Content uploaded by D. E. Russell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by D. E. Russell on Sep 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright © 2014 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Gunn, A., D. Russell, and L. Greig. 2014. Insights into integrating cumulative effects and collaborative co-management for migratory
tundra caribou herds in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Ecology and Society 19(4): 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06856-190404
Insight, part of a Special Feature on Heterogeneity and Resilience of Human-Rangifer Systems: A CircumArctic Synthesis
Insights into integrating cumulative effects and collaborative co-
management for migratory tundra caribou herds in the Northwest
Territories, Canada
Anne Gunn, Don Russell and Lorne Greig 1
ABSTRACT. Globally, many migratory mammals are facing threats. In northern Canada, large annual ranges expose migratory caribou
to an array of human activities, including industrial exploration and development. Recognition that responses to human activities can
accumulate for caribou is long-standing, but is heightened by recent declines in caribou abundance. For example, since the mid-1990s,
the Bathurst herd has declined by approximately 90%, leading to severe harvest restrictions. More mines are being proposed and
developed across the herd’s annual range, raising questions about cumulative effects. Despite progress on assessment techniques,
aboriginal groups are expressing strong concerns and frustration about gaps in responsibilities for who should monitor, mitigate, and
manage cumulative effects. The core of the concern is sustainability and the related trade-offs between industrial developments relative
to continued access to healthy caribou for harvesting. We offer insights into how these concerns can be addressed by building on existing
concepts (adaptive management) and approaches (herd management).
Key Words: adaptive management; Arctic Canada; cumulative effects; migratory caribou; mitigation; monitoring
INTRODUCTION
Caribou are an essential part of the culture for many aboriginal
people who also depend on caribou harvest. Aboriginal people
have repeatedly voiced concern about cumulative effects of
industrial exploration and development on caribou. Their
concerns are centered on displacement of caribou from seasonal
ranges and effects on caribou health. Conserving migratory
animals can be especially difficult (Berger 2004) because their
migrations between seasonal ranges can expose them to sites of
human activities, even when such sites are highly dispersed. In
northern Canada, migratory tundra caribou Rangifer tarandus
typically have large annual migrations of hundreds to thousands
of kilometers between their seasonal ranges. While caribou are
exposed over the spatial scale of their annual range, they also
respond to stresses over their lifetime, which is typically ~15 yr
for an adult female.
Cumulative effects assessment is a part of environmental impact
assessment that examines the combined impact of the individual
effects of multiple stresses from human activities additional to
natural environmental effects, including climate. Although
relatively simple in concept, cumulative effects have proven
somewhat intractable in practice, partly because attention tends
to focus on incremental effects, rather than the condition and
capacity of the environment to absorb those incremental effects
(Duinker and Greig 2006, Kennett and Woynillowicz 2007,
Canter and Ross 2008, Noble 2010, Greig and Duinker 2011).
Lack of progress over cumulative effects in the Canadian
Northwest Territories (NWT) is becoming progressively more
apparent. In 1999, aboriginal organizations, industry, and
government agencies developed the Northwest Territories
Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Strategy and
Framework, and the NWT Cumulative Impact Monitoring
Program. After more than a decade, progress on accounting for
cumulative effects in monitoring, mitigation, and management
has lagged. This lack of progress and deficiencies in the
management of cumulative effects have led to fears about the
sustainability of the Bathurst caribou herd as voiced by the Lutsel
K’e Dene First Nation and Tlicho Government during the
Gahcho Kue mine environmental assessment (Lutsel K’e Dene
First Nation 2012, Tlicho Government 2012). Organizations
noted that the only mitigation for cumulative effects was further
harvest restrictions, which highlighted the lack of independent
oversight for mitigation and monitoring of project-specific
impacts, and observed that Territorial and Federal governments
have not yet established a clear management framework that can
be applied in the NWT.
The pressing need to manage cumulative effects was also
recognized by government wildlife management agencies. The
Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) in its Caribou
Management Strategies (2006–2010 and 2011–2015) committed
to developing cumulative effects modeling tools for barren-
ground caribou (GNWT 2011). However, both strategies had only
relatively high-level policies stated and no clear path for how
decisions could be made about priorities and trade-offs among
land and resource uses on caribou herd ranges. Additionally,
neither monitoring nor mitigation for cumulative effects was
described.
