Appendix Q: Evaluation criteria for significant wildlife habitat

On this page Skip this page navigation

This appendix is made up of four tables. They are as follows:

Table Q - 1: Evaluation criteria for seasonal concentration habitats
Table Q – 2: Evaluation of rare vegetation communities or specialized wildlife habitats
Table Q – 3: Evaluation criteria for species/habitats of conservation concern
Table Q - 4: Evaluating the significance of animal movement corridors.

These tables provide extensive lists of criteria that can be used to evaluate various significant wildlife habitats. It is not essential that all criteria be used to evaluate every habitat. The evaluator should focus on those criteria they feel are most appropriate to their situation.

Table Q-1: Evaluation criteria for seasonal concentration habitats

Specific habitat	Suggested criteria	Guidelines for evaluation
Winter deer yards	relative importance of yard to local deer population population size of deer supported by the site size of the site distribution of yards quality of habitat location of yard historical use importance of the winter yard to other wildlife degree of disturbance	The yard is most significant if it is the only one in the planning area; it is significant if it is one of only a few in the area. Heavily populated sites are the most significant. Larger sites are usually more significant than smaller sites. In areas where there are no clearly delineated large yards, smaller, more loosely aggregated yards are collectively significant. Significant sites have denser conifer cover (i.e. > 60% canopy closure), more woody browse in the core area, and good foraging on adjacent lands (e.g. agricultural crops, acorns). Significant sites have no barriers to safe movement by deer to and from the yard, and are located within a landscape providing cover and food. Most significant yards will have a long history of use (e.g. at least 10 years). Significant yards provide important habitat for other mammals and birds. More significant yards will be less disturbed.
Moose late winter habitat	relative importance of the area to local moose population quality of habitat location of habitat degree of disturbance historical use importance of the winter habitat to other wildlife	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Most significant sites have denser conifer cover (i.e. > 60% canopy closure and large conifers) with abundant woody browse in the understorey. Most significant sites are surrounded by forest, with some open areas or south-facing slopes in the vicinity, and no barriers to safe movement to and from the site. Most significant sites are less disturbed. Most significant sites have a long history of use (e.g. at least 10 years). Significant sites provide important habitat for other mammals and birds.
Colonial bird nesting sites	relative importance of the site to local bird populations presence of species of conservation concern number of nests in the colony species diversity quality of habitat size of site level of disturbance historical use potential concerns of the planning authority	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Most significant sites support several species of concern; significant sites support one species. Sites with the greatest number of nests are more significant. Sites with the greatest number of species are more significant. Significant sites generally have better habitat (e.g. optimal vegetation composition, ratio of open water to emergent vegetation; stable water level; abundant food) capable of supporting more birds for a longer time period. Larger sites may be more significant (especially for area-sensitive species). Least disturbed sites are more significant. Sites with a longer history of use may be more significant. Suggested number of nests that should be considered significant: Great Blue Heron, 25; Black-crowned Night-Heron, 25; Green Heron, 10; Great Egret, 5; Great Black-backed Gull, 5; Herring Gull, 100; Bonaparte’s Gull, 10; Little Gull, 1; Caspian Tern, 75; Common Tern, 100; Black Tern, 10; Forster’s Tern, 5 (excluding Lake St. Clair); Cliff Swallow, 8; Bank Swallow, 100; Northern Rough-winged Swallow, 10; Yellow-headed Blackbird, 10; Brewer’s Blackbird, 5. Where their populations are very high, even large colonies of Ring-billed Gulls may not be considered significant.
Waterfowl stopover and staging areas	relative importance of the site to local waterfowl populations presence of species of conservation concern species diversity abundance quality of habitat size of site	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Most significant sites support several species of concern; significant sites support one species. Sites with the greatest number of species are more significant. Sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant. Trumpeter Swans and Ruddy Ducks have limited staging areas in Ontario, and their regular use of the habitat should be considered significant. Regular staging areas for Canvasbacks and Redheads should be considered significant. Significant sites generally have better habitat (e.g. optimal vegetation composition, ratio of open water to emergent vegetation; extensive shoreline; abundant food, nocturnal roosting cover) Larger wetlands are more significant.
Waterfowl nesting areas	relative importance of the site to local waterfowl populations presence of species of conservation concern species diversity abundance size of area quality of habitat location of site nest predation level of disturbance	Most significant sites are the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Most significant sites support several species of concern; significant sites support one species. Sites with the greatest number of species are more significant. Sites with nesting and brood habitat for American Black Ducks should be considered significant All nesting areas for Gadwall, Green-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, and American Wigeon should be considered significant Sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant. Larger sites of suitable habitat (e.g. grasslands adjacent to wetlands, ponds, lakes for many species) are more significant. Most significant sites have better habitat (e.g. optimal vegetation structure, stable water levels, abundant cover, and a wetland/water body within 150 metres). Sites providing safe movement of broods from nest to wetland/water body (i.e. no roads) are more significant. Sites with lower rates of nest predation are more significant. Sites with little disturbance (e.g. haying, cattle grazing) are more significant.
