Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Plan

Transcription

1 Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Plan Version 2.0 MNR s Class Environmental Assessment Approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands in Ontario, 30 (b) Ministry of Natural Resources Science and Information Branch June 2010

2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Purpose Background Maintenance of the program plan Scope of the Plan What is to be monitored? Linkages to other conditions General program delivery Linking to other programs and initiatives Provincial inventory and monitoring Moose Black bear Wildlife values Research Wolverines Black bear Song birds Caribou Partners Sustainable forest management indicators Impacts of forest management activities on bird populations Importance of core area marten habitat to population size Key challenges Monitoring Plan Monitoring Goals and Objectives: Monitoring Questions Monitoring Definitions OMNR s Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Assessment of Species Status Methods Evaluation and Development Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Surveillance Monitoring Birds Mammals Amphibians and Reptiles Targeted Monitoring General Support for Effectiveness Monitoring Habitat Monitoring Opportunities for Partnerships and Collaboration Within OMNR With External Agencies Program outputs Monitoring infrastructure Tested and calibrated sampling techniques Long-term trend data Database development and maintenance Expertise and knowledge transfer...23 ii

3 5.6 Reporting Annual Reports Technical Reports Five-Year Report Inputs to Other Five-Year Reports Long-Term Species Group Assessments Reports Information Management Implementation Schedule: Literature Cited...27 Appendix I...30 Appendix II...32 iii

4 1. Introduction 30 of the Declaration Order (MNR-71) regarding MNR s Class Environmental Assessment Approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands in Ontario (Forest Class EA Approval, June 25 th, 2003) made under the Environmental Assessment Act, and as amended in Declaration Order MNR-71/2, requires that the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) continue to implement a Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program within the Area of the Undertaking. 30 (b) of Declaration Order MNR-71 required that MNR prepare a program plan for the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program within one year of the Declaration Order coming into force. The program plan was prepared by June 25, (b) as amended by Declaration Order MNR-71/2 requires MNR to maintain the program plan, as amended from time to time as MNR considers appropriate, for the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program. The program plan will outline priorities, representative species to be monitored, and proposed activities and schedules. The MNR will make the program plan available to the public and shall update it no later than one year following the release of each Five-Year EA Report. Updates on the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program shall be provided to the Provincial Forest Technical Committee to assist in the review and revision of guides. This document is version 2.0 of the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Plan as required by 30 (b) of Declaration Order MNR-71/2. The Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program referred to in 30 is a component of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) wildlife monitoring and assessment activities. These activities include research, monitoring, and assessment activities and address a host of species such as moose, deer, caribou, black bear, forest birds, waterfowl, small game, furbearers, and species at risk. 1.1 Purpose The purposes of this program plan are to describe the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program and to outline the priorities, representative species to be monitored, and proposed activities and schedules. It is a program plan and as such, does not provide strategic directions or technical detail. It also does not address wildlife monitoring, assessment, and research activities that are outside the scope of the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program. These other activities are under the co-ordination of other programs of the MNR and will be factored into broad assessment activities when and where appropriate. 1.2 Background The Class Environmental Assessment by the Ministry of Natural Resources for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario as approved by the Environmental Assessment Board (April 5, 1994) required the MNR to design and implement a program to monitor population trends associated with the four provincially featured species habitat guidelines and other wildlife species with specialized habitat requirements that may not be addressed by the four guidelines. The MNR developed the Wildlife Assessment Program to identify and assess population trends of selected wildlife species that may be affected by forest management practices and to facilitate understanding of why populations may be changing. Current wildlife population monitoring efforts associated with the forest management program began in 1996, although some assessment efforts had started much earlier. Since 1996 effort has also been expended to determine key species that are representative of different successional stages and habitat types and features.

