Editor's note: The Wildlands
Project calls for vast core wilderness areas connected by corridors of
wilderness, surrounded by buffer zones. If there were ever any questions
about the federal government implementing the Wildlands Project, this
report should put the questions to rest. This report follows quite
precisely, recommendations found in Section 13 of the Global
Biodiversity Assessment, the 1140-page instructions book for
implementing the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity - which the
U.S. Senate did not ratify.
DRAFT
REPORT TO THE INTERAGENCY GRIZZLY BEAR WORKING GROUP
ON WILDLIFE LINKAGE HABITAT
Prepared
by: Bill Ruediger
Endangered
Species Program Leader
USDA
Forest Service
Northern
Region, Missoula, MT
February
1, 2001
Background: At the
December 7-9, 1999 Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) in Jackson,
Wyoming there were several presentations on the importance of wildlife
linkage habitat in the Northern Rocky Mountains. These discussions
revolved around the conservation biology foundations that larger areas
are better than smaller areas for maintaining wildlife populations, as
well as "connected habitats" being better than "isolated
habitats." At the Jackson meeting, IGBC assigned Jack Blackwell,
Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah and Steve Huffaker,
Acting Director for Idaho Fish and Game Department to review the issues
involved with wildlife linkage habitat and report back to IGBC at the
2000 winter IGBC meeting.
There
was a second meeting on February 17, 2000 hosted by Jack Blackwell and
Steve Huffaker in Boise, Idaho. This meeting was attended by several
interested parties, including the Departments of Transportation's
(DOT's) from Idaho and Montana, Federal Highways Administration,
conservation groups, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Forest
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management,
citizens and representatives from most of the IGBC member agencies in
the Northern Rocky Mountains. At this meeting, there was a full day of
presentations and discussions about wildlife linkage habitat. The
presentations included a number of wildlife linkage habitat proposals
prepared by agencies and conservation groups. After reviewing the
presentations, Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Huffaker asked if there was any way
to get the various wildlife linkage habitat proposal groups together,
with other involved or interested parties and consolidate the linkage
proposals – and provide ideas for prioritization. Bill Ruediger, USDA
Forest Service, Missoula was asked to do the staff work for this effort.
On
May 10-11, agencies and people interested in wildlife linkage habitat
met in Dillon, Montana to review the agency and conservation group
wildlife linkage habitat proposals with the objectives of:
1.
Review available wildlife linkage habitat proposals.
2.
Discuss common linkage areas or gaps.
3.
Discuss priorities.
4.
Provide information that could aid in implementation.
The
following is a summary of the May 10-11 meeting: This effort is a
combined effort from those at the Dillon, Montana meeting, as well as
other contributors. These include Joel Marshik, Montana Department of
Transportation; Mellany Parker, Northwest Connections; Kim Davitt,
American Wild lands; Dr. Sterling Miller, National Wildlife Federation;
Dr Lance Craighead; Craighead Environmental Research Inst.; Steve Primm,
Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative; Dr. Wayne Melquist, Idaho
Fish and Game Department; Kurt Alt, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks; Ken Wall, Geo Data Services;
Mary Maj, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Bob Ralphs, Jim Claar,
Jay Gore, Bill Noblitt, Monica Schwalbach, Mark, Orme and Bill Ruediger,
USFS; Dr. Chris Servheen and Sunni Baker, FWS, Marcy Mahr, Greg Jones,
and Alex Dieckman.
On
December 12, 2000 Bill Ruediger met with conservation groups from the
Greater Yellowstone Area and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (Arnie
Dood) to discuss the draft report and mapping options. At this meeting,
in Bozeman, Montana it was recommended a "second option" map
be developed that would include just the specific highway segments
associated with the wildlife linkage habitat map recommended at the
Dillon meeting. This provides a more precise view of the specific
priority wildlife linkage habitat.
