LAND INDICATORSENSC 430 LAND INDICATORS 6 Presented by: Alyzza Cozzi, Allie Glavina, Robyn Laing Ashley Lloyd and Kelly Moodie world. For example, the quality of the land will affect

Land Indicators:

INTEGRATING BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION TO ENSURE THE

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE FRONTENAC ARCH BIOSPHERE

Alyssa Cozzi, Allie Glavina, Robyn Laing, Ashley Lloyd and Kelly Moodie

ENSC 430 LAND INDICATORS

2

Presented by: Alyzza Cozzi, Allie Glavina, Robyn Laing Ashley Lloyd and Kelly Moodie

Section 0.0: TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 4

2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5

3.0 Current Project ....................................................................................................................................... 8

4.0 Protected Areas and Land Cover ......................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Reasons for Protecting an Area ............................................................................... 11

4.1.2 IUCN Classification ................................................................................................... 14

4.1.3 Modified IUCN System ............................................................................................. 18

4.1.4 Land Cover ............................................................................................................... 23

4.1.5 Protected Areas ....................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 26

5.0 Focal Species ......................................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 34

5.2 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 37

5.2.1 Cerulean Warbler ..................................................................................................... 37

5.2.2 Osprey ...................................................................................................................... 42

5.2.3 Spring Peeper ........................................................................................................... 46

5.2.4 Eastern Musk Turtle ................................................................................................. 51

5.2.5 Northern Map Turtle................................................................................................ 56

5.2.6 Gray Ratsnake .......................................................................................................... 61

5.2.7 Least Bittern ............................................................................................................. 66

6.0 Gap Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 73

6.1 Land Cover ............................................................................................................................... 73

6.1.1 Methods ................................................................................................................... 73

6.1.2 Results ...................................................................................................................... 78

6.2 Species at Risk and Protected Areas ........................................................................................ 79

6.2.1 Methods ................................................................................................................... 79

6.2.2 Results ...................................................................................................................... 81

6.3 Land Cover, Protected Areas and Focal Species ...................................................................... 85

6.3.1 Methods ................................................................................................................... 85

6.3.2 Results ...................................................................................................................... 86

7.0 Future Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 93

7.1 Protected Areas and Land Cover ............................................................................................. 93


3


7.1.1 Annual Conservation Meeting ................................................................................. 93

7.1.2 Interactive Map of Protected Areas ........................................................................ 93

7.1.3 Ecological Value Map ............................................................................................... 94

7.1.4 Implementation of the +/- Scale .............................................................................. 94

7.1.5 Investigation Into the Importance of Protecting Different Land Types ................... 95

7.1.6 Protected Areas Over Time as an Indicator ............................................................. 95

7.2 Focal Species ............................................................................................................................ 96

7.2.1 Focal Species Monitoring ......................................................................................... 96

7.2.2 Focal Species Classification ...................................................................................... 97

7.2.3 Uniform Data Collection .......................................................................................... 97

7.2.4 Focal Species Selection ............................................................................................ 97

7.2.5 Focal Species Protection .......................................................................................... 99

7.3 Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 99

7.3.1 Areas in Need of Protection ..................................................................................... 99

7.3.2 Species At-Risk and Protected Areas ..................................................................... 100

7.3.3 Focusing on Protection of Water Bodies ............................................................... 101

8.0 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 102

9.0 References .......................................................................................................................................... 105

10.0 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 112

11.0 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 113

11.1 Appendix A: Land Cover and Protected Areas ..................................................................... 113

11.2 Appendix B: Focal Species .................................................................................................... 121

11.3 Appendix C: Species At-Risk ................................................................................................. 137


4


Section 1.0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of this project was to identify indicators relating to land in the Frontenac

Arch Biosphere (FAB) in south-eastern Ontario in order to ensure the sustainability of

the region. Upon research into the area, three indicators were chosen based on their

relevance and importance to FAB. The first two indicators involved both land cover and

focal species and their relation to protected areas throughout the landscape. The third

indicator was a gap analysis, where data regarding land cover, focal species and

protected areas were integrated as a means to suggest future areas most in need of

conservation. This report is divided into three general categories that examine each of

these indicators: protected areas and land cover, focal species and gap analysis. The

results of the gap analysis integrate data obtained from land cover, focal species and

protected areas in order to suggest three specific areas in need of future conservation

efforts. Through proportional representation, wetlands were found to be over-

represented in protected areas in comparison to total land cover within the FAB, while

open water was found to be under-represented. It was therefore suggested that future

protection areas be centered around open water and areas where habitats of the focal

species are found yet currently unprotected. The three areas reflect the completion of

the gap analysis based on the previous two indicators. To conclude, future

recommendations are suggested including additional work that can be done to further

progress on this project.


5


Section 2.0: INTRODUCTION

Since the early 1970s the United Nations Education, Culture and Science

Organization (UNESCO) has been designating exceptional regions of the world as

Biosphere Reserves. These areas are not chosen haphazardly and they must meet

certain specified criteria; the region must aspire to work towards sustainable community

development and it must be judged as having a unique ecological state. Through this

designation, UNESCO pushes these reserves to meet all the economic, cultural and

social needs of its residents whilst never compromising the state of the natural

environment (FAB, 2009).

The Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve (FAB) is one such reserve, an area of

approximately 2,700 km located in south-eastern Ontario at an important ecological

crossroads between the St. Lawrence River and the Frontenac Arch (FAB, 2009). The

Frontenac Arch is an ancient ridge of granite that extends across the St. Lawrence from

the Canadian Shield to the Adirondack mountains. This geological feature is an

important migration corridor for numerous plant and animal species. The Frontenac

Arch Biosphere has plentiful amounts of natural habitats including rocky shoals and

bars, deep channels, submerged cliffs, and shallow wetlands (UNESCO, 2010). The

forests are composed of species from the coastal Atlantic, the Appalachian forest, the

northern Boreal forest, and southern deciduous and lowland forests. The intermingling

of terrestrial species from both the north and south as well as aquatic species from the

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence system makes the biosphere an exceptionally special

ecological crossroads (UNESCO, 2010). As such, the Frontenac Arch Biosphere must

be protected and conserved in order to maintain the sustainability such a unique and

critical region.

Achieving sustainability requires an integrated view of a number of factors that

can provide a proximate gauge of the state or condition of the environment; these

factors are known as indicators. These indicators must be integrated as nothing stands

alone in the environment; everything affects everything else in a web that spans the


6


world. For example, the quality of the land will affect the economy and a change in land

quality will have effects on farmers, eco-tourism, and resource extraction industries.

Society and cultures have developed around the resources and geography the land has

offered them, and the development of the land and its corresponding people has always

been a give-and-take relationship. Thus, indicators of a society and culture such as

employment, health care, festivals, and heritage sites are all influenced by the state of

the environment. The state of physical resources dictates the types of industry located

there, and heritage sites are the product of various environmental and societal factors

that are, again, often influenced by history and geography. Focusing on the long term

preservation of physical and biological natural resources fits into the sustainability

framework as strongly as any of the factors listed above. The aim of conservation

essentially matches the definition of sustainability in that the goal is to maintain the

resources for future generations.

State of the Environment reporting (SOE), which provides an assessment of the

current status of our general environment including economy, social, cultural and

physical, is one way to work towards this goal. This type of reporting is increasingly

being carried out by governments and other organizations around the world. Given that

the environment is very complex, it would be impractical and virtually impossible to

analyse and report on every aspect, leading managers to resort to the use of indicators

as a means to gauge the current state. State of the Environment reports commonly

utilize many varied indicators to attain a thorough and balanced view of the overall

environment. With sustainability being such a broad and balanced-based idea

encompassing of so many factors, monitoring for its purpose would ideally possess

many varied indicators to ensure that no one subject (eg: environment) is neglected to

the benefit of another (eg: economy). However, when looking at specific environmental

factors, such as conservation areas, a few carefully selected indicators can provide

suitable information to make compelling conclusions.

Updated statuses of land indicators encompassing both the biotic and physical

world are, thus, essential to achieving sustainability as they provide evidence of the


7


effects of environmental management initiatives and enable these compelling

conclusions to be made. Monitoring is routinely used in every sector of the economy to

give management an indication of how their actions may have affected their area of

interest. Having these indicators allows managers to make informed decisions in order

to pinpoint areas upon which improvement may be required. Without a way to gauge the

current and prior states, there is no way to know whether a new project is achieving its

objectives.

The best indicators for monitoring are those which are directly relevant and

important to the area in question. Due to the nature of the FAB organization, they place

great value on conservation areas and the protection of endangered and unique

species. Also, it is important that indicator data be readily available and cost-effective.

As such, this project has gathered data from public organizations as a means to ensure

the information collected is relatively simple to attain; the data is objective and of a

quantitative nature, allowing for the option of sustained monitoring and analysis of long-

term trends. In particular this project focuses on land cover, status and area of protected

regions, and abundance of focal species over time as indicators to gauge the

environmental state of the FAB. In addition to use of these indicators, this report also

focuses on the integration of these factors into a gap analysis, which in itself serves as

the final indicator. Through the combined use of multiple indicators focusing on varying

aspects of the FAB, this project suggests future directions and initiatives to pursue in

order to ensure the overall health and sustainability of this multi-faceted region both now

and in the future.


8


Section 3.0: CURRENT PROJECTS – GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Spatially referenced data regarding the location of various levels of conservation

land has been compiled and mapped by the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve

(FABR). Much of this basic mapping work has been used for the purpose of analysis

within this report. To date, the main scope of the FABR’s initiatives has been data

collection, with little analysis or application of data. The reserve has met with various

members of the conservation community, ranging from municipalities to government

organizations to regional conservation authorities, in order to evaluate interest and

stimulate cooperative and integrated efforts of data collection and sustainability

initiatives. The mapping carried out by the FABR not only focuses directly on land within

the biosphere boundary, but also on the surrounding areas, in order to further the

integration of the neighbouring landscape. With this increased range it is hoped that the

overall sustainability of the biosphere will be improved.

The aim of this project is to aid the FABR in their efforts and provide an overview

of the health of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere using a series of integrated indicators in

order to ensure the sustainability of the region and provide a framework for future

research and conservation efforts. This project will strive to contribute to the

development of an integrated indicator and monitoring system to protect this

ecologically important region by focusing on three main goals:

1) Examining the effectiveness of protected areas through conservation status, risk

analysis and proportional representation of land cover (Section 4.0)

2) Identifying focal species indicative of the varying habitats within the region and

analyzing and interpreting their distributions over time (Section 5.0)

3) Performing a Gap Analysis in order to determine future areas in need of conservation

based on species at-risk and land cover data (Section 6.0)


9


These goals serve as the three indicators of this report and were selected for

their ability to act as proximate gauges of the overall health of the land within FAB in a

way that no one indicator could do on its own. The examination of the effectiveness of

protected areas allows managers to ensure present conservation efforts are constantly

and consistently working towards their goal of sustainability for the region. The

integration of land cover is an important aspect of this examination as it ensures that all

elements of the landscape are included in the process of achieving this goal. The

identification of focal species and the analysis of their abundance through time was

selected for its ability to provide an indication of the progress towards the sustainability

of wildlife and biodiversity as a whole. The inclusion of a temporal element through the

use of multiple time periods allows for more detailed and indicative analysis of change.

Finally, the utilization of a gap analysis as a third indicator allows for the integration of

all factors that contribute to the overall health of the land, serving as a means to develop

future initiatives based on identified gaps in the path to achieving sustainability.


10


Section 4.0: PROTECTED AREAS AND LAND COVER

The first indicator of environmental sustainability in regard to land that was

utilized in this project was protected areas within the FAB region. Within this topic, both

the status of protected areas and the types of land cover that they encompass have

been investigated. These two facets can be looked at individually or in combination in

order to make an assessment of the overall level of protection of the FAB landscapes.

This study performed this assessment by evaluating the current condition of

conservation areas with respect to present and modified classification systems and

protocols already in use by conservation specialists within Canada.

The founding, development and current status of conservation land within FAB have

the potential to indicate the overall health and progression towards sustainability in the

region. As the protected area cover grows and develops within the FAB region, a

greater control and responsibility is placed on land users in the area. This helps contain

and separate the landscape used and transformations imposed by human activity from

the natural ecosystems present in the region. As more of the total land cover on earth is

designated for human activity and use, the placement, volume and regulations

managing conservation areas become of utmost importance. It has been theorized that

in the future, as human population grows, the land will need to be maximized in

efficiency in order to support our species; thus our conservation efforts must be precise

and effective in order to sustain the health of the planet. In their 2003 paper, Berry et al.

coined the term ‘precision conservation’. This refers to conservation strategies relying

heavily on technology in order to pinpoint areas in need of conservation; a strategy

which this project aims to mirror. Currently, land in the area is categorized by

management using the IUCN classification scheme, a scheme widely used by

conservation management organizations worldwide (Dudley, 2008). A subcategory of

land status classification is the topic of risk management and effective protection of land

areas. As the IUCN classification scheme only describes the landscape in terms of

management strategies, it is possible that conservation efforts will benefit by locating


11


areas that are at a high risk of threat by both interior and exterior factors. Thus, to add

to this indicator of protected areas and land cover, this project proposes the

development and implementation of a modified IUCN classification that incorporates a

sliding scale of potential risk, as outline in Section 4.1.3 of this report.

In addition to the status and total area of protection within FAB, the reflection of land

within protected areas is also a good indication of successful, sustainable conservancy

efforts. Ideally, the protected areas should provide a good overall proportional

representation of the land cover in the area, while attempting to maintain important

species corridors and ranges. Some land cover types may be more delicate and

susceptible to damage than others, and the land cover proportions represented should

also try and reflect this as best as possible. It is recognized within this report that it is

near impossible to have exact representation, as conservation land is often established

based on donated land and available lots. This general concept, however, can be used

as a tool in recognizing areas of high priority for future conservation efforts. The Ministry

of Natural Resources (MNR) has recognized this indicator, and presently uses similar

evaluation in State of the Environment (SOE) reporting. Most recently, this analysis has

been utilized in the 2010 State of Ontario Biodiversity report; the topics of sustainable

agriculture, stewardship and biodiversity are discussed in conjunction (Ontario

Biodiversity Council, 2010). This project aims, in this section to integrate the

aforementioned facets of land cover and protection, in combination with advancing

geographic information science technology, as an indicator to analyse and improve the

future sustainability of the FAB and surrounding areas.

4.1 METHODS

4.1.1 Reasons for Protecting an Area

There are various reasons to conserve or protect an area; these reasons range

in significance from personal, to historic to environmental. As the human population

continues to rapidly grow, the effects on the surrounding environments are becoming

more evident. It is, therefore, essential to restrict the amount of human activity in certain


12


areas in order to maintain a more sustainable environment for future generations. This

means protecting areas that are necessary to maintain global processes. There are,

additionally, various other reasons that areas are conserved and those are largely

influenced by human impact, such as protecting regions that have either sentimental

significance or are aesthetically pleasing. Regardless of the reason for protecting an

area, there are various organizations that are working towards preserving land through

the creation of a set of regulations and restrictions for the area. The rational for

protecting an area can provide insight into indicating which areas within FAB should be

highlighted in terms of protection. This could be in the form of either converting the land

into a conservation area or putting efforts forward to have regulations for conservation

that are more strictly enforced. Below are factors that qualify as rational for protecting

an area.

Species at-risk: A species at-risk is a naturally occurring plant or animal that is in

danger of extinction. Species may become at-risk due to a variety of different factors

such as habitat loss, pollution, and invasive species (Government of Ontario, 2010). It

is important to protect species at-risk from extinction to ensure that the processes and

natural systems within ecosystems can continue to function. In order to protect

particular species at-risk from extinction, it is necessary to protect their habitat from

negative effects that would lead to a decrease in population. Sufficiently protecting a

species from harmful influences should not be solely limited to their immediate nesting

grounds or habitat, but should extend to the surrounding area and corridors where

species travel. Protecting the surrounding area for a species is necessary because

species do not remain in one fixed ecosystem and often wander outside of the

parameters of that particular habitat type. The surrounding parameters may be

protected as a buffer zone where development is restricted in order to allow for

additional safety. It is also beneficial to protect pathways that species frequently use to

travel from one area to another - species may travel from one protected area to another

for a variety of reasons, from hunting and transporting food to seasonal migration.


13


Unique Land Types: There are a variety of different types of land cover within

FAB that house numerous species that are involved in many complex interactions with

one another. In FAB some types of unique natural land types include various kinds of

forest, wetlands and open water. These particular land types are important to protect

because of their rarity and because of their ability to act as habitat for multiple species.

