10 How much habitat to protect

On this page Skip this page navigation

After wildlife habitats have been evaluated and ranked to determine the number of habitats to protect, the planning authority may have to decide how much of each individual habitat to protect. When determining specific amounts, the primary guiding principle should be to protect enough habitat to maintain those important functions and conditions of the habitat that enable it to sustain dependent species. For example, a rare plant species might occupy only a few square meters of a forest floor. But in order to adequately protect it, this local population plus some of the surrounding landscape would have to be protected because the adjacent trees help to provide the conditions on which the plants depend (e.g., shade, moisture). A black rat snake hibernaculum is a small (20 square meters or less) but critical component of this species’ habitat. However, when the snakes emerge in the spring, they disperse to their summer range, as far as 5 km from the hibernaculum. If a movement corridor and sufficient summer range habitat are not protected, in addition to the hibernaculum, then the snake population will not be sustainable.

Many planning authorities will have situations where they have disparate landscapes within their jurisdiction. This will occur mostly in the south where the landscape is predominantly agricultural or urban, but portions of the planning area may include the Shield, the Niagara Escarpment, or moraines with more extensive natural areas. In addition, some planning authorities may occur in more than one site region. In these instances, it is recommended that different criteria for determining significant wildlife habitat be developed for major physiographic regions and different site regions in the planning area. This avoids having situations where species that are locally at risk in one physiographic area are unprotected, or where onerous conditions for development are imposed because of the presence of an abundant species in a different area.

10.1 Difficulties in determining how much habitat to protect

For several reasons, it is difficult and not always desirable to provide numerical targets for amounts of protected habitats. The specific habitat requirements of many species and the number of individuals of a particular species (each requiring a certain amount of habitat) required to maintain a viable population remains poorly understood. Some individuals within a species show considerable variation in habitat preferences and tolerance to disturbance, even when they are found in the same geographical area.

Often it is difficult to protect sufficient habitat because some species are wide-ranging (e.g. fisher), wandering over many square kilometres; or require several disparate habitats. Habitat quality can influence the amount of required habitat; an animal or population may require a larger area of lower quality habitat to meet its needs. Unfortunately, habitat quality is often hard to assess. In addition, since landscape and wildlife habitats are dynamic and they change over time, present amounts of protected habitat may prove to be inadequate in future.

Since it is often difficult to place boundaries on some habitats because they are not always clearly defined, it is hard to determine how much to protect. Also, the width of what should be considered significant wildlife habitat for the same species or type of habitat can vary, depending on specific site conditions (e.g., hilly topography on one site provides better protection for a species that is sensitive to human intrusion, than a flat, more open site). Frequently the minimum width of a setback required to mitigate negative impacts is unknown because impacts on the habitat are unclear or the species’ response to a variety of potential impacts varies or has not been studied.

Designating an exact amount of protected habitat for a species can cause some problems. Some people might assume that once specified amounts of habitat have been protected, remaining land in the planning area should be open to development and other uses that can destroy or degrade wildlife habitats. The protection of small islands of habitats is not very effective in truly protecting these features. This concern has been discussed in Section 2. This could lead to a loss of more important wildlife habitats and accelerate the conversion of natural areas to anthropogenic landscapes.

Furthermore, if a certain habitat exists in a planning area, but is smaller than the recommended minimum size, there is the danger that it could be considered insignificant and then receive no protection at all. However, this habitat may still be important to the species of concern and many other wildlife species. A habitat of this size may have excellent potential for rehabilitation.

10.2 Some considerations for determining how much habitat to protect

The above discussion suggests that assigning specific numerical values is best suited to relatively small habitats with reasonably clear boundaries; sedentary species; and habitats and species that have been quite well studied and for which some guidelines exist. It is also apparent that determination of how much habitat to protect is best conducted site by site based on fieldwork and going through a detailed decision-making process.

For most habitats, it is not possible to give precise amounts that should be protected. However, suggested amounts for selected habitats are listed in Table 10-1 and discussed in Section 10.6. The tables in Appendix Q present some minimum standards that may help to determine the amount of habitat that should be protected.

Three key guidelines should be kept in mind when deciding how much habitat to protect. First, the full range of habitats found in the planning area, should be protected. Second, protection of several examples of each habitat type is preferable to protection of only one area. This will also provide some insurance against unforeseen habitat losses and potential opportunities for linkage to other similar habitats and colonisation and restoration of them. Third, it is preferable to protect larger blocks of habitat. Larger habitats are more resilient to adverse disturbance, provide better protection against future habitat loss or degradation, can better maintain important ecological processes and their dependent species, and support more species.

The following considerations can be helpful in determining generally how much habitat should be protected.

Critical requirements of the species

The amount of protected habitat depends on the species or group of species that require it. Some species have strict area requirements. Wildlife such as carnivores and birds of prey require much larger habitats than many herbivorous species. In general, it is more challenging to maintain viable populations of these area-sensitive species because more habitat must be set aside for them and the habitat must include all of their critical habitat requirements. However, protection of habitat for these species benefits many other species as well. Fortunately, sites supporting these species can often be managed for both wildlife and human uses.

Some species have small home ranges, but when they must travel outside this area, they require corridors to move safely over the landscape. Often, these are small animals that rely on vegetation cover to survive. For them, protected habitat must include appropriate corridors. Often their habitats and corridors are found within the home ranges of area-sensitive species.

Some species are sensitive to human activities that disrupt the natural landscape. Some are habitat specialists; they have highly specific habitat requirements and cannot tolerate changes. Others have limited ability to move from where they are found (e.g., numerous plants, insects). For these species, habitat protection must not only focus on how much habitat they require, but also on the most critical components of that habitat. Often the habitat for these species is small, but several protected habitats are often needed as a precaution against unforeseen future disturbance that could destroy one or more of them.

Habitat characteristics

The amount of habitat that should be protected depends on the physical and ecological conditions found on the site, as well as its location. The habitats of some species are susceptible to natural changes and disturbance. As a heronry ages, more nest trees fall down. Beach dunes are built up, moved, and eroded. Habitats located on unstable slopes or on flood plains may be short-lived. Rare vegetation communities such as alvars are supported by very shallow soils that are quite easily removed or severely damaged.

Other habitats are found in somewhat more resilient sites (e.g., maple-beech woodlot, old field). In general, habitats that are susceptible to degradation or destruction by natural processes or human activities are in greatest need of protection.

The quality of a habitat can influence how much of it should be protected. High quality habitats (diversity of structure and composition, relatively pristine, free from human disturbance) often support a greater diversity and sometimes abundance of associated wildlife than similar habitats of poorer quality. Consequently, less high quality habitat may have to be protected than similar, but inferior habitat.

Some habitats, such as tall-grass prairie and oak savannah, require disturbance to maintain and/or restore them. Fire, either of natural origin or a prescribed burn, maintains the species composition. In order to allow a disturbance like fire to operate on a natural spatial and temporal scale, larger amounts of these habitats may have to be protected than habitats that are not dependent on widespread disturbance.

Habitats located close to or in residential or recreational areas or near roads have their associated species at higher risk than similar habitats found in areas with no roads and low population density. As residential areas encroach on natural areas, they may disrupt natural processes such as hydrological cycles, remove natural vegetative cover, and increase human disturbance in the area. They can introduce pest species (non-native plants, house cats, urban species). The presence of roads often increases mortality of wildlife in the area (road-kills, increased access for non-native species, fragmentation of habitat) and encourages use of the surrounding landscape by more people. Protection of greater amounts of these habitats as compared with those under less pressure will be required to offset future habitat deterioration and/or loss.

In southern Ontario, many habitats are fragmented. Perhaps the most commonly mentioned examples are the loss of wetlands and forest cover that used to be far more widespread in this region. Some habitats are now disjunct (i.e. greatly isolated from similar habitats). These habitats are high priority for conservation. Several examples of these habitats should be protected because some will undoubtedly be lost. Ultimately, this will mean that larger amounts of the most disjunct habitats should be protected than similar, but better connected habitats.