Shorebird migratory stopover areas	relative importance of the site presence of species of conservation concern species diversity abundance size of site historical use of site level of disturbance	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area; artificial sites (e.g. sewage lagoons) may be significant in some areas. Most significant sites support several species of concern; significant sites may support one species. Sites with the greatest number of species are more significant. Sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant. Large sites are more significant than smaller sites. Sites that have been used for many years are more significant. Least disturbed sites may be more significant.
Landbird migratory stopover areas	relative importance of the site presence of species of conservation concern species diversity abundance size of site habitat diversity historical use of site location of site	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Most significant sites support several species of concern; significant sites support one species. Sites with the greatest number of species are more significant. Sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant. Large sites are more significant than smaller sites. Sites with a variety of habitat types (e.g. forest, grassland) are often more significant than sites with homogeneous habitat. Sites that have been used for many years are more significant. Sites within 5 km of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie shoreline are most significant.
Raptor winter feeding and roosting areas	relative importance of the site presence of species of conservation concern species diversity abundance size of site level of disturbance location of site habitat quality historical use of area	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Most significant sites support several species of concern; significant sites support one species. Sites with the greatest number of species are more significant. Sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant. Large sites (e.g. at least 20 ha) are more significant than smaller sites. Least disturbed sites may be more significant. Sites located near other open field areas, with adjacent woods are more significant. Sites with better habitat (e.g. abundant prey and perches; a tendency toward less snow accumulation due to exposure to strong prevailing winds) are probably more significant. Significant sites may have been used for several years and/or at least 60% of winters.
Bald Eagle winter feeding and roosting areas	relative importance of the site abundance size of site habitat quality level of disturbance location of roost historical use of area	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Sites with the highest number of individuals are most significant. Large sites are more significant than smaller sites. Sites with better habitat (e.g. abundant open water and fish, extensive large trees and snags) are more significant. Least disturbed sites may be more significant. Sites adjacent to prime hunting area are often more significant. Most significant sites have been used for several years and/or at least 60% of winters.
Wild Turkey winter range	relative importance of the site abundance size of site habitat quality location of habitat level of disturbance	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Sites with the highest number of individuals are most significant. Large sites are more significant than smaller sites. Sites with better habitat (e.g. extensive large conifer trees, springs and seeps) are more significant. Sites located in valleys or lower south-facing slopes, close to foraging areas (e.g. farm fields, oak woods) and water may be more significant. Least disturbed sites may be more significant.
Turkey Vulture summer roosting areas	relative importance of the site abundance level of disturbance historical use of area	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Sites with the highest number of individuals are most significant. Least disturbed sites may be more significant. Sites that have been traditionally used for at least 10 years are more significant.
Reptile hibernacula bat hibernacula	relative importance of the site presence of species of conservation concern species diversity abundance habitat quality location of site level of disturbance	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Most significant sites support two or more species of concern; significant sites may support one species. Sites with the greatest number of species are more significant. Sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant. The following numbers of bats should be considered significant at maternity colonies and winter roosts, respectively: big brown bat, 30, 30; little brown bat, 100, 50; eastern pipistrelle, 10, 20; silver-haired bat, 10, N/A; long-eared bat, 10, 20; small-footed bat, 10, all sites. Sites with better habitat (e.g. bats-deep cave with small entrance, water, abundant roosting area inside cave) are probably more significant. Sites located within or adjacent to large areas of suitable habitat (e.g. forests) are more significant; for reptiles, sites found in areas with good movement corridors are more significant. Least disturbed sites are more significant.
Migratory butterfly stopover areas	relative importance of the site presence of species of conservation concern species diversity abundance size of site habitat diversity location of site level of disturbance historical use of area	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Most significant sites support two or more species of concern; significant sites may support one species. Sites with the greatest number of species are more significant. Sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant. Large sites are more significant than smaller sites. Sites with a variety of habitat types (e.g. forest, grassland) are often more significant than sites with homogeneous habitat. Sites within 5 km of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie shoreline are most significant. Least disturbed sites may be more significant. Sites that have been traditionally used for at least 10 years are more significant.
Bullfrog habitat	Relative importance of the habitat to local populations Abundance Size of site Historical use of area	Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; significant sites may be one of only a few in the area. Sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant. Large sites with suitable habitat are more significant than smaller sites. Most significant areas have supported bullfrogs for at least 10 years.