5 The Strategic Plan prepared in 1998, provided the general direction for wildlife population monitoring in Ontario for the period from 1998 to Some of the major accomplishments of the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program achieved under that plan were: formalized data collection procedures for 59 species in four species groups: salamanders, small to medium sized forest birds, small mammals, and furbearers; development of a sample design that permits reporting of broad scale population trends; establishment of 180 permanent sample plots; further development of relationships with external partner organizations which resulted in an important contribution to the collection and analysis of broad scale population data for forest birds; and production of species specific reports on both the development of sampling techniques and on the collection and analysis of population data. Partnerships established with external groups involved in wildlife population assessment have been very successful in helping to collect and analyze wildlife population data at broad scales and to provide access to a large network of volunteers. Efforts have also been put towards testing, evaluating, and developing or adapting other wildlife population monitoring methods for use in Ontario. In the Ministry of Environment s (MOE) review of the document entitled "A Review by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Regarding the Class Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario" (July 17, 2002), it was acknowledged that MNR had developed and was continuing to implement its Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program. MOE was of the view that the results of the Program would assist in assessing the effectiveness of habitat guides, and acknowledged that factors other than forest management can affect wildlife populations over time. MOE proposed that the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program should continue. 1.3 Maintenance of the program plan This document is version 2.0 of the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Plan as required by 30 (b) of Declaration Order MNR-71/2. 30 (b) states that MNR shall maintain the program plan, as amended from time to time as MNR considers appropriate,. Program reviews will be undertaken annually with a more formal review every five years. These reviews will include seeking public input. The annual review will evaluate the progress of program activities in achieving targets and maintaining the program s direction. Unforeseen circumstances that have influence on program direction will be assessed and integrated into the program direction as needed. The annual review will occur in the fall of each year and the results documented in the program s annual report (Section 5.6.1) which will be presented to the Provincial Forest Technical Committee. Recommendations will provide input into work plans for subsequent years. 2

6 2. Scope of the Plan MNR has a number of inventory, monitoring, and research initiatives related to wildlife that contribute to the body of resource management knowledge. In the context of 30, it is important to understand what will be monitored and by whom; the linkages to other conditions and related initiatives; and key challenges. 2.1 What is to be monitored? Maintaining healthy forests is key to sustaining forest ecosystems including wildlife populations. If wildlife populations are in decline, it may be an indication of a decline in the health of the forest. 30 states that the species to be monitored shall include: species which benefit from forests managed for the purposes of maintaining early successional stages and for which management direction comes from the Timber Management Guidelines for the Provision of Moose Habitat or the Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of White-tailed Deer Habitat, and their successors; species which benefit from forests managed for purposes of maintaining late successional stages and for which management direction comes from the Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of Marten Habitat or the Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of Pileated Woodpecker Habitat, and their successors; and, species which utilize the following habitat types and features: snags, dead and downed woody material, riparian areas, mature/overmature stands, and large areas in a similar successional stage. 2.2 Linkages to other conditions Specifically, the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program supports the following two conditions: Scientific Studies - Monitoring Guideline Effectiveness ( 31): MNR shall maintain a program of scientific studies to assess the effectiveness of Guides. Review and Revision of Guides ( 38): Each new Guide shall contain a description of an approach that shall be undertaken to monitor the effectiveness of the Guide. The information and knowledge gained from the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program will input into and support these scientific studies and approaches. 30 also directs the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program to collect information to support testing the effectiveness of the Guides. It is anticipated that as scientific studies are initiated and monitoring programs for guides are developed, specific species requiring monitoring will be identified. More generally, the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program also provides information and knowledge that can contribute to other conditions as well as to a broad range of Ministry programs that will assist natural resource managers and partners. 2.3 General program delivery The responsibility for wildlife inventory, monitoring, and assessment activities within MNR is shared across many organizational units. This includes the Biodiversity Branch; Natural Heritage, Lands and Protected Spaces Branch; Species at Risk Branch; Forests Branch; Ontario Parks; Fish and Wildlife Services Branch; the Applied Research and Development Branch; and the Science and Information Branch which includes the Natural Heritage Information Centre. The Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program is co-ordinated through the Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment (IMA) Section and delivered by Regional Science and Information 3

7 Sections. Program staff work together with the science community, advisors, and partners to develop and integrate program direction, work plans and budgets, sampling designs, and field protocols. Field operations are implemented on a regional basis. Data management, analysis, assessment, and reporting are centralized functions. 2.4 Linking to other programs and initiatives Along with Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring, the IMA Section co-ordinates a range of programs, including Growth and Yield, Ecological Land Classification, and Forest Resource Inventory. The Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program has important linkages to other Ministry programs involved in provincial inventory and monitoring, research, and working through partners Provincial inventory and monitoring The IMA Section co-ordinates a number of provincial trend inventories in support of a number of wildlife program initiatives. The inventories do not fall under the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program, but are related to and provide information to the program. Examples include moose, black bear, and wildlife values Moose The IMA Section leads the planning, co-ordination, and data management for the moose aerial inventory and the associated hunter surveys. Section staff are involved in the maintenance and refinement of the aerial inventory sample design. The surveys are conducted by district staff. This information supports sustainable moose harvest allocations Black bear The IMA Section co-ordinates black bear hunter surveys and the aging of black bear teeth collected during the harvest and conducts data compilation, analysis, and reporting. This information provides insight into the condition of the bear population to support sustainable bear harvest allocations Wildlife values The IMA Section provides a co-ordinating role for several wildlife related values data collection initiatives such as eagle, osprey, and great blue heron nesting sites. This occurrence information is used in forest management planning ( 9b) and is subject to habitat guidelines. Wildlife values information contributes to the body of knowledge about wildlife and may support long-term trend monitoring and testing the effectiveness of Guides Research The IMA Section continues to be involved in a number of research initiatives regarding wildlife populations and monitoring. Section staff contribute knowledge and expertise in addition to information collected through the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program. Information obtained through these research initiatives inputs into and adds knowledge to the Program. Examples are wolverines, black bear, song birds, and caribou Wolverines The IMA Section participated in a partnership project to assess the wolverine population in northwestern Ontario. This project provided information on the ecology of wolverines, and to develop and evaluate monitoring techniques that can be used in managing this species in Ontario and elsewhere. 4