Adjacent lands and land uses

The type of landscape and land use adjacent to a wildlife habitat can directly affect how much of a habitat should be protected. If a significant wildlife habitat is adjacent to a natural area, it may be possible to protect less area as significant wildlife habitat, than similar habitats surrounded by incompatible land uses.

Other factors

The amount of natural landscape in the planning area can affect the total amount of wildlife habitat that should be protected. In planning areas with few remaining natural areas, the size of remaining habitats will be smaller than similar habitats in planning areas with more extensive natural areas. However, proportionally more of the natural landscape in developed areas should be protected, relative to the total land area, because they have less to start with and are more likely to be lost to development.

The presence of a greater diversity of natural heritage features and areas increases the amount of habitat that should be protected to represent this increased diversity. However, the presence of already existing protected natural areas such as provincial parks, conservation areas, and wildlife refuges can substantially reduce the amount of additional habitat that should be protected.

Demographic and land use trends can help the planning authority determine the total amount of habitat that should be protected. An increasing human population may increase pressure to develop remaining natural areas. At the same time, many of these people may value natural areas close to home for recreational and educational opportunities, particularly if the population is ageing. Protection of more of these areas will be easier and less expensive now than in the future.

The planning authority may also want to consider what their Natural Heritage System should be in the future. There may be existing habitats that are degraded that have potential to be restored in order to achieve better representation of these habitats within the planning area.

Finally, the design of the Natural Heritage System will affect how much total habitat will be protected. A system that includes as broad a representation of habitats as possible will require the protection of more land than a simpler system. But such a system will also better protect the biodiversity and important ecological processes of the planning area and provide opportunities for people to appreciate and learn more about the natural world.

10.3 What to protect? - summary of guidelines

Since there are no rules governing the exact amount of habitat that should be protected, the following guidelines are presented to help the planning authority with this decision. They are based on the recognition that the most effective and ecologically sound approach to protecting significant wildlife habitat is by protecting large natural areas, consolidating and connecting habitats wherever possible, and encouraging public appreciation of the conservation value of important natural areas (Chapter 2).

General principles of habitat protection

When there is some doubt as to how much habitat to protect, it is usually prudent to be conservative and protect more rather than less habitat.
Whenever possible, several protected examples of a specific habitat are preferable to only one, especially when they are small and isolated from one another.
Protection of habitat for species guilds or associated species found together is often preferable to habitat protection for a single species.
Where several species of conservation concern occur together, protection of sufficient habitat for those species requiring more space should also protect less demanding species.
Some potentially suitable but currently unoccupied habitats might be maintained to provide opportunities for future colonisation, especially where they are connected to other natural areas.

Guidelines for the protection of corridors

There is no optimum width or length for a corridor, but longer corridors increase the probability of mortality, unsuccessful dispersal, and barriers to movement.
Corridors should be designed taking the requirements of the species inhabiting the planning area and specifically the species using the habitat to be connected into account.
Ideally, corridors should be as wide as possible to minimise edge effects, accommodate the movement of a greater number of species, and provide more habitat for resident species.
Corridors surrounded by unsuitable habitat need to be wider.
Large corridors may provide significant wildlife habitat for many small species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects.
Locating and then protecting potentially significant corridors, as well as possibly restoring or improving natural landscape connections, may be more important than trying to determine their optimal width.
Known wildlife migratory routes should be incorporated into corridors.
Busy roads should not pass through corridors (corridors should be routed across landscapes with the lowest density of roads).
Work within the existing landscape. Utility rights-of-way and abandoned railway lines may be useful as corridors.

Priorities for habitat protection

Highest priority for protection should be given to the best examples of seasonal concentration areas, provincially rare (S1-S3) vegetation communities, habitats of provincially or regionally significant species of conservation concern, and large natural areas with diversity of habitats and communities.
Sites that support several significant wildlife habitats should be protected.

Habitats to include as significant wildlife habitat

When identifying and protecting habitat, all critical components of that habitat should be protected. This includes essential adjacent features and functions such as seed sources, groundwater recharge areas, and water quality, as well as all critical parts of a species’ habitat. To adequately protect a bird species of concern, its nest site, nesting territory, and foraging habitat should be maintained.
Many specialised habitats are within larger forested areas (e.g., nesting habitat for area-sensitive species; cavity and supercanopy trees; mast-producing trees; seeps and springs). This implies that protection of larger forested areas should protect many of these specialised habitats associated with it.
Numerous bird species of conservation concern require relatively large tracts of forest, grassland, or marsh. Protection of these species requires maintenance of large blocks of suitable habitat.
Corridors that enable animals to move safely over their home range or between critical components of their habitat should be protected. Development should not sever these corridors. A significant wildlife habitat may be rendered useless if animals cannot maintain access to other critical components of their habitat.

Reduce or avoid disturbance

Regular disturbance may lead to abandonment of habitats and can be especially serious for seasonal concentration habitats (e.g., heronries and other colonial nesting bird sites, raptor and wild turkey wintering areas, bat hibernacula).
Detrimental edge effects may extend at least 200 meters into forested lands and affect the functions of habitats in these areas.
Maintaining natural vegetation around significant wildlife habitats may provide improved protection from detrimental edge effects, predators, and human disturbance.
The size of the area that should be considered significant wildlife habitat will depend on the quality of the habitat, the adjacent land uses, and the sensitivity of the species.
Many habitats exhibit a subtle structural complexity that, if altered, may result in habitat abandonment (e.g. interior forest habitat).
For some habitats (e.g., colonial-nesting birds), seasonal control of human access may be the only protection required.

Protection of sites with high potential

Management may be required to maintain and improve some of these habitats (e.g., tall-grass prairie, and savannah).
Some rare vegetation communities (e.g., tall-grass prairie) can be restored on sites where they once existed.
Management guidelines to maintain and improve some of these habitats have been developed by the OMNR and other agencies (Appendix R). Silvicultural activities can be conducted according to guidelines designed to protect and sometimes enhance the distribution and supply of specialised habitats such as cavity trees, down woody debris, pockets of conifer cover, raptor nest trees, and supercanopy trees.
Some management activities designed to encourage the enhancement of habitats (e.g., snags, and cavity trees, down woody debris, denning sites) are long-term projects conducted over several decades.
Agencies may be very interested in the management of specific significant wildlife habitats are listed in Chapter 11.

Development

Where development is inevitable, the negative impacts on some of these habitats can be somewhat mitigated, by directing it away from core areas. See the Significant Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System for potential mitigation techniques.

Public education

A public education campaign may help to protect some habitats, especially if they are near residential areas. It could also lead to less disturbance of wildlife by people.
Increased public awareness of significant habitats and the principles of why they should be protected may facilitate protection of them.

Incentives

Grants may be available for restoration projects (see Chapter 11).
There are agencies that focus on rehabilitation and restoration of degraded habitats (Appendix F).

10.4 How much to protect? - summary of factors to consider

Decisions concerning how much habitat to protect should be based on the most recent research, as well as habitat management guidelines developed by the OMNR and other wildlife conservation agencies. The OMNR can provide guidelines for white-tailed deer, moose, some colonial birds, raptors, and bullfrogs (Appendix R). Many of the guidelines were developed for forest management planning, but the principles on which the recommendations were made are valid for land use planning applications as well.

