Western Governors a Catalyst for Habitat Protection?
In early October, I attended a Western Governors’ Wildlife Council (“Council”) meeting in Helena, MT where the key discussion topic was how to improve wildlife connectivity and linkage zones across the western states. To be sitting at a committee meeting of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) talking about wildlife connectivity is not something I would have predicted a decade ago, but western states are now trying to anticipate development impacts by identifying areas of particular importance to fish and wildlife. Such forward-thinking, integrated planning is very encouraging, although it is a lot like assembling a coherent picture using pieces from several different jigsaw puzzles.
The Council is a committee formed by WGA to implement a 2007 resolution. Its primary tasks are to “identify key wildlife corridors and crucial wildlife habitats in the West, and conserve these lands—and the vast wildlife species that depend upon them—for future generations.” The resolution discusses the importance of wildlife and wildlands, and emerging threats facing these public resources, with an emphasis on energy development. Its goal is well-summarized in policy statement B5:
The Council has been meeting for almost two years, and some states are adopting new tools to integrate historically disjointed sets of data. One example was highlighted at the Helena meeting, where the Council reviewed the state of Montana’s “decision support system” (DSS), which maps the state’s crucial habitat and wildlife corridors. The Council also discussed potential guidelines that all states might follow when adopting such decision support tools (perhaps by identifying some common parameters that every state would use), so that states could compare information across state lines.
A DSS is not a regulatory tool, but an analysis tool that can be used during the pre-planning or planning stage for a project that may affect habitat and linkages. As a result of the resolution, all western states are supposed to develop a DSS, and the Council expects them to be useful in locating energy development, transportation infrastructure, and other land uses (e.g. residential or ex-urban development). DSS tools, if effective and if applied, could revolutionize how development takes place, as developers could, theoretically, avoid developments in areas that have been identified as priorities for protection, thereby speeding up development processes while also protecting important wildlife habitats.
Some western states previously developed DSS-type tools for other wildlife/environmental issues, while other states haven’t and are now developing them as a way to implement the 2007 resolution. So far, it appears that most states are using their State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) as a primary foundation for building a DSS. In 2000, Congress amended the Pittman-Robertson Restoration Act of 1937 to require that all states adopt a SWAP (also known as a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy) to address not just game species, but all wildlife needs in the state. By 2005, all states had completed their SWAPs, though the information and quality of these plans varies greatly from state to state.
It does seem that some DSS tools could end up acting as visual interpretations of the SWAPs by displaying mapping layers that outline wildlife priorities, critical habitat, linkage zones, etc. And because the states have jurisdiction over wildlife management (even on federal lands) the SWAPs, and those DSS tools derived from SWAPs, can be incredibly useful for assessing and influencing federal land management. Indeed, when Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks presented their draft DSS at the October meeting (and similar maps from a few other states were displayed), it became clear that a lot of important habitat is on federal lands.
While activists working on land conservation easements may be paying some attention to SWAPs, the same may not be true for those of us working on off-road vehicles and low-volume road issues. Instead, many conservationists and recreationists have focused on Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Maps. The Forest Service began issuing such maps in 2005, the same time most states finalized their SWAPs, although it is highly unlikely that SWAP data was incorporated into any Motor Vehicle Use Maps. Now, as states complete their DSS tools, it should be significantly easier to incorporate the SWAP data into Vehicle Use Maps, especially since the Forests are supposed to update their maps annually. The benefits could be substantial, for example, how does vehicle use overlay with important aquatic and terrestrial habitat identified on DSS maps? Overlaying these different maps could help forest planners more easily identify and thus avoid important habitat.
In addition, according to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Dept. of Interior, Dept. of Agriculture, and the WGA, the agency should be considering such state wildlife information as part of their planning. Unfortunately, a lot of travel plans are in the final stages of completion, while some states have not yet even begun to develop a DSS. It is unclear how many forests have considered this data and how many haven’t.
On the larger transportation planning side, the Forest Service is under significant pressure from Congress to identify a fiscally and ecologically sustainable minimum road system. It would be much easier to do this if they are incorporating data from the SWAPs and DSSs (once available) in each state.
The planning and management decisions of federal land managers and state wildlife managers often seem disconnected. Similar disconnects occur between land/wildlife managers and developers. If, however, federal and state managers can share information more effectively, we/they may be able to truly protect and restore aquatic and terrestrial core habitat and linkage zones from the impacts of roads. Though we still have a long way to go before the ideas and demonstration tools discussed at the Council meeting start influencing development on the ground, the WGA and the Council have made extraordinary progress in “mainstreaming” wildlife linkage and crucial habitat as an important part of the planning process. In other words, the jigsaw puzzle is beginning to look like the pretty picture on the box.
Western Governors’ Association Policy Resolution 07-01; 2-27-07; Washington, D.C.; Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West.