Definitions
and Terminology: It
became apparent that definitions and terminology for wildlife linkage
habitat is important. There are many terms and phrases used to describe
wildlife linkage habitat and confusion can arise as to what is actually
being described. As the term "wildlife linkage habitat"
implies, there are three important elements involved. The first is
"wildlife." Wildlife linkage habitat is important for many or
most wildlife species. This includes common species like deer and elk,
less common species like bighorn sheep, forest carnivores, and large
carnivores such as the wolf and grizzly bear. Small mammals and birds
also benefit from wildlife linkage habitat. Wildlife linkage habitat is
important for the entire wildlife community to function properly.
The
second word, linkage, in the phrase has important meaning. Linkage
implies connectivity of wildlife habitat and populations. Wilcox and
Murphy (1985) have stated that "habitat fragmentation is the most
serious threat to biological diversity and is the primary cause of the
present extinction crisis." Human
induced habitat fragmentation; the isolation and loss of wildlife
habitat and populations caused by linear fractures like highways and the
loss of habitat and connectivity associated with houses and other
developments is a common threat to wildlife worldwide. Highways, private
land development, and highly modified or used public lands can lead to
the isolation of wildlife habitats and populations, loss of habitat and
eventually reduced viability or loss of wildlife. The best habitats are
those with little or no human induced fragmentation. For wide-ranging
species like elk, moose, forest carnivores and large carnivores, the
development of valley bottoms and some uplands has already had effects
on connectivity between the largest and best habitats such as the
Greater Yellowstone Area, the Northern Continental Divide, the Selway-Bitterroot
and the Cabinet-Yaak-Selkirk Mountains. Grizzly bear and other wildlife
habitat north of the U.S. border in Canada suffers from similar human
caused habitat fragmentation and loss. Maintaining, or restoration, of
wildlife linkage habitat is critical to the natural functioning of
healthy grizzly bear, carnivores and other wildlife populations.
The
last term in the phrase wildlife linkage habitat is "habitat."
It is often not clear to many that the linkages are "habitat."
Functionally, these are areas where wildlife live and exist in. They are
not "travel corridors", an anthropomorphic concept of narrow
paths that wildlife use like humans do highways, moving directly from
point A to point B. Wildlife linkage habitat is used by species
year-round or seasonally as a portion of their home range, or, are
natural land features used for movement and dispersal. Effective use
would include back and forth movement by wildlife on a regular basis, as
well as dispersal.
Thinking
Like a Mountain: Aldo
Leupold once said that people need to begin "thinking like a
mountain." What was implied is that society should become more
aware and sensitive to the effects of people's activities on nature and
ecological processes. If wildlife is to continue to exist in functional
ecological communities, people must learn to appreciate the concepts of
habitat connectivity. Wildlife habitat connectivity is affected by many
human activities including highway development, private and public land
management practices, open space policies, subdivision policies, road
access and densities and many other factors. The effectiveness of
wildlife habitat connectivity relies on citizens, local, county, state
and federal government, private and corporate landowners and
conservation groups acting with awareness about how their actions affect
wildlife. Many decisions are permanent and irreversible, and prevention
of problems will be far more effective and less costly than trying to
restore wildlife linkage habitat. Our current options for maintaining
wildlife linkage habitat are limited by past developments and decisions,
and we should not lose future options carelessly.
Connecting
the Dots and Blocks: A
variety of linkage proposals have been shared with the Wildlife Linkage
Habitat work-group. These include alternatives prepared by conservation
groups such as American Wildlands (Dr. Lance Craighead), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Dr. Chris Servheen), two from the USDA Forest
Service (Ruediger, Claar and Gore and Dr. Fred Samson), and the Alliance
for the Northern Rockies. What all these proposals have in common is a
matrix where the "big patches" (Greater Yellowstone Area,
Northern Continental Divide, Cabinet Mountains-Yaak-Selkirk Mountains
and Selway-Bitterroot Mountains) are linked together using the
"little patches" (roadless areas, Forest Service lands,
minimally developed private lands). There are remarkable similarities
between all alternatives, primarily because all consider the importance
of connecting the "big patches" and also because the number of
feasible options is limited.
