VISIT US ON

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

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM

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

Tel: 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca

ENTENTE SUR LA FORET BOREALE CANADIENNE. COM

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

Tél. : 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca

April 2015

i

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

Summary prepared by Matthew Pyper, based on original report by Justina Ray.

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

Copyright © 2014, the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement

ABOUT THE CBFA

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

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

Forestry companies currently participating in the Agreement:

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

Environmental organizations participating in the Agreement:

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

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

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

ii

CONTENTSGuidance note iii

Preamble iv

Acknowledgements v

Introduction 1

Category 1 1

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 1

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

Conservation Plans 7

Appendix B: Initial list of Category 1 species 11

iii

GUIDANCE NOTE

Goal 3 of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement5 (CBFA) is “the recovery of species at risk within the boreal forests including species such as Woodland Caribou”. In partial fulfillment of this goal, the signatories of the CBFA published a Caribou Action Planning Methodological Framework (CAP MF)6, which has proven to be an extremely valuable reference for Regional Working Groups (RWG) of the CBFA.

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

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

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

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

iv

PREAMBLEWhen developing conservation plans for a variety of species, it can be expected that different habitat conditions are required for different species. As a result, it would be reasonable to expect that one cannot manage for all species on every hectare at all times. The end goal, therefore, is to provide sufficient habitat for these species over time and space, as appropriate for the management unit in question. As species have evolved over time in the context of disturbance regimes, the concept of the natural range of variability may be useful in attempting to integrate the requirements of multiple species7. Also, while protected areas do play a key role in maintaining populations of species, entire landscapes can and should contribute to the recovery and maintenance of at-risk species populations, as proposed by the Conservation Matrix Model8. It is the intent of this document to describe the needs for these priority species to help RWGs in their planning, by providing:

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

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

for benchmark and site-specific protected area selection.

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

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

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

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

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to acknowledge the work of Justina Ray (Wildlife Conservation Society Canada), who prepared and presented the source report on which this summary is based.

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

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

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) - Category 1

About this species

» The wolverine’s distribution is circumpolar, occupying the boreal and tundra zones of the Northern Hemisphere in northern Europe, Asia, and North America.

» In Canada, wolverine occur in tundra, alpine, subalpine, and boreal forest ecosystems. » Wolverine are largely scavengers and usually persist on adult ungulate carcasses (e.g.,

caribou, moose, elk), but they are known to take down individuals on their own. They also regularly consume smaller prey species (such as rodents and snowshoe hares).

» In montane areas (e.g., Muskwa Kechika, BC), wolverine have been documented to be significant predators of mountain caribou calves.1

» Long distance dispersal is a fact of life for wolverines and exceptionally long distances have been recorded, especially by sub-adult males.

» Wolverine population densities are naturally low, even under optimal conditions.2

» Average home range sizes vary from 73 to 3,513 km2, depending on the age and sex of the individual.

2

Current Status

» COSEWIC assessed the western population (including Ontario) as Special Concern and the Eastern population (Quebec and Labrador) as Endangered in 2003.

» The eastern population was listed under Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) but in 2009 the Government of Canada issued a decision to not list the western population, and so it receives no protection under the SARA.4

» Provincial designations in Canada range from unranked to Sensitive or Special Concern, except in Ontario, where the wolverine is listed as Threatened.

» Globally, wolverines are ranked as Least Concern by the IUCN.5

Main threats to this species

» The biggest threats to wolverines in boreal/western mountain regions of Canada are associated with roads. Road density is not only associated with avoidance behavior by wolverine, but there is an increased mortality risk due to trapping, hunting, and collisions with vehicles.

» Longer-term threats will likely include the impacts of climate change on snow condition and persistence.

» Current threats to wolverines within the CBFA area of interest are mostly at the southern edge of wolverine distribution. As development moves north, this threat “frontier” will follow.

» Thus, ongoing and anticipated northward expansion of development and associated infrastructure combined with climate change could increase risks for wolverine populations in the CBFA area of interest.

» Winter recreation may be a cause for concern for wolverines in western mountains, particularly during denning, although there are few empirical studies linking specific factors to wolverine decline.

» The impacts of climate change and cumulative disturbance (including roads) and overharvesting via trapping may all be severe in localized areas. It is relatively certain that these threats are causing harm to some populations, but the relationship between the magnitude of these threats and population-level impacts is as-yet unclear. ͳ Climate Change

» The relative impacts of climate change are unknown because the majority of wolverine research has occurred in montane systems, and inferences extended into lowland boreal regions are speculative at best.