8 Black bear The IMA Section is involved in the black bear population index network. This project is being conducted in co-operation with Wildlife Research and Development Section as part of a black bear research initiative Song birds The IMA Section participates in research, including a project using specially developed microphones to record the songs of forest birds. The recordings can be interpreted by experts at a later time. This work could allow for broader collection of point count information used in the forest bird monitoring projects by minimizing the need for experts to be present on all plots in the field. MNR staff are recognized as leaders in the development and use of this methodology Caribou The development of a provincial recovery strategy (2008) and the Caribou Conservation Plan (the Ontario government s response to the recovery strategy) for forest-dwelling Woodland Caribou in Ontario were led by the Species at Risk Section. Staff contributed to the development of the strategy and conservation plan by providing expertise and knowledge. Information obtained though the implementation of the conservation plan will input into the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Partners Wildlife inventory, monitoring, and assessment activities are characterized by a large number of diverse partners as MNR s efforts are often consistent with, and complementary to, the interests of other organizations. MNR values the opportunity to work with partners and continues to develop and expand these relationships. Three examples of partnerships in wildlife monitoring are provided. Opportunities for further co-operative and collaborative projects will be evaluated as they arise Sustainable forest management indicators The IMA Section participated in a project lead by Forestry which was also supported by Parks and others. The project was to design and develop a cost effective strategy for assessing and guiding progress towards sustainable forest management indicators. Three of the species groups studied, birds, salamanders, and small mammals, are relevant to the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Impacts of forest management activities on bird populations Bird Studies completed a project in the Boreal forest that focused on forest birds. Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program data was used along with other data to assess the impacts of forest management activities on bird populations Importance of core area marten habitat to population size A co-operative project between MNR and the Canadian Forest Service looked at a number of aspects of marten ecology, particularly the importance of core area habitat to population size. There is the potential that monitoring direction could come from this work and that it could be implemented by the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program in the future. 5

9 2.5 Key challenges Monitoring wildlife populations can be expensive and challenging in a province as large and diverse as Ontario. The Province is characterized by a high degree of ecological variation and forest types with many areas in the Province having sparse population and limited road access. This makes access to representative sampling sites difficult. Key challenges include: setting priorities for what should be monitored, developing an effective and efficient sampling design, developing effective and efficient monitoring techniques, implementing the monitoring program, and ensuring that new knowledge and opportunities are explored to improve the monitoring program. As the Program develops and expands, it continues to adapt in order to address these challenges. The Program continues to build upon what has been learned and continues to incorporate new science and knowledge. 6

10 3. Monitoring Plan Long-term monitoring programs must contain several essential elements in order for them to be useful and relevant. A variety of authors (Stout 1993, Gibbs et al. 1999, Yoccoz et al. 2001, Kéry and Schmid 2004, Rempel et al. 2004, Watson and Novelly 2004, Van Horne et al. 2006) have suggested key elements necessary for successful monitoring programs. These include: Clear, well-articulated goals and objectives Predefined analytical procedures A defined geographic scope Defined taxa and inferential populations Sampling designs that produce unbiased & statistically powerful results at a variety of scales Designs that account for imperfect species detectability Designs that are logistically possible Data management that provides for storage and access Program responsibilities that are clearly defined and delegated Long-term institutional commitment Accessible data and reports (findings) This Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program Plan includes components that are internal to OMNR and components that are carried out in collaboration with external partners. The extent to which all of the elements described above can be included varies with the particular component of the monitoring plan but all are incorporated to the extent possible. 3.1 Monitoring Goals and Objectives: A monitoring program requires explicit management goals and objectives to provide a context within which to evaluate whether policy and management direction are actually successful. In keeping with the policy and legislative instruments and broad management direction outlined in Section 2.0, the overall goal that is the foundation for our monitoring objectives, strategies, and questions is: To maintain, relative to what would be expected under a natural disturbance regime, all native terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species and their habitats as components of healthy ecosystems The following monitoring objectives are intended to direct the program through 2014 and beyond. Objectives: 1. Monitor and assess the status and trends of Ontario s vertebrate wildlife populations and their habitats towards informing OMNR policy and management decisions. 2. Collect and analyze data, and provide long-term assessment information and knowledge on representative terrestrial vertebrate species and habitats to support the evaluation of the Forest Management Guides. Assessment information will be used to help determine if species and habitats are responding to management direction in the Forest Management Guides in the manner predicted. 3. Timely and efficient transfer of information and knowledge. This objective will be achieved by transferring knowledge in a timely fashion to clients and stakeholders as outlined in Section 5.0. Communication will be an ongoing process relying on a 7

