis Nation Box 720, Fort Smith NT, X0E 0P0 Ph. (867) 872-2770 Fax: (867) 872-2772 rcc.nwtmn@gardtal.com

Hillis, Tracy Wildlife and Fisheries, RWED 600, 5102-50th Ave., Yellowknife NT, X1A 3S8 Ph. (867) 873-7482 Fax: (867) 873-0293 tracy_hillis@gov.nt.ca Iacobelli, Tony World Wildlife Fund Canada 245 Eglinton Ave. East, Suite 410, Toronto ON, M4P 3J1 Ph. (416) 489-8800 Fax: (416) 489-3611 tiacobelli@wwfcanada.org Inuktalik, Donald Wildlife Management Advisory Council Box 2120, Inuvik NT, X0E 0T0 Ph. (867) 777-2828 Fax: (867) 777-2610 wmacnwt@jointsec.nt.ca Johnson, Shelly NWT Protected Areas Strategy Secretariat Box 1500, Yellowknife NT, X1A 2R3 Ph. (867) 669-2685 Fax: (867) 669-2701 johnsons@inac-ainc.gc.ca Latour, Paul Canadian Wildlife Service 5204-50 Ave., Yellowknife NT, X1A 1E2 Ph. (867) 669-4769 Fax: (867) 873-8185 paul.latour@ec.gc.ca LeGresley Hamre, Karen Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board Box 1724, Yellowknife NT, X1A 2P3 Ph. (867) 873-5412 Fax: (867) 873-9894 avens@ssimicro.com Lepine, Jason Northwest Territory Metis Nation Box 720, Fort Smith NT, X0E 0P0 Ph. (867) 872-2770 Fax: (867) 872-2772 ima.nwtmn@gardtal.com LePrieur, Gerry Parks & Tourism, RWED 600, 5102-50th Ave., Yellowknife NT, X1A 3S8 Ph. (867) 873-7902 Fax: (867) 873-0163 Gerry_Leprieur@gov.nt.ca Lipsett-Moore, Geoff Box 1286, Station Main, Kamloops BC, V2C 6H3 lipsettmoore@hotmail.com

McKenzie, Susan Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board Box 2478, Inuvik NT, X0E 0T0 Ph. (867) 777-7936 Fax: (867) 777-7970 planner@gwichinplanning.nt.ca McLeod, Ian Gwich'in Land Use Planning Board Box 2478, Inuvik NT, X0E 0T0 Ph. (867) 777-7936 Fax: (867) 777-7970 planner@gwichinplanning.nt.ca Madill, Howard Sustainable Resource Management, Government of British Columbia 400, 10003-110th Ave., Fort St. John BC, V1J 6M7 Ph. (250) 787-3534 Fax: (250) 787-3490 Howard.Midill@gems6.gov.bc.ca Mead, Douglas Shell Canada Box 100, Station M, Calgary AB, T2P 2H5 Ph. (403) 691-2068 Fax: (403) 691-4850 douglas.mead@shell.ca Meikle, John Fish & Wildlife Branch, Department of Environment, Government of Yukon Box 2703, Whitehorse YK, Y1A 2C6 Ph. (867) 667-3538 Fax: (867) 393-6405 john.meikle@gov.yk.ca Miller, Brian Denver Zoological Foundation 2900 East 23rd Avenue, Denver CO 80205 USA Ph. (303) 376-4944 Fax: (303) 376-4806 bjmiller@du.edu Moore, Steve EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. 201, 4916-49th St., Yellowknife NT, X1A 2P7 Ph. (867) 920-2287 Fax: (867) 873-3324 smoore@eba.ca Nasogaluak, Darren Inuvialuit Game Council Box 2120, Inuvik NT, X0E 0T0 Ph. (867) 777-2828 Fax: (867) 777-2610 igc-js@jointsec.nt.ca

Oosenbrug, Bas Wildlife and Fisheries, RWED 600, 5102-50th Ave., Yellowknife, NT X1A 3S8 Ph. (867) 873-7760 Fax: (867) 873-0293 bas_oosenbrug@gov.nt.ca Paci, Chris Dene Nation Box 2338, Yellowknife NT, X1A 2P7 Ph. (867) 873-4081 Fax: (867) 920-2254 cpaci@denenation.com Pittman, Gary Parks Canada Station B, Box 768, Happy Valley- Goosebay NL, A0P 1E0 Ph. (709) 896-5525 Fax: (709) 896-5768 gary.pittman@pc.gc.ca Promislow, Miki Environment & Conservation, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Box 1500, Yellowknife NT, X1A 2R3 Ph. (867) 669-2616 Fax: (867) 669-2701 promislowm@inac.gc.ca Purchase, David Parks & Tourism, RWED 600, 5102-50th Ave., Yellowknife NT, X1A 3S8 Ph. (867) 920-8975 Fax: (867) 873-0163 David_Purchase@gov.nt.ca Rabesca, James Dogrib Treaty 11 Council, Tlicho Lands Protection Department Box 412, Rae NT, X0E 0Y0 Ph. (867) 392-6381 Fax: (867) 392-6389 jhuskey@tlicho.com Richard, Al Ducks Unlimited Canada #100, 18236-105 Ave., Edmonton AB, T5S 2R5 Ph. (780) 489-8110 Fax: (780) 443-6236 a_richard@ducks.ca Sanguez, Stanley Deh Cho First Nations Box 89, Fort Simpson NT, X0E 0N0 Ph. (867) 695-2610 Fax: (867) 695-2038 dehchofn@cancom.net