The following factors will also influence the amount of habitat that should be protected.

size of the habitat or site
historical distribution of habitat in the planning area
amount of currently protected habitat
amount of potential habitat in the planning area
presence of rare species and their degree of rarity (i.e., rarer species may require stronger protection which can mean protecting several habitat locations or a larger single habitat that supports them)
location of habitat can help to determine how much area should be included as significant wildlife habitat and needs to be protected
if important components of a species’ habitat go beyond the identified habitat (e.g., foraging areas, summer range), this will increase the amount of habitat that should be protected
other areas and features that affect the quality of the habitat or on which the habitat depends (e.g., headwater, groundwater recharge area) may increase the amount of habitat that should be protected
area requirement of the species (see habitat matrices in Appendix G)
species’ sensitivity to disturbance to help to determine how large a habitat should be protected, and if a corridor is required
abundance of species at the site
quality of the habitat, often smaller amounts of higher quality habitats will need to be protected than habitats of lower quality
incompatible adjacent land uses may require a larger area to be identified as significant wildlife habitat and more stringent protection

10.5 How much to protect? - suggested amounts

Table 10-1 lists some selected habitats and species that might be protected. It is important to note that most of these habitats form just one habitat component among several within the home range of a species. It is necessary to protect all these critical habitats for a species in addition to protecting natural connections to these habitats. The suggested guidelines attempt to address the question of how much total habitat should be protected, and where possible, numerical values are suggested. Also refer to the wildlife habitat matrices in Appendix G for average home ranges for selected species. To improve the probability of providing adequate habitat for a species or guild, the planning authority should try to protect several examples of each habitat, as outlined in Appendix Q.

Table 10-1. Suggested values for protection of selected wildlife habitats.

10-1-1 Seasonal Concentration Areas

Habitat/species/guild	Suggested guidelines
White-tailed deer winter yard	protect the entire area of the deer yard core areas in yards less than 10 km² should be entirely protected protect at least 85% of core areas in larger yards from a landscape perspective, ideally 10-30% of total deer range should be conifer-dominated stands, with a minimum conifer component of 70% and crown closure of 60% ideally a minimum of 40% of deer range should be second growth or regenerating stands, occurring within 800 m of conifer shelter as much as 300 m around certain deer yards may have to be protected if disturbance or other factors may affect the functions of the habitat
Moose late winter habitat	protect the complete area of the site in addition, protect sufficient conifer forest and patches of conifers within hardwood forests to support number of moose in the planning area based on OMNR biologist estimates as much as an additional 300 m may need to be protected to ensure maintenance of functions
Colonial-nesting birds	protect the area of the site protect an additional area to protect the birds from disturbance. The width of this area will vary depending on sensitivity of birds, local site conditions, and adjacent land use (see Appendix C and the Decision Support System)
Raptor wintering areas (hunting, roosting)	protect the area of the site protect several large blocks of fields (minimum of 15 ha, preferably much larger) protect key roosting sites adjacent to these areas an additional 100 m width adjacent to this habitat may have to be protected to ensure that raptors are not disturbed
Landbird/shorebird/butterfly migratory stopover area	protect the area of the site since the minimum threshold size of this habitat is unknown, existing significant sites should be protected in their entirety and not be reduced in area protection of undisturbed sites with a diversity of suitable habitats and structure will improve the sustainability of long-term populations for shorebirds, an additional 10 m may have to be protected to ensure the birds are not disturbed
Wild turkey winter range	protect the area of the site this habitat is best protected by protecting as many mature conifer stands and patches of conifers within hardwood stands, as well as springs and seeps, as possible an additional 100 m or more may need to be protected so that birds are not disturbed
Turkey vulture summer roost	protect the area of the site additional areas that should be considered part of the significant wildlife habitat will vary according to local site conditions (e.g., height of cliff, adjacent land use, local topography, how remote the site is)
Bat/reptile hibernacula	protect the area of the site protection of all bat hibernacula is desirable because this habitat is limited protect an additional 200 m from the entrance to bat hibernacula, although individual site inspections may find that a smaller protected area will provide adequate protection this habitat for snakes is best protected by maintaining a variety of protected natural areas (see Chapter 2)
Bullfrog concentration area	protect the area of the site protection of wetlands and undisturbed shorelines will help to maintain long- term populations and fish habitat

10-1-2 Rare vegetation communities or specialised habitat for wildlife

Habitat/species/guild	Suggested guidelines
Rare vegetation communities	protect the area of the site the amount of area that should be protected will vary depending on species’ sensitivity to disturbance, adjacent land uses, area of community, hydrological conditions
Marten and fisher denning sites	protect the area of the site protect as many large blocks of contiguous mid-aged to mature forest as possible the area protected may be larger if disturbance becomes a problem (an additional 100 m)
Mink and otter feeding/denning sites	protect the area of the site protect as much wetland and undeveloped, undisturbed shorelines on lakes, rivers, and streams as possible a large area may need to be protected if disturbance becomes a problem (100 m)
Moose aquatic feeding areas	protect the area of the site protect as much wetland and undeveloped, undisturbed shorelines on lakes and rivers as possible (potential target of 2% of planning area in well distributed aquatic feeding areas) width of the area that should be protected depends on local site conditions, adjacent land use, importance of site to moose
Moose calving areas	protect the area of the site protect as much undeveloped, undisturbed shorelines on lakes, rivers, and islands as possible additional area (200 m) may have to be protected if there is potential for disturbance
Moose mineral lick	protect the area of the site protect as many large blocks of contiguous forest as possible a larger area may be required if site is exposed to disturbance (100-200 m)
Black bear/other mammal foraging areas	protect the area of the site protect as many large blocks of contiguous forest with food species and associated openings as possible a larger area may be required if site is exposed to disturbance (100-200 m)
Waterfowl nesting habitat	protect the area of the site (approximately 120 m of upland grassland cover within water) protect as many upland grassland areas adjacent to wetlands and other water bodies the entire area encompassing several small ponds should be protected
Waterfowl staging areas	protect the area of the site protect large wetlands and shorelines of large water bodies an additional 100 to 300 m may have to be protected depending on sensitivity of birds, local site conditions, and adjacent land use
Osprey nesting habitat	protect the area of the site protect as much wetland and undeveloped, undisturbed shorelines (and islands) of large lakes and rivers as possible protect large trees adjacent to wetlands and water bodies an additional 100 m for Ospreys may be required if the area is subject to disturbance
Raptor hunting areas	protect the area of the site protect as many large (minimum of 10 ha, preferably larger), contiguous blocks of undisturbed grasslands as possible a larger area may be necessary for sites surrounded by incompatible land uses (e.g., 100 m)
Sites supporting area-sensitive forest species	protect the area of the site where they exist, protect blocks of forest of at least 30 ha, and preferably with 50 ha or more protect forest patches with at least 4 ha forest interior, and preferably larger areas protection of as much forest as possible, with a variety of age classes, structure, and composition will provide important habitat for many other wildlife species in areas with little remaining forest cover, but where presettlement forest cover was high, a long-term recovery objective might be to eventually have 30% of planning area in native forest cover (Chapter 11)
Woodland amphibian breeding ponds	protect the area of the site protect as many ponds (including vernal ponds) and adjacent woodlands as possible the amount of area that requires protection will vary depending on local site conditions such as slope, amount of riparian vegetation, high water mark, height and density of adjacent trees, and groundwater and surface water conditions
Turtle nesting areas	protect the area of the site protect as many undeveloped, undisturbed shorelines with sandy soils an additional 30 to 100 m may have to be protected depending on local site conditions such as slope, amount of vegetation, adjacent land use, and the amount of nest predation
Old-growth or mature forest stands	protect the area of the site protect as many mature stands as possible
Forest stands providing a diversity of habitats	protect the area of the site protect as much forest with a variety of age classes, structure and composition as possible maintain at least six cavity trees per ha; one supercanopy tree (tree taller than the remainder of the woodland) per 4 ha; at least seven or eight mast-producing trees of each species per ha
Areas of high diversity	protect the area of the site protect a good representation of these sites more area may be required, particularly if the site is surrounded by incompatible land use
Cliffs, caves	protect the area of the site or portion of the site where habitat value appears to be the greatest (e.g., ledge where birds nest or roost) and provide additional area if required the area protected will vary depending on local site conditions amount of vegetation, amount of disturbance, size of site; a buffer may not be required
Seeps, springs	protect the area of the site or portion of the site where habitat value appears to be the greatest size of the habitat protected will vary depending on local site conditions such as slope, amount of vegetation, height and density of adjacent trees, groundwater conditions protect recharge areas