These areas are often in need of protection because of their location, or because of

resources contained within them that may be useful for exploitation. It is essential to

protect these habitats to ensure that biodiversity within the land area is preserved, and

that the area will be maintained for future generations. Restrictions must be placed on

the area in terms of development and resource extraction to allow for the area to remain

true to its natural state.

Historical Significance: There are a variety of historical monuments and sites that

are important for people to conserve. Historic sites may represent defining moments of

the past and can highlight both human creativity and cultural traditions. An historic site

tells a story that contributes to the understanding of the area and the identity of the

residents of the area (Parks Canada, 2010). Historic sites may range from urban to

rural to natural settings. There are many different types of historic sites; they can be

buildings and landscapes where historic events took place or locations where

technological discoveries were made. An example of an historic site may be a battlefield

or an archaeological site. Without protection, these sites will slowly degrade over time

until nothing remains and the history and culture contained within them is lost.

Therefore, it is useful to protect these areas in order to allow for people to diversify their

knowledge of past lifestyles and their heritage.

Sentimental Value: In order for an area to become protected an individual or

group of people must come forward and suggest that area for conservation. For a

significant portion of people these are areas that they have some sort of attachment or

sentiment towards. This may mean that they want a site or natural reserve to be

protected near to where they grew up or an area that is significant to their ancestors. An

example may be a heritage village where ancestors settled or a beach that the


14


individual visited frequently as a child. Areas that have a strong interest for protection

because of their sentimental value are likely to gain conserved status because they

have people who are advocating for the protection.

Donated Land: Often an individual, a family, or a group of individuals will donate

a plot of land for the purpose of being conserved. If the government receives this land it

may have been explicitly designated for the purpose of conservation and, thus, the land

will remain undeveloped. The conservation of this area does not necessarily take into

account the necessity of protecting that area due to its land cover type or its ability to

provide a habitat for species at risk.

Recreation and Enjoyment: Natural areas and landscapes are popular areas for

people to enjoy recreational activities such as hiking, canoeing, horseback riding and

skiing. They are also areas where people can enjoy aesthetically-pleasing landscapes

and where they can see a variety of different plant and animal species. Areas are often

conserved in order to preserve nature within urban areas or in tourist regions so that

people can interact with and enjoy nature.

4.1.2 IUCN Classification

The IUCN, founded in 1948, is a partnership between governments, government

agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGO). Its purpose is to “conserve the

integrity and the diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is

equitable and ecologically sustainable” (IUCN, 2010). The IUCN works at a global scale

to provide a common approach to dealing with environmental pressures. The IUCN has

a classification scheme for different types of protected areas around the world. Areas

are classified based on the management strategy of the area, for instance, to protect a

historic monument or for scientific purposes. There are 8 levels of IUCN classification

and since these are used globally they act as a reference and may be compared to

other protected areas around the world.

Benefits:


15


The IUCN classification scheme is standardized and used globally, meaning that

conservation areas around the world may be compared to one another. This is a well-

known method for classifying protected areas as the IUCN is the world’s oldest and

largest global environmental network. There are over one thousand government and

NGO member organizations and nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists in over 60 countries

(IUCN, 2010). Since the IUCN is supported by both scientific and political minds, their

classification scheme is truly multi-disciplinary. This is important because people from

different academic backgrounds need to work together in order to effectively protect the

land.

Drawbacks:

The IUCN uses eight categories for classification and these categories are based

on the management strategy of the land. While each type of protected area will almost

certainly fit into one of these categories, it is more than likely that it could fit into more

than one category, depending on the level of protection enforcement in the area by the

local population. The enforcement of certain areas is more remote or are stricter in

terms of regulations, allowing habitats to remain untouched by humans. Other areas

may be affected by human industry and infrastructure depending on their proximity to

industrial and urban areas. As a result it is difficult to simply classify all protected areas

into eight categories, especially considering all the specific variations in each individual

protected area.

Additionally, since the classification scheme is based on management strategy

as opposed to the level of protection of the area, the IUCN classification scheme does

not take aspects like proximity to urban areas and industry into account when assigning

a classification type. Rather, the IUCN scheme selects a broad category in which

protection can vary greatly.

Classification scheme:

According to the IUCN a protected area is “a clearly defined space, recognized,


16


dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-

term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.”

The IUCN classification is based on the protected areas primary management objective.

For example, the primary management objective of a specific protected area could be

for scientific research, placing the area into the Scientific Reserve category. An area

may be conserved for more than one reason, however, the IUCN classification is based

solely on the most prominent.

Users of IUCN:

The IUCN has offices in over 45 countries, and there are member organizations

in over 160 countries. Within a country or region, members are organized into national

and regional committees to help coordinate the union’s work. The majority of

conservation areas in Canada have been assigned an IUCN classification number and,

thus, can be compared to other conservation areas around the world.

Table 4.1.2.1: IUCN classification categories for conservation areas. (World Conservation Monitoring

Centre, 2002)

IUCN Classification Description

Strict Nature Reserve/

Scientific Reserve (1)

To protect nature and maintain natural processes in an

undisturbed state in order to have ecologically

representative examples of the natural environment

available for scientific study, environmental monitoring,

education, and for the maintenance of genetic resources

in a dynamic and evolutionary state.

National Park (2)

To protect outstanding natural and scenic areas of

national or international significance for scientific,

educational, and recreational use. These are relatively

large natural areas not materially altered by human


17


activity where extractive resource uses are not allowed.

Natural Monument/ Natural

Landmark (3)

To protect and preserve nationally significant natural

features because of their special interest or unique

characteristics. These are relatively small areas focused

on protection of specific features.

Managed Nature

Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary

(4)

To assure the natural conditions necessary to protect

nationally significant species, groups of species, biotic

communities, or physical features of the environment

where these may require specific human manipulation

for their perpetuation. Controlled harvesting of some

resources can be permitted.

Protected Landscapes and

Seascapes (5)

To maintain nationally significant natural landscapes

which are characteristic of the harmonious interaction of

man and land while providing opportunities for public

enjoyment through recreation and tourism within the

normal life style and economic activity of these areas.

These are mixed cultural/natural landscapes of high

scenic value where traditional land uses are maintained.

Resource Reserve (6)

To protect the natural resources of the area for future

use and prevent or contain development activities that

could affect the resource pending the establishment of

objectives which are based upon appropriate knowledge

and planning. This is a `holding' category used until a

permanent classification can be determined.

Anthropological

Reserve/Natural Biotic Area

(7)

To allow the way of life of societies living in harmony

with the environment to continue undisturbed by modern

technology. This category is appropriate where resource

extraction by indigenous people is conducted in a


18


traditional manner.

Multiple Use Management

Area/Managed Resource

Area (8)

To provide for the sustained production of water, timber,

wildlife, pasture and tourism, with the conservation of

nature primarily oriented to the support of the economic

activities (although specific zones may also be

designated within these areas to achieve specific

conservation objectives).

4.1.3 A Modified IUCN System: Factors Contributing to and Detracting from

Conservation Status

The IUCN classification gives a good general overview of conservation zone

types with regard to management, but loses the subtleties of the realized effectiveness

in protection to ecosystems provided by these designated areas. Through experience, it

has become apparent that zones falling under one common IUCN classification could

offer a range of individual regulations and enforceable protection. In addition, the

proximity of these conservation-type areas to other activities on the landscape has an

effect on the success of various land management projects.

In light of this observation, this study proposes that the existing IUCN classification be

modified to better describe the types of protected areas included in the Frontenac Arch

Biosphere. As opposed to dividing protected areas into eight strict classes, it may be

more efficient to utilize a system that integrates a sliding scale component describing

risks to conservation effectiveness. This can be done, while still considering the

framework of the widely used IUCN classes, by adding a +/- factor based on specific

qualities of each protected area. For example, a wide variety of general protected lands

fall under the IUCN class 5. These areas, in theory, have the same reason for

conservation (Protected Land and Seascapes), but the rules and regulations governing

the accessibility and monitoring of the individual sites vary greatly from negligible to

strictly enforced. A +/- factor would combine information on types of land conserved with

the effectiveness and regulations associated into a universally applicable classification


19


system.

In the proposed +/- classification, a variety of factors that add and negate the

level of protection are identified. Positive factors are defined as features and activities

that increase the risk to the area, while negative factors are defined as decreasing risk

by way of enforceability, awareness and location of the site. As one site will likely have

both + and - circumstances associated with it, it is proposed that when the land is

classified that the number and severity of each contributing factor be analyzed and the

dominant symbol attached to the pre-established IUCN class under which it falls.

Several of these +/- factors have been identified (Table 4.1.3.1, 4.1.3.2), which in the

future may be expanded upon to include a more detailed and thorough analysis

depending on the specific subtleties of each area categorized under this revised

classification scheme.

Table 4.1.3.1: Lists and explains factors that increase risk to species and land, thus indicating increased

need for conservation efforts (+ factors).

Category Source Reasoning

Industry

Mining

Permanent scarring of landscape, high risk of

contamination to groundwater and soils from tailings

ponds, severely disrupts natural ecosystems

Forestry

Partial or total disruption of forest ecosystems,

reduction in mature forest area, water pollution,

species displacement

Farming/

Agriculture

Human use of most fertile growing areas, destruction

of forest/wetlands, depletion of nutrients due to

overuse of land, waste contamination from livestock,

potential for foreign species interaction with natural

ecosystems

Commercial Fishing

Potential for over fishing, disruption of natural food

web, negative environmental impact from farmed fish

(disease, escaped foreign species, use of antibiotics),


20


increased pollution from vehicles, impact from

processing plants

Manufacturing/

Industrial

Water, air and ground contaminants specific to type of

industry, high potential for impact to surrounding

areas.

Recreation

Sport Fishing Accidental catch and harm to unintended species,

pollution and habitat damage from boating activities

Hunting

Poor management can lead to over-hunting and

imbalance of ecosystems, increased human activity

seasonally

Camping

Increased human activity, various degrees of land

clearing and infrastructure, increase of waste,

increased potential harm to animals due to unwanted

human interaction (eg. large predators like bears and

cougars looking for food in camping areas)

Hiking/Cross

Country Skiing

Increased noise and activity, building of trails and

other infrastructure potentially harming delicate

species, increased waste

Infrastructure

Urban Centre

Permanent infrastructure, complete destruction of

natural ecosystem, pollutants leaching to surrounding

areas, disruption to water flow systems, isolation of

habitats and species

Urban Sprawl Similar risks as Urban Centres, high risk of spread to

surrounding land with increased development

Roadways

Disruption of species movement, isolation and division

of habitats, diversion of water flow, species death due

to roadkill, spreading of pollutants to surrounding land

Cottages

Increased recreation and human activities, water

pollution from boating, land alteration due to building

and activity, potential for contamination from septic

systems


21


Hydro lines Clearing of land underneath lines, increased human

activity

Dams Disruption of natural water flow systems, blocked

migration routes for aquatic species

Rural Housing

Risk to surrounding land and water due to septic tank

use, various degrees of habitat disruption due to

housing infrastructure

Landfills

Severe disruption of natural habitats, high risk of

contamination to surrounding areas (dependant of

landfill management), production of methane, carbon

dioxide and other chemicals as by-products of waste

processing

Management

Poor Management

or Unregulated

Areas

Lack of predetermined management strategies,

regulations, and enforcement serving as threats to

effective conservation efforts

Invasive

Species

Invasive species often dominate habitats; destruction

of natural biodiversity, species health and resource

quality

Table 4.1.3.2: Lists and explains factors that decrease risk to land and species, thus indicating high

conservation effectiveness (- factors).

Category Source Reasoning

Public

Awareness

Closely monitored

threatened species

Increased monitoring reduces the potential for

extinction as it allows for a proactive approach to

species protection

Attention from special

interest groups/media

Increased public awareness lessens the risk of

unmonitored or harmful activity within the protected

area, more accountability for activities

Sentimental Value Lands donated by private owners may carry

sentimental value, leading to personal investment


22


in ensuring that the land is properly managed

Historic site/landscape

Historic sites and landscapes are often associated

with national identity and/or local and regional

culture, thus raising their profile and accountability

of nearby land users. These sites are often

regulated by national or provincial authorities.

Location

Buffer zone

This offers additional protection around a protected

area and decreases the risk of effects on the

ecosystem from surrounding land uses. A buffer

zone normally has some regulation and is in place

specifically for this purpose.

Isolated area

An isolated area, while not having an official buffer

zone, is far away from other land use activities and

has a low risk of being affected negatively from

outside sources.

Species

Corridor/migration

route

Land protected with species movement in mind, or

later cited as an important corridor, are likely to be

monitored through scientific study and therefore

see a higher degree of accountability for activity in

the area

Management

Low human activity

By separating human activity from highly

conserved areas, there are inherently less risks to

the natural ecosystem (by way of factors seen in

the Table 4.1.3.1)

Well enforced

regulations

Clear regulations outlining the activity permitted in

the area, monitoring of adherence by governing

bodies, and singular or clear designation of

authoritative bodies ensure that guidelines for

effective conservation efforts are maintained once

in place


23


It is important to note that not all of the above listed +/- factors may be applicable

to all protected areas, as the original IUCN class may designate the land for a specific

purpose. For example, National Parks (2) and Protected Land and Seascapes (5)

include designated recreation and tourism sites. These areas would not be penalized

with a “-” notation due to these factors, as regulated recreational areas are not

inherently bad use of land. Similarly, Natural Monument/Natural Landmarks (3) would

not receive a “+” notation for being a historic site or landscape, as this is already

described within the base IUCN classification scheme. However, if recreational areas

prove to be poorly monitored or regulated, they would receive a “-” factor in this regard.

The intention of using such a classification scheme to describe the landscape as an

indicator of sustainability and is not intended to strictly prohibit human activity in the

region, but to establish a balance and control over human use and protection of natural

systems. As this type of equilibrium is dependent on many subtleties, this proposed

scheme requires much review and addition before it can be made optimally effective.

4.1.4 Land Cover

Land cover data was obtained from the Southern Ontario Land Resource

Information System (SOLRIS), a GIS compatible layer of land use information created

by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Released in November of 2007, the database was

“developed to support landscape-scale planning initiatives in southern Ontario such as

Source Water Protection, Biodiversity Conservation, Natural Heritage Planning, and

State of Resources Reporting” (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008). SOLRIS contains

“a landscape-level inventory of natural, rural and urban areas” mapped using a

“standardized approach for ecosystem description, inventory and interpretation known

as ecological land classification” (Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008). The SOLRIS

database was used for this report because it is a compilation of land cover data from

topographic maps, aerial photos and satellite images in a convenient layout that worked

well with this project’s desire to portray information in a visual format. The data covers


24


Ecoregions 6E and 7E, which are ecologically and geographically distinct regions, and

thus there are some areas around the study zone that do not have any land cover

information. SOLRIS maps land types including: open cliff & talus, alvar, open shoreline,

open bluff, open sand barren & dune, treed sand barren and dune, open tall-grass

prairie, tall-grass savanna, tall-grass woodland, forest, coniferous forest, mixed forest,

deciduous forest, plantations, hedge rows, transportation, extraction, built-up pervious,

built-up impervious, swamp, fen, bog, marsh, open water and undifferentiated lands. All

data is accurate as of 2002. The following table outlines the classes that are present in

the Frontenac Arch Biosphere and surroundings.

Table 4.1.4.1: Lists and explains land cover types of the Frontenac Arch study area and their specific

descriptions as given by SOLRIS.

Land Cover Type Description

Alvar Primarily exposed limestone bedrock or bedrock with shallow

cover <15cm and less than 60% trees.

Forest Tree cover >60%, >75% canopy cover and >2m high. Forest

type not determined due to small size.

Coniferous Forest >60% tree cover with at least 75% conifer tree species and

more than 2m high.

Mixed Forest >60% tree cover, >25% coniferous tree species and >25%

deciduous tree species at least 2m high.

Deciduous Forest Tree cover >60%, >75% deciduous tree species and >2m

high.

Plantation - Tree

Cultivated

>60% tree cover, minimum of 2m high and consisting of trees

in linear organization and of the same type (mostly coniferous).

Includes nurseries and Christmas tree plantations.

Hedge Rows >60% tree cover, more than 2m in height, and arranged in a

linear fashion between 10-30m in width.

Transportation Network of highways and roads.


25


Extraction Pits and quarries and associated infrastructure.

Built-Up Area Pervious Recreation areas including golf courses and sports fields and

cemeteries.

Built-Up Area

Impervious

Residential, industrial, commercial and civic areas.

Swamp

Open treed and shrub communities with >25% cover,

dominated by hydrophytic species and with a water table at,

near, or above surface.