Table Q-2: Evaluation of rare vegetation communities or specialized wildlife habitats

Rare vegetation communities

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Current representation of community type within the planning area	Vegetation communities with the poorest current representation within the planning area are most significant. As much of each identified rare vegetation community should be represented as many times as possible (e.g. protect at least three examples of each identified rare community type in the planning area where no such protected sites currently exist). Rare communities that could be lost or severely degraded and cannot be replaced by similar sites in the planning area, are highly significant.
Degree of rarity (e.g. presence of rare or uncommon species and/or endemic species)	Highest priority for protection should be given to all provincially rare communities (e.g. S1, S2, S3 ranking) identified by the NHIC (Bakowsky, 1996). In most cases some or all of these sites should be protected. All prairie and savannah remnants (S1 ranked) identified by the municipality should be protected because these communities are very rare throughout the province. See Appendix J. for a list of provincially rare vegetation communities in Southern Ontario. The next priority is to identify, evaluate, and protect vegetation communities that are rare in the municipality. The planning authority might adopt criteria developed by the Nature Conservancy for determination of local rarity (e.g. communities that represent < 3% of remaining natural area and/or are found in only five or fewer locations within the municipality might be considered locally significant communities).
Diversity of site	Sites with more than one rare vegetation community, higher plant species diversity, and/or supporting a number of rare species are more significant.
Condition of community	In general, the highest quality representatives of rare community types are most significant unless only poor quality examples remain in the planning area. Some evaluation criteria to determine the relative quality of these communities might include: percentage of non-native species, percentage of indicator species, or relative abundance of associated features (e.g. large trees and/or older age classes of trees). Identified communities can be compared to the ELC community descriptions. Undisturbed or least disturbed communities are more significant (e.g. no roads or infrequently used roads; no pollution, forestry operations, maple syrup production, grazing, human refuse; high level of human use; high proportion of non-native species).
Size and location of site	The largest sites and sites that are part of large natural areas are generally most significant.
Potential for long-term protection of the site	Sites that provide the best opportunity for long-term protection are usually more significant than similar sites with little opportunity for protection or facing an uncertain future due to potential threats (e.g. site in a large natural area versus an isolated site close to an expanding residential development). Rare communities threatened with degradation or loss are more significant than similar, but currently unthreatend rare communities, if they can be protected.
Provision of significant wildlife habitat	Rare communities providing identified significant wildlife habitat (e.g. hunting areas for raptors, nesting areas for waterfowl or grassland birds, foraging areas for shorebirds, food sources for rare butterflies) are most significant.

Specialized habitats for wildlife

Sites supporting area-sensitive species

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Presence of rare, uncommon, or declining species	Sites supporting area-sensitive species of birds that are rare or uncommon, and/or exhibiting population declines provincially are most significant.
Overall area of site	Largest natural forest stands in the municipality are likely most significant with those >30 ha being most likely to support and sustain a diversity of these birds. Largest grasslands in the municipality are likely most significant with those >30 ha most likely to support and sustain diversity of these species.
Area of forest interior contained within the forest stand	Most significant forest stands should contain at least 10 ha of forest interior excluding at least a 200 metres buffer around the forest interior. Smaller interior habitats may still be significant where no larger examples exist.
Age and tree composition of forest stand	Sites with an abundance of large (e.g. >40 cm DBH, >25 metres tall), mature trees are more significant for certain nesting raptor species as well a number of songbird species.
Amount of vertical stratification of site	Forests and grasslands with a variety of different layers of vegetation at different heights likely provide more habitats and support more bird species and are consequently more significant. Uneven-aged forests are generally more significant than even-aged forests because they provide more forest structure.
Amount of contiguous closed-canopy/open areas in forest stand	Sites with largest contiguous canopy cover and fewest gaps in the canopy are likely most significant. Natural gaps (e.g. windthrown trees, woodland ponds) are preferred to man-made gaps (e.g. roads). Gaps should be < 20 metres including roads and rights-of-way.
Degree of disturbance on site e.g. roads, forestry management and operations, grazing, crop production	Roadless, relatively undisturbed sites with no history of disturbance from grazing, forestry operations during the last 20 years are most significant. Sites with history of only light grazing and/or forestry operations over the last 20 years are potentially significant if properly managed. Uneven-aged forest stands are often more significant than even-aged forest stands because they may be less intensively managed, and generally contain a natural representation of species. Forest stands with a history of little or no forest management may be most significant. In general, early successional grasslands that are not being used for agricultural production are more significant that similar grasslands that are used for agriculture (e.g. crops, cattle grazing).
Amount of adjacent residential development	Sites with the least amount of adjacent residential development are more significant.
Current representation of specialized habitat in planning area	Sites that could be lost or severely degraded and cannot be replaced by similar sites in the planning area, are highly significant. Specialized habitats with the poorest current representation within the planning area are significant.
Provision of significant wildlife habitat	Sites providing several identified significant wildlife habitats (e.g. raptor nest sites, rare vegetation community, habitat for species of conservation concern) are most significant.
Potential for long-term protection of the site	Sites that provide the best opportunity for long-term protection are usually more significant than similar sites with little opportunity for protection or facing an uncertain future due to potential threats (e.g. site in a large natural area versus. an isolated site close to an expanding residential development). Habitats threatened with degradation or loss are more significant than similar, but currently unthreatend habitats, if they can be protected.

