Appendix 3: Candidate Ecological Benchmark

Source Type: Criteria for Important Areas

Source Name: Criteria for National Wildlife Areas

Number: 33/83

Benchmark:
An area is considered to meet the minimum requirements of a National Wildlife Area if it meets at least one of the selection criteria set out below:

Migratory birds

1.a) The area supports a population of a species or subspecies or a group of species which is concentrated, for any portion of the year OR b) Where data on populations are available, the area supports at least 1 percent of the Canadian population of a species or subspecies or a group of species, for any portion of the year OR c) The area possesses a high research potential for restoration or enhancement, such that migratory bird populations could be increased to meet national population targets.

Wild flora and fauna

2.a) The area supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable, threatened or endangered species or subspecies of plants or animals, or an appreciable number of individuals of any one or more of these species or subspecies (e.g. COSEWIC list) OR b) The area has special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and uniqueness of its flora and fauna.

Unique wildlife

3. The area is a rare or unusual habitats wildlife habitat, of a specific type in a biogeographic region.

Applies to whom: All

Applies to what: Wildlife habitat

Applies where: Canada

Reference:
Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 1994. Criteria to Establish National Wildlife Areas. Internal Report, Canadian Wildlife Service Headquarters. Ottawa, Ontario.

Evaluation:

Effective: 3

Effective Comments:
Benchmark weakened by reference to "an appreciable assemblage" or "an appreciable number of individuals."

Adverse effects to the ecological attributes or habitat functions for which the area is identified as important should be considered significant.

Authoritative: 3

Authoritative Comments: Environment Canada; backed by Act

Relevant: 5

Relevant Comments: Loss of habitat, species diversity, endangered species

Sound: 4

Sound Comments:
No fundamental biological reason why 1 percent should be used as a threshold. However, used globally as it seems to afford appropriate degree of protection.

Straightforward: 2

Straightforward Comments:

Practical: 4

Practical Comments:

Total Effective + Authority Score: 6

Total Overall Score: 21

|  Appendix 3 - Criteria for Important Areas |