Based on insights gained during our collective experience in
cumulative effects and caribou management, we identified the
need for a regulatory and institutional framework to inform
decisions about the trade-offs between the major factors that
influence the sustainability of caribou herds. Here, we propose a
framework for cumulative effects monitoring and management
for migratory tundra caribou. We have two objectives. First, we
show how cumulative effects assessment, monitoring, and
mitigation can be linked through adaptive management.
Monitoring, as applied in the framework, is used to assess
effectiveness of mitigation and management decisions to
determine how mitigation can be adjusted. To develop this
framework, we describe requirements for monitoring as well as
approaches available to mitigate cumulative effects beyond simply
restricting harvest. Mitigation is the suite of actions to modify
1ESSA Technologies Ltd.
Ecology and Society 19(4): 4
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art4/
effects of human activities. Mitigation for cumulative effects
includes development of project-specific mitigation, and actions
at the herd and landscape scale to reduce vulnerability and
increase resilience.
Our second objective is to show how adaptive management of
cumulative effects can be implemented by incorporating
cumulative effects into herd-level monitoring, assessment, and
decision-making. Setting cumulative effects into a herd
management context re-asserts that the goal of environmental
impact assessment is sustainability of caribou. While an
individual project proponent is required to assess cumulative
effects, the very nature of cumulative effects is a joint (shared)
responsibility with previous and future development proponents
and resource co-management agencies. Thus, it makes sense to
provide a framework for shared responsibilities that clearly
identifies regulatory responsibilities and authorities. We have used
linkage diagrams to emphasize the relationships between the
components. While we use the Bathurst herd as an example,
integrating cumulative effects monitoring and mitigation into
herd management planning is transferable to other migratory
tundra caribou herds.
Adaptive management is a relatively broad and evolving approach
to complex ecological and socioeconomic systems (Walters and
Holling 1990, Lee 1999, Monroe et al. 2013; C. Murray and D.
R. Marmorek, unpublished manuscript: http://www.adaptivemanagement.
net/sites/default/files/Adaptive%20management%20A%20spoonful%
20of%20rigour%20helps%20the%20uncertainty%20go%20down.
pdf). While we do not explore how decisions could be made
through adaptive co-management, we acknowledge it is complex
(Monroe et al. 2013). It requires collaborative input as
communities, governments, and industries undertake the
implementation of a cumulative effects framework with
consultation to ensure that operational details are consistent with
“respecting” caribou in the context of the knowledge and values
of aboriginal people. Nor do we explore landscape management
using limits and offsets for development, despite our recognition
that these approaches cannot be postponed much longer.
The statements made during environmental assessments for the
most recent mine assessments on the NWT range of the Bathurst
herd highlight the concerns and fears of caribou harvesters. The
extent of the Bathurst caribou herd decline between 1996 and
2009 and the continued decline of breeding females during 2009–
2012 (Boulanger et al. 2014) reveals that the Bathurst herd is
highly vulnerable to further decline despite the severe harvest
restrictions already imposed.
BACKGROUND
Abundance and distribution of the Bathurst caribou herd relative
to developments
The Bathurst herd (Fig. 1) has declined from 360,000 in 1996 to
31,600 in 2009 (Boulanger et al. 2011). The decline followed a
peak of high numbers, a typical part of the abundance cycle of
migratory tundra caribou (Gunn 2003). A complex of interacting
factors drive the cycles, including changes to forage, accumulated
effects of forest fires on the winter ranges, harvesting, predation,
and parasitism. During the decline, productivity and adult cow
survival decreased (Boulanger et al. 2011), which likely increased
the herd’s vulnerability to additional environmental stresses.
Fig. 1. Annual range of the Bathurst caribou herd, showing the
locations of current and proposed mines and access roads.
The decline coincided with an increase in mining exploration and
development. Although mining exploration had been occurring
for decades, the discovery of diamonds in 1991 triggered a surge
in exploration, with an increase in camps, aircraft, and helicopters
on the tundra ranges of the Bathurst herd, which are the pre-
calving to autumn ranges. At the peak of exploration in 1993,
118,124 km² of new claims had been staked in the NWT (G.