Forest stands providing a diversity of habitats (e.g. tree cavities, fallen logs, vertical stratification)

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Provision of significant wildlife habitat	Stands providing several significant wildlife habitats (e.g. forest interior habitat, raptor nesting, rare community) are most significant.
Size of site	Large sites are likely most significant. Small sites are significant if no large sites exist in the planning area.
Age, condition of trees on site	Sites with a wide variety of age classes of trees are likely most significant for provision of a variety of habitats. Sites with a high proportion of old or mature trees, and/or diseased or damaged trees are likely more significant because they provide more organic ground structure. Uneven-aged forest stands are likely more significant than even-aged forest stands because uneven-aged management often results in retention wildlife habitat and they are often less disturbed by management activities.
Vegetation composition and diversity of site	Sites with a diversity of tree and shrub species provide more understorey structure and consequently are more significant. Sites with a high proportion of aspens, beech, basswood, conifers are likely most significant for tree cavity production. Sites with majority of cavities located in living trees are likely more significant because these trees last longer than dead cavity trees. Sites with cavities in living trees that also produce abundant mast (e.g. oak, beech, walnut, black cherry) are more significant. Sites with variety of tree species (e.g. hardwoods such as maple, oak, softwoods such as poplar, conifers) are more significant because some cavities can be created quickly (e.g. in softwoods) and some will last longer (e.g. in hardwoods).
Cavity size, abundance, and location	Sites containing a diversity of cavity sizes to meet the nesting, denning, foraging and resting habitat requirements of a variety of species are likely most significant. Sites with trees with large cavities are more significant than sites with trees with mainly small cavities. The ministry forestry tree-marking guidelines suggest retention of 6 cavity trees/ha with at least one large cavity tree (>50 cm diameter at breast height ) per ha and the other 5 trees with at least 25 cm DBH. Generally, cavities in the upper trunk area of trees are more significant than cavities in the lower trunk area.
Location of site	Sites near water may be more significant (i.e. breeding habitat of forest dwelling amphibians such as some salamanders and frogs is nearby, preferred nesting habitat of some raptors). Moist soil conditions are attractive to species of amphibians.
History of forest management	Sites with little or no management may be more significant because often this results in retention of more cavity trees, standing dead trees, vertical stratification, organic ground structure, cavity trees, and standing dead trees that will eventually become decaying woody debris, as well as a greater diversity of trees.

Woodlands supporting amphibian breeding ponds

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Provision of significant wildlife habitat	Woodlands providing several significant wildlife habitats (e.g. forest interior habitat, raptor nesting, abundant tree cavities and down woody debris) are most significant.
Degree of permanence	Woodlands with permanent ponds or those containing water in most years until at least mid July are most significant.
Species diversity of pond	Ponds supporting high species diversity are more significant.
Presence of rare species	Ponds supporting rare amphibian species are more significant that ponds supporting only common species.
Size and number of ponds	In general, woodlands with larger and/or several ponds are more significant.
Diversity of submergent and emergent vegetation	Ponds with a good diversity of emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation are most significant.
Presence of shrubs, logs at edge of pond	Presence of shrubs and logs increase significance of pond for some amphibian species because of increased structure for calling, foraging, and escape and concealment from predators.
Adjacent forest habitat	More significant areas will have closed canopy forest providing shaded, moist understorey and abundance of down woody debris for cover habitat. Breeding ponds with shortest distance to forest habitat are more significant because of reduced risk to moving amphibians and are more likely to be used.
Water quality	Prefer unpolluted waters.
Level of disturbance	Woodlands with little or no disturbance (e.g. forest management, roads between breeding pond and forest habitat) are more significant.

Old growth or mature forest stands

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Current representation of old growth or mature forest stands within the planning area	Due to the rarity and fragmented distribution of old growth forests in southern Ontario, as much of identified sites should be represented as many times as possible (e.g. protect at least three good examples of old growth or mature stands in the planning area where no such protected sites currently exist). Sites that could be lost or severely degraded and cannot be replaced by similar sites in the planning area, are highly significant.
Age of trees	Most significant sites will contain numerous trees of at least 140 years old. Stands containing younger trees (e.g. 100 years or older) are significant where older trees no longer exist. Stands containing predominantly long-lived trees are probably more significant than stands consisting primarily of short-lived species (e.g. trembling aspen, birch).
Age classes of trees in stand	More significant sites will contain several distinctly different age classes of trees.
Presence of old growth characteristics	Most significant sites will exhibit several to all of the following characteristics: broad array of fallen logs in various sizes and stages of decomposition; at least some very large fallen logs; large spectrum of tree sizes, including some very tall trees; some larger trees with more columnar form due to loss of large limbs from past storm damage; numerous snags; some pit and mound ground topography; uneven canopy with scattered gaps due to fallen trees and tree limbs .
Species diversity	More significant sites will have a higher diversity of wildlife species because they provide many different habitats and regeneration niches for plants and animals.
Provision of significant wildlife habitat	Sites providing several significant wildlife habitats (e.g. forest interior habitat, raptor nesting, tree cavities and/or amphibian breeding ponds) are most significant.
Potential for long-term protection of site	Sites that provide the best opportunity for long-term protection are usually more significant than similar sites with little opportunity for protection or facing an uncertain future due to potential threats (e.g. site in a large natural area versus an isolated site close to an expanding residential development). Sites threatened with degradation or loss are more significant than similar, but currently unthreatend sites, if they can be protected.
Stand history	More significant sites will have experienced little or no substantial logging or other forestry activities (e.g. no management or only periodic light selection cutting).
Size and location of site	The largest sites and sites that are part of large natural areas are generally most significant. Smaller, isolated sites are significant in areas with little or no remaining examples of old growth or mature woodlands.
Degree of disturbance	Undisturbed or least disturbed sites are more significant (e.g. no roads or infrequently used roads; no pollution, forestry operations, maple syrup production, grazing, human refuse; high level of human use; high proportion of non-native species).

