Volume No. 11, 2002
Applications
The Maine Gap Analysis Project (ME-GAP) was completed in 1998 (Krohn et al. 1998), with a major conclusion being that more emphasis should be given to conserving lands in southern Maine. This finding was contrary to the focus of most conservationists at the time―Maine’s North Woods. However, with data showing that southern Maine was the region of the state with the highest concentration of endangered and threatened terrestrial vertebrates, highest richness of terrestrial vertebrates and woody plants, fewest conservation lands, and a human population that was moving out of the cities and towns into the countryside (i.e., sprawl), focus on only northern Maine was unreasonable. When the Maine State Planning Office expressed its concerns for the social, economic, as well as the environmental effects of sprawl (O’Hara 1997), and when estimates were published that by the year 2050 southern Maine would gain urban land while losing 569 mi2 of agricultural and forestlands (Mauldin et al. 1999), southern Maine became a high conservation priority.
Approximately 55% of Maine is owned by 15 forest management companies. These forestlands, located in the eastern, northern, and western portions of the state, are inhabited by few people, and generally do not have town governments. Land use, including forestry practices, in these so-called “unorganized” townships is managed by a state agency, the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission. In contrast, southern Maine supports a much higher human population, with densities generally increasing to the south. In this region of the state, town governments play the critical role in land conservation. Specifically, organized towns in Maine implement shoreland zoning ordinances, develop growth management plans, and enforce various land development laws (for details, see Appendix A of Venno [1991]).
Towns receive financial support from the state for their growth management planning if their plans are consistent with 10 goals. These goals include a wide range of economic and environmental concerns, including considerations for maintaining open space and “wildlife and fisheries habitat.” In addition, Maine’s Endangered Species Act (MESA) requires the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to identify and conserve essential habitats for endangered species. Similarly, the state’s Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) gives the MDIFW authority to identify and protect specific types of wildlife habitats, including deer wintering areas and waterfowl and wading birds habitats. Thus, specific wildlife habitats identified in law and mapped by the MDIFW, combined with a town planning process that specifies inclusion of wildlife habitats, potentially provide a meaningful mechanism to improve wildlife habitat conservation at the local level.
To realize the potential of improved habitat conservation in southern Maine, a method was needed to provide habitat data to towns in a form that was consistent with their needs, based on readily available information, and easy to apply and understand. In 1991, the University of Maine, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (MCFWRU), MDIFW, Maine Audubon Society, and Maine Natural Areas Program developed a booklet, entitled “Integrating Wildlife Habitat into Local Planning: A Handbook for Maine Communities” (Venno 1991). The methodology in this booklet was consistent with town needs and conceptually easy to understand, and hence was an excellent first step. However, it did not include town-specific data. Furthermore, to implement the habitat assessment method presented in the handbook, towns were not only required to assemble their own data, but also to make numerous Mylar overlays for data presentation and analysis. With the increased capabilities of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), we saw the possibility of centralizing data analysis, thus allowing towns to focus on data interpretation and on-the-ground implementation of results. And with digital data on wildlife habitats coming both from ME-GAP (i.e., predicted distributions of vertebrates), and site-specific data for habitats of legal concern from the MDIFW, the issue of accessible town-specific habitat data was solved.
In 1999 the MDIFW, seeing an opportunity to counter sprawl in southern Maine through improved open-space planning by town governments, assembled a Wildlife Habitat Committee. Committee members, consisting of wildlife biologists from MDIFW’s Wildlife Division, were familiar with both the relevant laws and the operations of many individual towns. The Committee contracted with the MCFWRU to advise them on various habitat assessment approaches and to develop a GIS system that would provide wildlife habitat information useful in town planning. This system had to depend on digital habitat data collectively available from ME-GAP and the MDIFW. Once an initial method was developed, the MDIFW assembled an interagency group to review it. Reviewing agencies and organizations included the Maine Audubon Society, Maine Natural Areas Program, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Interagency reviews focused on the soundness of the underlying concept, potential addition of other habitat data in digital form, and the usefulness of the system in the context of town planning.
The goal of the method was to identify habitats that, if conserved in the focus town and adjacent towns, would maintain viable populations of terrestrial vertebrates that regularly breed in southern Maine, based on 1990-2000 data. The methodology was conceptually similar to what Venno (1991) had developed earlier, and thus would be familiar to towns. The first step in the method was to identify and conserve habitats immediately adjacent to all waterways and water bodies. The Committee recognized not only that watersheds are critical as the backbone of ecosystems, but that this initial step was also consistent with the emphasis of many of Maine’s conservation laws (e.g., shoreland zoning). Added to this backbone were the habitats that the Maine Legislature, by passing the MESA and NRPA, considered worth conserving. According to predicted vertebrate occurrences from ME-GAP, these first categories of habitat supported 80-90% of the wildlife species inhabiting southern Maine. However, these habitats did not capture upland areas needed by some larger birds and mammals with extensive spatial requirements. To identify potential habitats for these species, blocks of agricultural and forestlands not intersected by roads, railroads, pipelines, or other features were identified. General guidelines were developed on how to identify and integrate these upland blocks into an open space plan. For additional details on the methodology, see Krohn and Hepinstall (2000).