Bouchard, Natural Resources Canada, personal communication).
The diamond exploration led to the development of three mines
and a fourth mine undergoing review on the NWT range of the
herd (Fig. 1), with a diamond mine in Nunavut.
The Bathurst herd’s pre-calving migration is led by the cows
moving north to their traditional calving grounds on the tundra.
During post-calving and summer, the caribou tend to move
clockwise from the calving grounds, southwest toward the tree-
line by late summer and autumn. During this movement, they
encounter industrial development and exploration sites.
Aboriginal elders have stated concerns about caribou avoiding
mines (Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation 2012). This zone of influence
within which caribou, especially cows with calves, avoid
infrastructure and human activity is up to ~15 km for an active
mine (Boulanger et al. 2012).
During a cumulative effect assessment for the Gahcho Kue
diamond mine in the NWT (De Beers 2012), a catalog of previous
and existing developments was compiled, which included 551
developments (exploration camps, mines, communities, quarries)
with a total area of 76,157 ha plus 2491 km of transmission lines
and roads. Most of the known start and end dates for actual work
were available only from 1996 through 2010 and thus, the
compilation did not include the peak of the diamond exploration
in 1993. De Beers (2012) reported that the direct footprint of those
developments, including the Gahcho Kue proposed mine,
compared to pre-development conditions, would cumulatively
reduce caribou habitat up to 7.3% on the autumn range. While
there are limitations in relating the scale of these projected
changes in habitat availability to changes in abundance of
Ecology and Society 19(4): 4
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art4/
caribou, it is worth noting that a relatively simple population
model based on productivity and survival (De Beers 2012:7–139)
projected that “cumulative effects from development resulted in
a 12.2% reduction in projected final herd abundance relative to
reference conditions” over 30 years.
De Beers (2012) estimated the exposure of caribou cows to the
disturbance sites on the summer and autumn ranges. The
movements of caribou cows fitted with satellite collars from the
Bathurst herd were mapped to determine when they encountered
development sites on the summer to autumn ranges (De Beers
2012). Annually, the mean number of collared cows available was
14 ± 0.9 (SE) cows. From 1996 to 2009, the cows annually spent
an average of 10 ± 14.3 (SD) days or 7% of their time (summer
to autumn) within the development’s estimated 15-km zone of
influence. The amount of time within the zone of influence
increased from 1.9% in 1996 to a peak of 12.9% in 2004, and then
decreased to 10.1% in 2009 as the number of active land-use
permits declined, suggesting that monitoring land-use permits
could be used to trigger changes in mitigation.
As abundance increases or decreases, caribou distribution also
changes. During the 2000–2010 decline, the southern boundaries
of the Bathurst herd’s winter range contracted > 200 km
northward (Gunn et al. 2011). However, there did not appear to
be contraction in the use of calving and summer ranges between
1996 and 2005 (Gunn et al. 2011). The fidelity to calving and
summer ranges suggests that a development site situated in or
near either of these seasonal ranges would likely have predictable
caribou encounter rates regardless of population size.
Herd management
Management planning for the Bathurst herd has occurred at
intervals since 1988, with plans proposed in 1994 and 2004,
although they were not implemented. In 2005, the Tlicho Land
Claim Act established the Wek’èezhìi Renewable Resources Board
(WRRB), whose authority included the Bathurst caribou herd.
The rapid decline of the herd led to a Ministerial decision to stop
hunting and a WRRB public hearing from which the Tlicho
Government and GNWT developed a revised joint management
proposal. In October 2010, the WRRB recommended harvest
restrictions, which reduced aboriginal harvest from several
thousand to 300 caribou. WRRB also recommended that the
Tlicho Government and the NWT Department of Environment
and Natural Resources work on an adaptive co-management
framework for a Bathurst caribou management plan, which in
2014, is still underway (http://www.wrrb.ca/node/560).
A RESPONSE FRAMEWORK FOR ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
We use a framework to link an adaptive management cycle
(Racher et al. 2011) with the different scales of monitoring and
the role of the cumulative effects assessment in monitoring design
(Fig. 2). We recognize that adaptive management is “a systematic
and rigorous approach for learning through deliberately
designing and applying management actions as experiments” (C.
