Western States Identify Crucial Habitat and Connectivity

Introduction

Back in 2007, the Western Governors Association (WGA) adopted a resolution encouraging states to protect wildlife linkage zones and crucial wildlife habitat in the west. To assist in reaching this goal, the WGA Wildlife Corridors Initiative was created and subsequently issued a report titled, WGA Wildlife Corridors Initiative.

One key recommendation in the report called for the creation of a common set of methods to map crucial habitat and wildlife corridors, since each state has varying approaches, data, and maps that do not lend themselves to multi-state analysis. Additionally, many states inconsistently choose conservation targets and have not prioritized crucial habitats or identified wildlife corridors.1 To resolve this problem the report recommended each state establish a Decision Support System (DSS), a history and description of which can be found in our Road RIPorter - Winter Solstice 2009 issue (Vol. 14, No. 4).

Decision Support Systems

Simply put, “State DSSs would be used to compile information; assure data quality; and make the data, models and analyses available at scales useful to anyone analyzing proposed energy, land use, and transportation projects or examining climate adaptation strategies.”2 In developing individual
DSSs, states rely on several different data sources including wildlife action plans, and the Nature Conservancy’s ecoregional assessments, among many others.

As mentioned in our previous article, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the WGA and the Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Energy formalized an agreement between the governors and federal agencies to create a new DSS in each participating state. The MOU explains that each party will “endeavor” to use the new system to inform applicable decision makers at all levels of government. Notably, there is a clause that ensures it cannot be used to require a particular action by federal agencies: “This MOU is not intended to, and does not create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by a Party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.” Even with this provision, it is clear that the formalized agreement demonstrates a commitment by all participants to apply the DSS when considering specific projects.

Crucial Areas Assessment and Planning System

In implementing the DSS, states are using different program titles and have varying timelines
for public release. For example, this past April the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks launched its version of DSS called the Crucial Areas Assessment and Planning System
(CAPS). Arizona has an internal release of its version, Colorado is still in the process of developing
its statewide application, and Washington is close to finishing.

Since Montana has a readily available DSS application, which also serves as a model for other states, it is useful to explore this system further. The CAPS website explains, “The Assessment evaluated the fish, wildlife and recreational resources of Montana in order to identify crucial areas and fish and wildlife corridors.” However, CAPS is more than an assessment, it is also a collection of GIS layers that illustrate key terrestrial and aquatic species along with their associated habitats. Upon launching the application, one can choose among several fields to bring up these layers; see Figure 1.


This tool will help people quickly identify places important for key species, the location of habitat types, and in some cases the threat level. For example, one may click on riparian areas to see where the highest concentration occurs based on the amount within one 640-acre square section. Alternatively, one may click on watershed integrity to see the level of human impact based on thirteen variables, including road density overall and in riparian buffers.

Looking at the aquatic and terrestrial layers, one can easily learn if a specific stream or area contains species of concern. Furthermore, CAPS contains a feature that allows one to click anywhere on the map to learn why the stream or area has a particular rating and which species occur there.

For example, selecting the “fish species of concern field” and zooming in on the Pioneer Range in southwest Montana, one can see that Wise River has a class one ranking, (see Figure 2). Then by clicking on the stream, a window pops up with more hot links providing options to see why the river is class 1, (see Figure 3).

This new system contains many other features and fields that will continue to develop as the agency finishes additional layers. Currently Montana FWP is generating the connectivity maps, which will be completed by the end of 2011. Connectivity layers will incorporate aquatic, semi-aquatic and terrestrial species, and display both corridors and linkage zones for each; some of these are already available.
The CAPS tool provides land managers and developers a starting point for analyzing projects of all kinds, and gives conservationists an opportunity to ask better questions early in the environmental review process. Previously, one had to examine several reports and management plans to learn what CAPS can show with a click of the mouse.

Even though the MOU does not provide any new substantive requirements, it does urge land
managers to use the CAPS during project development. Additionally, it provides an opportunity for those involved in travel management planning to ask how the Forest Service is meeting requirements to minimize impacts. Using our Wise River example, we know it contains arctic grayling (a listed species), and has a class 1 rating for aquatic connectivity. This helps direct monitoring efforts to document any erosion and sedimentation concerns on adjacent roads or trails. Monitoring results, coupled with the CAPS
information, allow for more informed comments during the NEPA process. Furthermore, it can help direct road mitigation and decommissioning efforts to those places most in need.

Conclusion

Each western state should complete its own version of DSS in the next few years, and the Montana CAPS application provides an example of how such systems may work. These will provide conservationists with a quick and effective method of learning complicated information that may also help achieve land management goals. While it does not provide any legal requirements on its own, when coupled with other substantive requirements, the information may bolster potential violation claims in official project
comments.

_______________________________________________________
1 June, 2008 WGA Wildlife Corridors Initiative Report, p. 8.
2 February, 2010 Western Regional Wildlife Decision Support System: Definitions and Guidance for State Systems.