On March 21, the Council on Environmental Quality provided “Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Ecological Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors” to federal agencies. The Forest Service was a member of the working group that developed this guidance.
“Connectivity is the degree to which landscapes, waterscapes, and seascapes allow species to move freely and ecological processes to function unimpeded. Corridors are distinct components of a landscape, waterscape, or seascape that provide connectivity. Corridors have policy relevance because they facilitate movement of species between blocks of intact habitat, notably during seasonal migrations or in response to changing conditions… Increasing connectivity is one of the most frequently recommended climate adaptation strategies for biodiversity management.”
“To the maximum extent practicable, Federal agencies are expected to advance the objectives of this guidance by developing policies, through regulations, guidance, or other means, to consider how to conserve, enhance, protect, and restore corridors and connectivity during planning and decision-making, and to encourage collaborative processes across management and ownership boundaries. Any existing corridor and connectivity policies or related policies should be updated as needed to align with the objectives in this guidance. Federal agencies should have new or updated policies ready to implement by the first quarter of 2024 and make their policies publicly available. Federal agencies should also actively identify and prioritize actions that advance the objectives set forth in this guidance.”
“Federal agencies should not limit engagement in restoration activities only to circumstances when restoration serves as a mitigation strategy to compensate for adverse impacts from projects or actions. Instead, Federal agencies should consider where there are opportunities in their programs and policies to carry out restoration with the objective of promoting greater connectivity.”
One of the specific “focal areas” listed in the memo is “forest and rangeland planning and management.” “Connectivity and corridors should factor into high-level planning and decision-making at Federal agencies as well as into individual decisions that lead to well-sited and planned projects.” “In carrying out large-scale planning required by statutory mandates (citing NFMA and FLPMA) Federal agencies should consider updating inventories of Federal resources under their associated management plans to assess connectivity and corridors.”
The Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule already includes language requiring that forest plans address connectivity as part of its wildlife viability considerations. I had something to do with that, but I was regularly disappointed in the agency’s unwillingness to “think outside the green lines” about how species occurring on a national forest depend on connectivity across other land ownerships, so I’m always happy to see someone try to make them do that:
“Ecological processes and wildlife movement are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, Federal agencies should seek active collaboration and coordination with other Federal agencies, Tribes, States, territorial, and local governments, as well as stakeholders to facilitate landscape, waterscape, and seascape-scale connectivity planning and management, and consider appropriate collaboration with other nations. Prioritization and strategic alignment of connectivity efforts across partners improves the effectiveness of each entity’s activities and enables larger-scale conservation, enhancement, protection, or restoration to occur.”
“Federal agencies with investments on Federal lands or in Federal waters adjacent to designated areas that may have conservation outcomes (e.g., National Park System units, national monuments, national forests and grasslands, national marine sanctuaries, national estuarine research reserves, wilderness areas, national wildlife refuges, etc.) should explore collaborative opportunities to enhance connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries.”
These kinds of initiatives seem to come and go, but we should at least expect to see the land management agencies tell us what they think under this administration by next year. If anyone happens to notice, let us know!