Foraging areas producing fruit, hard mast (acorns, beechnuts)

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Provision of significant wildlife habitat	Woodlands providing several significant wildlife habitats (e.g. forest interior habitat, raptor nesting, abundant tree cavities and down woody debris) are most significant.
Area/abundance of food source	Large areas of fruit-producing shrubs (e.g. blueberries, wild blackberries, serviceberries) and mast-producing trees (e.g. oaks, hickories, beech) are likely most significant because they usually support more wildlife.
Size, age, health of trees	Sites with a high proportion of healthy, mature trees with large crowns are more significant because these trees generally produce more mast. Sites with numerous oak trees with 40-65 cm diameter at breast height are significant because such trees can produce heavy acorn crops.
Species diversity of site	Sites with a variety of mast-producing tree species and/or fruit-producing shrubs are most significant since production by species can vary widely from year to year. Sites within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest region with abundant and vigorous red oak trees are significant since this species is considered the single most important mast-producing tree species in this region.
Permanence of food source	Areas providing more long-term, relatively stable food supply are more significant than areas such as clearcuts and burns that provide more temporary sources of food.
Access to foraging areas	Sites with travel routes that provide cover and reduce mortality risk for wildlife moving to and from foraging areas are most significant. Sites well removed from people, particularly those used by feeding bears, are more significant because of reduction in wildlife/people interactions.
Consistent historical use by wildlife	Since food production of such areas varies over time, areas traditionally used by wildlife are probably most significant.

Osprey, Bald Eagle Nesting Habitat

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Access to foraging areas	Most significant nesting habitats are adjacent or close to relatively clear and shallow (< 1 metre) water bodies with productive fish populations.
Presence of large, sturdy trees near shoreline	Most significant nesting habitats have numerous large conifer and/or deciduous trees in good condition along the shoreline providing birds with good visibility and clear flight line to the nest.
Degree of disturbance	More significant sites will have no disturbance from human activities within 200 metres of the nest during the nesting season. Some Ospreys may tolerate some disturbance but more significant sites and sites of more sensitive birds should not be disturbed after onset of nesting.
Evidence of use	Most significant habitat contains several nests within a single area (e.g. within 1 square km) Sites with current evidence of use are most significant. Sites with traditional use are most significant (many nests are used for several consecutive years).
Current representation of potential sites	Potential nesting habitats that could be lost or severely degraded and cannot be replaced by similar sites in the planning area, are significant.
Degree of threat	Sites threatened with degradation or loss are more significant than similar, but currently unthreatend sites.

Turtle Nesting Habitat

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Size of habitat	Larger sites are most significant because fewer nests are likely to be lost to predation and larger areas are more likely to be important to larger numbers of turtles.
Location of site	Nesting areas adjacent to permanent water bodies and large wetlands, and removed from roads are more significant because of increased likelihood of nesting success and hatchlings reaching the water; as well as reduced road mortality. Higher, well-drained sites are more important than poorly drained, low-lying areas at risk of inundation by water. Sites with good exposure to sunlight are more significant.
Substrate	Generally nesting areas of preferred substrate (e.g. sands and gravels) are preferred to sites over other substrates.
Evidence of use	Presence of several nests or adult females observed during the nesting season, within a single area indicates a significant habitat. Sites with evidence of use by several species are more significant. Sites with traditional use are more significant.
Presence of rare species	Nesting habitats used by rare species are more significant.
Level of predation	More significant sites are less prone to nest predation (e.g. they are not located in highly active wildlife corridors).
Presence of movement corridor	Most significant nesting habitats are connected to other turtle habitats (e.g. wetland) by corridors permitting relatively safe movement of these reptiles.
Degree of disturbance	Nesting habitat that is relatively undisturbed by human activities (e.g. away from busy roads, residential areas) is most significant. Sites buffered by natural landforms & vegetation are usually more significant than unbuffered, exposed sites because of their superior ability to protect nesting turtles, hatchlings, and nests from natural & human disturbance.
Degree of threat	Sites threatened with degradation or loss are more significant than similar, but currently unthreatend sites.