10-1-3 Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern

Habitat/species/guild	Suggested guidelines
Raptors	protect the area of the site and an area of at least 200 m around active nests (some species are more tolerant and smaller areas may suffice) protect the largest and oldest contiguous forests of at least 30 ha (preferably 50 to over 100 ha) or the largest existing forest blocks remaining in the planning area protect areas around inactive nests as well, as they may be re-used plan for no reduction in area of existing forest cover in the planning area plan for no increase in forest fragmentation in the planning area there should be no activities permitted within 200 m of an active nest during the nesting season (Mar. 1- Aug. 1 [Sept. 1 in northern areas])
Area-sensitive birds	protect the area of the site protect large contiguous forests or grasslands with at least 4 ha (preferably at least 10 ha or more) of interior or the remaining forests and grasslands with the largest existing interiors maintain as much forest cover in the landscape as possible (ideally 30% forest cover) plan for no reduction in area of existing forest or large grassland plan for no increase in fragmentation of forest or large grassland cover
Grassland birds	protect the area of the site protect largest contiguous undisturbed grasslands of at least 30 ha (preferably 50 ha or more) or the largest existing expanse of grassland in the planning area additional area may be required for sites surrounded by incompatible land use (200 m)
Amphibians	protect the area of the site protect best examples of suitable habitat for the species of concern in general, protect as many wetlands and breeding ponds as possible additional area may be required around significant breeding ponds
Reptiles	protect the area of the site protect all known hibernacula protect all known nesting sites protect best examples of suitable habitat for the species of concern in general, protect a diversity of natural areas, and protect areas of suitable habitat in areas where specific species are known to occur buffers may be required around hibernacula and nest sites
Mammals	protect the area of the site protect best examples of suitable habitat for the species of concern in general, protect a diversity of natural areas protect as much forest, wetland, undisturbed grassland, and shoreline as possible
Insects	protect the area of the site protect several colonies of species’ food plant protect best examples of suitable habitat for the species of concern in general, protect areas with diversity of plant species
Plants	protect the area of the site additional area may be required to protect sensitive species or sites surrounded by incompatible land use in general, protect a diversity of natural areas

10.6 Some hypothetical examples

The following hypothetical examples are presented to illustrate some of the questions that should be asked when trying to determine how much habitat to protect. The answers are based on the considerations, principles, and factors discussed in Sections 10.2 to10.4. In this guide, this process is necessarily brief. In reality, sites would usually be more rigorously assessed and might be displayed in a matrix that would make the comparison of sites easier. While there may be no absolute answers regarding the amount of habitat to protect, it is hoped that as much as possible of all types of significant wildlife habitats will be appropriately protected. The purpose of providing these examples is to give those identifying significant wildlife the flexibility to determine those sites with the greatest value to wildlife.

Example 1: Seasonal Concentration Area

1. What is the significant wildlife habitat to be protected?

waterfowl nesting/breeding habitat

2. Background

How many sites have been identified?

Approximate size of the site:

Hard to estimate, but if we consider breeding habitat as consisting of nest sites and some brood habitat for the young ducklings, then:

Site 1 is at least 50 ha
Site 2 is at least 100 ha
Site 3 is approximately 20 ha
Sites 4 and 5 are both less than 10 ha (areas in a marsh)
Site 6 is 5 ha (creek and adjacent fields).

Is the site found on private or public land?

Five of the 6 sites are entirely on private land. Site 1 is largely on a conservation authority property.

What species use the site?

Primarily mallards on all sites; blue-winged teal also nest on Sites 1, 2, 3; American black duck on Sites 4, 6; there are records for green-winged teal (OMNR Wetland Evaluation) on Site 2 and gadwall on Site 3 (local landowner).

Other species regularly observed on Sites 1 to 3 include American coot, common moorhen, common merganser, pied-billed grebe, Canada goose, wood duck, great blue heron, and green heron. Pied-billed grebe, Canada geese, American bittern, and great blue heron are commonly seen on Sites 4 and 5. Great Blue Herons are seen on Site 6.

Does the habitat support species of conservation concern?

Yes. Site 2 has supported a colony of black terns, and green-winged teal have nested there (OMNR Wetland Evaluation). Apparently, gadwall are nesting regularly on Site 3 (local landowner).

There is an old record (1970) of a spotted turtle on Site 6.

Are population estimates for the site available?

No. But aerial photograph interpretation of potentially suitable habitat tends to indicate that Sites 1 to 3 would probably support the largest numbers of breeding waterfowl. Site 6 would appear to support the fewest birds.

If so, approximately how many individuals use the site?

Unknown. Perhaps local landowners, others could help conduct a survey once ducks and ducklings are on the water.

Does the species depend on a corridor?

Yes.

Is there a corridor?

All sites have some sort of corridor that could help ducklings to move safely from the nest to the water. However, on Site 1 a gravel road cuts through a considerable amount of nesting habitat and could threaten ducklings if traffic were heavy (which is unlikely).

Describe the corridor.

From aerial photographs, all corridors appear to be brushy fields that should provide sufficient cover. The corridor on Site 1 appears somewhat fragmented by summer mowing of grass in the picnic area and a gravel road.

Is the corridor continuous or severed? Describe.

Only on Site 1- severed by a gravel road. However, the road may not be very busy during the nesting season. (Check with CA office. If so, maybe they could place a warning sign on the road).

Are there existing guidelines for the species or habitat?

No, but Ducks Unlimited and the local OMNR biologist would probably agree to visit some of the sites to assess them and provide some advice. There is good knowledge of the nesting habitat requirements of all the species.

Is the habitat part of a larger natural area?

Sites 1, 2, 4, and 5 are part of larger natural areas. Site 3 was but now the area has been developed with estate housing along the river. Site 6 is the only natural area.

Habitat description:

Site 1: fields (ranging from 2 to 10 ha) in varying successional stages along the shore of a river. Shoreline is mainly irregular with lots of cover and aquatic vegetation and invertebrates. Fishing is good, and there are many frogs.
Site 2: fields (ranging from about 2 to 20 ha) and large marsh along a big lake. Part of the lake is very shallow and weedy in the summer. It is also very productive (OMNR Wetland Evaluation). There are wooded upland areas extending into the fields along the lake. This is a Provincially Significant Wetland.
Site 3: consists of fields along a river. Some of the fields are very shrubby with numerous small trees. The shoreline is quite regular. Vegetation (both shoreline and aquatic) has been cleared along the stretches where homes front on the river.
Site 4 and 5: are primarily marshes with open water areas.
Site 6: is a meandering narrow creek with varying amounts of aquatic and riparian vegetation. Fields appear to be ideal nesting habitat and they are found on both sides of the creek. However, they are rather narrow (approximately 50 to 150 m wide).

What is the approximate quality of the habitat for the species?

Not sure. All sites were selected because their breeding/nesting habitat represents the best in the area. Aerial photograph interpretation indicates that all sites have good nesting habitat, but Sites 1, 2, 4, and 5 also appear to have the best brood habitat (lots of cover and food for young ducklings). Perhaps OMNR Biologist or Ducks Unlimited personnel can help evaluate the habitat.

Describe the adjacent landscape.