11 variety of techniques and products that reach the widest possible audience to ensure that data and information products are available to support resource management activities. 4. Continuous improvement of the program. The Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program (PWPMP) will use the principle of continuous feedback to ensure that there is constant evaluation and improvement of the program from lessons learned. Program staff will ensure that new science, knowledge, and techniques are explored and evaluated, and where appropriate, incorporated into the monitoring program. This includes efforts to reduce uncertainty where monitoring trends are unclear or developing new monitoring techniques for species that are currently challenging to monitor. Subject matter experts will be consulted in endeavours to continuously improve the program and its implementation. 3.2 Monitoring Questions Since the objectives frame the monitoring questions, these objectives can be broken down into a more specific set of questions that the provincial monitoring program will address. Each question can be stated broadly and more specifically in terms of OMNR forest management policy. Question One: Across spatial scales and over time, what are the status and trends for species, species groups, and habitats (i.e. are all forest wildlife species being maintained in the )? Question Two: Across spatial scales and over time, are the pattern, composition, structure, and quantity of habitats changing according to the predicted outcomes established in approved forest management plans (i.e. are the Forest Management Guides providing habitat as predicted over a broad scale)? Question Three: Across spatial scales and over time, are the populations of selected wildlife species changing in concert with the predicted outcomes of habitat change resulting from the implementation of approved forest management plans (i.e. on a broad scale, has implementation of the direction provided in the Forest Management Guides resulted in the expected direction of population change for selected wildlife species)? Current population levels of forest wildlife reflect the cumulative effects of present and past forestry, natural disturbance and other stochastic processes. It will be a number of years before implementation of the Forest Management Guides can have significant effects on wildlife habitat and populations on a broad scale. Thus, testing of the effectiveness of the Guides will initially depend on comparing areas that have Guide-like qualities to those that do not. Data from the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program can assist in these comparisons. In the longer term, however, assessment of the effectiveness of the Guides requires statistically reliable data to determine whether wildlife populations have, in fact, responded as predicted on a broad scale. The monitoring questions will drive the long-term work that the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program will carry out on a regular basis. Each question can be re-framed as a scientific hypothesis within the context of a particular project plan. Data collected to address these questions (re-framed as hypotheses) will provide the basis for determining whether or not a species or a habitat condition is changing and if the change is important. In addition, these questions support testing the effectiveness of the Forest Management Guides and will require integrated program planning with staff responsible for addressing Forest Management EA 31. 8

