Bird conservation strategy for Region 8: Ontario boreal softwood shield, section 1
Element 1: Priority species assessment
These BCR Strategies identify “priority species” from all regularly occurring bird species in each BCR sub-region. Species that are vulnerable due to population size, distribution, population trend, abundance and threats are included as priorities because of their “conservation concern.” Some widely distributed and abundant “stewardship” species are also included. Stewardship species are included because they typify the national or regional avifauna and/or because they have a large proportion of their range and/or continental population in the sub-region; many of these species have some conservation concern, while others may not require specific conservation effort at this time. Species of management concern are also included as priority species when they are at (or above) their desired population objectives and require ongoing management because of their socio-economic importance as game species or because of their impacts on other species or habitats.
The purpose of the prioritization exercise is to focus implementation efforts on the species and issues of greatest significance to Ontario’s avifauna. As with any priority-setting exercise, some important species may be excluded; however, the issues of importance to any excluded species are usually captured by addressing the threats identified for species that are included on the priority list. With this in mind, species present in the region only as migrants were included as priority species only when their inclusion introduced new regional conservation issues, such as for the protection of migratory staging sites. Otherwise, the BCR 8 ON strategy relies on conservation actions arising from threats to other (breeding or regularly occurring) priority species to address more general conservation concerns for migrants. Tables 2, 3 and 4 outline the priority species in BCR 8 ON, the relative breakdown by bird group, and the reasons for priority status.
A total of 229 bird species occur regularly in BCR 8 ON. Of these, 71 were assessed as priority species (Table 2) with representatives from all 4 bird groups. Landbirds show the greatest diversity in BCR 8 ON, representing the majority (46 species, nearly 65%) of the candidate species list (Table 3). However, because many are common species facing comparatively few threats, only 31% of these species qualified for priority status. All other species groups had markedly lower diversity by comparison, and shorebirds, waterbirds, and waterfowl contributed 4, 9 and 12 species, respectively, to the priority species list (Table 3). The diversity of breeding shorebirds in the region is low, and although the coastal beaches of Lake Superior, wetlands and other habitats in BCR 8 ON are used by migrant shorebirds, few concentrate in large numbers within this region during migration.
The list of priority species also includes species at risk: 12 species assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as ”at risk”, 8 species listed under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA; Species at Risk Public Registry 2014), and 14 species listed as species at risk in Ontario under its Endangered Species Act 2007 (SARO; as of January 2014; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2014c).
Bird Group | Priority Species | Population Objective | Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) a | Species at Risk Act (SARA) b | Species at risk in Ontario (SARO) c | Regional/ Sub-regional Concern d |
Regional/ Sub-regional Stewardship e |
National/ Continental Concern |
National/ Continental Stewardship |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Landbirds | Alder Flycatcher | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Yes (Y) | - | Y |
Landbirds | Bald Eagle | Recovery objective f | - | - | Special Concern (SC) | Y | - | - | Y |
Landbirds | Bank Swallow | Assess/ Maintain |
Threatened (T) | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Landbirds | Barn Swallow | Recovery objective | T | - | T | Y | - | - | - |
Landbirds | Bay-breasted Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | Y | - |
Landbirds | Belted Kingfisher | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Black-and-white Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Black-backed Woodpecker | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | - | Y | - | Y |
Landbirds | Blackburnian Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | - | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Black-throated Green Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Blue-headed Vireo | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | - | - | Y |
Landbirds | Bobolink | Recovery objective | T | - | T | Y | - | Y | - |
Landbirds | Boreal Owl | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Canada Warbler | Recovery objective f | T | T | SC | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Cape May Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | Y |
Landbirds | Chestnut-sided Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Cliff Swallow | Increase | - | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Landbirds | Common Nighthawk | Recovery objective f | T | T | SC | Y | - | Y | - |
Landbirds | Connecticut Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Eastern Kingbird | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Landbirds | Eastern Whip-poor-will | Recovery objective f | T | T | T | Y | - | Y | - |
Landbirds | Evening Grosbeak | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Golden Eagle | Recovery objective | - | - | E | Y | - | - | - |
Landbirds | Magnolia Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | - | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Mourning Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Nashville Warbler | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | Y |
Landbirds | Northern Flicker | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Northern Goshawk | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Landbirds | Olive-sided Flycatcher | Recovery objective f | T | T | SC | Y | - | Y | - |