Moose aquatic feeding areas

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Abundance of preferred aquatic food plants	Areas containing abundant pondweeds, yellow waterlily, and milfoil are more significant.
Quality of adjacent forest habitat	Aquatic feeding areas with dense stands of lowland conifer tree species immediately adjacent to aquatic feeding areas are most significant.
Degree of disturbance of site	Undisturbed or least disturbed sites are probably significant (e.g. areas with no cottages and boat traffic in the vicinity of feeding areas are preferable).
Access to foraging areas	Sites with travel routes that provide cover and reduce mortality risk for moose moving to and from aquatic feeding areas are more significant.
History of consistent use	Sites with record of traditional use by moose are most significant.

Mink and otter feeding/denning sites; marten and fisher denning sites

Listed below are suggested guidelines. However, these sites are difficult to find. Therefore knowledge of the most suitable habitat for these mammals may be the most practical way to ensure that some prime habitat is protected.

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Presence of suitable habitat	For mink and otter Heavily vegetated shorelines, particularly those with abundance of shrubs are more significant. Shorelines with numerous dead falls, large logs, log jams, and rock piles are more significant because of increased denning sites and because they also provide good habitat for prey species. Amount of habitat-average mink home range is 316-1,626 ha For marten and fisher Large contiguous coniferous or mixed forests with abundant large trees (e.g. at least 40 cm diameter at breast height) for maternal denning sites are most significant. average marten home range is 1.3-15.7 sq. km; average fisher home range is 17.5-39 sq. km
Degree of disturbance	Undisturbed areas with little or no human activity in vicinity are more significant, particularly for otters. For otters, longer, undeveloped stretches of shoreline habitat are more significant, as well as creek systems joining several ponds.
Size of local fish population	Water bodies producing large populations of fish (e.g. mesotrophic lakes) are more likely to sustain otters over the long-term than unproductive waters (e.g. oligotrophic lakes).

Important evaluation criteria

Suggested guidelines

Presence of suitable habitat

For mink and otter

Heavily vegetated shorelines, particularly those with abundance of shrubs are more significant.
Shorelines with numerous dead falls, large logs, log jams, and rock piles are more significant because of increased denning sites and because they also provide good habitat for prey species.
Amount of habitat-average mink home range is 316-1,626 ha

For marten and fisher

Large contiguous coniferous or mixed forests with abundant large trees (e.g. at least 40 cm diameter at breast height) for maternal denning sites are most significant.
average marten home range is 1.3-15.7 sq. km; average fisher home range is 17.5-39 sq. km

Degree of disturbance

Undisturbed areas with little or no human activity in vicinity are more significant, particularly for otters.
For otters, longer, undeveloped stretches of shoreline habitat are more significant, as well as creek systems joining several ponds.

Size of local fish population

Water bodies producing large populations of fish (e.g. mesotrophic lakes) are more likely to sustain otters over the long-term than unproductive waters (e.g. oligotrophic lakes).

Areas of high diversity

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Current representation of such areas in the planning area	Most diverse areas known for the planning area should be considered most significant until inventory information reveals more diverse areas.
Natural community diversity	Sites with high community diversity (e.g. site containing several different wetland types and/or forested uplands, open uplands, and grasslands) are generally more significant that sites with only one community and are usually more species rich than sites consisting of single communities.
Species diversity	Usually a community with high species diversity is more significant than a similar community supporting fewer species.
Presence of rare species	Sites supporting rare or uncommon species are more significant than those that support only common species.
Size of site	Larger sites are generally more diverse and consequently more significant than similar, but considerably smaller sites.

Seeps/springs

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Abundance of seeps/springs	Sites with several seeps/springs (e.g. >5) are most significant.
Duration of surface water	Most significant seeps/springs are present even during very dry summers.
Nature of adjacent area	Most significant sites support diversity of native vegetation.
Presence of rare species	Sites supporting rare or uncommon species (e.g. plants, salamanders), or species that are unique to the area (e.g. Wild Turkey) are more significant than those that support only common species.
Location of seeps/springs	Seeps/springs located on south-facing slopes are probably more significant than seeps with other aspects because of their winter value to some wildlife species. Seeps/springs in forest stands and/or headwater areas are generally more significant than those found in other areas. Seeps/spring found in relatively undisturbed areas are generally more significant that those found in areas disturbed by human activities (e.g. off-road vehicle travel).