The four common denominators to all proposals
were:
1.
Management of public lands as the primary core areas.
2.
Permeability of highways (wildlife crossings).
3.
Maintaining private lands in a rural condition.
4.
Connection of the four major grizzly bear ecosystems: GYA, S/B,
C/Y/S and NCD.
A
Consolidated Wildlife Linkage Habitat Proposal For IGBC: After
reviewing the wildlife linkage habitat area proposals shared at the May,
Dillon, Montana meeting, a small group of people met in Missoula to
review these and draft a consolidated wildlife linkage habitat proposal.
This meeting was held on August 10, 2000 and was attended by Ken Wall
(Geo Data Services), Mary Maj (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation), Jay Gore
(USDA Forest Service), Jim Claar (USDA Forest Service) and Bill Ruediger
(USDA Forest Service). Several attempts were made at having greater
representation of all involved to develop a draft proposal, but people
were too busy.
In addition to the information on wildlife
linkage habitat obtained from participants at the Dillon, Montana
meeting, Dr. Rolly Redmond, from the Spatial Analysis Lab in Missoula
composed a map from a number of satellite images. This map, which is
color infrared, provided an excellent view of the Northern Rocky
Mountain area – including various terrain and vegetation features. Dr.
Chris Servheen had used a similar map in delineating his wildlife
linkage habitat proposal. It became evident using the color infrared map
that several viable linkage habitats existed that had not been
identified by other efforts.
The
draft consolidated wildlife linkage habitat map consists of all the
proposals provided – plus a few linkage habitats not identified
previously. This map will be digitized and can be provided to the
work-committee chairs as the first working draft
of a consolidated approach. It will also be shared with as many of the
Boise and Dillon attendees as we can get it to. What is recommended
now is that the wildlife linkage habitat map be presented to the IGBC
and the Linkage Zone Sub-Committee Chairs (Jack Blackwell, U.S. Forest
Service and Steve Huffaker, Idaho Department of Fish and Game) for
comments and further direction. As mentioned previously, our intent
is to continue to have the draft wildlife linkage habitat map reviewed
by as many involved individuals, agencies and organizations as time will
allow
Setting
Priorities: There
are a variety of ways that priority setting can be achieved.
Establishing priorities is important because it is not possible to work
on all areas simultaneously and some opportunities existing today could
be lost quickly. The most important factors for priority setting
recommended at the Dillon, MT meeting include:
1.
Areas used by multiple species.
2.
Fracture zones between the larger core areas that may be most
important.
3.
Areas animals currently use and exist in. It is better to
maintain an existing linkage habitat than to restore one.
4.
Ensure the smaller "stepping stones" such as core
habitats, roadless areas and areas of low human population are
maintained and connected.
5.
Focus effort on high-risk situations such as highway upgrades,
land sales in important linkage habitat and subdivisions. And areas
planned for future highway development.
6.
Areas where obstacles to animals already exist (4-lane highways
and highways with high traffic densities).
7.
Areas where "social tolerance" by humans has been
established. This is particularly important for large carnivores like
grizzly bears and wolves.
Priority
Wildlife Linkage Habitat:
1.
Cabinet-Yaak-Selkirks:
McCarthur Lake Corridor (Highway 95), Highway 200, Highway 2.
2.
Selway-Bitterroot
Mountains:
Highway 12 (Lolo Pass), Lookout Pass and I-90, Lost Trail Pass vicinity
and Highway 93, Highway 95 McCall to Whitebird Junction.
3.
Northern
Continental Divide:
Swan Valley, Highway 2, Highway 93 (Evaro Hill, Ravalli Canyon and
Whitefish to Eureka), I-15
north from Helena, Trans-Canada Highway, Crow's Nest Pass (Canada).
4.