12 3.3 Monitoring Definitions In common parlance monitoring is understood to be the maintenance of surveillance over some potentially changing system or entity with the additional, usually unstated, expectation that something will be done should monitoring show a problem. Also usually unstated is exactly what state of change is a problem. In this plan, a risk assessment process is proposed to define when a change in species status becomes of sufficient concern that action must be taken. That action may range from advising of the need for research into mechanisms causing the change to recommendations for change in OMNR forest policies or management directives. The act of monitoring populations is subdivided into broad scale and finer scale activities as defined below (based on Holthausen et al. 2005). Surveillance monitoring Surveillance monitoring here refers to the collection of data on a broad array of species, guilds, or habitat units at multiple scales and without direct reference to the influences of management activities (although hypotheses about effects of management activities may arise from these data). Surveillance monitoring is intended to look at a broad range of species over large spatial and temporal scales to detect unanticipated changes, show status and trends within entire communities of species with similar life history traits or habitat needs (e.g., riparian species, aerial insectivores), and provide context for the interpretation of fine-scale data collected for evaluating management effectiveness (Holthausen et al. 2005). OMNR will use existing wildlife surveys for surveillance monitoring wherever possible. Examples of existing surveillance type surveys include the Breeding Bird Survey, migration monitoring, and the use of Forest Resources Inventory (FRI) for measuring trends in habitat availability. The results of surveillance monitoring can also alert scientists and management agencies of the need to undertake research and/or finer resolution monitoring to address uncertainty in status or trend (targeted monitoring). Targeted monitoring - Where uncertainty exists in a species status or trend, more rigorous, fine-scale data collection may be necessary to verify population trend. This would generally require greater statistical power and confidence levels than can be obtained from existing surveillance monitoring. Targeted monitoring is intended to answer specific questions about a population, habitat feature, or species group of interest. Where targeted surveys are used, smaller study areas, more limited time periods, specific habitat types, special techniques, or a combination of the above, may be used to reduce uncertainty and improve information for a particular species. Targeted monitoring is a strong tool because it can be focused on ecosystem components selected because of risk, concern, or interest; it can be focused on components that are likely to change; it can be tied directly to management activities; it is relatively efficient and cost effective; it has a high probability of detecting the targeted changes; and, it can be used to compare existing conditions to both past conditions and desired future conditions. Effectiveness monitoring Effectiveness monitoring is a special case of targeted monitoring directed at evaluating the outcome of the implementation of the Forest Management Guides. The overall goal of direction provided through the Forest Management Guides is to help maintain ecosystem integrity, and the specific objective is for this to be achieved through the conservation of wildlife habitat and functional properties of the ecosystem. Effectiveness monitoring of Forest Management Guides is essentially designed to test whether the direction they provide is achieving what we expect in terms of maintaining wildlife populations, habitat, and functional properties of the ecosystem. Data collected to answer these questions will also allow the scientific community to test more theoretical hypotheses related to ecosystem resilience. Although the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program is not the lead for effectiveness monitoring of forest management activities, data collected for our program will support testing the effectiveness of Forest Management Guides and thus close collaboration among staff is required to develop an effective sampling design. Research is used to investigate the mechanisms that underlie habitat and species response to management and other forms of disturbance (Holthausen et al. 2005, although they refer to 9

13 research as monitoring). Research is not part of the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program but again is closely related and program staff work with research scientists. In order to understand how management should be changed, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms that drive population change for species of interest. This requires a research design with appropriate controls and alternate treatments that address the hypothesized drivers of population change. The strengths of research include the ability to investigate the assumptions used in resource planning models (such as the Sustainable Forest Management Model) and to focus on the ecosystem components of greatest risk, concern, or interest (Holtahusen et al. 2005). The Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program includes both surveillance monitoring and targeted monitoring which will contribute to effectiveness monitoring. As shown in Figure 1, the program is integrated with OMNR s overall program of forest management. Forest management planning objectives are driven by provincial policy to maintain ecosystem integrity and are set by the provincial Forest Technical Committee (PFTC) and regional and local committees. Monitoring activities undertaken by the PWPMP, combined with effectiveness monitoring and other research activities, contribute to resetting of objectives in a continuous feedback loop as new knowledge becomes available. Figure 1. Conceptual model of integrated wildlife population and habitat monitoring. 3.4 OMNR s Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program The monitoring approach chosen for Ontario is an integration of broad and fine scale monitoring for making assessments of habitat and population trends and to support the evaluation of forest management planning and Guide effectiveness. Population monitoring will be conducted using data from existing population surveys that are conducted at regular intervals by OMNR and other organizations as a coarse-scale (surveillance) tool which will be augmented, where required, to 10

