I like your thoughts. I agree with your questions.
If this question was posed to a lead regulatory agent the response may be that wetlands are regulated/protected in addition to endangered species. It would depend on how you define protection. I take it you mean throw your hands up when a wetland or endangered species site is found and say "you can't commence activity here". In my opinion it seems that wetland communities and endangered species are somewhat protected. Wetlands are regulated under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species under the Endangered Species Act. Development activities commence in or around wetlands or endangered species habitat with regulatory approval (USACE USFWS etc.). To my knowledge regulatory approval comes following evidence that the development activities have exhibited avoidance and minimization of the wetland or endangered species habitat and given that these activities are mitigated for based on government standards.
However, there are loop holes or impact thresholds especially with wetlands/streams. These I do not particularly agree with. Another thing that is a mess to me is that mitigation or transplanting endangered species in my opinion does not justify the disturbance of a completely intact wetland or endangered species habitat. Hope I'm not being too opinionated here.
To sum it up, from my observations wetlands are regulated similar to endangered species. Hypothetical Ex. If a survey is done with a group of Biologist/Botanist on ~5000 acres for an Endangered sunflower (
Helianthus schweinitzii). Around 10 stems are found. The people building a road had several corridors proposed. If they care, it would be both environmentally and economically the best choice to build the road that would avoid the 10 sunflowers. However, what if all three proposed corridors had small populations located within them? The plants will be moved to another place.
It also depends on what you consider endangered. I consider carnivorous plants endangered yet the majority are not protected by law.
You know you were saying you had a thought. Well I had a thought the other night and researched the thought. My question was: Why is there not 'critical habitat protection' on bog ecosystem or other nutrient poor habitats? It seems that development any where near bog communities could have a quick detrimental effect from pollution runoff. This could cause the demise of nutrient poor ex. carnivorous plants and these could be quickly outcompeted by plants like cattails/rush (nutrient rich adapted) species.
When it comes to mitigation there are standards. Specific ratios are placed on impacting forested wetlands vs. estuarine vs. bog communities etc. etc.
However, when a new "mitigation site" is put into place do you think Sarracenia are going to automatically pop up? I don't but I do see the important need for organizations like NASC here.
An idea for the future would be to convince government entities that organizations such as NASC are to get involved with transplanting/replanting when any CP habitat is impacted period. This way atleast some effort is being made to preserve that community type.
I believe I read and agreed with something I saw Barry Rice write somewhere else. Something like "you've got to start at the local level and write to those folks". I just asked my wife the same question and that exactly what she said. She's a smart girl. I certainly do'nt believe Bush is going to read a letter from me about CPs but I do have confidence that we who care can make a difference and a way to start would be by writing a letter and educating others.
Again, I would certainly like to do some hiking and discussing topics like this with you Oz.
It got me thinking, if there is only 1/2 to 1% of wetland habitat left, why is it not listed as endangered?
Before a plant or animal becomes extinct, it is listed and protected by the government. Why not do the same for a habitat? Most of the plants and animals that are listed are on the list because of habitat destruction. Without the habitat, those listed plants and animals are doomed anyway. It seems to me that we are treating the symptoms and not the disease.
Instead of protecting the red cockaded woodpecker which depends on the longleaf pine tree for survival, why not protect the longleaf ecosystem.
Protecting single animal and not the habitat is the same as taking morphine to stop the pain of a heatattack.
I have no idea how to go about getting an idea like this passed as law. Does anybody know?