Before working with individual towns, MDIFW went back to the agencies and organizations mentioned above to modify the method as needed and, most critically, develop documents and procedures for working with towns. At this point, plant communities and wildlife habitats of interest to the Maine Natural Areas Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were added to the above method. The technical information was simplified to be more user-friendly (e.g., the project was named “Beginning With Habitat”), and MDIFW hired a biologist to work with towns as they did their comprehensive and open-space planning. A supporting document describing and justifying methodology was developed (Anonymous, In Press) for distribution to project participants. The interagency group provides on-the-ground support to users, as needed, and makes presentations to towns and local land trusts.
Beginning in early December 2002, project staff provided maps and follow-up presentation to many towns in southern Maine and made maps for a number of organized towns (and watersheds in a few cases) in central and eastern Maine (Figure 1). Available staff and funds to support the effort limit the progress of the project. Towns have been prioritized based on data needs for ongoing planning efforts. However, the adage that “the squeaking wheel gets attention” applies here. So those towns showing immediate interest in using the data and maps received follow-up presentations.
Figure 1. Organized towns (gray) in Maine included in the Beginning With Habitat Project. Towns that have received maps and presentations by project staff (cross-hatch), towns with presentations done (right-hatch), maps done (left-hatch) and watersheds mapped (horizontal-hatch) by the project are indicated. (Map created by Amy L. Meehan, MDIFW, Bangor).
While it is too early to measure the on-the-ground success of the project, the interest in the project from town planners up to the governor’s office indicates an information need is being met by the project. Only time will tell how much land is conserved as a result of this effort, but accomplishments to date are encouraging. Example uses of these wildlife data are as follows:
The town of York has displayed Beginning With Habitat maps in the town planner’s office for public inspection at a predevelopment screening.
North Berwick has used these data to bolster a planning-board decision not to reduce 250-foot stream buffers in shoreland zoning.
Land trusts in southern and mid-coast Maine are using these data to prioritize and direct their land conservation efforts.
Scarborough’s land acquisition committee is using data from Beginning With Habitat to help prioritize lands targeted for purchase or easements using $1.5 million in local tax appropriations.
It's highly unlikely that the goals and objectives of a state GAP project and a local planning effort will be identical. Thus, the final results of a Gap Analysis Project will be rarely, if ever, directly usable for conservation planning at the local level. Implementation of GAP results for wildlife habitat conservation at this, or any, level must involve careful analysis of numerous legal, institutional, technical, and social constraints. As we learned from the Maine experience, GAP data are useful in local land use planning, but only after being fitted to the needs of actual users, especially as related to specific laws pertaining to wildlife habitats and other environmental features. We were fortunate in that Maine has specific laws and regulations that, when considered as a whole, provided a logical framework amenable to wildlife habitat conservation at the local level. Nevertheless, we did not attempt to implement ME-GAP results directly but instead gave serious thought to how best to mold and present available data so that they were relevant and useful to existing institutions with stakes in wildlife habitat conservation. It's critical to have long-term institutional arrangements so that through time the application, refinement, and reapplication of the habitat data is ensured. Because land-use changes occur over years and even decades, it's unrealistic to think that meaningful habitat conservation efforts of any shorter duration will be effective.
We anticipate that as Maine towns become more familiar with GIS and wildlife habitat planning, the need for more detailed and up-to-date habitat information will increase. At a time of exceptionally limited federal, state, and local government budgets, GAP increasingly needs to be aware of state and local needs for wildlife habitat data, so that various levels of government can utilize the information coming from GAP. Not only will this maximize the efficient use of limited funds, but it will increase the effectiveness of habitat conservation efforts at multiple scales.
Anonymous. 2003. Beginning with habitat - an approach to conserving Maine's natural landscape for plants, animals and people. Maine Audubon Society, Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and Maine Natural Areas Program, Augusta, Maine. 52 pp.
Hobbs, N.T. 1999. Seven habits for successful collaboration with local governments. Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter 6(4):1-2.
Krohn, W.B., R.B. Boone, S.A. Sader, J.A. Hepinstall, S.M. Schaefer, and S.L. Painton. 1998. Maine Gap Analysis―a geographic analysis of biodiversity. Final contract report to the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, Idaho. 12 pp. + appendices.
Krohn, W.B., and J.A. Hepinstall. 2000. A habitat-based approach for identifying open-space conservation needs in southern Maine towns. Final contract report to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, Maine. 36 pp. + appendices.
Mauldin, T.E., A.J. Plantinga, and R.J. Alig. 1999. Determinants of land use in Maine with projections to 2050. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 16:82-88.
O’Hara, F. 1997. The cost of sprawl. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, Maine. 20 pp.
Venno, S.A. 1991. Integrating wildlife habitat into local town planning: A handbook for Maine communities. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 712, University of Maine, Orono. 54 pp.
1. In September 2002, the nine organizations involved in this effort, termed “Beginning With Habitat–An Approach to Conserving Open Space,” were awarded a Teamwork Award by Maine’s Governor, Angus King. Such awards are normally only given to State of Maine employees, but in this case employees of private organizations as well as federal agencies were recognized.
2. A limited supply of this report is available, and interested readers should contact the senior author for a copy.