14 achieve adequate spatial and/or temporal coverage and resolution. In addition, the PWPMP intends to evaluate broad-scale monitoring of multiple species through the Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring (MSIM) approach (Manley et al. 2005). The MSIM approach (further described in Section ) uses standard protocols for many species at specified plot locations and can be used for both surveillance and targeted monitoring. MSIM offers an opportunity to integrate sample plot networks and increase efficiencies by co-locating wildlife population sampling with existing vegetation-based sampling. If existing vegetation-based sample plots are insufficient for a particular targeted monitoring project, additional plots can be added using the same data collection protocols and analytical procedures. The ability to match population monitoring results with changes in habitat condition at specific scales of interest provides the key inputs to effectiveness monitoring. The collection of habitat data at a broad surveillance level is not part of PWPMP field activities but is the business of OMNR through the Forest Resources Inventory (FRI) program. Habitat monitoring will be conducted using classified imagery that is updated every ten years and provides spatially explicit estimates of the amount and distribution of vegetation communities. Regular updates to the FRI from approved forest management plans (5-year renewal) will be used as available. The FRI program also intends to sample sites on the National Forest Inventory (NFI) grid for detailed ground vegetation data collection. These reference plots will include collection of field data and multiple scale photography and satellite imagery, and will provide repeated measures every ten years on forest composition, structure, and distribution. Addressing monitoring question three, as well as supporting guide effectiveness monitoring may require supplemental data collection for specific species, habitats, timeframes, or treatments of interest that are not adequately covered by the network of surveillance monitoring at NFI plots. If use of additional plots is deemed necessary, planning will occur in full co-operation with the effectiveness monitoring program. Data collected through the population monitoring network and forest resource inventory programs may contribute to research programs investigating cause-and-effect relationships. It is also likely that the results of monitoring assessments will indicate research needs to better address monitoring questions as well as to better inform effectiveness monitoring. Key components to our approach are the scheduled evaluation, assessment, reporting, and transfer of results in support of management decision-making (see Section 5.0). Population and habitat trends for species, guilds, communities, and functional assemblages will be evaluated against outcomes predicted from forest management plans, regional and provincial strategies, and management guidelines. Evaluations of populations and habitats at multiple scales and for long time periods will require a significant investment in data and information management processes and technologies in order to organize and maintain data from multiple sources. OMNR s Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program includes several integrated components: Periodic assessment of species status to assist in setting priorities for targeted monitoring and to provide input to policy Investigation and development of techniques and, as appropriate, protocols for detecting and collecting monitoring data for priority species Surveillance monitoring (often in partnership with other OMNR staff and external agencies) of a wide variety of species to inform the periodic assessment of species status Targeted monitoring to support testing the effectiveness of the Forest Management Guides and to inform assessment of population change for specific species. Both surveillance and targeted monitoring of habitat to inform assessment of causes of population change Collaboration with research scientists and others within OMNR, or with external partners, on a variety wildlife population-related projects 11

15 3.4.1 Assessment of Species Status Assessment of the population trend and status of forest birds in the Ontario portions of Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) 8 and 12 has recently been completed (Blancher et al. 2009). These BCRs completely overlap the, with the exception that a portion of BCR 8 extends into the non- section of northwestern Ontario. The assessment identified 25 species (see Appendix I) that have experienced large decreases (50% or more) in population over the past 20 (or more) years. Although there is no direct evidence that the decreases are due to changes in forest condition, this assessment does provide helpful direction in setting priorities for targeted monitoring and associated research. Only a small proportion of these species have been identified as Species at Risk and many are still relatively common, which makes them appropriate for inclusion in the kind of broad-scale program conducted under the PWPMP. These species assessments are based on past population trends and are important indicators of priority species. However, looking forward, there are life history characteristics that may make some species more vulnerable than others to population decreases due to forest management activities despite the best intentions and implementation of the Forest Management Guides (e.g., species that require snags or coarse woody debris). In some cases large increases in species populations may also be of concern, particularly if it appears that the increase is at the expense of other species. To assist in setting further priorities for monitoring, an objective evaluation of risk, such as that shown in Figure 2, is needed to guide the identification of species, species guilds, habitat units, or structural features in decline or increase. The focus, for the PWPMP, is on species in the zones of natural variation and increasing concern, with the intent of identifying species in decline, especially those in decline because of management practices that can be changed, before they become species at risk. Program staff support work on species at risk but leading the extremely targeted research and monitoring required for rare species is beyond the scope of the PWPMP. Zone of Increasing Concern Targeted Monitoring or Cause and Effect Research Zone of Natural Variation Measure of Abundance Surveillance and/or Targeted Monitoring Zone of Increasing Concern Special Concern Targeted Monitoring or Cause and Effect Research Species at Risk Zone Threatened Endangered Species or Habitat Component Persistent Increase Periodic or as needed Assessments Extirpated Persistent Decline Extinct Time Figure 2. A conceptual representation of types of monitoring and associated risk assessment for the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program. 12

