Habitat Project Evaluation Criteria

Size of the Habitat


The size of the habitat is evaluated based on acreage (size is converted into acres from the measurement provided in the application). For most habitat types, there is not a set minimum acreage required, instead a project must be large enough to function as a habitat or be considered a habitat. 

Time on the Ground


General information about evaluating the time a habitat project has been on the ground can be found in the Project Start Date section. Although individual project Scoring Rubrics should be consulted for specific requirements, generally habitat projects require a full growing season. It is important to note that the time periods associated with growing seasons vary by vegetative community types and location, so Scoring Rubrics do not provide a specific amount of time. Reviewers use their professional knowledge to assess if the duration has been sufficient to provide conservation value. As a result, a full year is recommended to ensure sufficient time on the ground.

Locally Appropriate

image.png 438 Bytes
Documentation required
A habitat is considered locally appropriate if it consists of at least some native species. For vegetated habitats, the species inventory is used to determine the composition of native vs non-native vegetation (which may be verified by referencing submitted photographs).  For habitat types that are predominantly non-vegetated (e.g., Caves, Rocky Areas)  an inventory of animal species observed in the habitat in-lieu of a list of plant species observed can be submitted. The uploaded species inventory (plant or animal when applicable) serves as documentation and is required to earn points. 

A species inventory is a list of what is found growing in the habitat (both desirable and undesirable plants). It includes both common and scientific names and whether the species is native to the area. A planting list is not a species inventory because it will not account for species that did not survive or species that were not planted but already exist or appear spontaneously in the habitat. The species inventory must have a date and be current. Generally, this means within the current certification term, but forest projects may be up to five years old and still be considered current.

The extent of native versus non-native plants or animals (depending on the habitat type) is what is used to determine if a habitat is locally appropriate. Whether or not a species is native is determined by consulting resources such as Natureserve Explorer, IUCN Redlist, or other reputable resources. A species is considered native if it is native to the region, it does not need to be explicitly native to a specific state or province as this information can vary between resources. For example, if a plant is not listed as native in Indiana but is listed as native in Ohio, the plant would be considered native for a project in Indiana unless there is a specific reason why the species should not be in that state.

Habitat Creation or Expansion

image.png 552 Bytes
Applicant understanding
Creating new habitats provides conservation value, as does development and expansion of projects. Not all projects can be expanded, and other important components such as longevity are recognized elsewhere in the review.

A series of questions can determine whether the project or components of the project are new (i.e. not presented in a previous application). The application questions that are answered inform what criteria points can be awarded under. The following chart specifies the situations where different scoring criteria are relevant.

Application Question Flow for Habitat Creation/Expansion

image.png 22.23 KB

Design Considerations 

image.png 552 Bytes
Applicant understanding
image.png 438 Bytes
Documentation required
The considerations taken into account when designing a new habitat or a habitat expansion play a significant role in the value the habitat will provide. To earn points for this criterion a description of any design or plant selection considerations and uploaded documentation of the considerations must be included in the application. 

Points will not be awarded for this question if none of the design considerations relate to habitat or wildlife (e.g. only aesthetic considerations) or if design decisions are likely to be harmful (e.g. planting a highly invasive plant). Design considerations that are relevant and generally good but with some errors (such as inclusion of non-native but non-invasive plants) can earn points. Maximum points are awarded if multiple considerations are described (such as soil type, wildlife plant usage, etc.) and all of the considerations are valid and provide value. 

Supporting documentation must be provided to earn points for this criterion. Examples of documentation might include seed mixes, landscaping plans, or photographs illustrating implementation of the design considerations.

Habitat Management

image.png 552 Bytes
Applicant understanding
image.png 438 Bytes
Documentation required
Habitat maintenance and management vary by project type. Each project Scoring Rubric outlines the specific considerations for that type of habitat. Although the specific management considerations vary between project types, generally techniques that incorporate multiple considerations earn more points. 

Adaptive Management


Using results of past management/monitoring to inform future management is a best practice, so demonstrated implementation of adaptive management earns more points. Points are only awarded for adaptive management if the adaptive management efforts have been implemented on the ground. Planned changes to management efforts are recognized elsewhere in the review.