Landbirds | Ovenbird | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Peregrine Falcon (anatum/tundrius) | Recovery objective | SC | SC | SC | Y | - | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Philadelphia Vireo | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | Y |
Landbirds | Pine Grosbeak | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Landbirds | Purple Finch | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Ruby-crowned Kinglet | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Ruffed Grouse | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Rusty Blackbird | Recovery objective f | SC | SC | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Landbirds | Sharp-shinned Hawk | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Short-eared Owl | Recovery objective f | SC | SC | SC | Y | - | Y | - |
Landbirds | Swamp Sparrow | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Tennessee Warbler | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | - | - | - | Y |
Landbirds | Tree Swallow | Increase | - | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Landbirds | White-throated Sparrow | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | - | Y | Y |
Landbirds | Winter Wren | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | - |
Landbirds | Yellow-bellied Flycatcher | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | Y |
Landbirds | Yellow-bellied Sapsucker | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | Y | - | Y |
Shorebirds | Greater Yellowlegs | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | Y | |
Shorebirds | Lesser Yellowlegs | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Shorebirds | Solitary Sandpiper | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Shorebirds | Wilson's Snipe | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Waterbirds | American Bittern | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterbirds | American White Pelican | Recovery objective | - | - | T | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterbirds | Black Tern | Recovery objective | - | - | SC | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterbirds | Common Loon | Maintain current | - | - | - | - | - | Y | - |
Waterbirds | Common Tern | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | - | - | Y | - |
Waterbirds | Herring Gull | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterbirds | Horned Grebe (western population) | Recovery objective f | SC | - | SC | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterbirds | Red-necked Grebe | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Waterbirds | Yellow Rail | Recovery objective | SC | SC | SC | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterfowl | American Black Duck | Increase | - | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterfowl | American Wigeon | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterfowl | Black Scoter | Migrant (no BCR 8-ON population objective) |
- | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterfowl | Bufflehead | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Waterfowl | Common Goldeneye | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterfowl | Common Merganser | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Waterfowl | Green-winged Teal | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Waterfowl | Lesser Scaup | Assess/ Maintain |
- | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterfowl | Long-tailed Duck | Migrant (no BCR 8-ON population objective) |
- | - | - | - | - | Y | - |
Waterfowl | Mallard | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Waterfowl | Ring-necked Duck | Maintain current | - | - | - | Y | - | - | - |
Waterfowl | Surf Scoter | Migrant (no BCR 8-ON population objective) |
- | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
a Assessed by COSEWIC as E, Endangered; T, Threatened; SC, Special Concern.
b Species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA as E, Endangered; T, Threatened; SC, Special Concern.
c Species listed as E, Endangered; T, Threatened; SC, Special Concern on the SARO List.
d Regional refers to BCR-wide (i.e., all jurisdictional data were used for the entire BCR) while sub-regional refers to the Ontario portion of the BCR only (i.e., Ontario BCR data were used).
e Only the landbird group distinguishes stewardship species from other priority species (see Panjabi et al. 2005).
f Species listed under the federal SARAand/or the provincial Endangered Species Act 2007, but its federal and/or provincial recovery documents have not yet been finalized.
Bird Group | Number of Species | Percent of Total Number of Species | Number of Priority Species | Percent Listed as Priority by Bird Group | Percent of Total Number of Priority Species |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Landbird | 148 | 65% | 46 | 31% | 65% |
Shorebird | 29 | 12% | 4 | 14% | 6% |
Waterbird | 21 | 9% | 9 | 43% | 12% |
Waterfowl | 31 | 14% | 12 | 39% | 17% |
Total | 229 | 100% | 71 | - | 100% |
Note: All assessments, listings and designations are current to January 2014.
Priority Listing g | Landbird | Shorebird | Waterbird | Waterfowl |
---|---|---|---|---|
COSEWIC h | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
SARA i | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
SARO j | 10 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
National/Continental Concern | 19 | 2 | 8 | 8 |
National/Continental Stewardship k | 20 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Regional/Sub-regional Concern l | 19 | 4 | 7 | 11 |
Regional/Sub-regional Stewardship | 25 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
g A single species can be on the priority list for more than one reason.
h Assessed by COSEWIC as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern.
i Species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern.
j Species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern on the SARO List.
k Only the landbird group distinguishes stewardship species from other priority species (see Panjabi et al. 2005).
l Regional refers to BCR-wide (i.e., all jurisdictional data were used for the entire BCR), while sub-regional refers to the Ontario portion of the BCR only (i.e., Ontario BCR data were used).