Murray and D. R. Marmorek, unpublished manuscript: http://
www.adaptivemanagement.net/sites/default/files/Adaptive%
20management%20A%20spoonful%20of%20rigour%20helps%20the%
20uncertainty%20go%20down.pdf). Here, we refer to passive
adaptive management in the sense that alternative treatments
(application of mitigation actions) are most likely to be evaluated
sequentially rather than through parallel comparison of
alternatives across different sites. Although most learning about
mitigation would preferably come from experimental designs
statistically comparing several treatments at the same time, for
example, levels or types of dust control, this is not necessarily
practical for operational mines to achieve. In time, some
opportunities for parallel experimentation at different project
development sites could arise but would require collaborative
efforts by proponents across multiple development sites. We
expect that thoughtfully linking mitigation and monitoring to test
sequential mitigation actions will still provide feedback on the
mitigation effectiveness. To date, the Wek’èezhìi Land and Water
Board relies on adaptive management only for aquatics
monitoring and mitigation (Racher et al. 2011).
Fig. 2. Response framework for cumulative effects illustrating
monitoring design.
For the caribou response framework (Fig. 2), the environmental
assessment establishes the assessment and measurement
endpoints. Assessment endpoints are general statements that
relate to goals such as sustainability of populations. Measurement
endpoints are typically quantifiable and require selecting
appropriate indicators. We agree with Suter (1990) that it is
essential to define endpoints precisely. However, with sufficient
clarity, endpoints of monitoring can also be narrative statements,
which can help in incorporating community observations. The
four scales of monitoring to assess and adjust (increase or reduce)
mitigation are (1) project specific, (2) range-wide development,
(3) herd-level vital rates, and (4) environmental indicators (Fig.
2). Ecological process modeling of caribou response to multiple
stresses (natural and anthropogenic) provides a foundation to
support rigorous monitoring design. The model(s) include
representations of processes that are established from prior work
and hypothesized interactions between caribou and proposed
human activities, including proposed mitigation. They are revised
in light of the monitoring results to support monitoring design
for the next iteration of the adaptive management cycle.
The proposed framework provides a systematic approach to
evaluating the efficacy of project mitigation and herd-level
management and adjusting these management initiatives in light
Ecology and Society 19(4): 4
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art4/
of monitoring results. This requires monitoring design to include
explicit consideration of hypotheses, objectives, statistical power,
and thresholds (levels to trigger decisions). We use calf survival
as an example to outline the process to select monitoring
indicators (Fig. 3), which requires estimating effect size (how
much the indicator is predicted to change) in relation to the
sensitivity of the sampling method to estimate whether the
monitoring would be capable of detecting an effect of a given size.
If the statistical power analysis indicates that an effect is unlikely
to be detected, then either the precision can be improved (e.g., by
increasing sample size or improving methodology) or an
alternative, more sensitive indicator can be selected from the
pathway analysis used to predict the effect. For example, if the
input for the model used to predict calf survival had required
information from encounter rates, foraging time, or growing
degree days in spring, then they could be considered as surrogate
indicators for calf survival. Once a suitable indicator is identified,
the models can be also used to simulate thresholds for the
monitoring indicators.
Fig. 3. Flow chart illustrating an approach to selecting
indicators for measurement endpoints.
Mitigation includes activities undertaken to avoid, minimize,
restore, or offset effects of industrial exploration and development
on wildlife, wildlife habitat, and the people who use or value them.
Relatively little is written about mitigation of cumulative effects.
As an example, mitigation listed in oil and gas plans (Lutz et al.
2011, Jakle 2012) does not distinguish between mitigation for
project-specific effects and cumulative effects. We suggest that
drawing a distinction between project-specific and cumulative
effect mitigation is essential because it recognizes that while the
effects are interconnected, the responsibility for monitoring and
guiding decisions about implementation differs. Mitigation can
be organized as a hierarchy from avoidance through minimization
to compensation (both on-site and off-site actions). Examples are
listed in a mitigation plan developed for wildlife and natural gas
development (Jakle 2012) and for mule deer and energy
development (Lutz et al. 2011). There is no counterpart document
for migratory tundra caribou.