The adjacent landscape of Sites 1 and 2 is largely natural. There is both forest and open field habitat around Site 1. Much of Site 2 is surrounded by upland forest. Residential housing is scattered. Farming (beef and dairy cattle, corn) is a major land use. Large estate housing dominates landscape adjacent to Site 3. There are lots for sale. Upland forest is found around much of Site 4. Land use is primarily residential housing with some farming (cash crop). Upland forest and agricultural cropland is found adjacent to Site 5. Land use is primarily residential housing. Site 6 is in the middle of cropland (corn and soybeans).

Are there important features located outside the site that help to maintain the site?

Need to investigate. Site 1 may be subject to water level fluctuation since flow volume is seasonally controlled through a series of small dams.

Cattle grazing and mowing of hay may be delaying natural succession and maintaining nesting habitat on Sites 2, 4, and 5.

Is the site disturbed by human activities? If so, what are they?

Breeding period is from approximately mid April to mid August for late broods.

Site 1: most use of the Conservation Area is during July and August and consists of primarily human foot traffic— hikers, joggers, bathers, and people walking their dogs. Some people launch canoes and boats from the ramp; fishing pressure is relatively light. Disturbance to nesting areas is probably light because most people stay on the nature trails or around the beach. Some of this habitat may be mowed (find out).
Site 2: most use is during July and August by anglers fishing the weedy shoreline for bass. There may be disturbance to some nest sites from haying operations, some disturbance to broods by anglers.
Site 3: human activity occurs year round, but with highest boating disturbance during July and August. Domestic dogs and cats may be a problem in the nesting habitat, but there is no information about this.
Sites 4 and 5: mowing is probably the greatest threat to nesting habitat, but this may occur sporadically and on only some parts of the sites.
Site 6: No apparent disturbance, but agricultural effluent run-off into creek upstream may be affecting water quality and aquatic organisms that might have effects on waterfowl.

What are the major concerns about protecting the habitat for this species/guild?

disruption of nesting habitat (e.g., loss of grasslands, large cavity trees)
disruption of brood-rearing habitat (e.g., loss of riparian vegetation and thick cover in the wetland)
disruption of water levels (i.e., fluctuating water levels can destroy nests)
water quality
disturbance during nesting period from haying operations and nest predators
disruption by roads of movement of broods to the water

Other concerns:

Other values of the habitat (e.g., economic, recreational). Throughout the year, school groups use the Conservation Area for outdoor education, waterfowl watches are a common component of these programs. A small number of residents enjoy duck hunting, although some of them have complained that the hunting is not what it used to be because duck numbers are down.
what is required to manage this habitat?
what is the level of public awareness of this habitat?

3. What sites should be protected?

Selected sites for protection:

Sites with the highest priority for protection are 1, 2, 4, and 6. Table 10-2 summarises the minimum standards for the six sites.

Table 10-2. Minimum standards for nesting waterfowl for six hypothetical sites.

Minimum standard	Site 1	Site 2	Site 3	Site 4	Site 5	Site 6
Number of waterfowl species	2	3	3	2	1	2
Large numbers of waterfowl	Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	N/A	N/A
Good brood habitat	Yes	Yes	N/A	Yes	Yes	N/A
Number of waterfowl species of conservation concern	0	1	1	1	0	0
Number of other species of conservation concern	0	1	0	0	0	1
Other natural heritage features	N/A	Yes	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Long-term sustainability	Yes	Yes	N/A	Yes	Yes	N/A

Rationale for protecting four sites:

Four protected sites would provide better representation of these habitats as well as better long-term protection in case of loss or severe degradation of one or more of these areas.
More protected habitat will allow for greater diversity of nesting habitat structure/composition, making nesting habitat more attractive to a greater diversity of waterfowl.
These sites appear to have the best nesting and brood rearing habitat.
Sites 1 and 2 support a good diversity of wildlife.
Site 1 is primarily on a conservation authority property where protection of the habitat from human activities should be relatively easy to ensure (e.g., corridor can be improved, nesting habitat can be managed).
Site 2 is a Provincially Significant Wetland and all of its important habitats should be protected.
Site 2 has supported species of conservation concern.
The future of Site 3 appears to be in doubt and the long-term sustainability of this habitat would be difficult to maintain.
This planning area has a substantial amount of waterfowl nesting/breeding habitat. Site 6 is small and there are other better habitats.

Is there a minimum area standard for this species?

Yes

At least 120 m of nesting habitat adjacent to wetlands and other waterbodies should be protected since over 90 percent of waterfowl nests are likely to occur within 120 m of water.

4. How much habitat to protect

Recommended amount of habitat to protect and rationale:

Based on this minimum standard area, a band of nesting habitat adjacent to the water of at least 120 m wide on the most significant sites (Sites 1, 2, 4, 5) should be protected. On Sites 1 and 2, more than this minimum amount could probably be protected without too much difficulty.
The adjacent riparian vegetation and littoral zone should also be protected as brood-rearing habitat.

Additional protection:

All shoreline within 100 m of the nesting area should be maintained (i.e., vegetation should not be removed, no deposition of fill, creation of beaches).
Landowners on Sites 4 and 5 should be encouraged to time haying operations to avoid the peak nesting period. They should be encouraged to use “flushing bars” (see Ducks Unlimited for information).
Conservation authority personnel should be apprised of the nesting habitat and appropriate habitat management measures (e.g., no mowing during the nesting season). The gravel road through the nesting habitat might be closed if such a measure is warranted.
No current need for buffer zones since disturbance is minimal.

Example 2: rare or specialised habitat

1. What is the significant wildlife habitat to be protected?

woodland amphibian breeding ponds

2. Background

How many sites have been identified?

Several. The planning authority lies within two major physiographic regions. Part of the planning area is on the Canadian Shield, while the remainder is on agricultural land south of the Shield. Woodland breeding ponds for amphibians are abundant and too numerous to count on the shield. However, information is not available for many of them. There are three known sites on lands south of the Shield.

Approximate size of the sites:

The size of sites on the Shield varies from tiny (a few square metres) to large beaver ponds that are several hectares in area. The sizes of the three off-Shield sites are presented below. In addition to these areas, there are other woodland pools, but they are very ephemeral and do not hold water long enough for larvae or tadpoles to transform into adults. Therefore, they are not viable habitat for breeding amphibians, other than for American toads, which are abundant in the area and use a variety of non-woodland pools for breeding.

Sites south of the Shield:

Site 1 is 10 ha
Site 2 is 2 ha
Site 3 is 0.5 ha

Is the site found on private or public land?

All sites are on private land.

Habitat description:

Amphibian breeding ponds on the Shield are variable, but generally fall into the following categories:

small ephemeral pools that dry up by June;
larger ephemeral pools that usually contain water until near the end of July;
permanent, isolated ponds that do not contain fish; and
permanent ponds with fish populations.

Sites 1 and 2 off-Shield are permanent ponds located in deciduous forest. Site 1 is located on a creek that has been dammed by beavers. There is abundant shoreline vegetation and adjacent canopy closure is high. Site 2 is a wetland depression. Shoreline vegetation is limited due to heavy shading that inhibits wetland vegetation growth. The surrounding forest is more open.

Site 3 is an ephemeral pond in a small, mature maple woodlot. There is some shoreline vegetation. Canopy closure is high.

Is there a diversity of microhabitats (e.g., downed logs, seeps, and cavity trees) in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe them.

Sites on the Shield are too variable and numerous to describe. The off-Shield sites are described below:

Site 1 has a good diversity of microhabitats attractive to a variety of wildlife. Down woody debris is especially abundant.
Site 2 has few microhabitats.
Site 3 has a few cavity trees and snags.

Does the habitat support species of conservation concern?

None are known from any of the sites.

What species use the site?

Extremely variable on the Shield. Very ephemeral ponds are used mostly by spring peepers, but only if there is good vegetation cover and considerable woody cover in the pond. These ponds may also be used by toads, particularly if the ponds are not far from forest edge.