Supporting documentation must be provided to earn points for this criterion. Documentation might include an activity log or dated photos or email correspondence showing the maintenance actions have been completed.    

Baseline Data

image.png 552 Bytes
Applicant understanding
image.png 438 Bytes
Documentation required
Baseline data is information that is used for comparison with subsequent data to determine changes over time. The most common form of baseline data is initial baseline data collected prior to implementation of a project. It provides a strong foundation for assessing the impact of the project. Some projects may not have access to initial baseline data but may have access to some older records that can serve as mid-point baseline data for comparison against current data. Additionally, projects can progress in multiple phases, so data taken prior to new actions can be helpful to assess changes from a new baseline (i.e., results from an earlier phase/action) to the current state (after implementation of subsequent phase/action).

As baseline data is used for comparison to determine the impact of actions, it must be clearly defined/recognized as baseline data. The data must be described and documentation uploaded to earn points for this criterion. 

Monitoring Protocol

image.png 552 Bytes
Applicant understanding
Having an established monitoring protocol is an important step to assess the success of a project.  A monitoring protocol should provide enough information so that a new team member could take over monitoring using only the protocol. A monitoring protocol includes information about both timing, frequency and methodology/procedure for conducting monitoring.

A monitoring protocol is relevant if implementation of the monitoring would inform assessment of the habitat. A scientifically rigorous monitoring protocol addresses at least one of the following:

  • Collected with stated geographic and temporal dimensions
  • Credible, repeatable, and logical, resulting in quantitative data that can be analyzed
  • Complex, measuring multiple aspects (e.g. species, nutrients) and/or influences of multiple variables (e.g. weather)
If applicable, a monitoring protocol can be uploaded for this criteria but is not required to earn points. Points can be awarded for this criteria based on the text description of the protocol alone. Monitoring protocols can be developed by the team or be existing credible monitoring protocols from another organization if that is the methodology being used.

Monitoring Implementation

image.png 438 Bytes
Documentation required
Regular monitoring is a crucial aspect of habitat management as it helps to ensure that the habitat is of value and that any indications of potential problems are caught early so that corrective actions can be taken. If monitoring is consistent, the results of monitoring can be compared over time to determine whether a project is successful and potential areas for improvement.

Monitoring can be done in various formats. For monitoring to be considered adequate, the resulting monitoring records must provide enough information to be compared over time to assess what is being monitored. Indirect monitoring not of the habitat directly, but of associated factors, can earn points if the associated factors are specific to the targeted habitat (i.e., wildlife observed within the habitat). Strong monitoring of a habitat involves monitoring of the vegetation (for vegetated habitat types), and this more direct monitoring of a habitat will earn more points.

Documentation of monitoring is required to earn points for this criterion. For ongoing projects, all monitoring data since the last application must be included. For new projects, at least the most recent 1-3 years of monitoring data should be included. Documented measurable outcomes is a requirement for a qualifying habitat project so projects that do not include adequate and relevant documentation will not qualify. 

Evaluation of Monitoring


In order to ensure that monitoring efforts are being utilized, results of monitoring should be evaluated. 

As evaluation of monitoring efforts can vary significantly depending on the type of monitoring being implemented, the purpose of this criterion is to see whether the project is being evaluated. Points will not be deducted if something in the evaluation is misinterpreted. 

The maximum points for this criterion are awarded if the project is evaluated and the evaluation is used to inform next steps for the project. Using the results of the evaluation to determine next steps can include notes that the project was successful and that there were no concerns, so no changes are needed.

Connectivity 

image.png 552 Bytes
Applicant understanding
Connectivity is an important component of habitats. If a habitat on-site is connected to the same type of habitat on adjacent properties, this expands the value and accessibility of both parcels. To earn points for this criterion, the habitat must be of the same type (i.e., two grassland areas) and the habitats must be on adjacent properties. Habitats can be considered adjacent if they are separated by a road or similar feature (although this does decrease the benefits of connectivity). 
Did you find this helpful?