Top-Down vs. Bottom Up: Working Towards Consensus ... - CASIOPA

TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOWARDS CONSENSUSON SYSTEMATIC PROTECTED AREAS PLANNING IN ONTARIOGroup 2Site 1: North of and adjacent to Woodland Caribou Provincial Park, and adjacent to the Manitobaborder (Size: 2,700km 2 ) - This first site was chosen for two major reasons. It contains a large contiguousclump of features that are classified as being highly under-represented under the OMNR approach, and itserves as a northward expansion of Woodland Caribou Provincial Park and an eastward expansion ofAtikaki Wilderness Park in Manitoba. The recommended reserve size of 2,700 km 2 was based on thelower 95% confidence interval of an empirical estimation of the minimum area requirement fordisturbance-sensitive terrestrial mammals (Gurd et al. 2001; Nudds & Wiersma 2004).Site 2: Just west & north of Brockville, ON (Size: 2,000 km 2 ) - Several reasons for choosing this sitewere provided. It is a “hotspot” of forest bird diversity, it is located within the “Algonquin toAdirondack” corridor and it includes several under-represented OMNR landform-vegetation features.The recommended reserve size of 2,000 km 2 was based on an attempt to approach the minimum reservearea suggested by Nudds and Wiersma (2004), tempered by feasibility considerations (i.e. developmentand ownership-related constraints on land acquisition).Site 3: Adjacent to and east of Site 1, northeast of Woodland Caribou Provincial Park (Size: 5,000 km 2 )- This site was selected for the following reasons. It contains highly and moderately under-representedlandform-vegetation features (OMNR approach). It is located directly adjacent to Site 1 (in reference toSite 1 as located by this group) and the northeast corner of Woodland Caribou Provincial Park, and thuscan serve as an expansion of these areas. It is north of the Area of Undertaking, and it had not yet beenallocated for industrial timber harvesting. The protection of Site 3 could contribute to maintaininglandscape connectivity throughout a large contiguous group of protected areas that includes candidateSite 3, Woodland Caribou Provincial Park and Atikaki Wilderness Park in Manitoba. Finally, it wasnoted that by encompassing lands in two different OMNR ecoregions, a high level of biodiversity mightbe protected (relative to reserves located within a single ecoregion). The recommended reserve size of5,000 km 2 was based on the empirical estimation of the minimum area requirement for disturbancesensitiveterrestrial mammals (Gurd et al. 2001; Nudds & Wiersma 2004).Site 4: Immediately above the “Area of the Undertaking” in the Moose River area (Size: 5,000 km 2 ) -The existence of a favourable political climate for protected area establishment in the northern borealregion, and the ease of implementation in a location without major development or resource extractionpressures were primary reasons Site 4 was selected as a candidate protected area. Another factor is that itcontains OMNR landform-vegetation features that are moderately to highly under-represented in thecurrent protected areas network. The recommended reserve size of 5,000 km 2 was based on theempirical estimation of the minimum area requirement for disturbance-sensitive terrestrial mammals(Gurd et al. 2001; Nudds & Wiersma 2004).Site 5: Between Kashechewan and Attawapiskat, including portions of James Bay, the James Bay coastand inland areas (Size: 5,000km 2 ) - This site was selected for similar reasons to those identified in theselection of Site 4, namely, that current political pressures are supportive of the establishment of newreserves in Ontario‟s northern boreal, and that implementation could be relatively easy compared withmore populous and developed regions of the province. It was further suggested that the existence ofsignificant mining interests in the general vicinity of Site 5 might provide conservation agencies withpolitical leverage to achieve rapid acceptance and implementation of this particular protected area.98 | P a g e