Sawchuk, Wayne Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board Box 2049, Chetwynd BC, V0C 1J0 Ph. (250) 788-2685 Fax: (250) 788-2685 wsawchuk@pris.ca Schmiegelow, Fiona Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, 751 General Services Building, Edmonton AB, T6G 2H1 Ph. (780) 492-0552 Fax: (780) 492-4323 fiona.schmiegelow@ualberta.ca Shopik, Tim Imperial Oil Resources Rm. 33045, 237-4th Ave .SW, Calgary AB, T2P 0M6 Ph. (403) 237-3583 Fax: (403) 237-2102 tim.d.shopik@exxonmobil.com Snowshoe, Norman Gwich'in Tribal Council Box 1509, Inuvik NT, X0E 0T0 Ph. (867) 777-7912 Fax: (867) 777-7902 snowshoe@gwichin.nt.ca Taniton, Raymond Box 77, Deline NT, X0E 0G0 Ph. (867) 589-4922 Fax: (867) 589-4042 rtaniton@nt.sympatico.ca Turner, Tony A.M. Turner & Associates 87 Java Street, Ottawa ON, K1Y 3L5 Ph. (613) 798-0477 Fax: (613) 798-0477 tturner@cyberus.ca Tutcho, Raymond Deline Dene Band Council Box 158, Deline NT, X0E 0G0 Ph. (867) 589-3151 Fax: (867) 589-4208 stacey_modeste@gov.deline.ca Unka, Tom c/o Deninu Ku'e First Nation, Box 1899, Fort Resolution NT, X0E 0M0 Ph. (867) 394-4335 Fax: (867) 394-5122 frewc@fortresolution.net

Vandall, John Saskatchewan Environment 3211 Albert Street, Regina SK, S4S 5W6 Ph. (306) 787-2862 Fax: (306) 787-0024 jvandall@serm.gov.sk.ca Vanderkam, Robert Canadian Wildlife Service 351 St. Joseph Blvd, 3rd floor, Gatineau QC, K1A 0H3 Ph. (819) 953-1444 Fax: (819) 994-4445 robert.vanderkam@ec.gc.ca Waldick, Ruth Canadian Wildlife Service 351 St. Joseph Blvd, 3rd floor, Gatineau QC, K1A 0H3 Ph. (819) 956-9780 Fax: (819) 994-4445 ruth.waldick@ec.gc.ca Warren, Leigh Canadian Council on Ecological Areas 4507 Torbolton Ridge Rd., RR2 Woodlawn ON, K0A 3M0 Ph. (613) 832-1995 leigh.warren@ec.gc.ca Wiebe, Heidi Deh Cho Land Use Planning Committee General Delivery, Fort Providence NT, X0E 0L0 Ph. (867) 699-3162 Fax: (867) 699-3166 hwiebe@dehcholands.org Wiersma, Yolanda Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph ON, N1G 2W1 Ph. (519) 824-4120 ext. 56307 Fax: (519) 767-1656 ywiersma@uoguelph.ca Wiken, Ed Wildlife Habitat Canada 2067 Fairbanks Ave., Ottawa ON, K1H 5Y9 Ph. (613) 421-4804 Fax: (613) 421-4804 ewiken@whc.org Yeoman, Greg Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society Box 1934, Yellowknife NT, X1A 2P4 Ph.: (867) 873-9893 Fax: (867) 873-9593 cpawsnwt@theedge.ca

Appendix B: List of Acronyms found in this Proceedings CCAD: Canadian Conservation Areas Database CCEA: Canadian Council on Ecological Areas CPAN: Circumpolar Protected Areas Network CPAWS: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society CWS: Canadian Wildlife Service DCFN: Deh Cho First Nations DIAND: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development DUC: Ducks Unlimited Canada ENGO: Environmental Non-Government Organization GIS: Geographic Information Systems GLUP: Gwich’in Land Use Plan GNWT: Government of the Northwest Territories GSA: Gwich’in Settlement Area IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature LRMP: Land Resource Management Plan LUP: Land use plan(ning) M-KMA: Muskwa-Kechika Management Area M-KMAA: Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act MVRMA: Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act NCAD: North American Conservation Areas Database NHS: National Historic Site NGO: Non-Governmental Organization NRTEE: National Round Table on Economy and Environment NWT: Northwest Territories NWT-PAS: Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy PIP: Preliminary Information Package TEK: Traditional Environmental/Ecological Knowledge WBP: Western Boreal Program WHC: Wildlife Habitat Canada WWF: World Wildlife Fund (Canada)