» It is assumed that the consequences of a changing climate for this northern

Figure 1: Canadian distribution of the wolverine (Gulo gulo). From the COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report (2003).3

3

species will include 1) reduction of spring snow cover and denning habitat, 2) alteration of habitat from temperature extremes, and 3) reduction and alteration of habitats.

ͳ Cumulative Disturbance » With wolverines associated with mostly remote northern areas, threats are

assumed to be predominantly associated with the human footprint. However, it is not clear how much wolverine occurrence is dictated by remoteness per se or appropriate snow conditions, which tend to be correlated.

Recovery prospects for this species

» Biological factors such as a low rate of population increase, low natural densities, and large home range size limits population growth rates. Therefore, the ability of wolverine populations to recover from declines and re-populate vacant habitat is naturally low and may take several decades.

What is considered essential habitat?

» Kelsall (1981) describes wolverine habitat as “probably best defined in terms of an adequate year-round food supply in large, sparsely inhabited wilderness areas, rather than in terms of particular types of topography or plant association. The animals are most abundant where large ungulates are common, and where carrion is abundant in winter from hunter kills, predation and natural mortality.”6

» The range in habitat types utilized by wolverines suggests that the species is adaptable to a broad range of ecological conditions within northern ecosystems.

» Females den under rocks, avalanche chutes, logs or snow. The snow cover must persist late into the spring to insulate the den.

» Wolverines do use and travel through logged landscapes, but there is likely a negative relationship between logging intensity and/or road density, and habitat suitability for wolverine.

Current recovery efforts, provincial actions and recovery goals

» Wolverine recovery planning has been confined to eastern Canada. There is a federal recovery plan for Eastern (Quebec and east) wolverine, which was published in 20167, and an Ontario Recovery Strategy, which was published in 20138.

» Recovery actions for both strategies have been largely confined to raising awareness, research, and surveys.

Recovery Plan Objectives

Eastern Population (from Fortin et al., 20057

1) Reach a population of 100 adult wolverines; 2) Maintain this population for 10 years, 3) Prevent wolverine losses attributable to human activities; and 4) Ensure that sufficient habitat is available to meet the population objective.

Ontario Population (Ontario Wolverine Recovery Team8) 1) Protect and manage wolverine populations and their associated habitat; 2) Reduce or eliminate known threats to wolverine populations and their habitat; 3) Increase understanding of wolverine ecology through inventory, monitoring, and research; 4) Integrate Ontario wolverine conservation efforts with those of other jurisdictions, ministries, and First Nations, and ensure consideration of Wolverine conservation objectives in land use and resource management planning processes; and 5) Generate support and partnerships for wolverine conservation by promoting education, awareness, and stewardship of wolverine and boreal forest ecosystems.

4

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

» The major focus of management actions targeted at wolverines within CBFA areas should be as follows: ͳ Management and limitation

of cumulative disturbance; ͳ Access management

strategies, including decommissioning roads to minimize overall road densities.

» Magoun et al. (2005) outlined a series of forest management considerations for wolverine populations in Ontario, which include: ͳ Corridors along major

watercourses would be appropriate.

ͳ “’Interior’ forested corridors (not along watercourses) are also appropriate to maintain connectivity between habitat areas.”

ͳ Mature conifer stands are preferred as these provide greater thermal cover, protection from predators for the young, and shallower snow, which facilitates travel.

ͳ “Corridor width should be a minimum of 500 – 1000 meters” ͳ “Buffer strips of uncut trees should be left along flowages, especially along smaller

waterways where beavers are active, to provide cover for wolverines foraging in these areas. The buffer strips provide additional sources of deadfall that may be used as rendezvous sites for female wolverines with young kits.”

ͳ As beaver is a prey species for wolverines, “Some cutting could be considered along these smaller flowages to encourage regrowth of preferred beaver forage species.” 9

What other measures are required to assist recovery?

» Working with trappers to understand their harvest activity patterns (including how often they harvest wolverines) is an important undertaking. Training and the cultivation of goodwill can help prevent or mitigate incidental harvest of wolverines and reduce overall mortality.

» Research and monitoring. Wolverines are often ignored but can be easily surveyed at the same time as caribou and every effort should be made to ensure this is the case. Ontario has made important advancements in this direction recently. Radio-collaring technology is working for wolverines, and this is the best means of understanding how they move and live in managed areas.

Key Habitat Considerations

» Wolverines have specific habitat requirements for den sites, which are the only small-scale feature which they appear to select for.

» Male wolverine are capable of large dispersal movements, covering as many as 874 km in 42 days. 10

» Wolverine are known to cross significant natural and artificial landscape barriers while undergoing long-distance movements.10, 11

» There is evidence of avoidance of clearcuts and travel alongside roads where they are susceptible to roadkill.