We also observe that adaptive management is rarely applied to
estimate the effectiveness of mitigation for northern caribou. For
example, the zone of influence around the operational diamond
mines is a residual effect after some mitigation (e.g., noise and
dust control). However, there has been no effort to determine if
mitigation can be intensified to reduce the extent of the zone of
influence. In other words, the residual effect after current
mitigation practices, i.e., a 15 km radius around existing diamond
mines with reduced caribou occupancy, has become the accepted
“norm” (e.g., De Beers 2012).
There is a hierarchy for mitigation of cumulative effects: trade-
offs, landscape-scale mitigation, and project-specific mitigation
(Fig. 4). Trade-offs might include, for example, actions to increase
caribou survival (through harvesting and predator control)
relative to permitting developments. Landscape-scale mitigation
includes exchanging land, purchasing or leasing of sensitive areas
(Copeland et al. 2009), controlling the number and distribution
of development activities, or modifying start-up dates and
duration. The third category of cumulative effect mitigation is
modifying project site activities. We include more examples of
project (site-specific) mitigation (Fig. 4) because these are readily
available within individual project assessments and their
corresponding operational plans (e.g., De Beers 2012).
Fig. 4. The three categories and examples of cumulative effects
mitigation: offset (harvest, predation), land use (modify the
amount of landscape occupied by development over time and
space), and project-specific mitigations.
For all three categories, mitigations should be specific, matched
to monitoring indicators and threshold levels, and applied to herd
management in an adaptive management process (Fig. 4).
Unfortunately, the linkage between the proposed effect, its
mitigation, and monitoring to determine effectiveness of
mitigation (reduction or removal of effect) is normally weakly
described or absent, primarily because mitigation has only been
applied on a project-specific basis. In most cases, although
mitigation has been undertaken, it has not been tested for
effectiveness, and therefore, there is no opportunity to apply an
adaptive management approach. Further, mitigation applied on
a project-specific basis seldom involves formal knowledge transfer
Ecology and Society 19(4): 4
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art4/
between projects and among proponents, with little coordinated
application of the mitigation, and no joint testing of effectiveness.
It is also important to differentiate mitigations that are relatively
fixed (e.g., corridor routing, road width, berm height) as opposed
to mitigation actions that can be modified (e.g., frequency, degree,
and extent of activities such as watering roads to reduce dust), a
critical feature of an adaptive management approach.
INTEGRATING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND HERD
MANAGEMENT
The goal of cumulative effect assessment is sustainability of a
valued ecosystem component such as caribou. Sustainability is
also a primary goal of herd management plans (and has to be
defined in that context). To achieve that goal requires an adaptive
management approach such that the effectiveness of mitigation
or management actions is determined through monitoring, and
actions are adjusted if necessary. For example, as climate changes,
and those trends modify caribou responses to mitigation,
adjustments to mitigation, including trade-offs, will be required.
Thus, we introduce the use of thresholds, i.e., qualitative or
quantitative values of the monitoring indicators that are used to
trigger decisions about mitigation or management actions (Fig.
4). Thresholds should be tied to the range of natural variation for
environmental variables (i.e., biological and measurement
uncertainty). For other indicators such as harvest or land use, we
envision a collaborative approach such as that developed by the
Porcupine Caribou Management Board (2010) for its harvest
management plan.
Caribou integrate the effects of a myriad of factors that in
themselves are additive, compensatory, and synergistic; thus,
complexity and uncertainty abounds. Environmental conditions
and anthropogenic changes are inter-related (Fig. 5); a dry
summer affects caribou directly and can intensify project-specific
effects. Monitoring natural habitat/disturbance indicators (e.g.,
forest fires) is thus complementary to monitoring numbers and
pattern of dispersion of land-use activities (exploration camps,
etc.).
Fig. 5. Probable effects of an environmental change (hot, dry
summer) and its direct effects on caribou behavior and on
project-specific effects.