Fen

Open shrub and tree communities, on a brown moss peat

substrate dominated by sedge and grasses <2m high, <25%

tree cover and with a water table at, near, or above surface.

Bog

Open shrub and tree communities, on a sphagnum peat

substrate, tree cover <25% and a water table at, near, or

above surface.

Marsh

Open shrub and tree communities, dominated by hydrophytic

macrophytes, tree and shrub cover <25% and a water table at,

near, or above the surface.

Open Water Water bodies >2m deep with no macrophyte vegetation, trees

or shrubs.

Undifferentiated Agricultural lands, brown fields and other open land not

grouped into any of the other classes.

Land Cover Type Description

4.1.5 Protected Areas

Mapping of the protected areas within and surrounding the Frontenac Arch

Biosphere has been done individually by various organizations, largely due to the

increasing demand for and use of GIS data. Currently, the Frontenac Arch Biosphere

houses properties managed by various organizations, such as: Parks Canada, Parks

Ontario, Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), Areas of National


26


and Scientific Importance (ANSI), UNESCO, various conservation authorities, and

private land owners. The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is, in many of these

cases, the mapping coordinator and data collector. The Frontenac Arch Biosphere

Reserve is currently in the process of obtaining, compiling and summarizing these map

layers for use in the region. This data is presented in shape files for use in the ArcGIS

interface. It is through this project’s partnership with the FABR that map data has been

obtained for the purposes of the following analyses. This map data is of varying quality

due to both data availability and privacy issues. With the help of the FABR’s

knowledgeable representatives, both the name and detail too many of the land plots

were obtained. However, many of the land plots remain unidentified due to privacy

issues; in order to increase the accuracy of the results of the following methodology, a

more complete data set is required.

4.2 RESULTS

While assigning each protected area within the biosphere region a classification

based on the proposed +/- system was beyond the scope of this project, it was found

necessary to illustrate the classification scheme through the use of several case studies

as it would pertain to a set of real world examples. Frontenac Provincial Park and

Gananoque Provincial Wildlife Area were chosen to demonstrate the use of this

classification scheme (see figure 4.2.1). These two areas were chosen as they had a

number of the +/- characteristics identified above.

Gananoque Provincial Wildlife Area is a region to the west of the town of

Gananoque, just north of the 401 highway. It contains approximately 1,000 acres of land

including forest, wetlands and exposed rock. The land monitored by the Nature

Conservancy of Canada is publicly owned and accessible (FABR, 2010). It contains a

series of trails that run west along the Gananoque River for both hiking and motorized

vehicles. Hunting is also practiced within the area. Several tributaries within this region

flow into the Gananoque River, making it an area of abundant wildlife. This area is

home to a large diversity of reptiles and amphibians including snakes, frogs, turtles and


27


salamanders. White-tail deer, coyote, red fox, muskrat, mink and weasels are

commonly sighted mammals in the area (FABR, 2010). This area also acts as an

important corridor for wildlife travelling to the St. Lawrence River. However, significant

boundaries to wildlife movement do exist in the form of the 401 highway and County

Road 2. Further along the Gananoque River there is a man-made power dam owned by

Fortis Power (FABR, 2010). SOLRIS data, as shown in figure 4.2.2, indicates the

presence of pits and/or quarries in close proximity to this protected area. As well, the

region overlies a large area of built-up pervious structures and borders undifferentiated

open land (agricultural land, brown fields, etc., see table 4.1.4.1). Therefore, according

to the system proposed in table 4.1.3.1, the Gananoque Provincial Wildlife Area has

been assigned a series of “+” designations for: proximity to industry, including

mining/extraction operations and farming practices; recreation uses including fishing,

hunting, and hiking purposes; and infrastructure including proximity to the urban centre

of Gananoque which includes built up pervious and impervious areas as well as major

highways including the 401 and County Road 2. Similarly, one would associate a set of

“-” values to the region as well as per table 4.1.3.2. These would include the region’s

role as a wildlife corridor and its attention from special interest groups, namely its

location within and its association with the Frontenac Arch Biosphere. An IUCN number

may be applied to this protected region based on its management policies. Based on its

characteristics and the use of the IUCN Guidelines for Applying Protected Area

Management Categories (2008) the IUCN classification number of 5 was given to this

region. Therefore, combining these two points, the Gananoque Provincial Wildlife Area

would be given a classification of 5+, the 5 indicating its management policies and the +

indicating overall risk evaluation using the proposed system.

The second case study to demonstrate the use of this proposed system is

Frontenac Provincial Park, located on 5,000 hectares of land near the town of

Sydenham, just north of Kingston. It is classified as a semi-wilderness area by Ontario

Parks, containing a series of lakes, wetlands and mixed forests. Abundant wildlife can

be found in the area including osprey, kingfisher, black bears, coyotes, fox, grey wolves


28


and beavers (Ontario Parks, 2006). The park is designated for human recreational use

and includes facilities for camping and boating. Park activities as designated by Ontario

Parks, include fishing, canoeing, hiking, boating, swimming, camping and wildlife

viewing. The park also puts a focus on natural heritage education and wilderness

survival skills. Human impact and use of the facilities are well monitored, however, and

entrance to the park requires paying admission fees. There are limited vehicles allowed

in the park and the use of motorized vehicles and mountain bikes on the trails are

prohibited. Furthermore, motorized boats are allowed only on Big Salmon Lake, and this

requires a permit (Friends of Frontenac, 2010). Hunting is not allowed in the park and

camping and hiking locations are highly regulated. Looking at the location of Frontenac

Park in figure 4.2.3, one may notice the park’s distance from any major developed areas

and the lack of infrastructure, including roads passing through the park. There are also

a series of protected areas in close proximity to the park, and although these may have

different levels of management and protection, they may also function as a buffer zone

around the park. Taking this into consideration, Frontenac Provincial Park may be

assigned a series of “+” risk factors as explained in table 4.1.3.1 based on its abundant

options for human recreation including fishing, camping, hiking, and the use of

motorized boats on Big Salmon Lake, the largest of the lakes within the park. “-” risk

factors would include its location in an isolated area away from infrastructure and

development and the potential for a buffer zone to exist due to other protected areas

along the periphery of the park. Park management also appears to have well-enforced

regulations for recreational activities taking place in the park and has attention from

special interest groups including the provincial government of Ontario and the

Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. Frontenac Provincial Park has been classified as

IUCN level 2: National Park (see section 4.1.2 on IUCN classification) according to its

management plans. Based on these risks in combination with the IUCN level, Frontenac

Park would receive a 2- classification.

These two examples of Gananoque Provincial Wildlife Area and Frontenac

Provincial Park provide insight into how the proposed “+/-” classification scheme can be


29


implemented in order to serve as a tool to demonstrate both the management priorities

given by the IUCN as well as the assignment of a level of protection to each area. The

“+/-” scale, like the IUCN classification, is independently related to each of the protected

areas and requires thorough study into each particular area before a number can be

assigned. Though the scale will require time to become fully implemented, the use of

this system will allow for protected areas to be compared based on their level of

protection and thus provide future opportunities for analysis based on this new factor.

Figure 4.2.1: Map showing specific risk factors with an overlay of protected areas, including Gananoque

Provincial Wildlife Area and Frontenac Provincial Park.


30


Figure 4.2.2: Gananoque Provincial Wildlife Area and associated risks including proximity to major roads,

extraction operations, agricultural land and the town of Gananoque.


31


Figure 4.2.3: Frontenac Provincial Park and associated risks including relative isolation from urban

centres, lack of roads and a buffer zone.


32


Section 5.0: FOCAL SPECIES

Seven focal species were selected in order to serve as indicators of the health of

individual ecosystems within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, with observational data

regarding their distribution and abundance being collected. Focal species are difficult to

define due to the inconsistent use of the term and the various ways in which focal

species are selected for the purpose of resource management and biodiversity

conservation (Hannon and McCallum, 2004). However, in general they are defined as

any species that can be used in conservation planning as its distribution and abundance

is well-known and reflects that of the local biota (Hannon and McCallum, 2004). Thus

focal species tend to include umbrella species, which are those that require large areas

of land and habitat in order to survive, such as grizzly bears; keystone species, which,

like the beaver, are critically important to an ecosystem and have an effect on a great

number of other species; or species that are habitat specialists. Essentially a focal

species is any species that is most influenced by threatening processes and

representative of the landbase in the area of interest (Hannon and McCallum, 2004;

Horn et al., 2009).

In this project, focal species were selected on the basis that in combination they

represented each ecosystem within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere due to their varying

and distinct habitats, and therefore reflect the spectrum of ecosystems across the

landscape of the FAB. These species were also selected in consultation with professors

within the biology and environmental studies departments at Queen’s University in

Kingston, Ontario whom are familiar with the region. Rationale for the inclusion of each

individual focal species selected is presented in the subsections below and summarized

in Table 5.0.1. The overall rationale for selection of focal species based on habitat

representation is simply that the observational results obtained for such species

provides a beneficial overview of the health of individual ecosystems within the FAB.

This overview allows for the suggestion of future steps that the Frontenac Arch


33


Biosphere Reserve can take in order to ensure the sustainability of the region and the

biodiversity that lies therein, such as those suggested in Section 5.2 and 7.0 of this

report. However, it is suggested that if the FAB is to undertake focal species monitoring

as a means to assess the overall health of the region in the future, it may be beneficial

to further investigate the process of selection of focal species and to do so based upon

the method proposed by Lambeck, 1997. This suggestion and the reasons behind it are

further described in Section 7.0 of this report.

Table 5.0.1: Summarizes the rationale for selecting each individual focal species used within this project.

Focal Species Summary for Rationale for Selection

Cerulean Warbler indicative of large, mature, uninterrupted forest

ecosystems

Osprey

indicative of terrestrial and aquatic transitional regions as

well as overall health of fish populations and aquatic

ecosystems

Spring Peeper

indicative of transitional terrestrial ecosystems, the health

of lowland vegetation as well as shallow wetlands

ecosystems

Gray Ratsnake

indicative of transitional terrestrial ecosystem between

forests and fields, as well as the state of forest

fragmentation

Musk Turtle indicative of general shallow freshwater ecosystems

Northern Map Turtle indicative of deep aquatic ecosystems with transition to

terrestrial habitats as well as general water quality.

Least Bittern indicative of a overall health of wetland ecosystems.


34


5.1 METHODS

Results for individual species were obtained through the collection of

observational data from the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Database (Bird Studies

Canada, 2006), the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 1981-1984 (Cadman et al.,

1987), the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of

Ontario, 2001-2005 (Cadman et al., 2005), the Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas

(Ontario Nature, 2010) and the Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas (Oldham and

Weller, 2000). Data was recorded based on the North American Datum 83 (NAD83)

projection used in the second edition of the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, which

provided a spatial framework to organize observational data. This projection divides the

province of Ontario into regions, with 10 km x 10 km squares encompassing the total

area within each region. For this project, data from multiple sources was adapted to be

representative of the 10 km x 10 km spatial framework presented by the Atlas of the

Breeding Birds of Ontario such that all focal species observational data (Appendix B)

was recorded on a 10 km x 10 km block basis.

The regions used in this project were region 21: Kingston (Figure 5.1.1) and region

22: Thousand Islands (Figure 5.1.2). Within these two regions this project focused on

collecting data within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere and thus focal species abundance

data was reduced to the data that was located within the forty-two 10 km x 10 km

squares that fell within or along the boundary of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, as

depicted in Figure 5.1.3 and recorded in Table B1 (Appendix B). Furthermore, though

data was available for time periods 1981-1984 and 2001-2005 for the bird species, the

data for the remaining species was organized into the broader categories of “before

1990” and “1990 to present”, as seen in the observational data in Appendix B. As a

result, data for this project was grouped into these broader “pre-1990” and “post-1990”

categories in order to encompass all available observational information.


35


Figure 5.1.1: Depicts the 10 km by 10 km blocks of Region 21: Kingston used in the organization of observational

data from the Breeding Bird Atlas. <http://www.birdsontario.org/maps/rgn21.jpg>

Figure 5.1.2: Depicts the 10 km by 10 km blocks in Region 22: Thousand Islands used in the organization of

observational data from the Breeding Bird Atlas. <http://www.birdsontario.org/maps/rgn22.jpg>


36


Figure 5.1.3: Outlines the squares that lie within or along the boundary of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere.

The observational data for the avian species used in this project (Cerulean

Warbler, Osprey and Least Bittern) was obtained from the Breeding Bird Atlas by

utilizing the Ontario Breeding Birds Atlas Database (Bird Studies Canada, 2006). Each

individual species was inputted into an Atlas Data Summary Form which was restricted

to outputting data for the 42 squares within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere. Data for

each square was recorded, indicating whether the bird species was observed within that

particular square, and can be seen in Table B1 (Appendix B). Though data for each

square was recorded as one of four breeding evidence categories (described in Table

B2, Appendix B), only squares that fell within the “confirmed”, “probable” or “observed”

categories were included in this project in order to increase the consistency and

uniformity between bird data and that of other species included in this project which

were simply recorded as “observed” or “unobserved”.


37


A similar method was used to collect the reptile and amphibian focal species data

(Spring Peeper, Eastern Musk Turtle, Northern Map Turtle and Gray Ratsnake),

however original data in table format was unavailable and thus observational data was

obtained via pre-existing maps, as seen in Appendix B. The maps presented

information in a 10 km x 10km grid format such that the 10 km x 10 km squares used by

the Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario (Figure 5.1.3) could easily be overlain.

Observational data was then obtained following this overlain grid and recorded per

Breeding Bird Atlas square, as seen in Appendix B, Table B1.

All focal species data was then inputted into ArcGIS in order to visually display

focal species ranges between the two selected time periods. This was done by creating

a grid layer within ArcGIS that corresponded to that of the Breeding Bird Atlas grid

(Figure 5.1.3). This layer was duplicated 14 times, with each layer being labelled

according to the species and time period it depicted. For example, one layer was

labelled “Osprey_pre1990” while the following layer was labelled “Osprey_post1990”

and both these layers were changed to the same colour while layers corresponding to

different species were labelled different colours. Once these layers were created,

individual species data was inputted by eliminating the squares in which no

observations of that species were made. This resulted in species range maps for the

two selected time periods, as seen in Section 5.2 below.

5.2 RESULTS

5.2.1 Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea)

The Cerulean Warbler is found only in southern Ontario and extreme southern

Quebec within Canada, but solely during the summer months as it is a neotropical

migrant and thus spends its winter months in central and northern South America, from

Venezuela to Bolivia (Eagles, 1987; COSEWIC, 2003). It is difficult to identify due to its

small size and weak voice as well as the tall location of its nests at the top of trees

between 7.5 and 18 metres high (Eagles, 1987). Male Cerulean Warblers are vivid blue

in colour with white breasts that have a thin dark band across the upper portion (Royal


38


Ontario Museum, 2005). Females are similar in appearance, with a green-blue plumage

in place of vivid blue (COSEWIC, 2003).

Figure 5.2.1.1: Photo of a Cerulean Warbler (Dendoirca cerulea). < http://www.caryinstitute.org/press/cerulean.warbler.2.jpg>

Habitat and Range:

The Cerulean Warbler requires large forested areas in order to thrive as it

frequents the upper canopy of large, mature deciduous trees and requires an extensive

canopy with open understory (Eagles, 1987; COSEWIC, 2003). It has been designated

as one of the top nine focal species for conservation action in North America by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service due to the fact that it has been experiencing the greatest

declines of any other North American Warbler (Bakermans and Rodewald, 2009). Over

the last 40 years it has experienced an 83% decline, translating to a decrease in ~35%

every decade (Butcher and Niven, 2007). Due to this decline and its requirement for

large forested areas, the Cerulean Warbler is an excellent indicator of the overall health

and abundance of mature forest ecosystems.


39


Threats:

The Cerulean Warbler has been declining in such rapid fashion due to a

degradation in its habitat as a result of land use change (Hamel, 2000). Much of its

habitat here in North America has been converted to agricultural or urban areas, with

habitat fragmentation also posing a great threat to the Cerulean Warbler given its

requirement for large, uninterrupted tracts of forest (COSEWIC, 2003). Environmental

degradation through disease and other factors like acid rain have also contributed to

this species decline and continue to pose a threat (Hamel, 2000; COSEWIC, 2003).

Data Analysis:

Figure 5.2.1.2: Shows Cerulean Warbler (Dendoirca cerulea) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to those used

in the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squareas indicate a

confirmed presence of Cerulean Warbler prior to 1990. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is overlain on a

GIS representation of protected areas within the region.


40


Figure 5.2.1.3: Shows Cerulean Warbler (Dendoirca cerulea) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those used in

the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares present indicate

a confirmed presence of Cerulean Warbler after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB.

