As a practicing Registered…

As a practicing Registered Professional Forester in Ontario, I am in support of a conservation agreement between Ontario and the federal government. However, the federal government needs to recognize that currently in Ontario there is a provincial Woodland Caribou Recovery Strategy and Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan that are already in place to conserve the species based on the best available scientific information using a “Range Management Approach” under the Ontario Endangered Species Act. These strategies use disturbance, such as forestry as recognized in Conservation Measure 3.1, as a tool in the management of critical woodland caribou habitat (e.g. the Dynamic Caribou Habitat Schedule (DCHS)). Forest management planning in Ontario schedules harvest temporally and spatially to provide a continuous succession of the critical habitat (large areas of mature conifer forest) required by the woodland caribou, while providing socio-economic benefit to the region. I am not in agreement with Conservation Measure 2.2 to increase the number of protected areas in Ontario. Increasing protected areas may preserve the current amount of caribou habitat in the short term, but is a short sited approach as forests are a dynamic environment that are continuing to change through natural events. These protected areas will be burned by forest fire (i.e. the wildfires that Ontario experienced summer of 2021), blowdown from wind and old age, or boreal forest succession will continue and the conifer species will die out and likely be replaced by an uneven aged stand of mixedwood and ultimately result in an increase of “not preferred” habitat for caribou.
The most important part of this agreement is the funding and research for the woodland caribou ranges of Ontario, as suggested in Conservation Measures 1.1 & 1.2. The ranges should be scientifically determined by the local populations of caribou. According to the 2011 Environment Canada Scientific Assessment, there are 6 Ontario ranges are improved conservation units (medium certainty of representing local population), 2 ranges that are conservation units (low certainty of representing local population) and only one range accurately representing a local population (high probability of representing local population). The agreement with the federal government should aim to facilitate and fund the scientific research needed to determine what the local populations (and population dynamics) of woodland caribou are in Ontario and should lead to the refinement or enlargement of the current Ontario ranges to reflect the actual populations. In addition, gaps seem to exist in the current knowledge of external effects on Ontario’s woodland caribou population. As part of Conservation Measure 1.4 new research should identify if a combination approach of managing critical woodland caribou habitat in conjunction with controlling the number of moose, deer or wolves would create self-sustaining local populations. Research should also create a focus on identifying if climate change will result in pushing woodland caribou, moose and deer north of their previous limits and how Ontario should account for this is the range refinement.
More information is required when looking at Conservation Measure 2.1 to decrease cumulative disturbance of habitat. The referenced 65% undisturbed and maximum 35% disturbed in the proposal is a uniform federal approach and needs to be reviewed before implementation in Ontario. There needs to be a research effort in Ontario under the agreement to look at range-specific thresholds based on the historical data of natural disturbances in the boreal forest in Ontario, as well as the new information on local population dynamics provided by this agreement. The total number of fires due to climate change is predicted to increase 15% by 2040 and 50% by 2100 (OMNR, 2005). Forest fire intensity and frequency is not something industries that cause anthropogenic landscape disturbance (e.g. forestry) can control, and forest fires (if not supressed successfully) could potentially cause a large amount of disturbance within a caribou range, instantly reducing the amount of land available to be disturbed by anthropogenic sources (i.e. forestry, mining, powerlines). This is when socio-economic benefits of anthropogenic landscape disturbance should also be recognized, as Ontario needs a balance between managing a single species at risk and minimizing negative socio-economic impacts on communities and families that rely on industries such as mining and forestry for income, or communities that need to be connected to a provincial power source. The socio-economic impacts of the proposed maximum 35% disturbance needs to be quantitatively defined (i.e. what impact will the implied reduction in forest harvesting and mining have on northern communities, in number of jobs lost, power lines to communities, revenues to mills and mines etc.). Ontario needs an agreement that will balance socio-economic needs in the region, with a scientifically based management approach to ensure woodland caribou populations are conserved for generations to come.