Greater
Yellowstone Area:
Monida Pass and I-15, Bozeman Pass and I-90, movement across the Madison
Valley, Moran Junction to Dubois, Idaho, Alpine, WY to Moran Junction
(Hwy 89), Highway 20 from Centennial Mountains. to Targhee Pass, Highway
87 from Targhee Pass to Junction with 287, Gardner to Yankee Jim Canyon
(Hwy 89).
Recommended
Factors to Consider When Identifying Wildlife Linkage Habitat:
1.
It is important to look at wildlife linkage habitat from three
scales. First is at a landscape or large geographic area scale. Second
is from a linkage zone scale. Third is from a "crossing site"
scale.
2.
Landform and topography are important. Mountain passes, river
bottoms, and protruding ridges are often natural migration and movement
areas.
3.
Vegetation is important. Forested areas are often used the most
by wildlife. Vegetation should be maintained as close as possible to
highways at crossing sites. Research indicates that animals will seek
out areas where clearing distance is minimal. Conversely, animals may
not attempt to cross highways where clearing distances are great.
4.
The quality of habitat is important. Wildlife is naturally
attracted to and will use high quality habitats.
5.
Areas with low road density and low levels of human use are
important for wildlife security.
6.
Areas where the best data are available will be more successful
than areas where little or no data are available. Data should be
collected for all wildlife linkage habitats.
7.
Maintain large, intact blocks of habitat – regardless of
ownership patterns.
Organizations
Interested or Involved in Wildlife Linkage Habitat: One
of the first observations to come from the Boise and Dillon meetings was
that many organizations were already working on proposals for key
wildlife habitat acquisition, conservation easements, defining wildlife
linkage habitat, working with private landowners to maintain important
wildlife habitat (including linkages), meeting with each other and other
important work related to this effort. The partial list of these
organizations includes:
1.
American Wildlands.
2.
Kendall Foundation.
3.
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
4.
Turner Endangered Species Fund.
5.
Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative.
6.
Geo Data.
7.
Craighead Environmental Research Institute
8.
Greater Yellowstone Coalition.
9.
Sierra Club Grizzly Bear Ecology Project.
10.
National Wildlife Federation.
11.
Defenders of Wildlife.
12.
Trust for Public Lands.
13.
Nature Conservancy.
14.
Alliance of the Rockies.
15.
Northwest Connections.
16.
Great Bear Foundation.
17.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
18.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
19.
Montana DOT.
20.
Idaho Department of Transportation.
21.
University of Montana: Spatial Analysis Lab.
22.
Federal Highways Administration.
23.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.
24.
USDA Forest Service.
25.
USDI Bureau of Land Management.
Building Ownership and
Communications: Communications and ownership building were
identified as important to successfully identifying and implementing
wildlife linkage habitat. At the meeting in Dillon the group identified
ways that are recommended to help maintain and foster communications:
1.
IGBC website with linkage hotlink to "Critter Crossings
(Federal Highways Administration), American Wildlands and Canada (site
unknown).
2.
Add hotlinks on State Fish and Wildlife Department (ID, MT and
WY), Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and all cooperator
websites to IGBC Wildlife Linkage Habitat website.
3.
Establish e-mail lists.
4.
Repeat meetings like those at Boise and Dillon in Helena, Coeur
d' Alene and Wyoming (Jackson Hole).
5.
Provide presentations at International Conference on Wildlife
Ecology and Transportation, State and Section Wildlife Society Meetings,
State and Federal Agency wildlife biologist meetings, transportation
planners' meetings.
Another
important factor in building ownership is to ensure that local people
who live and work in the wildlife linkage habitat are involved in
decisions and plans. This includes how public lands are managed, and
private lands. In many of the most critical wildlife linkage habitats,
tolerance of grizzly bear, wolves and other wildlife by local people is
perhaps the most important factor in conserving them. Often, local rural
people have the best knowledge of wildlife crossings and other important
information. Agencies should ensure that local people are queried for
important information, as well as involved in planning, wildlife
crossings and ownership and easement issues.
Recommended Follow-up Actions: There
are a number of action items which came up during the meetings, or
afterwards, that are recommendations to IGBC. The following is a summary
of action items to be considered:
1.