Data is overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region.

Figure 5.2.1.4: Shows Cerulean Warbler (Dendoirca cerulea) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to those used

in the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares present indicate a confirmed presence of Cerulean Warbler prior to1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of land cover of FAB and surrounding area.


41


Figure 5.2.1.5: Shows Cerulean Warbler (Dendoirca cerulea) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those used in

the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares present indicate a confirmed presence of Cerulean Warbler after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of land cover of FAB and surrounding area.

Interpretation:

From the data analysis it can be seen that there is a decrease over time in

Cerulean Warbler abundance in the FAB region as it appears to be present in 20

squares prior to 1990 (Figures 5.2.1.2, 5.2.1.4) and only present in 13 squares after

1990 (Figures 5.2.1.3, 5.2.1.5). Of this loss of squares it appears that the majority of the

loss is occurring over the eastern region of the FAB, specifically near the Charleston

Lake Provincial Park. This could be indicative of habitat fragmentation due to the

establishment of cottages and campgrounds within the area or a loss of a critical natural

corridor to allow migration of populations from the west. This could also be indicative of

a general decline in the health of mature forests within the eastern region of the FAB,

potentially due to disease or acid rain resulting from pollution from the developing St.

Lawrence region. Lastly, it has been found that male Cerulean Warblers preferentially

inhabit areas with abundant bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) as it is a tree species


42


that is among the last to leaf-out, allowing better propagation of the relatively weak

Cerulean Warbler song (COSEWIC, 2003). Thus it could be that the results are

indicative of a shift in tree species within the forest ecosystem in the eastern region of

the biosphere.

5.2.2 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)

The Osprey is a large raptor at the top of the aquatic food web preying almost

exclusively on fish with its powerful, sharp talons and hooked beak (Environment

Canada, 2010). The species breeds in the temperate or tropical regions of all

continents, with the exception of South America (Weird, 1997). It is present throughout

Canada, nesting as far north as the Hudson and James Bay coasts (Weir, 1997), with

an estimated one-third of the world’s breeding Osprey population being supported within

Canada (Environment Canada, 2010).

Figure 5.2.2.1: Photo of Osprey (Pandion haliaetus).< http://www.birding.in/images/Birds/osprey.jpg>


43


Habitat and range:

Ospreys, due to the fact that they prey on fish, tend to reside near lakes, rivers or

sea-coasts, hence their common association with the Boreal and Great Lakes-St.

Lawrence Forest zones (Weir, 1997). They require large trees along the water’s edge in

order to build their nests and hence are good indicators of the presence of transitional

areas between forest and water ecosystems (Environment Canada, 2010).

Furthermore, because Ospreys are situated at the top of the aquatic food-web, they are

also a good indicator of overall aquatic ecosystem health, particularly with respect to

fish populations.

Threats:

In the 1930s osprey populations began to decline slightly around the Great Lakes

area due to the removal of large pine trees for timber, thus reducing the number of

suitable nesting sites. However, this slight decline was incomparable to that of the

1960s, where chemical sprays using DDT caused a number of detrimental effects, such

as the thinning of eggshells, resulting in dramatic declines (Environment Canada, 2010).

Though the use of DDT was banned in most areas, chemical contamination still remains

a threat for the Osprey (Environment Canada, 2010). This is due to the nature of its

food source and the concept of bioaccumulation, where contaminants increase in

concentration at each trophic level of the food chain, resulting in the highest

concentration within species at the top level, such as the Osprey. In addition, the

Osprey is susceptible to loss of habitat through the development of shorelines for

human activities and a general decrease in aquatic ecosystem health through nutrient

loading and eutrophication (Environment Canada, 2010).


44


Data Analysis:

Figure 5.2.2.2: Shows Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to those used in the

Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares indicate a confirmed

presence of Osprey prior to 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is overlain on a

GIS representation of protected areas within the region.

Figure 5.2.2.3: Shows Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those used in the Atlas

of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares present indicate a

confirmed presence of Osprey after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is overlain

on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region.


45


Figure 5.2.2.4: Shows Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to those used in the

Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares present indicate a

confirmed presence of Osprey prior to1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is

overlain on a GIS representation of land cover of FAB and surrounding area.

Figure 5.2.2.5: Shows Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those used in the Atlas

of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares present indicate a

confirmed presence of Osprey after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is overlain

on a GIS representation of land cover of FAB and surrounding area.


46


Interpretation:

It can be seen from the data analysis that Osprey populations increase over time

within the FAB region as they appear to be present in 29 squares prior to 1990 (Figures

5.2.2.2, 5.2.2.4) and 38 squares following 1990 (Figures 5.2.2.3, 5.2.2.5). This increase

is likely due to the banning of DDT which has allowed for a steady increase in Osprey

chick yields as well as lead to a reduction in reproductive problems arising from this

damaging contaminant (Environment Canada, 2010). In addition, higher populations

could also be the result of increased conservation efforts taking place following the

realization of population declines, where organizations and groups helped improve

Osprey habitat as well as constructed a number of artificial nesting sites. Lastly, this

increase could also simply be due to increased attention following the drastic decline,

leading to more observations due to a higher number of observers rather than being

due to truly increasing populations.

5.2.3 Spring Peeper(Pseudacris crucifer)

The Spring Peeper is one of the smallest frog species in Ontario at approximately

2 to 3 cm long (Natural Resources Canada, 2007; Runnesson, 2010). It is generally tan

or light brown in colour with a dark brown cross pattern on its back that makes the

species very distinctive (Natural Resources Canada, 2007; Ontario Nature, 2010). In the

winter the Spring Peeper hibernates on land, allowing its body to freeze by converting

glucose and preventing the formation of ice crystals that would otherwise rupture its

internal organs (Runneson, 2010). This ability to freeze also allows the Spring Peeper to

be one of the first frog species to begin its breeding call in the spring (Runneson, 2010).

Females lay between 800 to 1,000 eggs either alone or in small groups, with the

breeding season beginning in late April and lasting through May (Ontario Nature, 2010;

Runneson, 2010).


47


Figure 5.2.3.1: Photo of Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer). <http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/Amphibians/Spring%20Peeper/00003204.jpg>

Habitat and range:

The Spring Peeper feeds on small invertebrates and thus inhabits low vegetation

around the edges of woodlands (Runneson, 2010). They have a wide range of

distribution and seem to occur anywhere there is shallow water, particular within

temporary woodland ponds and semi-permanent wetlands along slow-moving rivers

(Natural Resources Canada, 2007; Ontario Nature, 2010). In the summer the species

migrates to upland forested and shrubby habitats with abundant leaf litter, hibernating

under logs and loose bark (Ontario Nature, 2010). As a result, the Spring Peeper is an

excellent indicator of the health of transitional terrestrial ecosystems as well as shallow

wetland ecosystems, particularly with respect to small invertebrate species.

Threats:

Like most other species the Spring Peeper is threatened by the draining,

destruction and conversion of wetlands (Ontario Nature, 2010). Due to its habitat


48


requirements this species is unable to withstand habitat modification through

urbanization and habitat development (FrogWatch, 2010; Ontario nature, 2010). As a

result, this species is threatened in areas of increasing development, but its population

is considered stable within Canada (Ontario Nature, 2010). However, because the

Spring Peeper requires shallow wetland habitats as well as forested ecosystems

depending on the season, the Spring Peeper is particularly sensitive to disturbances to

either ecosystem.

Data Analysis:

Figure 5.2.3.2: Shows Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to those used in

the Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares indicate a

confirmed presence of Spring Peeper prior to 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data

is overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region.


49


Figure 5.2.3.3: Shows Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those used in

the Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares indicate a

confirmed presence of Spring Peeper after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is

overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region.

Figure 5.2.3.4: Shows Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to those used in


a confirmed presence of Spring Peeper before1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data

is overlain on a GIS representation of land cover of FAB and surrounding area.


50


Figure 5.2.3.5: Shows Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those used in


a confirmed presence of Spring Peeper after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is


Interpretation:

From the data analysis it can be seen that though the Spring Peeper appears to

undergo a shift in terms of the location of individual squares in which it is present, the

total number of squares in which it is observed is relatively the same between the two

time periods - it is observed in 22 squares prior to 1990 (Figures 5.2.3.2, 5.2.3.4) and 21

squares following 1990 (Figures 5.2.3.3, 5.2.3.5). This consistency could be due to the

high amount of wetland-focused conservation within the FAB, as discussed in section

6.1 of this report, which may be effectively protecting the Spring Peeper habitat. The

increase in observational reports in the north-western region of FAB near Frontenac

Provincial Park could simply be due to increased diligence in observational methods as

the Spring Peeper is a difficult species to identify due to its small size and the fact that it

is most active at dusk and at night (Ontario Nature, 2010). The increase in squares to


51


the north could also be due to increased reporting efforts or could possibly be due to

recent climate change and increasing temperatures, allowing an increase in the species

northern range. Lastly, the loss in the squares in the southern area of the FAB is likely

due to increased urbanization north of Kingston.

5.2.4 Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus)

The Eastern Musk Turtle (also known at Stinkpot Turtle) is named after the

unpleasant odour it exudes when threatened or disturbed (Royal Ontario Museum

[ROM], 2009). It is the smallest freshwater turtle in Canada, rarely exceeding 13 cm in

length (Parks Canada, 2009), and has been deemed threatened in Ontario and Quebec

(COSEWIC, 2002). Its carapace, the upper portion of its shell, is highly arched and is

grey-brown to black in colour, while the plastron, the nearly flat belly, ranges between

hues of yellow and brown (Edmonds, 2002). In addition, individuals often exhibit two

light stripes on the side of their heads while the remainder of their skin colour ranges

from grey to black (Parks Canada, 2009). Unlike many other local turtle species, Musk

Turtles rarely emerge completely from the water in order to bask, but instead prefer to

remain in the water and bask just a few inches from the surface (Edmonds, 2002). They

are also relatively poor swimmers and are quite awkward on land (Parks Canada,

2009). The species is omnivorous and although its primary food sources are molluscs

and aquatic insects, it will consume crayfish, snails, clams, fish eggs, minnows,

tadpoles algae and certain parts of vascular plants (Edmonds, 2002). Musk Turtles

prefer shallow, slow moving water as they crawl along and forage on the bottoms of

ponds by probing their heads into soft mud, sand and vegetation (Parks Canada, 2009).

Musk turtles also hibernate underwater, often in high densities when a suitable site for

hibernation can be found (Edmonds, 2002).


52


Figure 5.2.4.1: Photo of an Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus)

<http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?tid=2&did=27498>

Habitat and range:

The Eastern Musk Turtle has a broad range of occurrence having been observed

in southern Ontario and Quebec, as far south as Florida and as far west as Wisconsin

and Texas. (Edmonds, 2002). There are populations scattered throughout southern

Ontario, however most of these populations are located around the southern portion of

the Precambrian shield, including Georgian Bay as well as in the Frontenac Arch region

(Ontario Nature, 2010).

Musk Turtles have been found in virtually all variations of fresh water bodies including

lakes, streams, marshes, ponds and rivers (Edmonds, 2002). The species inhabits

areas with a variety of vegetation types, including grasses (Poaceae), sedges


53


(Cyperaceae), rushes (Juncaceae), and cattails (Typha sp.) to name a few (Edmonds,

2002). Nesting habitat ideally requires an abundance of decaying organic matter to help

maintain a sufficiently high incubation temperature for complete embryo development,

(Edmonds, 2002). As a result, suitably warm nest sites may be limiting for the Eastern

Musk Turtle throughout this region. Due to Eastern Musk Turtles being a purely aquatic

organism (only venturing on land for nesting) as well as their omnivore status, they are

a great indicator of the general health of shallow freshwater aquatic ecosystems.

Threats:

Although their habitat is abundant across south-central Ontario, urbanization

continues to infringe on many wetlands noted as being historical locations of the

Eastern Musk Turtle (Edmonds, 2002). Musk Turtles face the threat of being captured

when they attempt to eat bait from fishing hooks, and as a result, they are often killed by

fishermen or from injuries sustained as a result of the hooks (Edmonds, 2002). The

most significant threat to Eastern Musk Turtle populations is habitat destruction,

primarily shoreline development for cottagers and recreation, as well as wetland

drainage and pollution (Parks Canada, 2009). Because of their surface basking

behaviour, Eastern Musk Turtles are vulnerable to the lethal effects of being struck by

motorboat propellers when boats pass over them (Edmonds, 2002). In addition, the

disturbance of shoreline vegetation as well as the removal of rotten logs can have

detrimental effects on their ability to feed and nest respectively (Parks Canada, 2009).


54


Data Analysis:

Figure 5.2.4.2: Shows Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to

those used in the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2

total area. All highlighted squares

indicate a confirmed presence of Eastern Musk Turtle prior to 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the

boundary of FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region

Figure 5.2.4.3: Shows Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those

used in the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares indicate

a confirmed presence of Eastern Musk Turtle after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB.

Data is overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region


55


Figure 5.2.4.4: Shows Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to

those used in the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares

present indicate a confirmed presence of Eastern Musk Turtle prior to 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the

boundary of FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of land cover of FAB and surrounding area.

Figure 5.2.4.5: Shows Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those

used in the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares present

indicate a confirmed presence of Eastern Musk Turtle after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary

of FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of land cover of FAB and surrounding area.


56


Interpretation:

From the data it can be seen that there is a decrease in the number of squares

documenting Eastern Musk Turtle sightings from 16 squares before 1990 (Figures

5.2.4.2, 5.2.4.4) to 10 squares in the survey following 1990 (Figures 5.2.4.3, 5.2.4.5).

There was a decline in sightings around the periphery of the Frontenac Provincial Park

and the Queen’s University Biological Station (QUBS) as well as the eastern portion of

Charleston Lake Provincial Park. It is interesting to note that the majority of Charleston

Lake Provincial Park that is open for motorized boating has also seen a decrease in

documented sightings of the Eastern Musk Turtle (Ontario Parks, 2010). Due to the

vulnerability of Eastern Musk Turtles to accidents involving boat propellers as a result of

their basking vicinity to the surface and their poor swimming ability, this seems to be a

viable explanation for why they may be decreasing throughout this area. This

interpretation may apply to the Frontenac Provincial Park and QUBS areas as well, as

an increase in summer recreational activities and cottagers since 1990 is likely and has

probably contributed to detrimental shoreline habitat alterations. Another possible

explanation is the fact that the water bodies in which the Eastern Musk Turtle spends its

life are not protected under any legislation (Nature Canada, 2009). However, due to

their secretive nature, it is possible that during the second survey some of the

populations were simply mistakenly overlooked (Parks Canada, 2009).

.2.5 Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica)

Northern Map Turtles possess a shell that is olive to brownish in colour and

contains a pattern of yellow lines that fade as the turtle ages (Roche, 2002). The

carapace is oval, elongated and low and its pattern often resembles a topographic map,

leading to its common and scientific names (Roche, 2002). The skin is a dark olive

green with yellow-green stripes (Roche, 2002). They are characterized by a broad head

with strong, broad jaws for crushing molluscs (ROM, 2005). Northern Map Turtles

hibernate for about five months in Canada, and tend to remain active in deeper hollows


57


under the ice. They exhibit strong sexual dimorphism in regards to size; the females

may exceed 25 cm in length while the males average only 14 cm (Roche, 2002). As far

as feeding habits go, choice in prey is dictated by each specific habitat, but in general

females tend to prefer molluscs while males will eat both insects and molluscs

(Lindeman, 2006). They have been deemed as a species of special concern in Canada

(COSEWIC, 2002).

Figure 5.2.5.1: Photo of a Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica)

<http://www.virginiaherpetologicalsociety.com/reptiles/turtles/northern-map-turtle/northern_map_turtle.htm>


58


Habitat and range:

The Northern Map Turtle has a fairly extensive range throughout the north-

eastern United States. Its Canadian population is limited generally to the St. Lawrence

Lowlands, the great lakes and the shores of Georgian Bay (ROM, 2005).This species

spends the majority of its time in fresh water but does occasionally leave the water to

bask and lay eggs (Roche, 2002). It prefers deep water, slow moving currents, muddy

bottoms, and abundant aquatic vegetation (ROM, 2005; Roche, 2002). Suitable

basking sites, like sun-exposed rocks and deadheads, are requirements for their

habitat and soft sand or soil away from the water is needed for nesting (Roche, 2002).

As a result of their dependency on both land and deep freshwater ecosystems, the

Northern Map Turtle acts as a transitional species. Due to their reliance on molluscs

they also serve as an indicator of general water quality.