Cliffs

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Current representation of cliffs within planning area	Consider as significant, relatively pristine cliffs that are currently unprotected and occur at less than 4 locations in the planning area.
Provision of significant wildlife habitat	Most significant sites will provide several significant wildlife habitats (e.g. reptile hibernacula, nesting sites, resting sites for Turkey Vultures, migratory bird stopover area, unique vegetation community).
Diversity of habitat features associated with cliff	Most significant sites will have a variety of habitat features including the presence of large rocks, crevices, caves, water for hibernacula; overhangs, flat ledges of at least 1 square meter for nesting birds; presence of a buffer (for nesting raptors); presence of mature/large trees on summit.
Current or historical use by wildlife species	Most significant sites will have active eyries or hibernacula. Significant sites will have historical record of presence of eyries or hibernacula.
Species diversity	Most significant cliffs have higher associated plant diversity than similar cliffs.
Presence of rare species	Cliffs supporting rare or uncommon species are more significant than those that support only common species.
Human disturbance	More significant sites are relatively undisturbed due to their inaccessibility.
Size and location of cliff	Most significant sites will be within a larger natural area. South-facing cliffs may be more significant due to greater diversity of associated plant species.

Caves

Important evaluation criteria	Suggested guidelines
Solution versus physical (e.g. fissured, rock piles, abandoned mine)	Solution caves are generally more significant than other caves types. Abandoned mines may be significant to bats in areas with few or no natural caves.
Size of opening	Caves with small openings may be more important to wildlife (e.g. bats) than caves with large openings permitting entry by humans.
Depth of cave	Most significant caves have the greatest interior depth.
Ambient winter temperature	Most significant caves have an ambient winter temperature slightly above freezing.
Ambient relative humidity	Most significant caves have an ambient winter relative humidity above 90%.
Presence of water	Most significant caves have some water supplies for hibernating species.
Human disturbance	Most significant caves are undisturbed due to poor access.

Table Q-3: Evaluation criteria for species/habitats of conservation concern

Criteria for identification of species/habitats of conservation concern	Suggested guidelines for evaluation of habitats of species of conservation concern
Degree of rarity of species found at site	Habitats of the rarest species are more significant than those of less rare species. For example, habitats for species ranked S1and S2 should be considered more significant than habitats for species ranked S3. Species ranked as vulnerable by the ministry should also be considered significant. Less rare species and their habitats in the planning area may be deemed species of conservation concern by the municipality based on such factors as the number of known occurrences, total extent of remaining habitat, degree of threat or risk to habitat, and/or local interest in a particular species. If a species’ habitat is to be protected, sufficient area (based on the species’known requirements) should be retained to ensure a viable and sustainable population.
Documented significant decline in a species and/or its critical habitat	The habitat for species experiencing the greatest declines is most significant. The habitat for declining species that has the lowest representation in the planning area is more significant. Those habitats that provide the best opportunity for the long-term sustainability of the declining species are most significant (e.g. large well-protected sites; sites that best meet the species’habitat requirements; sites with good connections to other similar habitats).
Species whose range is solely or primarily found in Ontario (i.e. provincial responsibility)	Habitat for those species with the poorest representation within the planning area is more significant. These species and their habitats are significant even if well represented in the planning area, due to high provincial responsibility for their protection. Those habitats that provide the best opportunities for the long-term sustainability of the target species are most significant (e.g. large well-protected sites; sites that best meet the species’habitat requirements; sites with good connections to other similar habitats).
Condition of existing habitat at site	Sites that provide habitat that best meets the survival requirements of the target species and that also include a natural buffer zone are most significant (i.e. most likely to sustain species/population over the long-term). Sites that contain the fewest non-native species of potential threat to the target species are significant. Undisturbed or least-disturbed habitats (e.g. no/few deleterious impacts from roads, human activities) are significant. Sites capable of producing a large number of individuals of a single species of conservation concern are significant. Highly diverse sites that support one or more species of conservation concern are most significant.
Size of species population at site	Habitats supporting large populations of a several species of conservation concern are most significant. Habitat supporting large populations of a single species is significant.
Size and location of habitat	Large sites supporting large populations of several species of conservation concern are most significant. Large sites are generally more significant than most comparable but smaller sites. Sites large enough to ensure long-term support and viability of species of conservation concern are significant. Sites with large areas of suitable habitat that are also connected to other potentially suitable habitat and/or natural areas are most significant.
Potential for long-term protection of the habitat	Habitats that provide the best opportunity for long-term protection are usually more significant than similar habitats with little opportunity for protection or facing an uncertain future due to potential threats (e.g. habitat found in a large natural area vs. an isolated site close to an expanding residential development). Habitats threatened with degradation or loss are more significant than similar, but currently unthreatend habitats, if they can be protected. Habitats of species currently experiencing severe population declines in Ontario (e.g. grassland bird species) due to habitat loss are most significant. Habitats of species currently experiencing significant population declines in the municipality are significant.
Representation of species/habitat within the municipality	Poorly represented habitats for species of conservation concern are significant. Habitats that could be lost or severely degraded and cannot be replaced by similar habitats in the planning area, are highly significant.
Evidence of use of the habitat	Sites with documented traditional use by species are most significant.
Species of particular interest to the planning authority (e.g. the CAC may recommend certain species such as indicator species)	Sites providing the best examples of habitat that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the species are significant.

