Attendance: Kent Holsinger, Chris Maier, Dave Wagner, David Leff, Les Mehrhoff, Tom Philbrick, Judy Preston, Joe Dowhan, Juliana Barrett, Dick Goodwin
Introduction; Kent Holsinger
Discussion initiated with statement that peripheral species should not be priority for protection. With limited resources, outlook needs to be broader. 95% of species in CT are peripheral and doing well elsewhere (not including disjunct species; those are more important). Glaciation has meant few novel species in CT; state is unique in this regard.
Habitat v. species emphasis; legislation is geared toward rare species protection. From biological perspective, this may not be ideal. Natural community/habitat emphasis needed. Public perception is important.
Important to have goal; CT as experiment; to what extent can a highly developed area protect its biodiversity? Also, from state perspective, the fact that CT has only a few globally significant species is not a reason not to protect biodiversity. As state stewards of the environment (DEP), need to proceed with statewide biodiversity conservation. Given limited resources, need to focus.
We're looking at what's here now. Must look at Process; things will change over time. Need to be able to preserve representative communities to allow for change. Will have to work at many things concurrently.
Importance of inventory work. Twenty years from now will need to know how species/communities/systems changing. Need for better quality baseline; "junior" gap analysis needed. [Note: Someone at UMASS has apparently done a gap analysis for the Northeast]. Perhaps more importantly, we need to predict the future. Introduced species as example; need to know where introduced species did not occur. Importance of this to managers with limited resources. Can't make predictions without past knowledge. Prediction is a tool. We need to be able to apply our knowledge as managers. Knowledge of past as a framework for the future.
There are 4 categories of rare taxa and communities in CT: 1) globally rare, 2) rare within the state, 3) edge of range, 4) not currently rare, but could easily become so. Where are we with our knowledge? What do we know about globally significant species, state significant species, species at the edge of their range, species that are potentially rare? At different points with different taxa. Birds are better known, Odonates being worked on, CT only state with flies on state list, no hymenoptera. Do we know where our information needs are and where we have enough information to act?
Inventory is the data for much of these decisions. Need to know where important ecosystems are. Plants -- sessile organisms, may give us an ecosystem idea of where we are. We don't need to inventory everything. Atlas for a benchmark taxon can do more than inventory -- for birds/butterflies/aquatic plants as examples. Atlas would ID important community types.
Inventory concerns -- to what extent does inventory reflect the health of a community? Inventory may not give what's needed. A statewide approach is necessary; need something more than just listing. Need multi-layer approach to identify where species is/ where are habitats/ how viable?
Limited resources, particularly a lack of qualified people who can do this work -- a real gap. Need to encourage taxon-wide atlas's. If we couple it with how database/Heritage does it (rank A-D), that will give quality to abundance.
Importance of focusing on regionally significant habitats. Reference made to publication by Reed Noss on Endangered Ecosystems; there are more endangered ecosystems (36?) in the east than anywhere else in the country.
Public perception important when protecting species that are common elsewhere; can really hurt efforts.
General agreement that inventory and atlas work important. But, time is short and the rate of development is so fast in CT. We know what's important -- don't we? There is need for action. Conservation groups have failed miserably at protecting sand plains in Ct (although regionally OK). There is enough expertise around. There are management issues that need to be dealt with, and a need for further land protection
Inventory and atlas work can go on; where there is an opportunity to manage and/or protect, we need to act. The opportunity is now to protect; many habitats are known. Shift in focus of resources in state over last six months. Criticism of TNC B-rank system can be worked around. TNC has resources, needs more direction from Heritage. Need to work together.
Environment in state (DEP) is changing; should capitalize on this. Decisions should be generated from this focus group; not from the state; the state is not going to seize the state here. What the state can do is protect and better manage state lands/biodiversity. Must act now while we can. Natural Areas money is still dedicated, and management plans for state lands do exist.
Management may be the way CT can go; be front runners in GIS planning or management -- can set the pace in a small state like CT. The fact that Tabanid flies are on the state list demonstrates forward thinking. Management planning is very important; product important to keep in mind.
Fire and alien species are huge problems. Cited Phragmites and pines in certain areas as examples. A tremendous amount of money is needed for management in perpetuity. TNC has a well established burn program that represents a potential resource to the state. State's pine barrens, Hopeville Pond may be candidates for a burn program.
What are we managing for? What's realistic? Should we conserve all habitats and communities currently represented? Should we try to re-establish those known historically? Yes, but no sense of how important those objectives are relative to others. What should we aim for? Should we manage? Human manipulation is a form of management; suppressing fire, building jettys, etc. is management.
Importance of education; publication in science journals and providing the opportunity for public to understand importance of biodiversity. Public access to natural areas and for uses such as hunting important. Public outreach also important; TNC focus group on public understanding of biodiversity concludes that term not well understood and needs to be related to human needs and well being. Public perception that protection of communities more important than individual species. Reference to Man in Biosphere project/ Int'l Lifeboat program with focus on capturing regional biodiversity as future lifeboats. Should we be looking at areas representative of regional biodiversity? Bob Askins work cited. What is meant by "intact" areas? Agricultural field v. unfragmented forest -- intact must include anthropogenic landscapes.
Is acreage important? Are deciduous woods protected in CT? Cockaponset cited as example of potentially important to neotropical migrants and yet has low rare species count. In big picture, need to factor in importance of state forests. Cannot assume that because state owns it, it's protected. We're back to where we started -- Large tracts of common habitat should be identified as important because they are large. The future threat of development to unfragmented landscape is very real. Burnham Brook is example. Agreement that public should be able to enjoy natural areas, but cited Devil's Hopyard as over-used.