Threats:

Urbanization and human activity are constant threats to Northern Map Turtle

populations. Since they venture onto land for breeding and basking purposes, this

exposes them to threats like predators that may target their eggs as well as strikes by

automobiles (Roche, 2002). Water pollution, shoreline development and boat collisions

are additional risks facing the species (Roche, 2002). Damming of waterways can

submerge nests and alter habitat, and the pet trade may unwittingly contribute to

declines by mistaking Northern Map Turtles for other commonly traded species (ROM,

2005).

Data Analysis:


59


Figure 5.2.5.2: Shows Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to


indicate a confirmed presence of Northern Map Turtle prior to 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the

boundary of FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region

Figure 5.2.5.3: Shows Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those


indicate a confirmed presence of Northern Map Turtle after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary

of FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region.


60


Figure 5.2.5.4: Shows Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to


present indicate a confirmed presence of Northern Map Turtle prior to 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the


Figure 5.2.5.5: Shows Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those


indicate a confirmed presence of Northern Map Turtle after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary

of FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of land cover of FAB and surrounding area.


61


Interpretation:

From the data it can be seen that there was not a great decline in squares in

which the Northern Map Turtle was documented to inhabit. The total number of squares

represented before 1990 (Figures 5.2.5.2, 5.2.5.4) is 15 and the number represented

after 1990 (Figure 5.2.5.3, 5.2.5.5) is 14. The Northern Map Turtle is seen to decline

locally throughout the St. Lawrence region, which may be due to the development of the

cottage industry and altered shorelines throughout the area. However, the area north of

Frontenac Provincial Park has seen an increase in observations. This could potentially

be due to an increase in prey due to the invasion of zebra mussels. A study by

Lindeman in 2006 suggested that Northern Map Turtles, especially females, readily

adopt zebra mussels as the majority of their diet. There is no long-term data on this

theory, but scientists speculate that the restricted diet of zebra mussels, which is low in

nutritional value but acutely beneficial due to its abundance, could chronically cause

population declines throughout the region (ROM, 2005).

5.2.6 Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis)

The Gray Ratsnake (also commonly known as the Black Ratsnake or Eastern

Ratsnake) is the largest species of snake native to Ontario, often surpassing 200 cm in

length (ROM, 2008). Adults are shiny black with a characteristic white belly and chin,

while the young are grey with dark blotching on the body and tail (ROM, 2008). They

are a constrictor species and often pray on avian nestlings and eggs in the treetops as

well as small rodents and rabbits on the forest floor (COSEWIC, 2007). They rely on

south-facing sites for hibernation where they spend the winter in communal hibernation

(Prior and Weatherhead, 1996). In April 1998, the Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) listed the Gray Ratsnake as a threatened

species in Ontario (COSEWIC, 2007).


62


Figure 5.2.6.1: Photo of a Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis)

<http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=158>

Habitat and range:

Although they are abundant throughout the central and eastern United States

(COSEWIC, 2007), the Gray Ratsnake’s Canadian range is limited to two distinct

populations located in southern Ontario (ROM, 2008). These include the Carolinian

forest population of south-western Ontario as well as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence

population of the Frontenac Arch. Preferred habitat of each sub-population is generally

dictated by the ratsnake’s need to facilitate thermoregulation (COSEWIC, 2007). For

instance, southern populations prefer to remain within deciduous forests. However, the

Frontenac Axis population, being at the edge of the species’ northern range, requires

greater solar radiation to increase body temperatures and thus spends much of its time

in edge habitats between fields and forested areas (COSEWIC, 2007). The Gray

Ratsnake serves as a good indicator of transitional terrestrial ecosystems between

forests and fields. Its affinity for forest edges also allows it to serve as an indicator of

forest fragmentation.

Threats:


63


Due to certain species-specific traits, like reproducing every two to three years

and at a relatively late age, the Gray Ratsnake’s population is very sensitive to any adult

mortality (COSEWIC, 2007). Road mortality continues to be one of the greatest threats

to the Gray Ratsnake population as they move quite slowly and often use the warm

pavement for basking (Row et al., 2007). The continued expansion of the road network

and the increasing traffic during the summer months due to a growing tourism and

cottage industry further adds to this threat (COSEWIC, 2007). Furthermore, because

these snakes have an affinity for edge habitats, roads act as “the open field” and Gray

Ratsnakes tend to linger in these areas (Prior and Weatherhead, 1996). The

geophysical requirements for a suitable site for hibernation are very specific and thus

any time a site is disturbed a large proportion of the local population is likely to be

seriously affected (Prior and Weatherhead, 1996). The deliberate slaughter of these

creatures due to public mis-education and collection for the pet trade are two additional

threats that this population faces (ROM, 2008).

Data Analysis:

Figure 5.2.6.2: Shows Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to


indicate a confirmed presence of Gray Ratsnake prior to 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of

FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region


64


Figure 5.2.6.3: Shows Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those


indicate a confirmed presence of Gray Ratsnake after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of

FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region.

Figure 5.2.6.4: Shows Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to


present indicate a confirmed presence of Gray Ratsnake prior to 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the



65


Figure 5.2.6.5: Shows Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis alleghaniensis) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those


indicate a confirmed presence of Gray Ratsnake after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of

FAB. Data is overlain on a GIS representation of land cover of FAB and surrounding area.

Interpretation:

From the data analysis it can be seen that there was a decline in the number of

occupied squares between the two time periods, with 33 squares present prior to 1990

(Figures 5.2.6.2, 5.2.6.4) and 17 squares after 1990 (Figures 5.2.6.3, 5.2.6.5). The

majority of the declines are seen to be along the St. Lawrence River and directly north

of Kingston. It is evident that urban sprawl has afflicted the areas to the north of

Kingston, and with increased human presence comes increased traffic and thus

increased mortality. As for the St. Lawrence areas, it is likely that a developing cottage

industry brings more traffic to the area during the summer months when the Gray

Ratsnake is most active. Although the Gray Ratsnake is not heavily affected by habitat

fragmentation, as they thrive on forest edges and fragmentation means more edge

habitat, there is increasing evidence that human presence has a stronger negative

influence in terms of road kills. A study by Row, Blouin-Demers and Weatherhead in


66


2007 suggested that a mortality rate of 3 adult females per year would increase the

probability of extirpation from 7.3% to 99% over a 500 year span. This is the largest

issue of concern with the Gray Ratsnake.

5.2.7 Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis)

Least Bittern is relatively small for a heron, only 30 cm in length and 80 g in

weight, comparable to a standard-sized American Robin (ROM, 2008). It has broad buff

streaks on its white underside, and a contrasting crown and back that is glossy black in

adult males, but lighter in females and juveniles. It is often difficult to detect as it prefers

large marshes away from civilization, and is most frequently detected by its calls, either

a cuckoo-like “cu” sound or a “rick” sound, similar to that of a rail call (ROM, 2008). It

preys mostly on small vertebrates and larger insects as well as leeches, crayfish and

some vegetation (COSEWIC, 2009). Adult predators include snapping turtles and

raptors, with eggs and chicks being taken by snakes, turtles, raptors, raccoons (Procyon

lotor), American Mink (Neovison vison), and other herons (COSEWIC, 2009). In Ontario

they were considered abundant in 1900, turned uncommon by the 1930s, and rare by

the 1980s (COSEWIC, 2009). In November 2001 it was listed as threatened both

provincially in Ontario and nationally (COSEWIC, 2009).


67


Figure 5.2.7.1: Photo of a Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis)

<http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/search/Display.asp?FlNm=ixobexil>

Habitat and range:

The Least Bittern nests from southern Canada to southern South America, with

the majority of North American birds wintering mainly along the Gulf and Mexican

coasts, down to Panama. In Canada, it breeds in southern Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec

and New Brunswick, but the vast majority breed in southern Ontario (COSEWIC, 2009).

The species breeds in marshes with emergent vegetation (usually cattails, Typha spp.)

with relatively stable water levels where roughly 50% of the land is covered with pockets

of interspersed open water (COSEWIC, 2009). Open water is required for successful

foraging because Least Bitterns hunt visually by ambushing their prey in shallow water

near marsh edges (COSEWIC, 2009). Nests are underlain by platforms on stiff

vegetation, which explains the need for dense stands of taller emergent species. Nests

are almost always within 10 m of open water (COSEWIC, 2009). Wetlands of a larger

size (more than 5-10 hectares) are noted as inhabiting the majority of known

populations around Ontario, although they have on occasion been observed in smaller

marshes and bogs (COSEWIC, 2009). The Least Bittern acts as a representative of a


68


purely marsh species and thus is a good indicator of the overall health of marshland

ecosystems.

Threats:

Habitat loss and degradation is thought to be the most severe threat to Least

Bitterns (Sandilands and Campbell, 1988; COSEWIC, 2009). The COSEWIC report

(2009) lists some threats to their habitat as: “filling, dredging and draining for conversion

to other uses such as urban, agricultural, marina, and cottage development; shoreline

modification; water level regulation; sediment and nutrient loading from watersheds;

adjacent land use; invasive species, and climate variability and change.” Also, due to

their ability to alter water quality and water levels, channelization, water extraction and

erosion can affect their breeding sites far from where the detrimental action took place

(Sandilands and Campbell, 1988; COSEWIC, 2009). These same factors affect habitat

on the wintering grounds along the Gulf Coast and Central America, which serves as

one complication of being a migratory species (COSEWIC, 2009). Several invasive

species are outcompeting cattails, which Least Bitterns rely on as an essential part of

their breeding habitats. These species include Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria),

Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and the Common Reed (Phragmites

australis), all of which encourage the succession of marshes to drier habitat

(COSEWIC, 2009). Invasive animal species are having an effect as well; for example,

the Common Carp’s (Cyprinus carpio) foraging habits encourage the removal of marsh

vegetation and stir up the sediments causing the birds to have difficulty seeing their

prey. Human settlement near marshes has been suggested to increase access by pets

and Raccoons, and thus threaten local breeding populations (COSEWIC, 2009). Other

threats include toxins, disease, and climate change. Wetlands tend to accumulate toxins

from industrial and agricultural run-off, which Least Bitterns bioaccumulate (COSEWIC,

2009). Herons are particularly inclined to accumulating pesticides like DDE and dieldrin

as well as mercury and PCBs (COSEWIC, 2009). Due to their shallow wading habits,

Least Bitterns are also susceptible to outbreaks of disease and parasites (COSEWIC,


69


2009). More human-induced threats include collisions with human-made structures

(Sandilands and Campbell 1988) and disturbances from summer recreational activities.

The utilization of motorized boats has been identified as a conservation concern for

herons due to foraging disruption, nest abandonment and nest flooding(COSEWIC,

2009). Lastly, current predictions state that climate change is projected to lower water

levels in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, thus reducing the size and

distribution of their wetlands (COSEWIC, 2009).

Data Analysis:

Figure 5.2.7.2: Shows Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to those used in the

Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario and represent a 100km2 total area. All highlighted squares indicate a confirmed

presence of Least Bittern prior to 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is overlain on

a GIS representation of protected areas within the region


70


Figure 5.2.7.3: Shows Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those used in the


confirmed presence of Least Bittern after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is

overlain on a GIS representation of protected areas within the region.

Figure 5.2.7.4: Shows Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) range prior to 1990. Squares correspond to those used in the


confirmed presence of Least Bittern prior to1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is



71


Figure 5.2.7.5: Shows Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) range after 1990. Squares correspond to those used in the


confirmed presence of Least Bittern after 1990 within that square. Red line indicates the boundary of FAB. Data is


Interpretation:

Upon analysis of the data it can be seen that the squares in which the Least

Bittern was observed slightly decrease from 16 squares prior to 1990 (Figures 5.2.7.2,

5.2.7.4) to 13 squares after 1990 (Figures 5.2.7.3, 5.2.7.5). There is considerable

shifting between observed areas between the two dates. The shifting can be explained

by the fact that Least Bitterns are a migratory species which do not necessarily return to

the same breeding grounds ever year (COSEWIC, 2009). Also, Least Bitterns are

notoriously difficult to monitor as they prefer vast marshlands in which the data

collectors (often the general public) infrequently venture, especially far into internal

areas. In terms of the slight decline in documented areas, many of the remaining

wetlands are significantly degraded by siltation, which renders the habitat less suitable

for foraging bitterns (COSEWIC, 2009). Also, although there is a significant focus on

protecting wetlands within the FAB (see Section 6.1), protected area status is not


72


always effective in providing protection as many Least Bitterns are only partly protected

as their populations border unprotected land. Lastly, due to the fact that the Least

Bittern is a migratory species, it can be affected by factors that are outside of Canada’s

jurisdiction.


73


Section 6.0: GAP ANALYSIS

The third indicator selected is a gap analysis that analyzes land cover, protected area

and species data in order to determine areas in need of future conservation based on

identified “gaps” in the present state that are preventing the realization of the desired

state. This analysis provides an integration of all factors that contribute to a healthy

biosphere and thus provides an overview of the overall health of the land, identifying

regions that require further attention in order to achieve sustainability within the region.

6.1 LAND COVER AND PROTECTED AREAS

6.1.1 Methods

The land cover component of the gap analysis focuses on identifying areas of

high priority for conservation efforts based primarily on the proportional representation

of land cover. This method of analysis is currently used by conservation organizations,

such as the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), as a reference frame for determining

appropriate coverage of protected lands. With the system used currently, the

organization has set goals of land cover inclusion, and attempts to modify and grow the

protected areas to reflect these goals. These benchmark proportions for representations

are presently based on the land cover for the province as a whole, as this organization

deals with extensive national scale planning (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2010). Within

the scope of this project, relative proportional representation for a smaller area was

determined in hopes of establishing more accurate and specific conservation strategies

for the purposes of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. The basis of the representation by percentage for land covers was determined by

analysing available land cover data within the municipalities of: Brockville, Kingston,

Ottawa, Prince Edward County, North Grenville, Tweed, Carleton Place, Deseronto,

Gananoque, Napanee, Mississippi Mills, Perth, Prescott, Smiths Falls, Addington,

Athens, Augusta, Beckwith, Frontenac, Drummond, Cardinal, Elizabethtown-Kitley,

Front of Yonge, Lanark, Leeds and the Thousand Islands, Loyalist, Montague, Dundas,

Rideau Lakes, Stone Mills, Tay Valley, Tyendinaga, Merrickville and Westport (Figure

6.1.1.1). This large area, although extending well outside the bounds of the Frontenac

Arch Biosphere, was chosen as a general representation of the regional land cover as it

allows for the future expansion of monitoring by FABR. Data is not currently available

for all of the land in the SOLRIS database, as of 2002, and therefore the accuracy of

these analytical methods will increase as more data becomes available and is


74


incorporated into the analysis. This proportional representation analysis was then

repeated for land composing the currently recognized protected areas within this region.

These two data sets were then compared to identify potential areas of high priority for

future conservation efforts.

Figure 6.1.1.1: Map showing the region considered for overall land cover representation in relation to the Frontenac

Arch Biosphere’s current boundary

To determine an overall characterization of land cover within FAB (Figure

6.1.1.2) and the surrounding study region, areas of each land type were calculated as

percentages of the total area. Using ArcGIS, an area column was added to the attribute

table of the SOLRIS land cover data and areas were calculated in square metres due to

the small nature of some of the areas. Transferring this data to a spreadsheet, areas

were converted to both square kilometres and hectares, with totals calculated. The total

area calculated for the region, using available SOLRIS land cover data, is 1,148km2 or

114,765 hectares (see Appendix A for data tables and further calculations). Each land

type (as indicated in Table 4.1.4.1) was then calculated as a percentage of the total

shown below in table 6.1.1.1.


75


Table 6.1.1.1: Land cover as a percentage of the total area in the FAB region.

Land Cover Area (% of total)

Alvar 0.130283943

Bog 0.168921398

Built-up Area Impervious 0.433742687

Built-Up Area Pervious 0.962231935

Coniferous Forest 9.66997058

Deciduous Forest 15.49169318

Extraction 0.200254402

Fen 0.241033946

Forest 2.265784966

Hedge Rows 1.124780527

Marsh 5.205997313

Mixed Forest 20.56700979

Open Water 9.951248146

Plantations (tree) 0.233775077

Swamp 31.11336947

Transportation 2.239902638

Total Area 100

From this table it can be seen that the major land cover types in the region were;

forest, including coniferous, deciduous, mixed and undifferentiated forest types;

wetlands, including bogs, fens, marsh and swamp; as well as open water. Figures

depicting each land cover type within the FAB are available in Appendix A. These

categories were further analyzed in the gap analysis in relation to species as well as

protected areas.


76


Figure 6.1.1.2: Land cover within FAB region.