Ponds that dry up, but have water that persists until late July, may support a range of amphibian breeding species. These include mole salamanders (mostly blue-spotted salamanders and rarely spotted salamanders), gray tree frogs, wood frogs, leopard frogs, spring peepers, and toads.

Permanent ponds without fish may support all of the above species plus green frogs and bullfrogs. Red-spotted newts may also be present. Some permanent ponds in the north of the planning area support mink frogs, which are at the southern extent of their range here.

Green frogs and bullfrogs dominate permanent ponds with fish. Small populations of other frog species may be present.

Species breeding in the off-Shield ponds are mostly frogs. Spring peepers, chorus frogs, gray tree frogs, and wood frogs breed on all 3 sites. Blue-spotted salamanders are known from Site 1.

What is the approximate abundance of individuals?

Very variable on the Shield, and no information is available for many sites. General information is provided below under approximate species diversity.

Off the Shield, Sites 1 and 3 appear to be packed with frogs. Spring frog song choruses are said to be very loud on Site 3 (local landowner information).

What is approximate species diversity?

Species diversity on the Shield depends on several factors such as permanence of the pond, how large it is, whether there are fish that may prey on eggs and larvae, proximity of other woodland pools, and the surrounding habitat. Latitude also affects species diversity, with mink frogs only occurring in the north. Generally, ponds that have the following characteristics have the greatest species diversity:

permanent ponds that can support species such as green frog and bullfrog
ponds that hold water until at least the end of July
ponds without fish
large ponds
ponds surrounded by natural habitat
ponds in close proximity to other wetlands.

A system of several small ponds in close proximity will support the greatest number of species. Wood frogs are likely to occur only in ponds within extensively forested areas or in large forest patches. Bullfrogs usually occur only in larger, open ponds with full sunlight. Leopard frogs and toads are more likely to occur in ponds near forest openings or edges.

In the off-Shield ponds, Site 1 probably supports the highest diversity of amphibians. According to knowledgeable sources, the diversity of other wildlife also appears highest at this site (e.g., turtles, waterfowl, herons, beaver).

Are there existing guidelines for the species or habitat?

No. However, OMNR forest management guidelines could be used to protect and maintain this habitat.

Is the site part of a larger natural area?

The sites on the Shield are part of an extensively forested area that is predominantly natural except for roads and cottage development around lakes. All three off-Shield sites are part of larger natural areas. Site 3 is located within the smallest natural area.

Is the site isolated?

Most on-Shield sites are adjacent to natural areas. Off the Shield, Sites 1 and 2 are not isolated; there are other small ponds and wet areas in the vicinity. Site 3 appears to be isolated.

What is the approximate quality of the habitat? Is there good habitat structure?

Limited data for the on-Shield sites. Site 1 off-Shield has the best habitat: permanent water, lots of shoreline vegetation and closed canopy forest near the pond. Site 2 appears to have poor habitat and yet there are many frogs. Site 3 has intermediate habitat.

Describe the adjacent landscape.

Not defined for most of the Shield sites.

Site 1: mature deciduous forest (approximately 120 ha) with a little-used bush road leading to the pond.
Site 2: young, open, mixed-deciduous forest (approximately 30 ha). There are several trails.
Site 3: mature deciduous forest (approximately 20 ha) with numerous openings in the canopy. Fallen logs are common.

Is there natural cover around the breeding ponds?

Not described for on-Shield ponds.

Sites 1 and 3 have some surrounding natural habitat.
Site 2 is quite open and has no adjacent natural habitat.

Are there important features located outside the site that help to maintain the site?

Not described for on-Shield ponds.

Site 1 may be affected by the creek that flows through it and beaver dams may be affecting water levels and flow rates.
Site 2: unknown
Site 3 is probably highly dependent on the continued existence of the surrounding woodlot. If the trees are removed or thinned substantially, this pond could dry out too much to support breeding amphibians. In addition, the local topography on and perhaps off the site may be largely responsible for the existence of this pond.

Are population estimates for the site available?

No.

If so, approximately how many individuals use the site?

Unknown, but perhaps local naturalists and school groups could conduct spring counts to provide some of this information and the CAC provides input.

Does the species depend on a corridor?

Yes, several of the species do because they spend much of the summer in the adjacent forest, and some, such as the leopard frog and toad, may move to open habitats in summer.

Is there a corridor?

Yes for Sites 1 and 3.

Describe the corridor.

Site 1 and 3: forested with lush understorey vegetation.

Is the corridor continuous or severed? Describe.

Corridors are very short and intact.

Is the site disturbed by human activities? If so, what are they?

Disturbance on Sites 1 and 2 is probably low.

Site 3 may be more disturbed. Landowner is removing some of the older trees adjacent to the pond.

What are the major concerns about protecting this habitat?

There should be no disruption of the breeding pond.
Water quality, riparian vegetation, and adjacent wooded areas must be maintained.
Canopy closure in adjacent forest must be maintained.
Amphibians must be able to move safely to summer range

Other concerns:

What is the level of public awareness of this habitat?

3. What habitats should be protected? Selected sites for protection and rationale:

Preferably, all three off-Shield sites should be protected in some way. Table 10-3 summarises the minimum standards for them.

Table 10-3. Minimum standards for three hypothetical off-shield amphibian breeding ponds.

Minimum standard	Site 1	Site 2	Site 3
Representation	Yes	Yes	Yes
Permanence	Yes	Yes	N/A
Abundance of amphibians	Yes	N/A	Yes
Large size	Yes	N/A	N/A
Suitable adjacent habitat	Yes	Yes	Yes
Low disturbance	Yes	Yes	N/A
Other significant wildlife habitat	Yes	Yes	N/A

Rationale for protecting all three sites:

Three protected sites provide better representation of this habitat and better long- term protection in case of loss or severe degradation of one or more of these sites.
Site 1 should receive top priority for protection since it is the largest site, has high quality habitat, supports the greatest diversity (and probably abundance) of amphibians and other wildlife, and is part of the largest natural area.
Amphibians in general are not common in this physiographic region of the planning area. Although the species that do occur are common to abundant in the site region and also in the portion of the planning area that is on the Shield, breeding sites are very limited off-Shield in the planning area. Loss of breeding ponds could result in extirpation of species in the agricultural areas.
All three sites meet a minimum standard as described in Chapter 9 as demonstrated above.

Decisions on what should be protected on the Shield are more complicated. If development pressure is low, there may be no need to identify any frog-breeding ponds as significant wildlife habitat. Even if this is the case, the best ponds for mink frog breeding might be designated, as this is a locally significant species of conservation concern. Also, minimum standards should be applied. Representation of all types of amphibian breeding ponds should be maintained, and sufficient habitat should be protected to ensure that all of the amphibians that currently occur on the Shield continue to have sufficient breeding habitat.

If there is development activity on the Shield, the most important breeding ponds should be designated significant wildlife habitat. In order to do this, the planning authority should make sure that good breeding ponds have been identified for all species that occur. The general habitat characteristics of these species can be determined by checking the habitat matrices appended to this document (Appendix G), and also by looking at the appropriate indices in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System. An alternative to identifying individual ponds as significant wildlife habitat would be simply to require that proponents describe the significance of all woodland pools for amphibian breeding in an impact statement. This approach might avoid the potential for overlooking some significant sites, or designating some ponds that are of lesser importance than some that have not been designated.

Is there a minimum area standard for this species?

The final amount protected habitat should address the concerns listed above. Permitted land uses and amount of protected habitat might best be based on individual site inspections.

4. How much habitat to protect

Recommended amount of habitat to protect and rationale:

The breeding pond should be protected as well as some additional woodland around the pond to minimise disturbance and maintain essential habitat components such as riparian vegetation and shade. The size and composition of the additional area that should be considered part of the significant wildlife habitat should be determined in an Impact Assessment.

For the breeding pond to continue to function over time, it must remain connected through a corridor to the surrounding woodland. Protecting an area beyond the pond itself may provide the corridor if it links the pond to suitable forest that can be used by more terrestrial amphibians.