Many issues. Need one entity to step back to determine what is done, what needs to be done. Do we know enough to manage? Can we manage sites for species/communities simultaneously? That's implementation; must focus now on conceptual needs.
We glossed over education. The academic community represents small voting block. How can we educate the lay person? Importance of hiring consultants or folks who understand how to market our message. That's not the focus of this meeting. Another meeting, yes; this shouldn't be glossed over. Can deal with education in successive meetings.
Large tracts of "common" land, that may not have large numbers of rare species, need to be a priority. Not just large parcels, but disturbed habitats also important (early successional/powerlines cited). [No consensus reached on priority relative to other habitat conservation objectives]. Importance/value of management of powerlines noted for invertebrate species (disturbance of tire tracks, use of herbicides to maintain); important corridors (Karner Blue cited). What's good for one species is bad for another (citing powerlines as vector for invasives).
Importance of financing efforts; crux of issue. Should not be drain on state, TNC resources. Importance of partnerships, esp. those that are mutually beneficial. Example: public utilities response to conservation biology needs for spot v broadcast herbicide use. What happens down road when powerlines put underground? [Clearly important to manage for early successional species].
Need full sessions on management and education at some other time. For invertebrate specialist, large ecosystems not priority (although endorse idea of large areas protection). Imperilment factor should be considered; vernal pools, coastal strands, river edges examples areas under development pressure.
Endangered species will still serve to drive conservation goals. Need to get away from state/ toward regional emphasis. Ecosystem approach is so important. Greater southern New England coastal watershed; Coastal beach strands (important regional endemics). Is that what we're looking for -- list of endangered communities/habitats? Good goal; need mechanism to make information available. May not have clear mechanism to transfer info/data into decision-making hands. Need mechanism for clear from of information. Disagree: the details are ok; the focus should be on the big picture -- let public community establish priorities. This forum should establish the big picture. Perhaps look at watersheds in consideration of establishing priorities; importance of small water bodies.
NEPCoP; focus on species current in CT that are rare. Gives important regional perspective (Cite work of Bob Pyle). Rare species occur in rare habitats; bioregional focus gives credibility to state efforts. Importance of Long Island to New England focus. Ultimate focus needs to be on critical habitats; focus on G ranks. Problem: Heritage not interactive database (cite CT River watershed work).
Importance of community classification work; use of classification as basis of decision making. Needs to be published in interim form and made available. With limited resources, community (v species) needs to be focus. Need to combine species info with community work; find endangered species in endangered communities (cite traprock, tidal, calcareous communities).
Need for product No.1 priority. Natural communities atlas first that needs to be completed, incl. waterbodies. Need GIS mapping for state. Mapping communities not easy; need ground truthing. What's happy medium? Criteria: habitats that harbor most rare species and large tracts -- what are they and where?
Need focus. Without a lot more data, we could move to protect a lot of land through management right now. Do we need to protect what we have now and go back for other sites? Looking for guidance for maximum biodiversity conservation. GIS covertype map for CT exists -- Dan Sivco/UCONN. Based on dominance of forest layer; data to prioritize info missing. Ex. atlantic white cedar swamp (good example, esp for inverts; largest population of Williamsonia may be in CT.).
State needs info now. We can provide that. First cut: what's there, second cut: who owns it, third cut: what action needed, other: more information needed. Elevate sites into priorities for action. Much information already exists. This group could identify 15 major habitat types; where they are, which occur on state lands, what land (and land use) is adjacent. A list of state natural areas to this group from David Leff; group could focus state efforts. It would be more helpful to look at state owned lands. State has GIS maps with state properties already on; could use Dan Sivco's map and overlay state owned lands. Focus should not be just state land -- let's do ownership details later. Consensus: info exists to create map for state. In the process, this information will identify priorities for TNC. (Work of Terry Webster cited). Action: Identify communities/critical habitats for entire state (not just state lands). Acquisition less likely. Educational applications will be offshoot of this. Map will direct both state and TNC efforts. The knowledge exists in Database/DEP to make this happen. Birders are not represented today -- they need to be. The role of this group -- to allocate jobs to various groups (state/TNC).
Where do we go from here? Need formalization of group, so David Leff can have access to group as science advisory. Given enough notice, he will commit to participation. Group to meet as needed (not formalized meetings). Next meeting: creation of base map; broad brush identification of hot spots. Community/habitat as one layer. Taxons will give systems (communities); rare species will identify rare habitats. What protect -- diversity or vulnerable species? Let's bring information to the table and see how issues arise. Will be based on community types. Noted: difficulty of overlaying all plant species info -- how prioritize? Use 1:25,000 scale map -- need to look at broad stroke. Use GIS map with Database overlay. We already know occurrences of species and communities of importance. Need to identify 25 top communities in the state.
To this end, the group produced a list of the following 30 Critical Natural Communities, which will be cross referenced with the state community classification. (Sample site in parenthesis).
These communities need to be ranked and prioritized; need criteria for establishing priorities based on rare species/threat/etc. What GIS data are available? Need group of in-state GIS managers (Stacey Kingsbury/DEP). Laurie Giannotti is on contract with EPA to DEP to accomplish what we've talked about. Need Maps/GIS meeting in Hartford.
Action: between now and next meeting 1) Prioritize community list 2) Missing habitats? Special areas missing? List to be sent to group participants, needs to go to bird people.
About the Biodiversity Group: would like to see it formalized. Needs to be dynamic, with different people to tackle different topics (education/management). Need to weigh number of people from any one organization.
NEXT MEETING: to be set in mid-January, same time.
This site is maintained by courtesy of the Center for
Conservation and Biodiversity at the University of Connecticut. If you
have comments or suggestions, please feel free to contact us at CBF@Darwin.EEB.UConn.Edu
.