Land cover within the protected areas was again determined in ArcGIS using the

SOLRIS land cover data. SOLRIS data was clipped to the protected areas layer to give

a representation of land cover solely within the protected areas (see Figure 6.1.1.3 and

Appendix A). Percentages of land cover located within protected areas were then

calculated. This was done by overlaying the 10 km by 10 km grid, with percentages of

each land cover type (deciduous forest, coniferous forest, mixed forest, wetland, open

water) being visually approximated for protected areas falling within each square of the

grid. Results are tabulated in table 6.1.1.2 below, with further calculations found in

Appendix A.


77


Figure 6.1.1.3: Land cover as a percentage of total area within protected areas in the FAB region.

Land Cover Type Area (% total area in protected areas)

Wetland 63.7

Open Water 2.36

Deciduous Forest 10.18

Coniferous Forest 2.97

Mixed Forest 18.24

Other 2.55

Total 100

Figure 6.1.1.3: Land cover within protected areas.


78


6.1.2 Results

Data pertaining to land cover both as a whole (Figure 6.1.1.2) and in protected

areas (6.1.1.3) was analyzed to determine land cover types that are in need of future

protection. In determining these land cover types, proportional representation between

the area as a whole and protected areas was analyzed. This data is illustrated in figure

6.1.2.1. As shown in the graph, wetlands are being “over-represented” in protected

areas within the FAB region as wetlands in total comprise 36% of the FAB region

whereas protected areas are composed of over 60% wetlands. In contrast, all other land

types are proportionally being under-represented, particularly open water which shows

the largest difference between representation within protected areas versus

representation within all of the FAB, at 7.6% (Appendix A). Therefore it is suggested

that future conservation efforts focus on the protection of open water as a primary

objective. However, it is important to note that this does not imply that wetlands should

not be conserved, but that in using a proportional representation method there are other

land types that are currently more at risk due to their under-representation. Based on

this, the end product of this report focuses on open water, in correlation with focal

species data in giving future suggestions for conservation. Unnecessary


79


Figure 6.1.2.1: Bar graph showing the comparison of percent composition by land cover type in both the Frontenac

Arch Biosphere and protected areas within the region

6.2 SPECIES AT RISK AND PROTECTED AREAS

6.2.1 Methods

In order to compile data related to the number of at-risk species within each

square of the FAB, historical spatial data for eighty-five at-risk, endangered or

threatened species throughout Ontario were collected via the Natural Heritage

Information Centre’s (NHIC) online database. The search was carried out through the

Biodiversity Explorer, a program on the NHIC website that allows searches based on

species type, location, or status in order to output element occurrences, which are

simply the total number of sightings for each species. Using this program the names of

each of the forty-two 10 km by 10 km squares associated with the area of the FAB were

inputted and restricted to outputting element occurrences for endangered, threatened

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Wetland Open Water Deciduous Forest

Coniferous Forest

Mixed Forest

Other

TOTALS IN PROTECTED AREAS TOTAL IN FABR


80


and at-risk species. The NHIC records provide two different levels of data: general and

advanced. Advanced user certification provides detailed information regarding each

individual element occurrence, such as the exact GPS coordinates of the occurrence,

the date it was made as well as sources for further information, while general user

certification simply provides information on the identification of squares in which

element occurrences were observed. Unfortunately, only general use certification was

able to be obtained due to the limited time frame of this project, but with the

identification of 10 km x 10 km squares in which element occurrences were observed

came many specific coordinates with a margin of error of one kilometre. However, in

order to simplify data analysis and ensure the most consistency between all sources, it

was decided that the data would be reported per 10 km x 10 km square as opposed to

being recorded by the particular GPS coordinates provided. Once located, the data was

sorted by species and taxon group as well as further sorted alphabetically by square

name. Once compiled, the data was plotted as a histogram, with squares along the X

axis and total species sightings per square along the Y axis, as seen in Figure 6.2.2.1.

In order to collect data relating to the total area of protection within each square

in the FAB, the GIS layer containing shape files for each protected region (see section

4.1.5) was turned on and overlaid with the GIS layer containing the 10 km x 10 km grid

from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Each individual square was then

analyzed by using the measuring tool to outline the periphery of each protected region

in order to determine the total area occupied by all protected regions within that square,

as seen in Figure 6.2.2.2.

Lastly, in order to analyze the correlation between total protected area and total

species sightings within each square, a Pearson correlation was used by plotting the

total number of at-risk species sightings on the X-axis and the total area of protection on

the Y-axis, as seen in Figure 6.2.2.4.


81


6.2.2 Results

From Figure 6.2.2.1 it can be seen that square 18VQ21 has the greatest number

of species at-risk occurrences while 18VQ14 and 17VQ24 has the lowest (Table C1).

Furthermore, it can also be seen that square 18UQ83 has the highest total area of

protection while 18VQ10 has the lowest (Figure 6.2.2.2). It was also seen that there was

a moderate strong correlation between the total area of protection and the total number

of species sightings within a square (Figures 6.2.2.3, 6.2.2.4). These results could be

indicative of a number of factors as this correlation does not imply causation. This result

could be indicating that the protected areas that are presently in place are very effective

at protecting the habitats of species at-risk, as indicated by the high presence of species

at-risk sightings within squares with high total areas of protection. In other words, this

correlation could be caused by the fact that protected areas are allowing at-risk species

to prosper. However, this correlation could also be the result of effective conservation

placement by the FABR as they could be targeting areas that have a high amount of at-

risk species in order to protect the greatest number of sensitive species. It could also

simply be that in the regions which have a high amount of protected area there are

increased amounts of reporting, and thus a high recorded amount of species at-risk

sightings within a particular square may not be truly indicative of the total amount of

species at-risk within that square. Lastly, if the causation is determined to be the result

of high protected area effectiveness in conserving species, then an analysis regarding

the residuals (Table C2), which are the distances of each point to the trendline, could

provide insight into which protected areas are less effectiveness. For example, if a

particular square has a negative residual than this would indicate that the protected

areas within that square are failing to effectively protect the species. This would allow

the FABR to target particular areas and focus conservation efforts on improving these

areas.


82


Figure 6.2.2.1 Depicts the total number of endangered, threatened or at-risk species sightings for 85 species within

the FAB based on their location within the 10 km x 10 km grid used by the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

# Sp

eci

es

At-

Ris

k Si

ghti

ngs

Observational Squares


83


Figure 6.2.2.2 Depicts the total area of protected land, in kilometres, within the FAB based on its location within the

10 km x 10 km grid used by the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

km2

pro

tect

ed

lan

d



84


Figure 6.2.2.3: Bar graph depicts total number of element occurrences for the 85 species at-risk within each 10 km x

10 km square within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere. Line depicts the total area of protection within each square.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

km2 p

rote

cted

land

#

End

ange

red

Sp

eci

es

Sigh

tin

gs



85


Figure 6.2.2.4: Scatterplot of species at-risk sighting and total area of protection within each square of the 10 km x

10 km square within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere. Line depicts the total area of protection within each square.

6.3 LAND COVER, PROTECTED AREAS AND FOCAL SPECIES

6.3.1 Methods

The final suggestions for protected areas within the FAB were determined by

combining the data for land cover and protected area analysis as well as focal species

distribution data. For suggestions based on land cover and protected region data

analysis, areas were suggested based on the types of land cover that were found to be

proportionally underrepresented in FAB. This was decided based on the methods used

in Section 6.3.1 of this report where it was determined that the total amount of open

water within the biosphere is 10%, whereas the amount of open water present in

protected areas is only 2%. This analysis indicated that open water is being under-

protected by FABR in terms of proportional representation, and thus further protection of

these areas would be suggested. For the suggestion of protected areas based on

r = 0.363859

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

km2

pro

tect

ed

lan

d

# Species At-Risk Sightings


86


species data analysis, it was determined that areas were in need of protection if their

present distributions were currently unprotected, as decided based on methods in

Section 5.1. When these areas are compared to protected areas already present within

the biosphere it is evident which areas have species present but are lacking protection.

Taking both proportional land cover representation and species distribution data into

account, areas were highlighted within FAB that may be in need of protection both to

conserve species as well as to conserve diverse habitat types within the region. These

areas are clearly visible when species data is overlain by the protected areas layer and

the SOLRIS data on ArcGIS.

6.3.2 Results

As discussed in section 6.1.2, open water bodies and forested areas were

deemed in need of additional protection due to their proportional under-representation

within current protected areas. Figure 6.3.2.1 outlines areas that contain high amounts

of open water and thus would benefit from future protection based on the results

obtained in 6.1.2. However, it is important to note that though it appears wetlands are

being over-represented, this does not indicate that these ecosystems should not be

protected as they are extremely valuable ecosystems harbouring a significant amount of

biodiversity and are an important source of habitat for a variety of local biota (Laing,

2010). Furthermore, wetlands also provide a number of ecological services, such as

water quality improvement, soil formation and water storage (Laing, 2010). However,

the importance of wetlands should not overshadow the importance of open water

ecosystems which are presently proportionally under-represented in protected areas,

hence the suggestions shown in figure 6.3.2.1.


87


Figure 6.3.2.1: Identified areas of conservation priority regarding land cover in the Frontenac Arch Biosphere region,

featuring data from the SOLRIS database

The suggestions for future conservation represented in Figures 6.3.2.2-6.3.2.8

were based on areas that presently do not protect current species distributions. This is

not to say that every area in which a focal species occurs should be protected, but

rather that the areas outlined depict the areas in which the greatest number of

unprotected species distributions occur. Thus these areas are important to note for

future conservations efforts within the FAB.


88


Figure 6.3.2.2: Identified areas of conservation priority regarding Cerulean Warbler ranges and current conservation

areas, post 1990

Figure 6.3.2.3: Identified areas of conservation priority regarding Osprey ranges and current conservation areas,

post 1990


89


Figure 6.3.2.4: Identified areas of conservation priority regarding Spring Peeper ranges and current conservation

areas, post 1990

Figure 6.3.2.5: Identified areas of conservation priority regarding Gray Ratsnake ranges and current conservation

areas, post 1990


90


Figure 6.3.2.6: Identified areas of conservation priority regarding Musk Turtle ranges and current conservation areas,

post 1990

Figure 6.3.2.7: Identified areas of conservation priority regarding Northern Map Turtle ranges and current

conservation areas, post 1990


91


Figure 6.3.2.8: Identified areas of conservation priority regarding Least Bittern ranges and current conservation

areas, post 1990

Figure 6.3.2.9: Overlay of previously identified areas of priority with land cover and current conservation areas


92


Figure 6.3.2.10: Highlighted areas of greatest identified priority for conservation in and surrounding the Frontenac

Arch Biosphere

Figure 6.3.2.11: Resultant final recommendations for high priority future conservation areas


93


Section 7.0: FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

Throughout the course of this report a number of suggestions have been made.

This section attempts to summarize and comment on some of these suggestions.

Furthermore, throughout the process of this project a number of observations have

been made regarding ways in which the completion of this project could have been

facilitated. These future recommendations outline some of these observations as well

as discusses some of the difficulties and challenges that come along with suggestions

made throughout this report.

7.1 PROTECTED AREAS AND LAND COVER

7.1.1 Annual Conservation Meeting

This year, various stakeholders from within the FAB came together to discuss the

classification of current protected areas in hopes of sharing information between the

multiple conservation organizations involved in the area. These representatives ranged

in level of authority from federal government agencies to municipal planning and

regional and local land conservancies. The majority of the stakeholders in attendance

showed an interest in annual meetings to further discuss working together on

conservation initiatives within the Biosphere. These annual meetings would be

beneficial to stakeholders and provide an opportunity to share conservation strategies,

projects and ideas with one another, ultimately helping to ensure cooperation and

progress within the FAB.

7.1.2 Interactive Map of Protected Areas

Chris Wooding is currently in the process of developing a map on ArcGIS in

conjunction with the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. On completion, this map will

show the location of all protected areas within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere and


94


surrounding areas and will also include their respective governing authorities, size and

conservation status. FABR is also targeting conservation bodies on the American side

of the border, with the goal of increased sustainability and connectivity of the FAB to

areas such as Adirondack Park in New York state. This map is yet to be completed

because of difficulties in complete data sets and sharing of information between

stakeholders in the Biosphere. As a result, it may be beneficial to develop and

implement a mapping system that is publicly available to anyone that owns conservation

property within and surrounding the FAB. This would allow individuals, with assistance

from GIS specialists working in conjunction with FABR, to plot and label their own

property on the map. In the future, this initiative could also include information on

current projects and conservation efforts related to the identified properties..

7.1.3 Ecological Value Map

It may be beneficial for FABR to create a method for quantifying the level of

ecological goods and services in the area. There has been a method created by Austin

Troy of the University of Vermont that gives a monetary value to land within various

regions in the United States. Troy evaluated the land cover types and water resources

in order to give the ecosystem services within each area an economic value. Each type

of land cover was given a class and these classes were spatially distributed in ArcGIS in

order to provide an overall ecological value map (Troy, 2006). FABR may be interested

in using a similar method to Troy’s in order to assign a monetary value to specific land

within the FAB. Economic value is a practical method to classify land because people

are used to thinking of goods and services in terms of what it is worth in dollars. Areas

with a higher ecological value should potentially have a higher priority to focus on in

terms of conservation.

7.1.4 Implementation of the +/- Scale

As may be seen in the case studies earlier in the report (Section 4.2), the +/-

scale may be a useful method for determining areas that are at a higher risk for damage


95


from external sources such as industrial pollution and urban sprawl (See Section 4.1.3).

When used in conjunction with the IUCN categories, this scheme has the advantage of

being associated with an already widely used conservation classification method. If

areas are assigned a level of protection, FABR can quantify and compare the levels

with one another. Because this scale is based on a case-by-case evaluation of

protected lands, it would require the interest and efforts of a wide variety of the FAB

conservation organizations in order to be properly implemented . As a result of this

effort, a more precise evaluation of the conservation efforts and effectiveness in the

FAB region could be added to the spatial description of the landscape.

7.1.5 Investigation into the Importance of Protecting Different Land Types

Proportional representation of land cover types was used as an indicator to

determine whether areas were being over- or under--conserved. However, it must be

determined whether or not each of the land types has an equal value in terms of the

purpose of conservation, such as housing important ecological species or natural

resources that need to be protected from exploitation. In order to properly investigate

the importance of protecting a specific land type, it would be necessary to quantify the

various types of species within that area and to determine the interactions between

various species in order to understand the functioning and value of the overall

ecosystem. If an understanding of the environment is achieved, it would be possible to

decide if certain types of land cover (eg. wetland, open water or forested area) should

have a larger proportional representation within protected areas. For example, if

wetlands are assigned a high level of importance in protection then it would follow that

they should be proportionally over-represented within protected areas.

7.1.6 Protected Areas Over Time as An Indicator

In order to determine the effectiveness of current and past protected areas within

the FAB, it may be interesting to pursue a time lapse project showing how protected

areas have changed over time. This would involve creating various maps at specific


96


time intervals, likely dependant on available historical data. This would allow the viewer

to visualize how protected areas have changed over time, in terms of both area and

location. This data could then be compared to other indicators, such as species data, to

show how their relationship has changed geographically overtime. If it is possible to

compare the protected areas within the FAB to past state of the environment reports for

various time-frames, the relationship between conserved areas and their effectiveness

may be determined to provide beneficial feedback. However, the greatest challenges to

the completion of this project are finding effective and tactful ways to increase

accessibility to data regarding specific properties as while resolving public privacy

concerns.

7.2 FOCAL SPECIES

7.2.1 Focal Species Monitoring

A big undertaking within this project was the compilation of observational data for

each focal species from multiple sources and the organization of this data such that it

could be presented in a uniform and succinct manner. One future project that would be

extremely beneficial for the FABR to undertake would be the creation and

implementation of a uniform system of data collection and presentation. This would

involve the participation of multiple organizations within Ontario, such as Environment

Canada, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Natural Heritage Information Centre,

Ontario Nature, Eastern Ontario Modern Forest, Ontario Bird Studies and so on, such

that data could be submitted to multiple organizations yet utilized across all

organizations. This could be facilitated through an online sharing database that would

be easily transferable to multiple organizations as the original collection of the data itself

would be undertaken through a uniform system.


97


7.2.2 Focal Species Classification

In addition, the way in which species abundance is recorded could also be

unified as it was found that data was recorded in multiple fashions. For example, some

sources listed a species solely as “present” or “absent” while other sources listed a

species as “confirmed”, “possible”, ‘“probable”, etc. with a list of identifiers within those

categories, as outlined in Table B2. A universal system for the original collection of data

and categorizing of species sightings would simplify the task of comparing and

analyzing data across multiple taxons and species as well as between organizations.

