This website has introduced a process to discover and present objectives, focusing on the public sector agencies, and also on climate, biodiversity, and agriculture in particular. It asserts that only a comprehensive, all-sector approach can succeed – the solutions must be considered together. And to some extent, the process must happen at all scales, from local to global. But one scale naturally takes center stage, and that is what is called regional, or watershed, or ‘area-wide’ planning. And this Appendix 3 will look at that area-wide scale, with a narrower focus on how regional plans can be set up for conserving ecosystems – habitats and species. It is just one part of the larger process, that must by necessity include water resources, fire, social issues, etc. But since bio-systems are in particular jeopardy, and cannot be recovered once extinct, we focus on that component here. This is a more in-depth illustration of how GRAP and Re-alignment can be applied for a given issue.
Part 1. Methods: Setting regional objectives for habitats and species
General outline of possible area-wide planning method for habitat and species of concern. New, revised planning methods may be applied using existing maps, models and data, to develop a consistent, national process, under expedited timeframe.
Inputs:
Habitat maps – NRCS soil maps – ESD’s (ecological site descriptions) provide a 100% area-wide map of potential habitat types –– for most of the U.S. lower 48 states.
Many other sources of habitat maps and data are also available, to complement ESD’s . In contrast, past planning efforts may have sometimes been limited primarily to actual sitings data.
Species distribution data: focus on ‘species of concern’. These maps include a very wide collection of species, varying by state and by agency.
GIS data layers: Zoning maps, Land Use, Land Cover, Cadastral. Future Land Use, if available
Ancillary GIS data layers – a wide variety of ancillary GIS data will be needed for the process.
Current land quality and condition – What is the current condition of each land unit, compared to ‘historical’? How well can existing land uses support historical habitat and species? For each land unit, a rough assessment (ie. Scale 1 – 5) of current quality and condition, relative to ecological function, needs to be made. This determination may be based on land use (ag, industrial, residential density), ecological impact (degree of wildlife exclusion) and other factors. For a simplistic start, assumptions may be based primarily on an existing LULC data base, with minor modifications. Ancillary data, such as NDVI imagery, may be instrumental in assessing current conditions.
Steps in the process:
The following is a rough initial summary of a simplistic approach based on Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD’s). Actual methods may vary considerably, due to pre-existing plans/methods, and in order to improve accuracy, acceptance, and overall value in the wider planning environment. Each state or region may alter or refine the methods for their unique needs. Consistency, and a collective approach, are still primary concerns.
- Area-wide (100% land area covered) habitat maps are prepared based on ESD’s and/or other available data. ESD definitions may be used as the actual habitat variable for each land unit, or they may be translated in to other categories that are more acceptable or adaptable. Hopefully, any translation or substitution to other classification systems should improve the accuracy and utility of the data base. Conforming to pre-existing methods may not be advisable.
- Species of concern are identified and, to the extent possible, mapped. Species distribution can be based on actual sitings, habitat maps, models, and other variables. Distributions have been mapped throughout the US, but the accuracy, methods and extent are extremely variable. For the bulk of species, distribution will probably be inferred, based on their association with habitats and other variables. This last point may be the critical factor that makes the whole process feasible.
- Planning objectives for each habitat type are set, using a collective, interagency approach. At this stage, a rough estimate of the portion of the original (historical/potential) habitat that must be preserved/restored, at a minimum, will be set for each habitat type. Timelines are included.
- Planning objectives for each species of concern are set, in the same way. A sustainable minimum % of the historical population levels will be set.
- A hypothetical planning map of future habitat conditions, area-wide, is prepared , with the objective of meeting the above habitat and species targets. Each land unit will be assigned a planned habitat classification. (Note: ‘land units’ boundaries may correspond to the NRCS soil units, or aggregations of those soil units based on ESD and other attributes.) Factors that may be taken in to account may include:
- Landscape ecology – patch size, connectivity, etc.
- Habitat/species conservation objectives (above). % to be conserved for each habitat and species.
- Comprehensive plans and planning
- Current land use attributes (zoning, land use/land cover, future land use, cadastral, etc. )
- Current quality and condition of each land unit, relative to biodiversity (see ‘inputs’ above).
- Potential for change / modification / conversion / restoration for each land unit.
Part 2. Implementation: Meeting Objectives for Habitats and Species
The above discussion is a general outline that pertains to any given jurisdictions. In all cases, ecosystems can not be sustained unless objectives for habitats and species are first established. That in itself will be a serious challenge for many parties – in particular, translating the objectives in to area-wide plans – ie. ‘Build-out’ maps. The next step will be implementation, including zoning, enforcement, funding, and education.
There have been many different approaches, and different outcomes, in this field. This section will look at the current status of such approaches in different regions, and how implementation might be optimized. Some of the critical issues that affect outcomes will be addressed, including:
For each of these seven issues, see further discussion below:
Establishing a Baseline
This is a critical and fundamental issue! It matters greatly, because some landscapes are relatively pristine, some are completely ‘developed’, and most are somewhere in between. Three general options for setting targets come to mind. The first, and perhaps most widely used today, is to examine the current landscape and species (by inspection and available records), and seek to preserve some portion of it. In other words, if the habitat/biota is not evident, via actual sitings or ‘occurrences’, then it is not a management concern. On the other extreme, one considers the historical (as in, pre-development, aka. potential) conditions, and target a certain portion of that for preservation, such as 25%. A third method is to consider all species and habitats of concern – generally based on historical conditions — and set a sustainable level to conserve. This last method may be the most pragmatic and defensible. In any event, one question is whether the information resources are available to make these decisions. Ie. Do we have maps of historical habitats? Do we have accurate sitings? And do we know what population levels are sustainable?
One final point – do we want to try to save all species and all types of habitats? There appears to be a general consensus in favor of preserving all species – particularly those that are locally historical and native; but perhaps not for preserving every type of habitat. It is especially critical if those species or habitats are seriously endemic, and not found in other locations.
Which areas are included in the analysis?
This question is related to the first issue, establishing a baseline, as follows: if the objective is to conserve only a portion of remaining biota – that which is currently evident – then the emphasis will be on relatively undeveloped areas – primarily forest, farm, range, parks, etc. If the historical or potential condition is used as a baseline, then the entire landscape (area-wide) is under consideration. If ‘sustainable’ is used as a target, it may not be constricted by either current or historical conditions. But in actual practice, all this will vary. For example, planners may base the targets on historical and potential habitat, but apply that strategy only in certain locations, such as public lands. Or, those targeting only a portion of the remaining, visible populations may include urban and residential areas as significant habitats. Or vise versa. From Nature’s point of view, a whole landscape or ‘area-wide’ strategy is probably best, but each case will vary.
Resources: Are the tools and resources available?
The short answer is, surprisingly, YES. But with much room for improvement. A quick review indicates that tools and resources are available for the U.S., and many other countries, to put at least preliminary area-wide conservation plans in place for biodiversity. But these will need to improve during the course of implementation via monitoring and better source data.
There are millions of species, and thousands of habitat types, in all degrees of scale and resolution, accuracy and definition. In short, the topic can be infinitely complex. Every landscape is different, under different management regimes, and changing in ways that are hard to predict or to control. Development pressure is intense in many regions, and has generally outpaced conservation. All told, it would be easy to conclude that biodiversity will be hard to salvage, if not impossible. Many experts today are pessimistic. All of this argues in favor of the need to set very clear targets and a realistic implementation strategy, without further delay.
Resources of greatest concern in this process include:
- Data:
- Species: While there may be millions of species, they have been narrowed down to a ‘manageable’ number of ‘species of concern’ for planning purposes. In practice, these selected species can be associated with certain habitat types and conditions (patch size, etc). If habitat maps are available, then species can be mapped by association.
- Habitat maps: Habitat maps have progressed considerably, along with related map themes such as land use/land cover (LULC), soils, cadastral (land ownership), zoning, management practices, imagery, topography, hydrology, and many others. Together, these data layers make it possible to create fairly accurate habitat maps for any region. Such maps are currently available for large sections of the U.S., while more general maps fill in the rest. The more general maps may suffice for the first stages of conservation planning, but will need improvement during implementation.
- Soils: Soils are a special case.
- Occurrence data: citizen scientist…
- Staff and funding:
Methodology
There is no shortage of methodologies. The question is whether a consistent, affordable and widely acceptable process is available, and ready to apply. After many decades of development, it appears that that is the case.
There are many good examples of successful application. One such case is the State of Vermont, which has developed a consistent statewide program that relies heavily on a holistic and collective approach. Participants include, in short, everyone, from Federal agencies and global NGO’s to municipal planners and the general public. The process of conservation is developed, presented, and implemented collectively, easily accessible to any parties via internet. As a result, Vermont presents a comprehensive and fairly concise education in the practical field of conserving habitats and species of concern. The same could probably be said for many other states, watersheds, parks, and organizations, filling in gaps for each region and its unique environmental circumstances. In short, it appears that neither methodology nor access to information are limiting factors.
Costs, Impacts, and Compensation:
There will be winners and loser in this process, and this presents the greatest obstacle to implementation by far. Otherwise, it would be fairly easy to create an ideal map for conservation, and give local planners the pleasure of bringing it about. The hard part is implementation.
Ideally, the costs of those who are impacted by conservation can be compensated by those who benefit. Costs can be transferred via taxes, fees, incentives, subsidies, etc. This may include developers, realtors, sellers, tourists, and the general public. In short, almost everyone benefits from conservation except those who are restricted. If methods to assess and collect such benefits can be put in place, then others can be compensated.
In some states the land is mostly private (VT, Iowa, Kansas) and in others, mostly public (Idaho, Utah). . (Vermont, for example, is 80% private land, mostly rural). But in either case, public or private, it is unlikely that any significant portion of land will change ownership, or even change the general land use practices, due to the conservation programs. Organizations such as Nature Conservancy and USDA have come to see the limitations of easements and land purchases, and shifted emphasis to modifying practices overall and precision conservation at key locations (farmsteads, road crossings, riparian buffer strips, feed lots….). Options may be more available on public lands, but there is often fierce resistance from affected stakeholders. In conclusion, to re-iterate- these costs may represent the main obstacle to success. The main solution may lie in a transparent, consistent, and totally collective approach.
Challenges
The public certainly cares about nature and biodiversity. And so do corporations, increasingly. The conservation ‘movement’ is gaining momentum rapidly, and going mainstream. The problem is that this movement is late in maturing, and it may be too late to change the inertia of the status quo in time to avoid disastrous consequences. While nearly everyone may care, there are relatively few who are directly engaged, and funding is miniscule compared to industry, medicine, military, etc. In short, it is time to take a very hard look at the current state of biodiversity, and realistic methods to apply.
There are thousands of agencies, and programs, and funding sources, and organizations that play some role in conservation. This may be part of the problem. Unless there is a way to bring these efforts and resources together quickly, then the historical declines will continue. Vermont and others have demonstrated such a process. A collective approach is needed, and is well underway in some places. It benefits from modern tools such as the internet, info tech, data acquisition from satellites to cell phones to soil moisture sensors, and it is driven by a cultural revolution resulting from such resources, along with pandemics, floods, fires, conflicts, and this rapidly changing world we live in. All these tools and changes can be optimized to bring about a unified and concerted response to managing our environment.
area wide plan outline1.docx
Discussion and appendices
Implementation
- Work plan for implementation prepared. To include:
- Who is involved in this process (must be collective). Leads assigned. Roles assigned.
- Resources
- Methodology (above)
- Timeline, including schedules for plan updates and assessments.
Discussion
- Implementation Timelines – short (2 yr); medium (5 yr); long (10-20 yr +)
- Short term – most will involve rapid management adaptations without changes in LU/LC, ownership, zoning, etc. Example – rapid transition from conventional to sustainable farming/forestry practices, via direct agency supports.
- Very high value ecofunctions, such as key corridor connection opportunities, should be rapidly converted following initial assessments.
(On the positive side, extinctions are hard to justify, and preservation of nature is a universal value, in theory).
Panicaea 