Attendance: Juliana Barrett, Joe Dowhan, Les Mehrhoff, Charlotte Pyle, Kent Holsinger, Jim Murphy, Nancy Murray, David Leff, Steve Broderick, David Sutherland, Judy Preston
Introduction by Kent: the purpose of this meeting is not to discuss the specific issues identified in former meetings, but to talk about the goals of this group. Recognition that issues such as species reintroductions, peripheral populations and exotic species will be taken on.
Nancy Murray distributed a summary of CT Atlases and related Taxonomic Studies, and suggested that the definition of atlas needs to be clarified. Possibly publications can come through the Survey.
Les Mehrhoff suggested that this group (or some subset) go through the biota of CT and for each put together comprehensive information on literature that exists, where collections are, suggested research and leads, and participants. Also talk about imperilment of species and identify consultants. Include date. This is an example of what UConn could/would be interested in doing.
David Leff reiterated the need for a sounding board for the Natural Areas Program. Pointed out needs at end of handout for more atlas work. Would like input from this group into this process -- that's how this is going to be helpful, as a resource for information.
Does this group need a regular meeting schedule? Regular contact is a good idea. Don't need to meet real often; we will vote with our feet (attendance will indicate interest). Perhaps quarterly meetings to talk about what we're doing and have others bring needs to quarterly meetings.
Should this information be made available on a website? Must be prepared to provide paper information and internet access.
Cited Nat'l Estuary Program (formed under the clean water act); providing technical advisory committees. This is what we're being asked to do for the state here.
A discussion ensued centered around naming and designing the mission. "CT BioDiversity Advisory Cmte or Workgroup." Trouble with "advisory" because we're self sanctioning. Need mission statement. Exclusionary issues will be addressed by smaller workgroups; a wise way to use our resources (not everyone wants to be at core meetings). Thoughts for a broader theme; "BioDiversity Forum?" Perhaps we do want to be advisory? What about public education -- what if we want to put out a brochure about biodiversity in CT?
What does the state think about getting advice from this group? Will this group give leverage to the Director and the constituency? Very useful.
Many needs pointed out, including: need to influence education to produce students to do field work. There is a paucity of recent atlas information (much of the information is from earlier).
Group agreed to quarterly meetings. Suggested "Forum for CT BioDiversity" as possible name, with attributes listed on flip chart (long term planning, clearinghouse of information, etc.) Some single organization can lend name to specific fundraising efforts. Possible meeting dates: T/TH afternoon, 9-12 or 2-5 (3 hours needed). "Biological Diversity" vs "Biodiversity" in name.
Discussion switched to explanation of state natural areas program. Regulations were looked at and determined to be too inflexible (builds resistance). Decision to change regs and leave more to individual site plans. An internal work group (biosurvey cmte) is to define filed data collection efforts. Thoughts of designating Canaan Mtn as "forever wild" area. Going through files, goals and objective setting. Created list of habitat types to focus protection efforts [handout]. Interested in getting from this group: networking tools, ie, a directory of expertise (whom to call upon), a directory of experts in management techniques. Four important state sites receiving focus: Hammonassett, Wharton Brook, Hopeville Pond and Canaan Mountain. Working with Wildlands project and internal staff from DEP. Fieldwork needed for baseline data. Looking for input on management techniques such as fire. Camp Johnson, VT site plan and Albany pine bush project recommended. State looking at vegetation mapping, collecting info on birds, inverts, etc, and establishing permanent plots (Hopeville - some plots exist). Stressed the time sensitivity of getting information, citing current administration/new administration issues. May only have two years. Needs to be successful.
Switched gears to exotics and deer overbrowse issues. Cited importance of beaver meadow area (example of where animals are controlling factors to landscapes). Temporal implications of beaver meadows. Protection implications of fact that every bog in CT is floristically different. Interesting public education possibilities.
Early successional community is habitat at risk; a number of bird species were cited as having minimum area requirements. Management of powerlines for this plant community discussed. This group's value to address broadscale evaluation of issue such as powerline management. Underscores the need for inventory work.
Bob Askins cited new publication by Ken Rosenberg, based on bird atlas information: 10% of the blue-winged warblers in the world are in CT. This group to tackle issues such as grassland birds and early successional habitat.
Partners in Flight has developed a proposal dealing with migratory songbird preserves. Reason: in eastern North America many birds need a minimum 1000 acres to successfully reproduce. Smaller areas need constant immigration from other areas. Other populations aren't replacing themselves. This project identified existing areas in the state, spread out to provide source areas across the state. Nehantic state forest proposed as first area. Devil's Den and Canaan Mtn other identified areas. Results of this project found that limited forestry is OK, and some clearcutting is also OK. Role of professional foresters -- clearcutting and creation of early successional habitats.
Stewardship Incentive Program (Forest Stewardship Program); 75% of the cost of doing a stewardship plan by a forester is paid for. 20-25,000 acres a year in CT being protected through this program. Would like to see link between this group and BioDiversity group. Education can play an important role here. Perhaps work through NDDB to further recommendations about how to manage species once we know they're there, and also provide adjacent landowner information. 6-8,000 landowners reached a year through the cooperative extension system.
Another workgroup idea: Northeast Utilities at Millstone looking for guidance on how to manage that site (and get good PR). JB to coordinate.
Other issues: public support considerations. Emphasis should not be just on species. Ex: buck moth vs sandplain community -- the community will have more appeal.
Clarification of atlas definition needed --
Back to BioDiversity Group functions: conceptual roundtables. Need list of ideas. Group also needs to approve minutes before they are made available on the internet. Discussion possibilities include the practical aspects of protecting large tracts of land. Also need for applied information - management. Need for good mix of practitioners and academics. Will need small ad hoc groups to deal with more specific questions about species.
Les Mehrhoff would like to form BioDiversity Assessment subgroup. Possible focus groups include atlases (dealing with taxonomic groups), and habitats (dealing with communities).
Smaller groups will give 10 minute update to larger group at quarterly meeting.
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
.