Some effects are based on measured relationships whereas others
are hypothesized such as the relationship between dust and size
of the zone of influence (Boulanger et al. 2012). Monitoring
indices such as movement rates, weather indices for mosquito
harassment, and time spent foraging can be used either to predict
or explain changes in calf survival or pregnancy rates. Integrating
natural environmental variability, anthropogenic change, and
trends in climate change should involve integrative energetics
modeling, as has been developed for the Porcupine caribou herd
(Russell et al. 2005, White et al. 2014).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Migratory tundra caribou experience wide fluctuations in
numbers over the scale of decades. Consequently, management
actions, monitoring, and the assessment of the role of industrial
development projects need to account for these fluctuating
numbers. The factors that limit annual productivity at population
highs are not necessarily applicable when populations are in
recovery. Further, the wide-ranging nature and sheer abundance
of the species creates unique social, economic, political, and
ecological challenges. It is with this backdrop that we need to
assess and manage cumulative impacts of development. We
maintain that the creation of an agreed upon collaborative
framework that recognizes each partner’s roles and
responsibilities is an essential first step in this process. The
proposed framework lays out the pathway to ensure that
continuing development does not exceed thresholds and reduce
the resilience of the human-caribou system.
We characterize our approach to monitoring and mitigating
cumulative effects as a bottom-up approach because it applies
specifics of monitoring and mitigation for a single valued
ecological component: caribou in northern Canada. We have used
flow diagrams to clarify how cumulative effects assessment,
monitoring. and mitigation can be linked through adaptive
management. Our response framework introduces three scales of
mitigation (1) project-specific mitigation, (2) landscape-scale
mitigation (i.e., dispersion and distribution of development
projects across the landscape), and (3) population-level mitigation
(i.e., modification of adult caribou survival over time as a trade-
off). These scales imply that adaptive management will have to be
at the scale of the herd’s annual range, which increases complexity
from the number of interested parties, but strengthens planning
and collaborative outcomes. A key to both the need for and the
success of applying a cumulative effects framework will be to
integrate across spatial scales. For example, there is more to be
gained by integrating protection of calving grounds with
maintaining pre-calving migration routes and ensuring winter
ranges are intact.
Experience since the 1980s with managing caribou prompted our
second objective to show how adaptive management of
cumulative effects can be integrated into herd-level monitoring,
assessment, and decision-making. The advantages are that it lays
out a visible pathway for all the parties, including land and wildlife
agencies and co-management boards that have regulatory
responsibilities. Additionally, integrating cumulative effects and
herd management focuses on sustainability and will clarify the
possible limits and trade-offs in management actions between
development and other actions such as harvest, predation control,
and habitat management such as forest fires. While we
Ecology and Society 19(4): 4
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art4/
acknowledge that adaptive management is neither simple nor easy
(Walters 1997, Lee 1999), the difficulties and complexities are not
insurmountable (Monroe et al. 2013).
Urgency for action is born of any accelerated rate and pace of
development that, in the absence of a framework to mitigate and
manage cumulative effects, may lead to local changes in caribou
distribution and range fragmentation caused by roads as well as
direct influences on caribou abundance. The cumulative effects
of multiple concurrent or sequential development projects affect
not only caribou behavior but also harvesting of caribou. Access
for harvesting also includes the construction of all-season and
winter roads, which can change harvesting levels. This tension
between unmitigated cumulative effects from “unmanaged
growth” of industrial development and harvesting rights is a key
trade-off that is explicitly acknowledged in our proposed
framework.
Assessing and managing cumulative effects relative to the
condition of a caribou herd meets many of the steps outlined by
Noble (2010) to put into place the institutional arrangements and
capacity to implement effective cumulative effects management.
Including cumulative effects in migratory tundra caribou
management is not a novel idea (e.g., GNWT 2011). What is
different about our proposed framework is that it shows how
existing components can be linked through herd management, as
people already have familiarity through working relationships
and concepts.
Collectively, we already have the knowledge to make the proposed
framework operational using a rules-based approach and
narrative statements. The flexibility of the framework will allow
it to accommodate biological, measurement, and model
categories of uncertainty (Harwood and Stokes 2003). Making
decisions while accommodating uncertainty and risk should
include offsetting risks (e.g., conservative approaches that provide
options for anticipating underestimated or unexpected effects),
although adding details will be contingent on clearly defined
terms such as trade-offs and offsets (e.g., ten Kate et al. 2004).