7.2.3 Uniform Data Collection

It may also be beneficial if the FABR worked to ensure that the location of the

collection of data itself is uniform and that all squares within the Frontenac Arch

Biosphere are receiving the same attention, thus avoiding sampling bias. Throughout

the completion of this project it was found that hearty analysis was difficult due to

insufficient data and unknown variables, such as whether the absence of a species in a

particular square was due to the true absence of that species or simply the lack of data

collection within that square. This complication might be remedied if data was kept

regarding unsuccessful surveys, allowing the user of the data to get a stronger sense

for whether or not an area has been lacking monitoring efforts or if the particular species

has been extirpated from that specific area.

7.2.4 Focal Species Selection

Though the method used to select a group of species representative of the

varying ecosystems within the FAB was effective and sufficient for the purposes of this

project, it is suggested that the FABR undertake a more thorough and scientific

selection process if it wishes to enact a monitoring or analysis project focusing on a

particular group of species. One such method proposed is that of Lambeck, 1997, a

schematic of which can be seen in Figure 7.2.4.1.


98


.

Figure 7.2.4.1: Schematic representation of the procedure used to identify focal species as proposed by Lambeck,

1997. < http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~rrempel/ecology/Biodiversity_Papers/PDF0242-Lambeck.pdf>

This method would ensure a more thorough and complete selection of focal species,

perhaps allowing the creation of various sets of focal species used for different

purposes. For example, one particular set of species could be utilizes as an indicator of

one specific type of land or ecosystem while another set could be used to evaluate the

health of a different ecosystem. Following a process such as this would ensure

selection of a group of focal species that truly serve as a proximate gauge for the health

of all ecosystems within the FAB.


99


7.2.5 Focal Species Protection

The data analyses preformed for each individual focal species and the

interpretation of the reasons behind why the observed changes or consistencies may be

occurring is hopefully beneficial to managers of the FAB in terms of developing effective

protection and monitoring programs to preserve these species. It is suggested that

managers focus on ensuring the quality of the data obtained for selected focal species

as well as ensure the goals behind such data collection are clearly outlined prior to data

collection. Tailoring the system of data collection to the needs and questions posed by

the data collected in this project is a key factor in ensuring the utility of future data. It is

suggested that managers of the FAB research the proposed interpretations for reasons

behind abundance changes pre- and post-1990 made in Section 5.2 of this report in

order to confirm or eliminate the interpretations in order to isolate the true cause of the

results obtained. This should be completed in order to allow for the development of

protection strategies, such as increased protection of uninterrupted forest ecosystems

for Cerulean Warbler migration and habitat, based on the confirmed causes of species

decline or range change.

7.3 GAP ANALYSIS

7.3.1 Areas in Need of Protection

The results of the gap analysis conclude with three regions in which protection

has been proposed based on the integration of land cover, protected areas and focal

species data. These three areas were selected because of their high amounts of

unprotected open water as well as their overall lack of protection for a number of

species present within the region. This is not an extensive list of areas that should be

protected, but rather a selection of areas that fit the criteria used. This criteria does not

take into account other factors that may be equally important to ensuring sustainability


100


within the region, such as current land ownership and economic uses of the land. Future

opportunities may involve the overlay of additional GIS compatible layers to further

refine the locations required for protection. For example, an overlay of the “+/- risk

scale” may be helpful in identifying areas that are at high risk due to development,

recreation, etc. and therefore in need of protection. Similarly, one might overlay other

significant data sets including specific unique ecosystems, geologic features, species

corridor and so on. Additionally, further work could go into research of the areas

selected for protection in this report, specifically the practicality of protecting these

areas. This might involve research into who currently owns the land, the associated

risks with the area, and its potential as a corridor for species.

7.3.2 Species At-Risk and Protected Areas

From the results of section 6.2 of this report it was seen that there was a

moderate strong correlation between the total number of species at-risk within a square

and the total area of protection within that same square. As discussed in Section 6.2.2

of this report, this could be due to a number of factors and thus it would be beneficial if

the FABR undertook future studies in order to investigate which factors these results are

truly indicative of. For example, if it is found that the positive correlation is due to a high

degree of effectiveness of the present protected areas then this is beneficial in directing

future initiatives in terms of the development of conservation within the Biosphere.

However, if it is found that the correlation is indicative of the opposite causation,

meaning that the protected areas are not increasing the number of species at-risk but

rather that protected areas are being placed in areas that already contain a high number

of species at-risk, then this presents positive evidence of current conservation efforts.

Such evidence is valuable in directing future efforts as it provides justification for

present methods of conservation selection.


101


7.3.3 Focusing on Protection of Water Bodies

As seen in section 6.1.2, the FAB has a proportionally low representation of open

water within protected areas and thus it was suggested that the FAB work to conserve

unprotected open water bodies. However, there are many challenges that the FAB

faces when trying to conserve water bodies. Primarily, the land along water bodies is

partitioned and owned by various different citizens and organizations, including not only

land bordering the water body, but land underneath the body as well as layers within the

water itself. For example, though one group or individual may own the rights to the

bedrock of the lake, another group may own the rights to the surface of the water. This

presents a difficulty in attempting to set regulations in the protection of the water body

as each individual owner may not be cooperative and ultimately has control of their

property. In addition, even if certain areas of the water body are indeed protected, that

does not necessarily imply that the source from which the water originated is protected

and thus contamination and degradation of the overall health of that water body may still

occur. Therefore, in order to effectively protect water bodies it may be useful to prioritise

protection of the original source of the water (Nature Canada, 2009). Thus it would be

useful for FABR to research varying at strategies of water conservation in order to most

adequately conserve water bodies given the current obstacles.


102


Section 8.0: CONCLUSIONS

In summary, this project looked at three indicators, the first being the status and

effectiveness of protected areas, the second being focal species distribution over time

and the third being an integration of the two previous indicators into a final analysis of

suggested future conservation areas for the region. Land cover was analyzed in terms

of proportional representation within protected areas as compared to the entire

biosphere. Species were analyzed in terms of distribution, with regards to sightings

within the biosphere over two time periods. The combination of results from data

analyses of these two indicators allowed for the possibility of determining areas that

should be a priority for protection.

Proportional representation of land cover data was used as an indicator of over

or under protection of particular land cover types for the purpose of this project. The

results of the analysis indicated that wetlands are being over-represented while open

water is being under-represented within protected areas in the FAB. Further

investigation may be needed in order to determine the rationale for over representing

wetlands in protected areas and under representing open water areas as well as the

feasibility of protecting open water bodies in general. From this analysis, it was

suggested that the FABR may want to concentrate on protecting open water areas

within the biosphere and address difficulties associated with this endeavour.

Species distribution data for the FAB from before and after 1990 was analyzed in

order to determine if there had been a significant change in species distribution for each

particular species and to present a rationale for these changes, such as increased

temperatures, increased cottager development or increased zebra mussel presence. In

addition, present species distribution data was analyzed in order to locate areas in

which species were present, but not currently within protected areas. These areas were

suggested for future conservation.

Both of these indicators were combined in order to undertake a final gap analysis


103


that combined current land cover, protected areas and various species distribution data

including the total number of at-risk species within the FAB. This data was combined by

overlaying species distributions, land cover and areas of protection in order to allow for

a clear visual representation of the current state of the biosphere in terms of areas in

need of future protection. These suggested areas were based on where species were

present and unprotected in addition to land cover that was under-represented in

protected areas.

It is suggested that these indicators be used in conjunction with one another in

the future in order to assess the effectiveness of protected areas within the biosphere

both in terms of land and biodiversity conservation. If the FABR is protecting areas that

contain species at-risk as well as rare habitat types this may signify that they are, in

fact, protecting areas that are most in need of conservation in order to maintain a

sustainable region. If implementing protected areas is found to have a correlation with

increased number of species within the area, something that was unable to be

completed within the scope of this project, this could be an indication that the protected

area is successfully protecting the species within that particular area, something that is

necessary in order to maintain healthy ecosystems within the biosphere.

In the future these indicators should be further investigated with regards to each

individual protected area and the particular quality of the ecosystems within it. In the

case of each protected area both factors that contribute to and detract from risk in the

area must be accounted for, in terms of both the number of factors and the extent to

which each factor influences the overall protection of the area. These factors can be

quantified using the +/- scale that was suggested in this report. Using this scale,

protected areas can be designated a status level that may be used as an indicator for

FABR to determine where to concentrate their conservation efforts. Species data may

be used as an indicator of the effectiveness of protected areas in the future and should

be monitored regularly within various conservation areas.

All in all, protected areas statuses are essential indicators for the overall

sustainability and health of the biosphere. There are many factors contributing to the


104


effectiveness of the protected area, however one way of measuring this is by using

species within the area as a key indicator of how well the area is being protected. In

order to adequately preserve and conserve land it is essential for stakeholders within

the FAB to work together to set standards for conservation across the region. It is

important for land within the FAB to be protected to maximize sustainability within the

region and protection of a variety of species habitats. Hopefully the results and

suggestions for future project opportunities within this report will be utilized to unify the

understanding, implementation and effectiveness of conservation efforts across the

Frontenac Arch Biosphere.

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas

Thanks to the official sponsors of the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Bird Studies Canada,

Canadian Wildlife Service, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Ontario Field

Ornithologists, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) for supplying Atlas data, and

to the thousands of volunteer participants who gathered data for the project.

Members of FABR

Thanks to the members of FABR for having us out to their head quarters and giving us

direction of where to take our project. Also, thank you for setting us up with a copy of

the ArcGIS map layers of protected layers. Working in conjunction with members of

FABR allowed for the creation of a final project that contained information that was

applicable to current initiatives within FAB.

Chris Wooding

Thanks to Chris Wooding for sharing the map of conserved areas in ArcGIS. This map

proved to be an integral element to the project and analysis would not have been able

to be completed without it.


105


Section 9.0: REFERENCES

Bakermans, M. and Rodewald, A. (2009). Think globally, manage locally: The importance of

steady-state forest features for a declining songbird. Forest Ecology and Management,

258: 224-232.

Berry, J. K., Delgado, J. A., Khosla, R., & Pierce, F. (2003). Precision Conservation for

Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, pp. 332-340.

Bird Studies Canada. (2006). Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Database. Ontario Field Ornithologists

and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource, Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife

Service. Ontario Nature.

<http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/aboutdata.jsp?lang=en>

Cadman, M., Eagles, P., Helleiner, F. (Eds.) (1987). Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario,

1981-1985. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists,

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Nature.

<http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/atlasbook.jsp>

Cadman, M., Sutherland, D., Beck, G., Lepage, D. and Couturier, A. (Eds.) (2005). The Atlas of

the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada,

Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Nature.

<http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/secondatlas.jsp>

Ontario Parks. (2006). Charleston Lake. Charleston Lake Provincial Park, Ontario Parks.

<http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/char.html>

COSEWIC. (2002). COSEWIC assessment and status report the stinkpot Sternotherus

odoratus. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. pp.18.

<http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/dspText_e.cfm?ocid=438>


106


COSEWIC. (2003). COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Cerulean Warbler

Dedroica cerulea in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada, Ottawa, ON. p. 25.

<http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-14-326-2003E.pdf>

COSEWIC. (2002). COSEWIC assessment and status report on the northern map turtle

Graptemys geographica in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada, Ottawa. pp. 34.


COSEWIC. (2007). COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Gray Ratsnake

Elaphe spiloides (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence population and Carolinian population) in

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. pp.

33.


COSEWIC. (2009). COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Least Bittern

Ixobrychus exilis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada,

Ottawa, ON. pp.36.

<http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=C8378CB9-1>

Dudley, N. (Ed.) (2008). IUCN: Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management

Categories. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

<http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAPS-016.pdf>

Eagles, P. (1987). Cerulean Warbler. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 1981-1984. Bird

Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources, Ontario Nature. pp. 396.

<http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/atlasbook.jsp?pg=396>


107


Edmonds, J. (2002). COSEWIC status report on the stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus in Canada,

in COSEWIC assessment and status report the stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus in

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. pp.1-

18.

Environment Canada. (2010). The fall and rise of osprey populations in the Great Lakes Basin.

Environment Canada, Environment Canada’s Green Lane.

<http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/factsheets/fs_osprey-e.html>

FABR. (2010). Gananoque Provincial Wildlife Area. Explore the Arch, Frontenac Arch

Biosphere Reserve.

<http://www.explorethearch.ca/hike-the-arch/hiking-trails/gananoque-provincial-wildlife-

area>

FABR. (2010). Route 1: Gananoque to Marble Rock. Frontenac Arch Paddling Trails,

Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve.

<http://www.paddle1000.com/FAPA/guides/route1.pdf>

FABR. (2009). Becoming World Class: Action Plan for the Frontenac Arch Biosphere. Frontenac

Arch Biosphere, ON.

<http://www.fabr.ca/documents/FABR%20Action%20Plan%202008%20small.pdf>

Friends of Charleston Lake. (2010). Friends of Charleston Lake. Charleston Lake Provincial

Park, Ontario Parks.

<http://www.friendsofcharlestonlake.ca/index.html>

Friends of Frontenac (2010). Frequently Asked Questions. Friends of Frontenac Park, Kingston,

ON.

<http://www.frontenacpark.ca/>


108


FrogWatch. (2010). Species Details’ Spring Peeper. Canadian Amphibian and Reptile

Conservation Network. NatureWatch. University of Guelph, ON.

<http://www.naturewatch.ca/english/frogwatch/species_details.asp?species=20>

Government of Ontario. (2010). Ontario Species. Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough,

ON.

<http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/>

Hamel, P. (2000). Cerulean Warbler status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Minneapolis, MN.

Hannon, S., and McCallum, C. (2004). Using the focal species approach for conserving

biodiversity in landscape managed for forestry. Sustainable Forest Management

Network. Edmonton, Alberta. p.47.

Horn, H., Arcese, P., Brunt, K., Burger, A., Davis, H., Doyle, F., Dunsworth, K., Friele, P.,

Gordon, S., Hamilton, T., MacHutchon, G., Mahon, T., McClaren, E., Michelfelder, V.,

Pollard, B., Sutherland, G., Taylor, S., Waterhouse, L. (2009). Part 3: Knowledge Base

for the Focal Species and their Habitats in Coastal B.C. EBM Working Group Focal

Species Project. Integrated Land Management Bureau. Nanaimo, B.C.

<http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/461347/ei02c_report_3.pdf>

IUCN. (2010). About IUCN. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN),Gland,

Switzerland.

<http://www.iucn.org/about/>

Laing, R. (2010). The importance of wetland assessment and conservation in Eastern Ontario.

Queen’s University. Biology Department. Kingston, ON.


109


Lambeck, R. (1997). Focal Species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation.

Conservation Biology, 11(4): 849-856.

Lindeman, P.V. (2006). Zebra and Quagga Mussels (Dreissena spp.) and Other Prey of a Lake

Erie Population of Common Map Turtles (Emydidae: Graptemys geographica). American

Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 2: 268-273.

Natural Resources Canada. (2007). Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer). Amphibians and

Reptiles of Ontario. Natural Resources Canada, Sault Ste. Marie, ON.

<http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/subsite/glfc-amphibians/pseudacris-crucifer>

Nature Canada. (2009). Water Conservation at Nature Canada. Nature Canada, Ottawa, ON.

<http://www.naturecanada.ca/water_conservation.html>

Oldham, M. and Weller, W. (2000). Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas. Natural Heritage Information

Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

<http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/herps/ohs.html>

Ontario Biodiversity Council. (2010). State of Ontario’s biodiversity 2010: highlights report. A

report of the Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, ON.

Ontario Nature. (2010). Ontario’s Reptile and Amphibian Atlas. Ontario Nature, Eastern Ontario

Model Forest, Ministry of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Information Centre.

Environment Canada.

<http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/herpetofaunal_atlas.php>

Ontario Parks. (2006). Ontario Parks. Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, ON.

<http://www.ontarioparks.com/english>


110


Parks Canada. (2009). Species at Risk: Stinkpot Turtle. Parks Canada, Environment Canada.

<http://www.pc.gc.ca/nature/eep-sar/itm3/eep-sar3z/2.aspx#what>

Parks Canada. (2010). National Historic Sites. Parks Canada, Environment Canada.

<http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/lhn-nhs/index_e.asp>

Prior, K. and Weatherhead, P. (1996). Habitat Features of Black Rat Snake Hibernacula in

Ontario. Journal of Herpetology, 30(2): 211-218.

Roche, B. (2002). COSEWIC status report on the northern map turtle Graptemys geographica in

Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the northern map turtle

Graptemys geographica in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in

Canada, Ottawa, ON. pp. 1-34.