» In a study in Ontario, wolverines avoided areas with a footprint of human activities including logging roads (mean road density of 0.37 km/km2) and logging (i.e., habitat alteration).12

» Wolverine appear to be sensitive to disturbance during the denning period and select denning areas in remote undeveloped areas, and sites that offer security from predators.

5

Overlap between this species and caribou

» Caribou and wolverine conservation can, and should be, highly complementary because these species share the same landscape and have similar threats and similar large landscape requirements. For example, management of cumulative disturbance for caribou should also be favorable for resident wolverine populations. But trapping mortality for wolverine must be monitored simultaneously, and stewardship by fur harvesters (depending on how active they are) is also required.

Opportunities for adaptive management

» As stated previously, knowledge of wolverine tolerance to human disturbance is relatively rudimentary. Therefore, explicit testing of wolverine population and behavioral response to management actions, while difficult, would be very valuable.

6

REFERENCES

1. Gustine, D.D., K.L. Parker, R.J. Lay, M.P. Gillingham & D.C. Heard. 2006. Calving strategies and calf survival of woodland caribou in a multi-predator ecosystem in northern British Columbia. Wildlife Monographs 165: 1-32.

2. Banci, V. 1994. Chapter 5: Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. General Technical Report. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 99-127

3. COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the wolverine Gulo gulo in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 41 pp.

4. Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Government of Canada 2010)

5. IUCN 2012. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Wolverine (Gulo gulo): http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/9561/0.

6. Kelsall, J.P. 1981. Status report on the Wolverine, Gulo gulo, in Canada in 1981. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario. 47 pages.

7. Environment Canada. 2016. Recovery Strategy for the Wolverine (Gulo gulo), Eastern population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Environment Canada, Ottawa, vii + 23 pp.

8. Fortin, C., V. Banci, J. Brazil, M. Crête, J. Huot, et al. 2005. National recovery plan for the wolverine (Gulo gulo) [Eastern Population]. National Recovery Plan No. 26. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW). Ottawa, Ontario. 33 pp.

9. Ontario Wolverine Recovery Team. 2013. Recovery strategy for the Wolverine (Gulo gulo) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. vi + 66 pp. http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-at-risk/mnr_sar_rs_wolverine_en.pdf

10. Magoun A., N. Dawson, J. Ray & J. Bowman. 2005. Forest management considerations for wolverine populations in areas of timber harvest in Ontario: preliminary recommendations. Ontario Boreal Wolverine Project, The Wolverine Foundation, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 17 pp.

11. Inman, R.M., R.R. Wigglesworth, K.H. Inman, M.K. Schwartz, B.L. Brock & J.D. Rieck. 2004. Wolverine makes extensive movements in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Northwest Science 78: 261-266.

12. Inman, R.M., M.L. Packila, K.H. Inman, B. Aber, R. Spence & D. McCauley. 2009. Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program, Progress Report – December 2009. Wildlife Conservation Society, North American Program, general report, Bozeman, Montana, U.S.A.

13. Bowman, J., J.C. Ray, A.J. Magoun, & D.S. Johnson. 2010. Roads, logging, and the large-mammal community of an eastern Canadian boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 88: 454-467.

7

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

1. Conservation Planning Goal & Principles

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

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

2. Review of Existing Management Policies

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

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

8

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

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

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

9

4. Defining Management Measures

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

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

5. Engagement and Collaboration with Others

Not

Ap

plic

able

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

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

 

6. Socio-Economic AssessmentN

ot

Appl

icab

le

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

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

10

11

Appendix B: Initial list of Category 1 species5,6

Common Name

Population Name

Status5 No. Boreal Provinces

Threats6

Bear, Grizzly Northwestern population

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

Caribou, Woodland

Boreal population

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

Crossbill percna

subspecies, Red

END 1 Habitat degradation from logging; fire suppression

Duck, Harlequin

Eastern population

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

Flycatcher, Olive-sided

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

Goldeneye, Barrow’s

Eastern population

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

Lichen, Boreal Felt

Boreal population

SC 1 Logging and associated microclimatic change

Marten, American

Newfoundland population

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

Monarch SC 6 Pesticides; overwintering habitat loss in Mexico

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

Sturgeon, Lake All populations END, THR, SC

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

Warbler, Canada

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

Wolverine Eastern population

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

Wolverine Western population

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

5 COSEWIC status categories in this table include: special concern (SC), threatened (THR), and endangered (END).6 The sources of threat information are the COSEWIC Status Reports found in the Species at Risk Public Registry of the Government of Canada.

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