Scientific Assessment to Inform the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada - 2011 Update

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page

Key Findings

The information and analyses presented in this report address limitations identified with implementation of the work presented in the 2008 Scientific Review. However, neither the approach nor the results of this assessment represent a fundamental shift from the 2008 Science Review conclusion that range is the appropriate geographic delineation for critical habitat description. Further, the amount of total disturbance within a range remains the primary criteria for identifying critical habitat to meet a goal of self-sustaining local populations of caribou.

While improved data would enhance our understanding and address outstanding
uncertainties, this report concludes that sufficient information exists to support a
scientifically-grounded assessment of critical habitat for populations of boreal caribou
across Canada, and provides a scientific basis to inform critical habitat identifcation for
each of the 57 identified ranges that comprise the full extent of occurrence of boreal caribou in Canada.

Highlights of the application of the conceptual framework and associated analyses supporting this 2011 assessment include:

  • Nearly 70% of the variation in caribou recruitment across twenty-four study areas spanning the full range of boreal caribou distribution and range condition in Canada was explained by a single composite measure of total disturbance (fire + buffered anthropogenic), most of which could be attributed to the negative effects of anthropogenic disturbance. Little statistical support was found for distinguishing different types of anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., linear and polygonal types). However, supporting analyses of a range of buffer widths demonstrated that a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic disturbance provided an appropriate, minimum approximation of the zone of influence of these features on caribou demography.
  • Of the 57 identified boreal caribou ranges in Canada, 17 (30%) were assessed in the "self-sustaining" (SS) category, 7 (12%) in the "not self-sustaining/self-sustaining" (NSS/SS) category, and 33 (58%) in the "not self-sustaining" (NSS) category (Executive Summary Figure 1). Through the integrated risk assessment, these designations were refined to five likelihood categories ranging from very likely (SS) to very unlikely (NSS) with respect to the probability that current conditions would support a self-sustaining boreal caribou population.

Executive Summary Figure 1. Integrated risk assessment for boreal caribou ranges in Canada.

Executive summary Figure 1 & Figure 14. Map of the 57 boreal caribou ranges in Canada. Each range is categorized as either very unlikely, unlikely, as likely as not, likely or very likely of maintaining a self-sustaining population.


Range ID

Range

Range Type

1

Northwest Territories North

LP

2

Northwest Territories South

LP

3

Maxhamish

LP

4

Calendar

LP

5

Snake-Sahtahneh

LP

6

Parker

LP

7

Prophet

LP

8

Chinchaga

LP

9

Bistcho

LP

10

Yates

LP

11

Caribou Mountains

LP

12

Little Smoky

LP

13

Red Earth

LP

14

West Side Athabasca River (WSAR)

LP

15

Richardson

LP

16

East Side Athabasca River (ESAR)

LP

17

Cold Lake

LP

18

Nipisi

LP

19

Slave Lake

LP

20

Davy-Athabasca

CU

21

Clearwater

CU

22

Primrose-Cold Lake

CU

23

Highrock-Key

CU

24

Smoothstone-Wapawekka

CU

25

Steephill-Foster

CU

26

Suggi-Amisk-Kississing

CU

27

Pasquia-Bog

CU

28

The Bog

ICU

29

Kississing

ICU

29

Kississing

ICU

30

Naosap

ICU

31

Reed

ICU

32

North Interlake

ICU

33

William Lake

ICU

34

Wabowden

ICU

35

Wapisu

ICU

36

Manitoba

CU

37

Atikaki-Berens

ICU

38

Owl-Flinstone

LP

39

Sydney

ICU

40

Berens

ICU

41

Churchill

ICU

42

Brightsand

ICU

43

Nipigon

LP

44

Coastal

CU

45

Pagwachuan

ICU

46

Kesagami

ICU

47

Far North

CU

48

Val d’Or

LP

49

Charlevoix

LP

50

Pipmuacan

ICU

51

Manouane

ICU

52

Manicouagan

ICU

53

Quebec

CU

54

Lac Joseph

LP

55

Red Wine Mountain

LP

56

Mealy Mountain

LP

57

Labrador

CU

LP - Local Population
CU - Conservation Unit
ICU - Improved Conservation Unit

  • Range-specific disturbance-based management thresholds can be derived from a generalized disturbance-population growth function in conjunction with range-specific information (Executive Summary Figure 2). A methodology was developed to extend the critical habitat description for consideration of disturbance-based management thresholds when acceptable risks are defined by managers. A core component of the methodology is a disturbance-based population growth function that can be used in conjunction with range specific information to derive range specific disturbance thresholds. Examples of the application of the methodology to derive range-specific disturbance thresholds are presented.

Executive Summary Figure 2. The disturbance-based population growth function used in conjunction with range-specific information to derive range-specific management thresholds once an acceptable level of risk by managers has been specified.

Executive summary Figure 2 & Figure 11. Graph showing the decrease in probability of achieving stable or increasing population growth as a function of increasing disturbance. The latter is used to categorize the likelihood of achieving the recovery goal of a self-sustaining population or, conversely, the risk of not achieving the recovery goal to help inform management. For example, the probability of achieving stable or increasing population growth is high when disturbance levels are low. It is very likely that the goal of a self-sustaining population will be achieved. Thus, there is a low risk associated with not meeting the recovery goal. At higher levels of disturbance, the probability of stable or increasing population growth is low and it becomes very unlikely that the goal of a self-sustaining population will be achieved. The latter corresponds to a very high risk of not meeting the recovery goal and suggests that habitat restoration may be needed.

In addition to these highlights, several important observations related to the availability of information emerged, and recommendations related to these are advanced.

  • Most boreal caribou ranges in Canada have not been fully described owing
    to a lack of standardized animal location data and poor understanding of
    movement within and between ranges.
    While a total of 57 ranges are still currently recognized by jurisdictions in Canada, changes to the delineation of boreal caribou ranges have been made since the 2008 Scientific Review, by various jurisdictions, based on different criteria. The issue of appropriate delineation of trans-boundary ranges remains unresolved. Addressing the need for more animal location and movement information, greater inter-jurisdictional collaboration, and a standardized approach to range delineation are important requirements to adequately and consistently describe ranges for local populations of boreal caribou throughout their current distribution, and support continuous improvement of critical habitat description over time.
  • Demographic data are lacking for many boreal caribou ranges in Canada. Monitoring and assessment programs to provide data on population size, population trend, recruitment and adult mortality are required to improve understanding of factors affecting boreal caribou survival and recovery, increase certainty in assessment results, and to monitor response of populations to recovery actions and assess progress towards meeting the population and distribution objectives for boreal caribou across Canada. The need to acquire demographic data for many boreal caribou ranges should not be equated with a statement that insufficient knowledge exists for the identification of critical habitat for boreal caribou in Canada, but rather embraced as part of an adaptive management cycle designed to improve certainty in management strategies necessary to achieve the desired outcome of self-sustaining boreal caribou populations over time.

In conclusion, the breadth of information and knowledge compiled for this assessment exemplifies the comprehensive nature of, and interrelationships between, types of evidence available to provide a scientifically-based description of critical habitat for informing recovery planning for boreal caribou. Significant advances were made to the conceptual and methodological design during this assessment to address some key uncertainties or limitations identified in the 2008 Scientific Review. These advances improved the robustness of the results with respect to providing a scientific description of critical habitat for boreal caribou across Canada.

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page

Date modified: