Land Use and Wildlife Habitat

Chapter 17

Wildlife Habitat Fundamentals

Overlapping habitat types at edges produce diverse ecotones

Guidelines to Reduce Impacts of Urban Development on Wildlife

Before development, maximize open space and protect the most valuable wildlife habitat by placing buildings on less important portions of the site. Design stormwater controls to benefit wildlife. Retain and plant native plants that have value for wildlife as well as aesthetic appeal. Provide habitat-enhancing elements like birdfeeding stations and nest boxes for cavity-nesting birds. Educate residents about wildlife conservation and provide opportunities for wildlife observation, such as a nature trail through open space.

Wildlife Habitat Inventories, Evaluation, GAP Analysis

Inventories:
vegetative types habitat elements: water, food, shelter, space

Evaluation:
Carrying capacity Habitat suitability

GAP analysis:
Vegetative communities, land ownership, management practice Species richness map highlights high biodiversity GAP analysis overpays high biodiversity potential with conservation management practice revealing gaps in level of protection:
GAP 1 is highly protected GAP 4 is not protected.

State Wildlife Action Plans

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Grants requiring comprehensive wildlife conservation plan:
Information on the distribution and abundance of wildlife Descriptions of locations and relative conditions of habitats Descriptions of problems that may adversely affect species or their habitats Descriptions of conservation actions proposed Plans for monitoring species and habitats Descriptions of procedures to review and update the plan Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies Broad public participation in developing and implementing the wildlife action plan

Fragmentation and Connectivity

Biggest threat to wildlife and biodiversity is fragmentation and loss on connectivity Threat will increase as climate change forces wildlife movement and migration California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project
Define analysis area Define areas to be connected: the blobs Define Essential Connectivity Areas: the sticks to connect the blobs Produce the CEHC statewide and regional maps. Compare map to previous conservation studies Develop Strategic Plan

Least-cost Corridor Analysis

The big culprit: ROADS

$8 million to be spent on wildlife crossing structures north of Tucson, Arizona

Wildlife underpasses

Urban Biodiversity
Biodiversity: the variety of life and the processes that keep life functioning Urban biodiversity an oxymoron? Issues of urban biodiversity
Protecting whats left Managing exotic and native species Balancing urban core versus suburbs, the value of near-nature, and Smart Growth management Engaging stakeholders Integrating objectives, tool, and programs

Chicago Wilderness touches four states and contains an extensive array of existing and recommended protection areas

Urban Biodiversity In Holmes RunCameron Run Watershed

Classified Species under Endangered Species Act

FEDERAL STATUS The standard abbreviations for Federal endangerment developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation. LE - Listed Endangered LT - Listed Threatened PE - Proposed Endangered PT - Proposed Threatened C - Candidate (formerly C1 - Candidate category 1) SOC - Species of Concern (formerly C2 - Candidate cat. 2)

Endangered Species Act Conservation Tool Continuum

ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) and HCPs

The FWS can allow land or resource development in the vicinity of an endangered or classified species habitat by issuing an incidental take permit if the landowner or developer has prepared a satisfactory habitat conservation plan (HCP). The basic objective of the HCP is to demonstrate how the endangered species habitat will be conserved while allowing for land development in habitat area. According to the regulations: An incidental take permit can be issued if the HCP identifies: impacts on endangered species measures to minimize and mitigate impacts alternatives are considered and action is justified and if the plan shows that: taking, if any, is incidental taking will not appreciably reduce likelihood of survival applicant will minimize/mitigate to the maximum extent possible adequate funding is assured

HCP Planning Process

Preplanning Plan Development
Define area Gather biological data Identify human activities in take area Determine anticipated take level Develop mitigation measures: avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, compensate Develop monitoring plan Develop funding scheme

Submit Plan Implement Plan if incidental take permit granted Amend Plan as necessary based on monitoring (adaptive)

Austins Balcones Canyon Conservation Plan

Issues from 1st Generation HCPs

How much protection is enough? Do we really know what will happen? With a wide range of stakeholders, how can we make effective and acceptable decisions? Can an agreement hold together over time? What are equitable, efficient, and acceptable means of generating the large revenues required? How long is this going to take? What surprises await?

No-Surprises Policy - 1994

If, in the course of development, a landowner invests money and land to protect species covered in an HCP, the government will not later require that the landowner pay more or provide additional land even if the needs of species change over time.
Before no-surprises (1984-1994): 14 HCPs After no-surprises (1994-2009): 661 HCPs approved 950 permits approved

Critique of HCP that led to Californias NCCP Act

Criticism of Project-by-Project Approach

Patchy, ad hoc, fragmentation, reactive

Criticism of Single-Species Approach

Ecosystems require large unfragmented landscapes Functioning ecosystems depend on interactions of wide variety of species Emergency room model

California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP):

Regional, Multispecies Habitat Planning

Orange County Central Coastal NCCP

Recurring Issues in the NCCP Program

The timing conundrum: To protect imperiled resources that could be lost
without timely action, NCCP plans require a great deal of scientific data and knowledge that takes time and effort to gather. Never enough knowledge: There will always be insufficient baseline data and understanding about many key ecosystem variables, such as the size, demography, distribution, and genetic variability of populations, and of causal processes governing population sizes and ecosystem functioning. Intersection of habitats and development pressures: Every place where an NCCP approach is applied will be where there are serious human threats to the ecosystems. Decisions without standards: NCCPs will be forced to make decisions about plan design and incidental take with incomplete scientific information, standards, or criteria. Stakeholders grow impatient or dissatisfied: Developers and localities want reliable regulatory assurances, and conservation advocates will want strong, clearly defined habitat protection. Complex plans require long-term compliance and monitoring. Extensive long-term funding is required for implementation, land acquisition, and adaptive management. Adaptive management and monitoring are critical to offset limitations in existing knowledge. Few managers know how to monitor necessary resources, let alone adaptively manage them.