Row, J., Blouin-Demers, G., Weatherhead, P. (2007). Demographic effects of road mortality in

black ratsnakes (Elaphe obsoleta). Biological Conservation, 137: 117-124.

Royal Ontario Museum. (2005). Cerulean Warbler. Ontario’s Species at Risk, Royal Ontario

Museum, Ministry of Natural Resources.


Royal Ontario Museum. (2005). Northern Map Turtle. Ontario’s Species at Risk, Royal Ontario



Royal Ontario Museum. (2008). Eastern Ratsnake. Ontario’s Species at Risk, Royal Ontario



Royal Ontario Museum. (2008). Least Bittern. Ontario’s Species at Risk, Royal Ontario


111




Royal Ontario Museum. (2009). Eastern Musk Turtle. Ontario’s Species at Risk, Royal Ontario


<http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=294&lang=en>

Runesson, T. (2010). Pseudacris crucifer: Spring Peeper. Faculty of Natural Resources

Management, Lakehead University, ON.

<http://www.borealforest.org/reptiles/spring_peeper.htm>

Sandilands, A. and Campbell, C. (1988). COSEWIC status report on the Least Bittern

Ixobrychus exilis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada,

Ottawa, ON. pp. 40.

Troy, A., Wilson, M.A. (2006). Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and

opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics, 60: 435-449.

Weir, R. (1987). Osprey. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 1981-1984. Bird Studies

Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources, Ontario Nature. p.108.

UNESCO. (2010). Biosphere Reserve Information: Frontenac Arch. United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.

<http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&Code=CAN+12>

World Conservation Monitoring Centre. (2002). Ontario Parks, Environment Canada.

<http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/iuc.html>


112


Section 10.0: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas

Thanks to the official sponsors of the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Bird Studies Canada,

Canadian Wildlife Service, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Ontario Field Ornithologists, and

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) for supplying Atlas data, and to the thousands of

volunteer participants who gathered data for the project.

Members of FABR

Thanks to the members of FABR for having us out to their head quarters and giving us direction

of where to take our project. Also, thank you for setting us up with a copy of the ArcGIS map

layers of protected layers. Working in conjunction with members of FABR allowed for the

creation of a final project that contained information that was applicable to current initiatives

within FAB.

Chris Wooding

Thanks to Chris Wooding for sharing the map of conserved areas in ArcGIS. This map proved

to be an integral element to the project and analysis would not have been able to be completed

without it.


113


Section 11.0: APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: LAND COVER AND PROTECTED AREAS


114


Table A1: Total land cover calculations

Land Cover Area (% of total) Area (m2) Area (km2) Area (hectares)

Alvar 0.130283943 1495210.07 1.49521007 149.521007

Bog 0.168921398 1938634.72 1.93863472 193.863472

Built-up Area Impervious 0.433742687 4977869.23 4.97786923 497.786923

Built-Up Area Pervious 0.962231935 11043102.03 11.04310203 1104.310203

Coniferous Forest 9.66997058 110977891.9 110.9778919 11097.78919

Deciduous Forest 15.49169318 177791177.1 177.7911771 17779.11771

Extraction 0.200254402 2298229.47 2.29822947 229.822947

Fen 0.241033946 2766237.91 2.76623791 276.623791

Forest 2.265784966 26003392.36 26.00339236 2600.339236

Hedge Rows 1.124780527 12908598.92 12.90859892 1290.859892

Marsh 5.205997313 59746883.66 59.74688366 5974.688366

Mixed Forest 20.56700979 236038297.3 236.0382973 23603.82973

Open Water 9.951248146 114205987.7 114.2059877 11420.59877

Plantations (tree) 0.233775077 2682931.14 2.68293114 268.293114

Swamp 31.11336947 357074111.7 357.0741117 35707.41117

Transportation 2.239902638 25706352.55 25.70635255 2570.635255

TOTAL AREA 100 1147654908 1147.654908 114765.4908


115


Figure A1: Forest cover in FAB region

Figure A2: Wetland cover in FAB region


116


Figure A3: Open water in FAB region


117


Figure A4: Forest in protected areas

Figure A5: Wetlands in protected areas


118


Figure A6: Open water in protected areas


119


Table A2: Land cover calculations in protected areas

SQUARE Wetland Open Water

Deciduous Forest

Coniferous Forest

Mixed Forest

Other TOTAL

18UQ51

0

18UQ52

0

18UQ53

0

18UQ61

0

18UQ62 98 2

100

18UQ63

0

18UQ64

0

18UQ65

0

18UQ71 100

100

18UQ72 45 5 15 5 30

100

18UQ73 3 17 70 0 10

100

18UQ74 1 1 0 0 20 78 100

18UQ75

0

18UQ81 95 5

100

18UQ82 59 5 17 2 17

100

18UQ83 35 10 20 0 35

100

18UQ84 38 2 30 0 30

100

18UQ85

0

18UQ91 100 0

100

18UQ92 32 3 60 0 5

100

18UQ93 78 1 3 3 15

100

18UQ94 78 1 0 13 8

100

18VQ00 45 0 5 5 45

100

18VQ01 50 8 12 0 30

100

18VQ02 93 7

100

18VQ03 99 1

100

18VQ04 62 0 23 0 15

100

18VQ10 0 0 0 20 80

100

18VQ11 62 0 8 0 30

100

18VQ12 60 0 20 5 15

100

18VQ13 40 5 25 5 25

100

18VQ14 94 0

6 100

18VQ21 75 1 0 4 20

100

18VQ22 40 1 2 5 52

100


120


18VQ23 46 1 4 4 45

100

18VQ24 90 0 5 0 5

100

18VQ31 70 0 10 0 20

100

18VQ32 76 1 0 5 18

100

18VQ33 90 1 2 2 5

100

18VQ34 98 0 2 0 0

100

18VQ43 60 0 0 20 20

100

18VQ44 90 0 3 0 7

100

2102 78 336 98 602 84 3300

TOTALS IN PROTECTED

AREAS 63.70% 2.36% 10.18% 2.97% 18.24% 2.55% 100.00%

TOTAL IN FABR

36.73% 9.95% 15.49% 9.67% 22.84% 5.32% 100.00%

Difference: 26.97% -7.59% -5.31% -6.70% -4.60% -2.77%


121


APPENDIX B: FOCAL SPECIES

Table B1: Shows the observational data for the seven focal species used in this project. Data organized per species, per square, per time period. A 1 indicates that the species was present in that square during that time period.

YEAR SQAURE

Os

pre

y

Ce

rule

an

Wa

rble

r

Le

as

t B

itte

rn

Sp

rin

g

Pe

ep

er

Ea

ste

rn M

us

k

Tu

rtle

No

rth

ern

Ma

p

Tu

rtle

Pre 1990 18UQ51

1

1

Post 1990 1

1

Pre 1990 18UQ52

1

1

Post 1990 1

1

1

Pre 1990 18UQ53

1 1

Post 1990 1

Pre 1990 18UQ61

1

Post 1990 1

1

1

Pre 1990 18UQ62

1 1 1 1

Post 1990 1

1

Pre 1990 18UQ63

1 1

1

Post 1990 1

Pre 1990 18UQ64

Post 1990

1

Pre 1990 18UQ65

Post 1990

1

Pre 1990 18UQ71

1

Post 1990 1

1

Pre 1990 18UQ72

1 1 1 1

Post 1990 1 1 1 1 1

Pre 1990 18UQ73

1 1 1 1

1

Post 1990 1 1

1 1 1

Pre 1990 18UQ74

1 1 1

Post 1990 1 1 1 1

Pre 1990 18UQ75

Post 1990

1

Pre 1990 18UQ81

1

1 1

Post 1990 1

1

Pre 1990 18UQ82

1 1

Post 1990 1 1

1

Pre 1990 18UQ83

1 1 1

Post 1990 1 1

1 1 1

Pre 1990 18UQ84

1

1

Post 1990 1

1 1

Pre 1990 18UQ85

Post 1990

1 1

Pre 1990 18UQ91

1

1 1

1

Post 1990 1 1

Pre 1990 18UQ92

1 1

Post 1990 1 1

1

Pre 1990 18UQ93

1 1 1

1

Post 1990 1 1 1 1 1 1


122


Pre 1990 18UQ94

1 1

Post 1990 1 1 1

1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ00

1

Post 1990 1

1

Pre 1990 18VQ01

1

Post 1990 1

1

1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ02

1

1

Post 1990 1 1

1 1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ03

1 1

1

Post 1990 1 1

1

Pre 1990 18VQ04

1

Post 1990 1 1 1 1

1

Pre 1990 18VQ10

Post 1990 1

1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ11

1

1

Post 1990 1

1 1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ12

1 1

1

1

Post 1990 1

1 1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ13

1 1

1

Post 1990 1

1 1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ14

1

1

Post 1990 1

Pre 1990 18VQ21

1

1 1

1

Post 1990 1

1 1 1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ22

1

1

Post 1990 1

1 1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ23

1 1

Post 1990 1

1

1

Pre 1990 18VQ24

1

Post 1990 1

Pre 1990 18VQ31

1 1

Post 1990 1 1

1 1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ32

1 1 1 1

Post 1990 1

1 1 1

Pre 1990 18VQ33

1

Post 1990 1

Pre 1990 18VQ34

Post 1990 1

1

Pre 1990 18VQ43

Post 1990 1

1

Pre 1990 18VQ44

1 1 1

Post 1990 1

1 1


123


Table B3: Cerulean Warbler original data for Region 22 from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario,

1981-1984. Max BE indicates Maximum Breeding Evidence, with Category indicating the corresponding

breeding evidence category as per the code outlined in Table B2.

Region Square Species Max BE Category

21 18UQ13 Cerulean Warbler T PROB



21 18UQ43 Cerulean Warbler SM POSS

21 18UQ53 Cerulean Warbler P PROB

21 18UQ62 Cerulean Warbler FS CONF

21 18UQ63 Cerulean Warbler A PROB


21 18UQ73 Cerulean Warbler FY CONF







21 18VQ03 Cerulean Warbler SH POSS

21 18VQ12 Cerulean Warbler FS CONF

21 18VQ13 Cerulean Warbler SM POSS

21 18VQ22 Cerulean Warbler A CONF

Table B4: Osprey original data for Region 22 from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005.

Max BE indicates Maximum Breeding Evidence, with Category indicating the corresponding breeding

evidence category as per the code outlined in Table B2.








124




breeding evidence category as per the code outlined in Table 2B.




21 18UQ31 Cerulean Warbler X OBS

21 18UQ33 Cerulean Warbler S POSS


21 18UQ73 Cerulean Warbler AE CONF

21 18UQ74 Cerulean Warbler H POSS


21 18UQ83 Cerulean Warbler CF CONF



21 18UQ93 Cerulean Warbler NY CONF


21 18VQ02 Cerulean Warbler S POSS



21 18VQ12 Cerulean Warbler NB CONF

21 18VQ13 Cerulean Warbler P PROB

21 18VQ14 Cerulean Warbler T PROB


21 18VQ24 Cerulean Warbler T PROB





22 18VQ31 Cerulean Warbler H POSS



125




evidence category as per the code outlined in Table 2B.


21 18UP69 Osprey SH POSS

21 18UQ01 Osprey SH POSS

21 18UQ12 Osprey P PROB






21 18UQ34 Osprey FS CONF

21 18UQ42 Osprey NU CONF

21 18UQ43 Osprey N PROB

21 18UQ44 Osprey AE CONF

21 18UQ51 Osprey NY CONF


21 18UQ62 Osprey FP PROB



21 18UQ72 Osprey NE CONF











21 18VQ01 Osprey P PROB

21 18VQ02 Osprey NY CONF


21 18VQ04 Osprey AE CONF

21 18VQ11 Osprey SH POSS




21 18VQ21 Osprey FS CONF




126









22 18VQ32 Osprey N PROB




127






21 18UP58 Osprey NY CONF


21 18UP68 Osprey H POSS

21 18UP69 Osprey AE CONF



21 18UQ00 Osprey H POSS

21 18UQ01 Osprey CF CONF










21 18UQ33 Osprey T PROB





















21 18UQ84 Osprey FY CONF



128







21 18VQ01 Osprey CF CONF












21 18VQ24 Osprey T PROB


129


Table B10: Osprey original data for Region 21 from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-

2005. Max BE indicates Maximum Breeding Evidence, with Category indicating the corresponding
















22 18VQ38 Osprey H POSS



22 18VQ47 Osprey A PROB






22 18VQ87 Osprey FY CONF




130


Figure B1: Map of Spring Peeper Observational Data represented on a 10 km x 10 km grid with green squares indicating a confirmed observation post 1990 and hatching indicating a confirmed observation pre 1990. <http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/map_spring_peeperSO.html>


131


Figure B2: Map of Eastern Musk Turtle Observational Data represented on a 10 km x 10 km grid with green squares indicating a confirmed observation post 1990 and hatching indicating a confirmed observation pre 1990. <http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/map_eastern_musk_turtle.html>


132


Figure B3: Map of Northern Map Turtle Observational Data represented on a 10 km x 10 km grid with green squares indicating a confirmed observation post 1990 and hatching indicating a confirmed observation pre 1990. <http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/map_northern_map_turtle.html>


133


Figure B4: Map of Gray Ratsnake Observational Data represented on a 10 km x 10 km grid with green squares indicating a confirmed observation post 1990 and hatching indicating a confirmed observation pre 1990. <http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/map_gray_ratsnake.html>


134


Table B8: Least Bittern original data for Region 22 from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 1981-




22 18VQ16 Least Bittern SH POSS

22 18VQ31 Least Bittern SM POSS


22 18VQ36 Least Bittern SH POSS


22 18VQ44 Least Bittern T PROB


22 18VQ98 Least Bittern P PROB

Table B9: Least Bittern original data for Region 22 from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-




22 18VQ15 Least Bittern S POSS

22 18VQ16 Least Bittern NE CONF

22 18VQ17 Least Bittern H POSS

22 18VQ25 Least Bittern T PROB


22 18VQ35 Least Bittern NE CONF

22 18VQ36 Least Bittern S POSS




22 18VQ97 Least Bittern FY CONF


135


Table B10: Least Bittern original data for Region 21 from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario,




21 18UP58 Least Bittern FY CONF

21 18UP68 Least Bittern T PROB

21 18UP69 Least Bittern SH POSS

21 18UP79 Least Bittern FY CONF



21 18UP99 Least Bittern NE CONF

21 18UQ01 Least Bittern SM POSS

21 18UQ10 Least Bittern NE CONF

21 18UQ21 Least Bittern SM POSS

21 18UQ24 Least Bittern T PROB


21 18UQ32 Least Bittern P PROB

21 18UQ33 Least Bittern SH POSS






21 18UQ61 Least Bittern FY CONF

21 18UQ62 Least Bittern SH POSS











21 18VP09 Least Bittern SH POSS





136


Table B11: Least Bittern original data for Region 21 from the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario,




21 18UP59 Least Bittern H POSS

21 18UP68 Least Bittern H POSS


21 18UP79 Least Bittern S POSS

21 18UP99 Least Bittern S POSS

21 18UQ00 Least Bittern H POSS




137


APPENDIX C: SPECIES AT-RISK

Table C1: Lists the total number of sightings of the 85 species at-risk (in element occurrences) within the forty-

two 10 km x 10 km squares of the FAB as well as the total area of protection within each square (in km2)


138


Table C2: Lists the residuals for each square.

Square Residuals

UQ51 -4.6116

UQ52 -12.4055

UQ53 -9.12995

UQ61 -2.86155

UQ62 -4.0306

UQ63 -2.6851

UQ64 3.877363

UQ65 4.495019

UQ71 0.377374

UQ72 0.612833

UQ73 11.03566

UQ74 -4.31379

UQ75 -2.83586

UQ81 -0.79905

UQ82 1.197316

UQ83 1.032112

UQ84 8.116371

UQ85 1.156791

UQ91 -5.32108

UQ92 -3.59678

UQ93 -0.73638

UQ94 -4.77697

VQ00 4.579597

VQ01 2.138515

VQ02 4.711947

VQ03 2.770876

VQ04 -3.39832

VQ10 6.767072

VQ11 10.28557

VQ12 5.116478

VQ13 -3.43872

VQ14 -10.5564

VQ21 36.46569

VQ22 -4.62983

VQ23 -11.1703

VQ24 -9.80638

VQ31 -1.22553

VQ32 18.50615

VQ33 -6.17402

VQ34 -8.69977

VQ43 -1.34322

VQ44 -4.69607

Documents

LAND INDICATORSENSC 430 LAND INDICATORS 6 Presented by: Alyzza Cozzi, Allie Glavina, Robyn Laing Ashley Lloyd and Kelly Moodie world. For example, the quality of the land will affect