A limitation in applying cumulative effects approaches to
managing caribou and development is that decision-makers
rarely, if ever, know what industry and government are planning
for the future, or at least very far into the future. A long-term
planning process or, less formally, a dialog among industry,
territorial, and provincial governments and aboriginal
governments exchanging potential or real plans can contribute to
a more focused approach to cumulative effects assessment.
A consistent theme in environmental assessments in the
Northwest Territories is the need for greater involvement of
aboriginal people in monitoring, mitigation, and management. It
is these people who are most affected by even small incremental
changes to caribou numbers and distribution. Integrating
cumulative effects directly into herd management planning will
strengthen aboriginal involvement, as herd management is
moving toward shared responsibility (co-management) and
accountability for the decisions about the sustainability of
caribou herds.
Responses to this article can be read online at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
php/6856
Acknowledgments:
We thank the environmental assessment boards in northern Canada,
as we have learned much while working with them. In particular,
their on-line public registries give unprecedented access to the basis
of assessments and amount of information. We also acknowledge
those people who have shared their concerns and ideas during
environmental assessments. Kathy Racher (Wek’èezhìi Land and
Water Board) helped us with adaptive management. We thank Gary
Kofinas (University of Alaska), John Nishi, and three anonymous
reviewers for their insightful comments.
LITERATURE CITED
Berger, J. 2004. The last mile: how to sustain long-distance
migration in mammals. Conservation Biology 18(2):320-331.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00548.x
Boulanger, J., B. Croft, and J. Adamczewski. 2014. An estimate
of breeding females and analyses of demographics for the Bathurst
herd of barren-ground caribou: 2012 calving ground photographic
survey. File Report 142. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories,
Yellowknife, Canada.
Boulanger, J., A. Gunn, J. Adamczewski, and B. Croft. 2011. A
data-driven demographic model to explore the decline of the
Bathurst caribou herd. Journal of Wildlife Management 75
(4):883-896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.108
Boulanger, J., K. G. Poole, A. Gunn, and J. Wierzchowski. 2012.
Estimating the zone of influence of industrial developments on
wildlife: a migratory caribou Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus and
diamond mine case study. Wildlife Biology 18(2):164-179. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2981/11-045
Canter, L., and W. Ross. 2010. State of practice of cumulative
effects assessment and management: the good, the bad and the
ugly. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 28(4):261-268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/146155110X12838715793200
Copeland, H. E., K. E. Doherty, D. E. Naugle, A. Pocewicz, and
J. M. Kiesecker. 2009. Mapping oil and gas development potential
in the US Intermountain West and estimating impacts to species.
Plos One 4(10): e7400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0007400
De Beers. 2012. Gahcho Kué Project, Environmental Impact
Statement, Section 7. Key line of inquiry: caribou. Public Registry
Document 80, 23 December 2010. MacKenzie Valley Review
Board, Yellowknife, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.
reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/EIR0607-001_EIS_S
ection_7__Caribou_1294681839.PDF.
Duinker, P. N., and L. A. Greig. 2006. The impotence of
cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for
redeployment. Environmental Management 37(2):153-161. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5
Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT). 2011.
Caribou forever – our heritage, our responsibility: a barren-ground
caribou management strategy for the Northwest Territories 2011–
2015. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
GNWT, Yellowknife, Canada. [online] URL: http://www.enr.gov.
nt.ca/sites/default/files/strategies/2011-2015_barren-
ground_caribou_management_strategy.pdf.
Ecology and Society 19(4): 4
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss4/art4/
Greig, L. A., and P. N. Duinker. 2011. A proposal for further
strengthening science in environmental impact assessment in
Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 29(2):159-165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/146155111X12913679730557
Gunn, A. 2003. Voles, lemmings and caribou - population cycles
revisited. Rangifer 14(4):105-112. [online] URL: http://www.
twodeadducks.net/rangifer/pdf/SI_14_105.pdf.
Gunn, A., K. G. Poole, and J. Wierzchowski. 2011. Migratory
tundra caribou seasonal and annual distribution relative to Thaidene
Nene, a national park reserve proposal in the East Arm of Great
Slave Lake and Artillery Lake area, Northwest Territories.
Unpublished report for Parks Canada, Fort Smith, Canada.