16 It is proposed to convene one or more panels of specialists to assist with the development of a formal risk assessment process during the period of this plan. There are two aspects to risk assessment for the PWPMP. One is the determination of species that are already in decline but the more important group in terms of MNR s management practices are those whose habitat needs may not be fully captured by the direction given in the Forest Management Guides. These are the species whose populations may be most at risk of eventual declines as a result of forest management activities. Early in the span of this plan, we will convene a workshop to begin the development of a formal risk assessment process for identifying such species now and in the future. This workshop will help to refine the species selected for monitoring at the inception of the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program (McLaren et al. 1998a,b). The species identified in 1998 included species representative of all broad forest habitat categories and age classes, as well as representative species from the four vertebrate classes. The species were selected from a broader list of all species occurring in the forests of the based on the output of an expert workshop convened in late 1997 (McLaren 1998). The recent evaluation of the reliability of trends in bird populations may suggest that some species in the 1998 list should be replaced by equally representative (based on the expert workshop) species for which more reliable trend information is available. For some of the species selected in 1998, it was clear at the time that they would be difficult to monitor, in large part because they are difficult to detect and no tested methods for monitoring were available. The risk assessment workshop will assist in determining whether these species should continue to be the focus of efforts to develop new methods and protocols. The risk assessment workshop may be combined with workshop(s) to assess the current status of mammal, reptile and amphibian species in the province. Many species in these groups do not have the same level of surveillance monitoring data as do forest birds. Thus, assessment of risk to these species will depend much more heavily on expert opinion. In instances when there is high uncertainty in the available population and/or habitat supply data, additional investigation may be required. Species, guilds, habitat units, or structural features identified by this evaluation may undergo more rigorous investigation (targeted monitoring) to confirm their status and, if necessary, research studies may be recommended to elucidate the causal mechanism of population change Methods Evaluation and Development During the period covered by this plan, staff of the Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program will continue to contact species experts as appropriate and to perform regular scans of the scientific literature to determine whether new techniques appropriate to detecting Ontario wildlife species have been developed. Other agencies within Ontario and are also concerned with monitoring wildlife populations and are working on the development of improved techniques, particularly for forest birds and amphibians. Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring staff will continue to liaise with staff of these agencies. Tests of available equipment or techniques also will be conducted by Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program staff, as appropriate Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring The Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring (MSIM) approach (Manley et al. 2005) was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to monitor wildlife species on federal forest lands in the U.S. The approach is based on the use of consistent protocols to determine species presence or absence at a series of points leading to inferences about range occupancy in both time and space for defined areas. We are currently assessing the feasibility of basing much of the field data collection portion of this Plan on the MSIM approach. In Ontario, we propose to use the National Forest Inventory (NFI) grid points as our sample frame to co-locate plots for data collection. This will provide integration with vegetation (habitat) information collected by other sectors of OMNR. 13

17 A grid based (systematic) approach is a more suitable long-term approach than stratification by habitat type. The grid provides consistency in site location, multi-scale analysis opportunities, and the ability to post-stratify by any number of factors. The systematic location of the grid across the province overcomes biases associated with road-based sampling and, potentially, allows the extension of monitoring using the same approach and protocols into non- parts of the province. The MSIM approach, with its multiple protocols each designed to detect as many species as possible, obtains data on many species, maximizing the return on monitoring dollars. An important component of this approach is the determination of species detectability as not all species present at a site are detected during sampling due to random chance (MacKenzie et al. 2002, Kéry and Schmid 2004, Manley et al. 2004). Multiple visits to sampling sites allow the calculation of detection probabilities and modelling of species occupancy patterns (Mackenzie et al. 2006). Existing wildlife population monitoring data from pilot studies conducted from 2002 to 2004 on forest birds, small mammals and salamanders can contribute to the determination of probability of detection (McLaren et al. 2006, Phoenix et al. in prep. Twiss et al. in prep.). Additional benefits of this approach, for species with high detection rates, may include estimates of abundance (for commonly detected land birds and small mammals and, perhaps, salamanders), detection of spatially explicit changes in distribution and contribution to habitat modelling. The core sampling area is a fixed size polygon, and additional sampling areas (e.g., aquatic sites) are randomly selected from within a specified area around the core sample site. The MSIM approach is scaleable in terms of both species groups that can be monitored and number of plots where monitoring takes place. Manley et al. (2005) presented protocols for land birds, nocturnal birds, riparian birds, small mammals, medium and large mammals, bats, terrestrial amphibians and reptiles, plant species, and habitat. Sampling need not be restricted to these protocols and additional sampling protocols can be built upon this sampling structure (Kinkead 2006) where the approach has been extended to include protocols for a number of invertebrates (butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies, terrestrial snails). The Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute also co-locates sample plots with the NFI grid and offers other protocol options, primarily for vegetation, but also for winter snow tracking of mammals (Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute 2007). There are many benefits to adopting an MSIM approach, not least of which are existing protocols for data collection and computer programs for data analysis (Manley et al. 2005). Nevertheless, there are challenges to implementing MSIM in Ontario. The protocols were designed primarily in the U.S. southwest and may need to be adjusted for Ontario conditions. Because of the nature of wildlife activity patterns, not all species can be detected with a single visit to each grid plot. Thus, multiple visits to deploy multiple protocols will be needed to track trends for a maximal number of species. We will also face logistical challenges in accessing some of the plots. Testing of a number of MSIM protocols has been conducted on a small scale (Silver and Twiss, 2010) and it is the intent to continue this testing on a broader scale (one ecoregion). A decision about the feasibility of full-scale implementation for at least a core of protocols will be made once the broad-scale test has been evaluated.the eventual scale of sampling, and thus area of inference, for MSIM is intended to be the six Landscape Guide regions, with data pooling where necessary for provincial and population-range level assessments. As time goes on, the feasibility of adding protocols for additional species will be assessed Surveillance Monitoring Surveillance monitoring will be conducted both by OMNR staff through the MSIM approach and in partnership with other agencies, both governmental and non-governmental. The Implementation Protocol (OMNR 2008) described the ongoing surveys and the numbers of species captured by each (Appendix II). This information is briefly summarized below. 14