Additional protection

Landowners on Site 1 should be apprised of the significant wildlife habitat and urged not to destroy the beaver dams on the creek.
These landowners should also be asked to try to maintain a high canopy closure within 150 m of the pond.
Landowners may be advised of programs such as the OMNR Community Wildlife Involvement Program (CWIP) that provides grants for wildlife habitat improvement. There may also be groups that are interested in improving habitat on the property.

Example 3: Habitat of species of conservation concern

1. What is the significant wildlife habitat to be protected?

Habitat for the southern flying squirrel, a vulnerable species.

2. Background

How many occurrences of the species/habitat are known from the planning area?

Three current records from scattered locations across the planning area.

Why is this species designated as a species of conservation concern?

Globally, nationally, or provincially rare: yes
Regionally rare: yes
Locally rare: yes
Species declining: no
Other reason (e.g., species of economic value): no

Is the species a member of a larger group or guild of species with similar habitat requirements?

Yes. Birds and mammals that require cavities in trees.

Is the species/guild dependent on or found in seasonal concentrations or rare or specialised habitat?

specialised habitat: forest with an abundance of cavity trees
seasonal concentration area: during winter months several squirrels may use the same cavity tree

Are there other species of conservation concern that occur at the site?

All three sites support rare plants and forest bird species of conservation concern.

How likely is it that the species occurrence represents a disjunct (isolated) population?

Unlikely. The planning area has moderate forest cover (approximately 35 percent), much of it affording suitable habitat for this species. This species is hard to detect since it is nocturnal.

Are there guidelines to protect this species?

No. However, OMNR silvicultural guidelines can be applied to protect the habitat (specifically maintenance of required density of cavity trees). Silvicultural guidelines may also be used to protect and enhance food species (oak, hickory, beech, etc. – Appendix R).

Site description:

Site 1 (approximately 35 ha) and Site 2 (approximately 10 ha) are dry-mesic deciduous stands of primarily red oak, white oak, and some white pine.
Site 3 (approximately 4 ha) is a mesic deciduous stand consisting of mainly sugar maple.

Describe existing habitat for the species and the quality.

Site 1 would appear to be good habitat for this species. It is a relatively large and mature forest for the planning area. There are numerous large trees with cavities suitable for nesting and denning by this species. The dominant tree species, oaks and white pine, probably provide abundant mast during most years.
Site 2 appears to have inferior but adequate habitat for this species. The supply of seeds, nuts, and fungi are probably sufficient for several squirrels, large cavity trees are uncommon (approximately 1 to 3/ha).
Site 3 may represent inferior habitat. It is probably too small to support more than a few animals. The shortage of cavity trees appears to be the major limiting factor. Forest size may also be a limiting factor, as well as competition for cavities by the grey squirrel.

Is there additional habitat associated with this habitat?

All sites have a natural buffer of forest.

Describe the adjacent landscape.

The landscape adjacent to all sites is agricultural land with numerous roads and houses.

There are a few small woodlots (approximately 5 ha) within 1 to 2 km of Site 3.

Are there important features located outside the site that help to maintain the site?

Unknown.

Is the site disturbed by human activities? If so, what are they?

All sites have been disturbed by logging. Landowners are removing dead, dying, and hazardous trees that are often cavity trees.

What are the major concerns about protecting the habitat for this species/guild?

Maintenance of cavity trees and forage (e.g., mast trees)
Disruption of nesting and rearing activities
No disturbance to animals in winter from timber operations
Predators (e.g. domestic cats)

Other concerns:

What management is required to protect its habitat?
What is the level of public awareness of this species and its conservation status?
What management is required to ensure a continued food supply?

3. What sites should be protected?

Selected sites for protection and rationale:

All 3 sites should be protected in their entirety. Table 10-3 summarises the minimum standards for the three sites.

Table 10-4. Minimum standards of three hypothetical woodlots for southern flying squirrels.

Minimum standard	Site 1	Site 2	Site 3
Representation	Yes	Yes	Yes
Good habitat	Yes	N/A	N/A
Large size	Yes	N/A	N/A
Other species of conservation concern	Yes	Yes	Yes

Rationale for protecting all three sites:

Protection of these sites would benefit not only this species of concern, but many other wildlife species that are dependent on forests.
These sites support other species of conservation concern.
Three protected sites provide better representation of this habitat; one or more sites could be lost or severely degraded quite easily (e.g., removal of cavity trees).
Site 1 should receive the highest protection priority because it likely supports the most squirrels, it may be providing significant seasonal concentration habitat for other squirrels, and the abundant supply of cavity trees is probably important to other wildlife.
Although Site 3 is not as good, there are opportunities to enhance habitat.

Is there a minimum area standard for this species?

Home range for a single male squirrel may be about 1.5 to 2 ha depending on the quality of the habitat. However, larger forests (e.g., at least 20 ha) of suitable habitat support more squirrels and contribute more to long-term population viability.

4. How much habitat to protect

Recommended amount of habitat to protect and rationale:

Site 1: protect the entire 35 ha.
Site 2: protect the entire 10 ha.
Site 3: protect the entire 4 ha.

Additional protection:

A public education program stressing the importance of local forests to wildlife and humans in the planning area would help to involve landowners in forest protection and restoration programs.
Remaining forest stands should not be fragmented.
Further loss of forest cover should be minimised.
Local naturalist groups might be interested in monitoring the population.

Additional comments:

The southern flying squirrel is a very difficult to detect species. Over time, it is likely that additional sites for it will be discovered in the planning area. In this event, new and old sites should be re-evaluated. Because of the small size of Site 3, it may not be capable to sustaining a long-term population. If better sites were found, there may be less need to protect Site 3 for southern flying squirrels, although it still may be protected to maintain populations of the other species of conservation concern that it supports. Local groups may want to enhance this site through tree planting or other management techniques.

10.7 General habitat requirements of species of conservation concern

The broad habitat requirements of many species of wildlife are quite well understood. Some of these are summarised below in Tables 10.5 to 10.7 in an attempt to demonstrate the overlap in wildlife habitats. The important point is that an effective Natural Heritage System can be constructed by protecting substantial amounts of those habitats that appear repeatedly in these tables.

10.7.1 Seasonal concentration areas

Table 10.5 provides an overview of where seasonal concentration areas are most likely to be found. Forests, shorelines, and wetlands provide much of this very important habitat. More specifically, older forests and in southern Ontario, some coniferous forests, are especially significant because of the larger trees and the variety of habitat they afford wildlife. The most important shorelines appear to be those adjacent to forests or wetlands, with weedy shallows. Large fields with abundant vegetation and scattered trees and shrubs are important open country habitat. Important wetlands are likely to be large and obviously productive.

Table 10-5. Primary locations of seasonal concentrations of wildlife.