Divide the "Northern Rockies" area that includes the
Greater Yellowstone Area, Bitterroots-Central Idaho, Northern
Continental Divide, Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Mountain grizzly bear
ecosystems and have local groups of people review the priority linkage
habitats. These groups of local people should develop site-specific ways
to maintain or restore linkage habitat. One of the logical ways to do
this is by state wildlife agency or DOT "Regional Boundaries."
It is also suggested that there be a lead agency to coordinate finer
scale analysis and implementation. There would need to be coordination
and interaction between the Regions to ensure some level of consistency
and to provide mutual assistance.
2.
Agency leaders should send out direction to the field that
maintenance and restoration of wildlife linkage habitat is important
work. This is suggested for all agencies, with a consistent message that
encourages cooperation, collaborative problem solving and action.
Agencies that should send letters to the field include: State wildlife
agencies, state DOTs, Federal Highway Administration, Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
3.
Agencies should develop policies that address linkage habitat. At
this time, none of the land management, wildlife or transportation
agencies have policies that reflect the importance of wildlife linkage
habitat. The Forest Service is currently considering such a policy at
the National level.
4.
There needs to be better funding for wildlife linkage habitat,
particularly highway developments. At the present time, highway
developments are major construction projects for which funding for
interagency work on wildlife linkage habitat is not available. This
requires state wildlife agencies and agencies like the Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service to take substantial
funding from other programs if they are to become effective partners.
For projects the size and scope of highway developments, coordination
funds for wildlife linkage habitat should be provided as part of the
project funding. Funding is a major issue that has come up at
Interagency Highway Streamlining meetings in Seattle and Denver.
5.
Agencies need to support research and monitoring of wildlife
linkage habitat concepts and projects. The cost of implementing linkage
habitat across the Northern Rockies is substantial to all agencies and
better science is needed to improve overall program efficiency and
minimize costs. Wildlife overpasses currently cost approximately $2-3
million each and underpasses for large mammals average over $250,000
each for four land highways. It is cost effective to provide basic
research and monitoring to ensure crossing structures are correctly
designed and built, are used by intended species, are cost-effective and
are accomplishing the goals of linkage habitat.
6.
Interagency training is recommended to provide state-of-the-art
skills to biological and engineering staff. The concepts of linkage
habitat, wildlife passage structures, land adjustments and working with
private landowners are complex and difficult to accomplish. Agencies and
employees are learning how to work together in stressful circumstances
where agency policies and procedures are unclear and occasionally
conflicting. Training is recommended in wildlife linkage habitat
concepts, wildlife passage structure design and placement and
"streamlining" efforts to maximize program efficiency and
minimize project delays and costs.
7.
Development of memorandums of agreement is recommended between
all agencies to clarify roles, responsibilities, policies, funding,
conflict resolution and that emphasize interagency problem solving.
8.
DOT's should retrofit existing stream crossings and other
drainage facilities whenever highways are upgraded, or the structures
replaced to incorporate wildlife and fish passage.
9.
A recommended way to get transportation, wildlife and land
management agencies working together is to develop a "demo"
linkage project in each state.
Conclusion:
The
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee has determined that identification
and management of wildlife linkage habitat is potentially important to
grizzly bears and other wildlife species. At the Jackson meeting an ad
hoc committee was assigned to follow up on the resolution to begin
exploring the interest and issues involved. Mr. Steve Huffaker and Mr.
Jack Blackwell were assigned leads for IGBC. Based on the attendance at
the Boise and Dillon coordination meetings, interest is high from state
and federal agencies, conservation groups and individuals. The outcome
of the meetings is the recommendations contained in these notes and the
draft wildlife linkage habitat maps provided as part of this report.
Additional follow-up items are contained in the notes.
It
is gratifying to see so many people and agencies come together and work
together. The quality of the draft product speaks to this cooperation
and interest.
References
and Literature Cited:
Wilcox, B.A. and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation
strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American
Naturalist 125: 879-887.