Element 2: Habitats important to priority species
Identifying the broad habitat requirements for each priority species within the BCR allowed species to be grouped by shared habitat-based conservation issues and actions. If many priority species associated with the same habitat face similar conservation issues, then conservation action in that habitat may support populations of several priority species. BCR strategies use a modified version of the standard land cover classes developed by the United Nations (Food and Agriculture Organization 2000) to categorize habitats and species were often assigned to more than one habitat class.
Priority species varied in their use of habitat types in BCR 8 ON (Figure 4). Dense forests, primarily coniferous or mixed, account for 60% of the terrestrial area of this BCR, and the diversity of landbirds can be moderately high in these forests (Rich et al. 2004; Ontario Partners in Flight 2008). Coniferous, mixed and deciduous forests are used extensively by 31%, 32% and 11% of priority species, respectively (Figure 4). Wetlands are also important habitats that are used by 31% of priority species. A prominent feature of the landscape of BCR 8 ON is an abundance of lakes, including Lake Superior and Lake Nipigon, and 24% of priority species use waterbodies extensively. Shrub and early successional habitats as well as riparian habitats are used by 14% and 13 % of priority species, respectively.
Note: The total exceeds 100% because each species may use more than one habitat.
Figure 4. Percent of priority species that are associated with each habitat type in BCR 8 ON.
Text Description for Figure 4
A horizontal bar graph indicating the percent of priority species (x axis) that are associated with each habitat type (y axis: coniferous, deciduous, mixed wood, shrub/early successional, cultivated, bare areas, urban, wetlands, waterbodies, riparian) in BCR 8 ON. Note: The total exceeds 100% because each species may be assigned to more than one habitat.
Habitat Class | Percent |
---|---|
Riparian | 12.68 |
Waterbodies | 23.94 |
Wetlands | 30.99 |
Urban | 1.41 |
Bare Areas | 12.68 |
Cultivated and Managed Areas | 11.27 |
Shrub/Early successional | 14.08 |
Mixed Wood | 32.39 |
Deciduous | 11.27 |
Coniferous | 30.99 |
Element 3: Population objectives
Population objectives allow us to measure and evaluate conservation success. The objectives in this strategy are assigned to categories and are based on a quantitative or qualitative assessment of species’ population trends. If the population trend of a species is unknown, the objective is set as “assess and maintain,” and a monitoring objective is given. For any species listed under SARA or under provincial/territorial endangered species legislation, Bird Conservation Strategies defer to population objectives in available Recovery Strategies and Management Plans. If recovery documents are not yet available, interim breeding population objectives are provided by species, by habitat in Section 2 of the complete strategy. When recovery objectives are available, they will replace the interim objectives. The ultimate measure of conservation success will be the extent to which population objectives have been reached within the timeframes set by national and continental bird conservation plans. Population objectives do not currently factor in feasibility of achievement but are held as a standard against which to measure progress.
Spatial coverage of BCR 8 ON by bird surveys is sparse, and limited primarily to those areas accessible by road. The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) offers useful information for many landbird species but is restricted to areas accessible by roads, in the southern fringe of the BCR. The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas provides more extensive spatial coverage, but data are heavily weighted to road and canoe accessible sites. A variety of targeted surveys (e.g., the Eastern Waterfowl Survey, Great Lakes Colonial Waterbird Monitoring Surveys, Great Lakes Marsh Monitoring Program, Ontario Shorebird Survey) provide monitoring data for some species in parts of the region, but in general, monitoring coverage is limited, especially in the northern extent of the region. Gaps in monitoring information are significant for some species, and even distribution and abundance are largely unknown for some species. As a result, monitoring data were insufficient to propose a population objective for 18 of the 71 priority species (25%); these species were assigned an objective of “Assess/Maintain” (Figure 5).
A recovery objective was assigned to 21%, or 15 priority species, that are considered at risk under federal and/or provincial legislation though their recovery documents may not yet be finalized. For priority species that are not at risk, monitoring data suggested declines with sufficient certainty to support an objective of increasing population size for only 3 of 71 priority species (4%). In contrast, the best available monitoring information suggested stable populations for 45% of priority species (32 species), and an objective of maintaining current populations was assigned. Priority species that were identified as migrating through BCR 8 ON were not assigned an objective (3 species or 4%), as those were set in other BCR strategies covering the breeding range of these species.