[online] URL: http://landoftheancestors.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/
Gunn-et-al-East-Arm-Park-caribou-final-report-Jan11.pdf.
Harwood, J., and K. Stokes. 2003. Coping with uncertainty in
ecological advice: lessons from fisheries. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 18(12):617-622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.08.001
Jakle, A. 2012. Natural gas development and wildlife mitigation: a
primer. William D. Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and
Natural Resources, Laramie, Wyoming, USA. [online] URL:
http://www.uwyo.edu/haub/ruckelshaus-institute/_files/docs/
publications/2012-natural-gas-wildlife-mitigation.pdf.
Kennett, S., and D. Woynillowicz. 2007. A review of Alberta
Environment’s proposed regulatory framework for managing
environmental cumulative effects. Unpublished report prepared
for the Pembina Institute, Toronto, Canada. [online] URL: http://
www.pembina.org/reports/Pembina-review-AB-Env-ce.pdf.
Lee, K. N. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation
Ecology 3(2): 3. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/
art3/.
Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation. 2012. Closing statement to the
Gahcho Kue panel. Public Registry Document 410, 21 December
2012. Mackenzie Valley Review Board, Yellowknife, Canada.
[online] URL: http://www.reviewboard.ca/registry/project_detail.
php?project_id=37&doc_stage=10.
Lutz, D. W., J. R. Heffelfinger, S. A. Tessmann, R. S. Gamo, and
S. Siegel. 2011. Energy development guidelines for mule deer. Mule
Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, Tucson, Arizona, USA. [online] URL: http://www.
muledeerworkinggroup.com/Docs/Energy_Development_Guide
lines_for_Mule_Deer_2013.pdf.
Monroe, M. C., R. Plate, and A. Oxarart. 2013. Intermediate
collaborative adaptive management strategies build stakeholder
capacity. Ecology and Society 18(2): 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES-05444-180224
Noble, B. 2010. Cumulative environmental effects and the tyranny
of small decisions: towards meaningful cumulative effects
assessment and management. Natural Resources and Environmental
Studies Institute Occasional Paper 8. University of Northern
British Columbia, Prince George, Canada. [online] URL: http://
www.unbc.ca/assets/nres/nresi_op_08_noble_2010.pdf.
Porcupine Caribou Management Board. 2010. Harvest
management plan for the Porcupine caribou herd in Canada.
Porcupine Caribou Management Board, Whitehorse, Canada.
[online] URL: http://www.pcmb.ca/documents/Harvest%20Management%
20Plan%202010.pdf.
Racher, K. I., N. Hutchinson, D. Hart, B. Fraser, B. Clark, R.
Fequet, P. Ewaschuk, and M. Cliffe-Phillips. 2011. Linking
environmental assessment to environmental regulation through
adaptive management. Integrated Environmental Assessment
Management 7(2):301-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.173
Russell, D. E., R. G. White, and C. J. Daniel. 2005. Energetics of
the Porcupine caribou herd: a computer simulation model.
Technical Report Series Number 431. Canadian Wildlife Service,
Ottawa, Canada. [online] URL: http://publications.gc.ca/
collections/collection_2009/ec/CW69-5-431E.pdf.
Suter, G. W. II. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk
assessments. Environmental Management 14(1):9-23. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/BF02394015
ten Kate, K., J. Bishop, and R. Bayon. 2004. Biodiversity offsets:
views, experience, and the business case. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland, and Insight Investment, London, UK. [online]
URL: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/bdoffsets.pdf.
Tlicho Government. 2012. Closing statement to the Gahcho Kue
panel. Public Registry Document 416, 21 December 2012.
Mackenzie Valley Review Board, Yellowknife, Canada. [online]
URL: http://www.reviewboard.ca/upload/project_document/
EIR0607-001_Tlicho_Government_Presentation.PDF.
Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian
and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology 1(2): 1. [online]
URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1/.
Walters, C. J., and C. S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management
experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71(6):2060-2068.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1938620
White, R. G., D. E. Russell, and C. J. Daniel. 2014. Simulation of
maintenance, growth and reproduction of caribou and reindeer
as influenced by ecological aspects of nutrition, climate change
and industrial development using an energy-protein model.
Rangifer, in press.