Type of seasonal concentration	Primary location of habitat	Notes/key requirements
Bat hibernacula	specific site— cave, mine	often in forested area undisturbed habitat is essential
White-tailed deer winter yard	forests with at least 60 % canopy closure	conifer cover (white cedar, hemlock) particularly important in southern Ontario corridor required; undisturbed habitat is important
Moose late winter habitat	coniferous forests	corridor required
Reptile hibernacula	site specific	often in large forested areas, depending on species rocky outcrops, talus slopes corridor required
Amphibian summer habitat	wetlands, shorelines, other riparian areas	corridor required
Bullfrog concentration areas	permanent wetlands, shorelines, other riparian areas	permanent water
Raptor wintering areas	undisturbed fields for hunting small mammals (mice, voles)	adjacent forests for roosting of some species; undisturbed habitat is important
Wild turkey winter range	coniferous forests spring and seeps	pockets of conifers may suffice nearby food source
Turkey vulture summer roost	specific site	undisturbed habitat is important
Waterfowl breeding/staging/areas	wetlands shorelines of water bodies with emergent vegetation	larger wetlands preferred for staging and moulting grassy/shrubby areas for nesting
Colonial bird nesting sites (gulls, terns, double-crested cormorants)	islands, shoals, peninsulas, and some shorelines	undisturbed habitat during nesting season is essential treed swamps
Heronries	wetlands (swamps) lake and river shorelines forests	undisturbed habitat during nesting season is essential
Colonial bird nesting sites (heronries, marsh birds)	wetlands	undisturbed habitat during nesting season is essential
Landbird migratory stopover area	open water shorelines with adjacent mature forests, old- fields and grasslands forest cover along watercourses, forested ravines	Great Lakes shorelines and adjacent lands within 5 km (especially Lake Erie & Lake Ontario) are very important
Shorebird migratory stopover areas	shorelines of water bodies (rivers, large lakes), marshes	key is undisturbed shorelines Great Lakes shorelines (especially Lake Erie & Lake Ontario) are very important
Butterfly migratory stopover areas	shorelines of large lakes forest, old field, and undisturbed open lands	Great Lakes shorelines and adjacent lands within 5 km (especially Lake Ontario & Lake Erie) are very important Fields with milkweed very important habitat for monarch butterflies

10.7.2 Rare or specialised habitats

Table 10-6 provides an overview of where rare or specialised habitats are most likely to be found. Closer examination of this table reveals considerable repetition in habitats for different wildlife. In particular, it shows how important forests, wetlands, and shorelines are to many species; more specifically, large, mature, relatively unfragmented forests and shorelines adjacent to forested areas. In addition, many species require undisturbed areas and corridors permitting safe movement throughout their home ranges.

This table helps to emphasise the importance of protecting adequate representation of these habitats within a Natural Heritage System. Also, cooperation among adjacent planning authorities can contribute greatly to the long-term protection of wide-ranging, area-sensitive species.

Table 10-6. Primary locations of rare or specialised habitats.

Type of habitat	Primary location of habitat	Notes/key requirements
Marten and fisher denning sites	large forests, especially mature and unfragmented	area-sensitive species corridor required large undisturbed areas are important
Moose aquatic feeding area	weedy shorelines and bays with adjacent forest cover wetlands	requires forested corridor undisturbed areas are important
Moose calving sites	forested islands shorelines, especially peninsulas	requires forested corridor undisturbed areas are essential
Moose mineral lick	forest openings with adjacent forest	specific site that is very hard to find forested corridor required undisturbed areas are important
Black bear/mammal foraging area	specific sites with abundance of berries, grasses, mast-producing trees relatively mature, undisturbed forests	forested corridor required
Osprey nesting habitat	forested shorelines (often along large lakes) wetlands islands	undisturbed areas are important shallow-water feeding areas
Woodlands supporting amphibian breeding ponds	forests; often associated with wetlands, but may be in upland forests	corridor required
Old-growth or mature forest stands	forests	exceedingly rare, therefore the oldest forests in the planning area are usually the best candidates
Sites supporting area-sensitive species	largest areas of unfragmented forests, grasslands, wetlands	mature, closed canopy forests with multiple vegetation strata preferred by many species of forest birds minimum size of these areas may be at least 30 ha, but may be larger than 100 ha
Waterfowl nesting, staging habitat	wetlands, water bodies, and adjacent grasslands within 120 m of water	undisturbed habitat during nesting season is important
Mink and otter feeding/denning sites	shorelines of lakes, rivers, creeks (riparian areas) wetlands	corridor required undisturbed habitat may be required
Turtle nesting areas	shorelines (sand/gravel), wetlands	corridor required undisturbed nesting habitat is preferred
Raptor hunting areas	undisturbed open fields	minimum of 15 ha, preferably larger than 30 to 50 ha
Areas of high diversity	often forested areas often larger natural areas with diversity of habitats including wetlands	sites may have remarkable diversity of just one group (e.g., plants, insects), several groups (e.g., plants, birds, reptiles, amphibians), or several community types (e.g., forest, wetland)
Cliffs	anywhere – associated with geological features such as the Niagara Escarpment	cliffs in undisturbed natural areas may have value to more wildlife species
Caves	anywhere – associated with specific geological features	larger, natural caves are more common in areas of limestone
Seeps and springs	often in forested land with slopes headwater areas	usually hard to find, specific sites with several natural heritage values

10.7.3 Habitat of species of conservation concern

Biologists, for various reasons, consider some wildlife to be species of conservation concern. Sometimes this is because Ontario supports a large proportion of their total global population. Often, they are rare and/or their numbers in Ontario are declining. Current low numbers of a few species may be due to exploitation (bullfrogs and some waterfowl) or persecution (snakes). Some species may not compete well with other species that share their range (e.g., southern flying squirrel, red-shouldered hawk) while others may never have been very common in the province (Fowler’s toad).

Table 10-7 provides an overview of the broader habitat requirements of some of these species and is organised around the major ecosystems: forests, wetlands, grasslands, and shorelines. Many species are found in several habitats. Refer to Appendix G (wildlife habitat matrices) for a more extensive list with their specific habitat requirements and geographic location. Often, they have specialised habitat requirements, and many are sensitive to human disturbance.

Most species will be protected if sufficient amounts of these four ecosystems are placed within a natural heritage system of protected areas (see Chapter 2). Cooperation among adjacent planning authorities and landowners can do much to protect wide-ranging species. For example, they might agree to jointly protect significant conservation areas that cross township or county boundaries, and make their joint cooperation known to the residents through signs and interpretative trails stressing the importance of larger, unfragmented natural areas to a variety of wildlife.

Table 10-7. General habitat requirements of selected species of conservation concern.

Species/guild of conservation concern	Forest	Wetland	Grassland	Shoreline
Five-lined skink	Abundant down woody debris, other ground structure (e.g., rocks)	N/A	N/A	ground debris
Eastern Massasauga rattlesnake	larger forests with abundant down woody debris, rocky openings	hibernates in karst habitat wetlands	hunts in wet meadows	may feed in riparian habitat
Eastern hognose snake	larger forests with abundant down woody debris	N/A	N/A	sandy soil, with toad and other amphibian prey, adjacent to larger forests
Black rat snake	larger forests with abundant down woody debris	N/A	N/A	N/A
Wood turtle	river flood plains, flowing water	N/A	N/A	N/A
Eastern spiny softshell turtle	N/A	abundant aquatic vegetation and moderately deep water	N/A	abundant aquatic vegetation
Spotted turtle	N/A	aquatic vegetation	N/A	N/A
Amphibians	woodland breeding ponds	N/A	N/A	N/A
Fowler’s toad	N/A	N/A	N/A	sandy areas
Bullfrogs	N/A	N/A	N/A	aquatic vegetation permanent water
Area –sensitive birds (See habitat matrices– Appendix G)	large unfragmented forests with diversity of vertical structure	large swamps, marshes, bogs, or fens	large, unfragmented areas of grassland	N/A
Southern flying squirrel	mature deciduous woods	N/A	N/A	N/A
West Virginia white butterfly	moist mature deciduous forest with riparian features toothwort	N/A	N/A	N/A
Karner blue butterfly	N/A	N/A	grasslands with lupines	lupine beach dunes
Frosted elfin butterfly	N/A	N/A	prefers pine- oak savannah	beach dunes
Numerous other butterflies (e.g., monarch)	N/A	N/A	grasslands for food and host plants	N/A

Again, the importance of forest ecosystems is clear, especially larger, more mature forests with some water and abundant down woody debris. Shorelines are very important habitats for many species of conservation concern, especially those with sandy soils and adjacent water with abundant emergent and submergent vegetation. Many species of conservation concern are dependent on healthy, relatively undisturbed wetlands.

Updated: December 01, 2023

Published: March 26, 2019