Figure 5. Percent of priority species that are associated with each population objective category in BCR 8 ON.
Text Description for Figure 5
A horizontal bar graph indicating the percent of priority species (x axis) that are associated with each population objective (y axis; increase, assess/maintain, maintain current, recovery objective, migrant) in BCR 8 ON.
Population Objective | Percent |
---|---|
Recovery objective | 21.13 |
Maintain current | 45.07 |
Assess / Maintain | 25.35 |
Increase | 4.23 |
Migrant | 4.23 |
Element 4: Threat assessment for priority species
Bird population trends are driven by factors that negatively affect either their reproduction or survival during any point in their annual life cycle. Threats that can reduce survival include reduced food availability at migratory stopovers or exposure to toxic compounds. Examples of threats that can reduce reproductive success are high levels of nest predation or reduced quality or quantity of breeding habitat. The threats assessment process identifies threats believed to have a population-level effect on individual priority species. These threats are assigned a relative magnitude (Low, Medium, High), based on their scope (the proportion of the species’ range within the sub-region that is impacted) and severity (the relative impact on the priority species’ population). This allows us to target conservation actions towards threats with the greatest effects on suites of species or in broad habitat classes. Some well-known conservation issues may not be identified in the literature as significant threats to populations of an individual priority species and therefore may not be captured in the threat assessment. However, they merit attention in conservation strategies because of the large numbers of individual birds affected in many regions of Canada. Usually these issues transcend habitat types and are considered “widespread” and are therefore addressed in a separate section (see Section 3), but unlike other threats, they are not ranked.
The threat assessment exercise identified a number of conservation issues facing priority species in the various habitats of BCR 8 ON. However, the diversity and magnitude of threats faced by priority birds in the region are lower than those in the more southerly BCRs due in large part to the low density of industrial development and human settlements, particularly in the northwestern portion of BCR 8 ON. For example, residential and commercial development has a limited footprint, and agricultural production occurs largely in the Greater Clay Belt area of the BCR such that associated threats to birds are estimated to be at the localized scale, having little to no effect at the population level.
At present, the dominant threats to priority species, with an overall medium-magnitude, relate to habitat loss and/or degradation from forestry activities (threat sub-category 5.3), fire suppression, which can limit the amount of successional or burned forest habitats required by some priority species (sub-category 7.1), and pollution which can affect habitat quality and the availability of prey items for priority species in aquatic habitats (sub-category 9.5; Figure 6).
However, the scope and severity of many medium- and low-magnitude threats identified in this strategy are likely to increase as the potential for expanded resource development increases. Expanding forestry operationsFootnote1 into northwestern areas of BCR 8 ON along with other emerging threats could have important effects on populations of priority birds in the years to come. Increasing interest in the mineral resources of the region, potential development of renewable energy, and the infrastructure to support these and other developments could all have substantial effects on the birds and habitats of BCR 8 ON in the future (Far North Advisory Panel 2010).
In BCR 8 ON, threat category 12 “Other direct threats” and sub-category 12.1 “Information lacking” was used to identify priority species that lack adequate biological or demographic information required for population conservation and management. Using this category in this manner facilitated the development of targeted research and monitoring conservation actions to address knowledge gaps for these species, but unlike the other threats, they were not ranked (Figure 6). For more than 65% of priority species, a lack of knowledge of population status and/or limiting factors (sub-category 12.1; Figure 6) was identified as an important information gap for which research and monitoring actions are needed to facilitate conservation and management planning efforts for these species.
Within BCR 8 ON, threats related to collisions with human-made structures, collisions with vehicles, as well as climate change and severe weather were considered to be widespread, and as such are addressed in the Widespread Issues section of this strategy.
Cumulative effects of threats to priority species
For several of the threats identified in this strategy, the long-term effect of several combined threats is equal to or greater than the sum of the effects of the individual threats. There is no standardized method for assessing these “cumulative effects.” The threat ranking and roll-up procedures demonstrate the sum of effects for threats within and among threat categories, and are useful for identifying the most important threats within a habitat class, or the relative importance of individual threats across the BCR sub-region (Table 5). However, it is important to consider that threats might interact in unanticipated ways, or that in aggregate, threats might exceed some ecological threshold to produce cumulative effects of an unanticipated magnitude. Cumulative impact studies assessing population responses to multiple stressors are an important tool to better understand the long-term consequences of some of the threats described in this strategy.