18 Birds Birds are the group best represented in existing surveillance monitoring surveys. The vast majority of these surveys use protocols that detect multiple species. However, geographic coverage and, consequently, statistical reliability is often poor for the and especially for the boreal forest (Blancher et al. 2009, Francis et al. 2009, see Figure 3). The existing surveys will be useful for calibration and validation of an -wide sampling program but none of them was designed to provide information with which to evaluate the results of management decisions (forest or otherwise). Bird Conservation Regions 8 and 12 BCR8 Acceptable Poor Data Deficient BCR12 Acceptable Poor Data Deficient Figure 3. Statistical reliability of population trends over 10 years for surveillance surveys in the Boreal Softwood Shield (BCR 8, 121 species assessed) and the Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 12, 131 species assessed). Based on Blancher et al

19 Mammals Some 78 species of wild mammals occur in Ontario of which 60 species inhabit the forests of the. Currently, there are very few -wide surveys for mammals in Ontario (see OMNR 2008). Existing surveys for moose, white-tailed deer, and furbearers were designed to inform harvest management decisions but not to provide information relative to forest management activities. Nevertheless, these surveys do provide surveillance level information about the status of populations Amphibians and Reptiles There has been little in the way of long-term, broad-scale monitoring undertaken of species in this group, both because there has traditionally been less interest in these taxa and because many of them are difficult to detect. Only one surveillance monitoring program, the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) (co-ordinated by Bird Studies (BSC) and aimed at both birds and amphibians), is currently active in the. The MMP provides statistically reliable surveillance monitoring trends for seven species in primarily coastal marshes of the Great Lakes basin (Crewe et al. 2006). The MMP may have potential for extending the design for amphibian monitoring to a larger geographic area, beyond the Great Lakes nearshore areas, and to include a wider variety of wetland types (in addition to marshes). The Provincial Wildlife Population Monitoring Program will assess the feasibility of expanding this survey as a component of existing surveillance monitoring. Amphibian Road Call Counts and Backyard Frog Surveys, two programs that have been in place since 1992 in southern Ontario, have recently been evaluated by Environment Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Network and BSC staff (Badzinski et al. 2008) to determine their utility and potential for expansion. This analysis revealed differences in the direction of species trends among the monitoring programs evaluated. This may be due to a number of different factors such as differences in species detectability between protocols used in the two programs and type of habitat being sampled. Badzinski et al. (2008) noted that the issue of species detectability needed to be addressed, particularly for the Amphibian Road Call Counts and also the MMP. Geographic coverage was also noted as an issue as none of the programs have intensive sampling in northern Ontario and only weak coverage in central Ontario. Lakehead University recently completed a project evaluating monitoring techniques for reptiles and amphibians in the Lake Superior basin for the Lake Superior Bi-National Program (Hecnar and Casper 2009). This project is based on detection/non-detection data and calculation of percent area occupied statistics. Results from this effort will be examined to inform the MSIM evaluation and will be incorporated into PWPMP monitoring efforts where appropriate. Ontario Nature is currently leading a renewed Ontario reptile and amphibian atlasing project in which the OMNR and the PWPMP are partners. This effort should increase our baseline knowledge of species distributions in the province over the next few years Targeted Monitoring General We anticipate that the Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring (MSIM) approach will be used for much of the field data collection for targeted monitoring. The MSIM approach is designed to detect ecological effects of a number of environmental stresses on a wide range of indicators (Manley et al. 2005) and can be implemented to answer specific questions such as whether wildlife population response is different in natural origin stands versus managed stands. The MSIM approach can also contribute to effectiveness monitoring (see below) and to such things as investigations into the effects of climate change (species range changes over time) monitoring. Data collected only on the National Forest Inventory (NFI) plot network may not be sufficient to 16