Table Q-4: Evaluating the significance of animal movement corridors

Criteria	Suggested guidelines for evaluation of the significance of movement corridors
Importance of areas to be linked by corridor	Corridors linking the most significant natural areas both in and outside the municipality are most significant (e.g. wetlands, ANSIs in municipality, important waterfowl staging areas). Corridors that provide access to and from the most critical habitats within a species/ home range are significant. Corridors connecting locally important conservation areas and/or currently unevaluated natural areas in the planning area may be significant, particularly if the adjacent landscape is greatly fragmented by roads, residential development, or agricultural activities.
Importance of corridor to survival of target species	Corridors linking most significant or critical identified wildlife habitats for a target species are most significant (e.g. winter deer yards and summer feeding areas, spring breeding ponds and summer woodlands for some species of amphibians). Animals must be able to get to and from their critical habitats.
Dimensions of corridor	Wider corridors are usually more significant than narrow ones because they generally provide more food and habitat for more species and better protection from predation, natural and human disturbance. Most significant woodland corridors should be at least 200 metres wide. Shorter corridors are usually more significant than longer ones because they minimize the time animals spend in the corridor and the mortality risks to moving animals.
Continuity of corridor	Continuous corridors consisting of native vegetation, unbroken by roads, or other gaps such as fields, water bodies, residential areas are most significant. Corridors with few small gaps and crossed by small, infrequently used roads are more significant than corridors containing numerous small gaps and crossed by busier roads. Gaps should be < 20 metres.
Habitat and habitat structure of corridor	Corridors with several layers of vegetation (e.g. mature tall trees, understorey trees, shrubs, herbaceous ground cover) are generally more significant than corridors with few vegetation layers because they provide more cover (therefore protection from adverse weather, predators) for a wider variety of animals and potential sources of food. Corridors with variety of ground cover (living low vegetation, down woody debris, stumps, rock piles) and subterranean entries are usually more significant than corridors consisting of mostly sparsely covered ground because they provide more and a greater variety of cover. Corridors through natural landscapes are more significant than those through more anthropogenic landscapes Corridors with buffers of native vegetation on both sides are more significant than corridors with no natural buffer(s) of native vegetation because they help to reduce impact of natural and human disturbance. Adequate buffers can also reduce predation by raccoons, foxes, cats and other wildlife, on species residing in the corridor; as well as provide a place to feed for small mammals and birds that live in the corridor. Most significant riparian corridors should have at least 15 metres of vegetation on both sides of the waterway. Corridors containing water sources are usually more significant than similar corridors without water because of its importance to a variety of wildlife. Corridors with fruit and nut-producing vegetation are probably more significant than corridors with no such vegetation because they provide a better food supply for many mammals and birds moving through or living in them. Corridors that best meet the habitat requirements for the target species are significant.
Species found in corridor or presumed to be using corridor	Corridors containing high overall species diversity (vegetation, invertebrate, vertebrate species) are probably more significant than corridors with less species diversity. At least some of these species found in a corridor provide food for users of that corridor. Diversity of vegetation also provides cover for more species. Taken together, these factors increase probability that unobserved animals actually use a corridor. Corridors used for movement by many species are usually more significant than corridors used by only a few species. Corridors used by rare species are significant (e.g. several species of salamander that move between woodlands and their breeding ponds, southern flying squirrel moving between two woodlots). Corridors providing safe movement for large numbers of a single species (e.g. salamanders) may be significant, especially if few or no other corridors for that species have been identified for the planning area. Corridors with a high diversity of species permanently residing within corridor are more significant than corridors with few permanent species.
Risk of mortality for species using corridor	Corridors providing safest passage for wildlife moving across the landscape are most significant. Best corridors will have the lowest risk of mortality associated with them (e.g. from predation, roadkills, or their location with respect to adjacent residential areas with cats, dogs).
Opportunity for protection	Corridors with the best opportunity for protection (e.g. unopened road allowances, rights-of-way, borders of conservation areas, undeveloped shorelines, hydro and pipeline corridors) are significant. However, this does not imply that more important or better corridors should not be protected simply because these more easily protected corridors are found in the same area.
Provision of other related values	Numerous and/or large corridors that could effectively increase the overall area of the existing system of protected natural areas in the planning area are significant. Corridors that could increase local representation and diversity of habitats, successional stages, or area of natural buffer zones are significant. Corridors that could result in increased foraging opportunities for wide-ranging species (e.g. fisher, black bear) are significant. Corridors that may permit the future expansion of wildlife populations into an area (e.g. fisher, southern flying squirrel) as habitat for these species improves are significant. Corridors that could increase or maintain landscape resistance to soil erosion, desiccation, water quality (e.g. riparian corridors along lake shorelines, woodlands) are significant.

Updated: August 02, 2024

Published: March 26, 2019