Threats to priority species while they are outside of Canada during the non-breeding season were also assessed and are presented in the section Threats Outside Canada.
Figure 6. Percent of identified threats to priority species within BCR 8 ON by threat sub-category.
Note: Each bar represents the percent of the total number of threats identified in each threat sub-category in BCR 8 ON (for example, if 100 threats were identified in total for all priority species in BCR 8 ON, and 10 of those threats were in the category 9.5 Airborne pollutants, the bar on the graph would represent this as 10%). Shading in the bars (H= High, M = Medium, L = Low) represents the magnitude of the threats in each threat sub-category in the BCR. The bars are divided to show the distribution of Low (L), Medium (M) and High (H) rankings of individual threats within each threat sub-category. For example, the same threat may have been ranked H for one species and L for another; the shading illustrates the proportion of L, M and H rankings in the sub-category. The overall rolled-up magnitude of the threat sub-category is shown at the end of each bar (also presented in Table 5). Threat sub-category 12.1 Information lacking was not ranked.
Text Description for Figure 6
A horizontal bar graph indicating the percent of identified threats to priority species (x axis) within BCR 8 ON by threat subcategory (y axis; Recreational Activities, roads and railroads, etc.).
Threat Sub-category | L | M | H | VH |
---|---|---|---|---|
12.1 Information lacking Not Ranked | - | - | - | - |
9.5 Airborne pollutants | 2.05 | 1.49 | - | - |
9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents | 10.8 | - | - | - |
9.2 Industrial and military effluents | 6.33 | - | - | - |
8.2 Problematic native species | 0.19 | - | - | |
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species | 7.08 | - | - | |
7.2 Dams and water management/use | 1.86 | - | - | |
7.1 Fire and fire suppression | 0.93 | 2.61 | - | |
6.3 Work and other activities | 7.64 | 0.37 | 0.19 | |
6.1 Recreational activities | 0.19 | - | - | |
5.3 Logging and wood harvesting | 9.68 | 5.21 | - | |
4.1 Roads and railroads | 6.7 | - | - | |
3.3 Renewable energy | 8.75 | - | - | |
3.2 Mining and quarrying | 7.82 | - | - |
Note: Only threats with a population-level effect were considered, and overall ranks were generated through a roll-up procedure described in Kennedy et al. (2012). L represents low-magnitude threats, M is medium. Cells with hyphens indicate that no priority species had population level threats identified in the threat category/habitat combination.
Threat Category | Habitat Class Coniferous |
Habitat Class Deciduous |
Habitat Class Mixed |
Habitat Class Shrub/Early Successional |
Habitat Class Cultivated and Managed Areas |
Habitat Class Bare Areas |
Habitat Class Wetlands |
Habitat Class Waterbodies |
Habitat Class Riparian |
Habitat Class Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | M | L | M | L | L | L | L | L | L | - |
3. Energy Production and Mining | - | - | - | - | - | L | L | L | L | L |
4. Transportation and Service Corridors | L | L | L | L | L | L | L | - | L | L |
5. Biological Resource Use | M | M | M | - | - | - | L | - | M | M |
6. Human Intrusions and Disturbance | - | - | - | - | M | L | L | L | L | L |
7. Natural System Modifications | M | - | M | M | - | L | L | L | - | M |
8. Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes | L | L | L | - | - | - | L | - | - | L |
9. Pollution | L | - | - | L | L | L | L | M | L | L |
Element 5: Conservation objectives
Conservation objectives were designed to address threats and information gaps that were identified for priority species. They describe the environmental conditions and research and monitoring that are thought to be necessary for progress towards population objectives and to understand underlying conservation issues for priority bird species. As conservation objectives are reached, they will collectively contribute to achieving population objectives. Whenever possible, conservation objectives were developed to benefit multiple species and/or respond to more than one threat.