The Council is a committee formed by WGA to implement a 2007 resolution. Its primary tasks are to “identify key wildlife corridors and crucial wildlife habitats in the West, and conserve these lands—and the vast wildlife species that depend upon them—for future generations.” The resolution discusses the importance of wildlife and wildlands, and emerging threats facing these public resources, with an emphasis on energy development. Its goal is well-summarized in policy statement B5:
“The Western Governors believe that the Western States, working in partnership with the federal land management agencies, Department of Defense, Western and National Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the energy industry, and conservation groups, should identify key wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitats in the West and make recommendations on needed policy options and tools for preserving those landscapes.”As a result, the resolution has the potential to significantly impact transportation infrastructure, along with residential growth (especially in the wildlife-urban interface) and oil/gas/renewable energy exploration and development.
The Council has been meeting for almost two years, and some states are adopting new tools to integrate historically disjointed sets of data. One example was highlighted at the Helena meeting, where the Council reviewed the state of Montana’s “decision support system” (DSS), which maps the state’s crucial habitat and wildlife corridors. The Council also discussed potential guidelines that all states might follow when adopting such decision support tools (perhaps by identifying some common parameters that every state would use), so that states could compare information across state lines.
A DSS is not a regulatory tool, but an analysis tool that can be used during the pre-planning or planning stage for a project that may affect habitat and linkages. As a result of the resolution, all western states are supposed to develop a DSS, and the Council expects them to be useful in locating energy development, transportation infrastructure, and other land uses (e.g. residential or ex-urban development). DSS tools, if effective and if applied, could revolutionize how development takes place, as developers could, theoretically, avoid developments in areas that have been identified as priorities for protection, thereby speeding up development processes while also protecting important wildlife habitats.
Some western states previously developed DSS-type tools for other wildlife/environmental issues, while other states haven’t and are now developing them as a way to implement the 2007 resolution. So far, it appears that most states are using their State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) as a primary foundation for building a DSS. In 2000, Congress amended the Pittman-Robertson Restoration Act of 1937 to require that all states adopt a SWAP (also known as a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy) to address not just game species, but all wildlife needs in the state. By 2005, all states had completed their SWAPs, though the information and quality of these plans varies greatly from state to state.
It does seem that some DSS tools could end up acting as visual interpretations of the SWAPs by displaying mapping layers that outline wildlife priorities, critical habitat, linkage zones, etc. And because the states have jurisdiction over wildlife management (even on federal lands) the SWAPs, and those DSS tools derived from SWAPs, can be incredibly useful for assessing and influencing federal land management. Indeed, when Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks presented their draft DSS at the October meeting (and similar maps from a few other states were displayed), it became clear that a lot of important habitat is on federal lands.
While activists working on land conservation easements may be paying some attention to SWAPs, the same may not be true for those of us working on off-road vehicles and low-volume road issues. Instead, many conservationists and recreationists have focused on Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Maps. The Forest Service began issuing such maps in 2005, the same time most states finalized their SWAPs, although it is highly unlikely that SWAP data was incorporated into any Motor Vehicle Use Maps. Now, as states complete their DSS tools, it should be significantly easier to incorporate the SWAP data into Vehicle Use Maps, especially since the Forests are supposed to update their maps annually. The benefits could be substantial, for example, how does vehicle use overlay with important aquatic and terrestrial habitat identified on DSS maps? Overlaying these different maps could help forest planners more easily identify and thus avoid important habitat.
In addition, according to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Dept. of Interior, Dept. of Agriculture, and the WGA, the agency should be considering such state wildlife information as part of their planning. Unfortunately, a lot of travel plans are in the final stages of completion, while some states have not yet even begun to develop a DSS. It is unclear how many forests have considered this data and how many haven’t.
On the larger transportation planning side, the Forest Service is under significant pressure from Congress to identify a fiscally and ecologically sustainable minimum road system. It would be much easier to do this if they are incorporating data from the SWAPs and DSSs (once available) in each state.
The planning and management decisions of federal land managers and state wildlife managers often seem disconnected. Similar disconnects occur between land/wildlife managers and developers. If, however, federal and state managers can share information more effectively, we/they may be able to truly protect and restore aquatic and terrestrial core habitat and linkage zones from the impacts of roads. Though we still have a long way to go before the ideas and demonstration tools discussed at the Council meeting start influencing development on the ground, the WGA and the Council have made extraordinary progress in “mainstreaming” wildlife linkage and crucial habitat as an important part of the planning process. In other words, the jigsaw puzzle is beginning to look like the pretty picture on the box.
Citations
Initial Implementation of U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans; Impacts, Challenges and Enabling Mechanisms; Findings from a Distributed Graduate Seminar; www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/SWAP/SWAP-home2.htmlWestern Governors’ Association Policy Resolution 07-01; 2-27-07; Washington, D.C.; Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West.
Resource Information
Article Type:
DePaving the Way
Road RIPorter Issue:
Issues:
Location:
Tribal Related:
Not Tribal-Related
Site-Wide Search
Subscribe to The Dirt