For BCR 8 ON, the majority of conservation objectives identified relate to increasing the understanding of population status and limiting factors of priority species (conservation objective category 7; Figure 7). Objectives in this category reflect the need to improve understanding of species’ ecology and/or factors causing population declines of priority species, as well as enhancing population/demographic and habitat monitoring across the BCR. Other conservation objectives relate to ensuring an adequate supply and quality of habitat (conservation objective category 1; Figure 7). Included in these objectives are the maintenance of the full range of naturally occurring habitat types, maintaining the quality of existing habitats, and retaining important features on the landscape (e.g., standing dead snags for cavity-nesting birds). Also important is the need to develop and/or implement recovery strategies and management plans for the species at risk in BCR 8 ON (category 3).
Figure 7. Percent of all conservation objectives assigned to each conservation objective category in BCR 8 ON.
Text Description for Figure 7
A horizontal bar graph indicating the percent of all conservation objectives (x axis) assigned to each conservation objective category (y axis; ensure adequate habitat, reduce disturbance, etc.) in BCR 8 ON.
Conservation Objective | Percent |
---|---|
1. Ensure adequate habitat | 25.47 |
3. Manage individual species | 25 |
4. Reduce disturbance | 0.47 |
7. Improve understanding | 49.06 |
Element 6: Recommended actions
Recommended actions indicate on-the-ground activities that will help to achieve the conservation objectives (Figure 8). Actions are strategic rather than highly detailed and prescriptive. Whenever possible, recommended actions benefit multiple species and/or respond to more than one threat. Recommended actions defer to or support those provided in recovery documents for species at risk at the federal, provincial or territorial level, but will usually be more general than those developed for individual species. However, for detailed recommendations for species at risk, readers should consult published federal recovery documents (Species at Risk Public Registry 2014) or provincial recovery documents (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2014d). Similarly, a number of landbird species included in this strategy are stewardship species as defined by Partners In Flight (Rich et al. 2004). These are species with stable populations or for which no specific conservation issues have been identified, but which depend on BCR 8 ON to such an extent that the region has a high responsibility for their protection. These species may not appear prominently in the threats, objectives and actions described in this strategy, but should benefit from the implementation of actions that target multiple species.
In BCR 8 ON, many conservation objectives relate to the protection or restoration of habitats, and accordingly, the more specific recommended conservation actions are related to this theme. Recommended actions are diverse in their approach (Figure 8) and include working collaboratively with forest planning initiatives to ensure guidance for priority species addresses conservation needs (action sub-category 7.2), promoting the development and use of BMPs (sub-category 5.3), establishing a network of protected areas (sub-category 1.2), undertaking actions to promote awareness of issues (sub-category 4.3), and improving monitoring to track the effectiveness of conservation activities (sub-category 8.2).
The majority of the recommended actions in BCR 8 ON relate to knowledge acquisition through research and monitoring (Figure 8; sub-categories 8.1 and 8.2). Although southern portions of the region have some coverage from large-scale surveys, much of the northern portion (and Canada’s boreal forest in general) is sparsely surveyed. Many commonly used monitoring programs, such as the BBS, are not feasible through most of northern BCR 8 ON due to a general lack of roads. Similarly, many other standard monitoring programs are not practical due to the financial and logistical challenges of working in this remote and inaccessible region. As such, even basic information, such as population size and distribution, requires significant extrapolation and reliance on expert opinion for many species. An improved understanding of the population status of priority birds and of the anthropogenic activities affecting their status is requisite for effective conservation in BCR 8 ON.
Note: ”Research and monitoring” refers to specific species where additional information is required. For a discussion of broad-scale research and monitoring requirements, see the section on Research and Population Monitoring Needs.
Figure 8. Percent of recommended actions assigned to each sub-category in BCR 8 ON.
Text Description for Figure 8
A horizontal bar graph indicating the percent of recommended action (x axis) assigned to each sub-category of recommended actions (y axis; Site/area protection, Species Management, etc.) in BCR 8 ON.
Conservation Action | Percent |
---|---|
1.2 Resource and habitat protection | 6.78 |
2.1 Site/area management | 2.33 |
2.3 Habitat and natural process restoration | 3.5 |
3.2 Species recovery | 12.12 |
4.3 Awareness and communications | 6.99 |
5.2 Policies and regulations | 6.76 |
5.3 Private sector standards and codes | 10.72 |
5.4 Compliance and enforcement | 2.33 |
7.2 Alliance and partnership development | 6.99 |
8.1 Research | 13.99 |
8.2 Monitoring | 27.51 |
Page details
- Date modified: