Design of US Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix HAppendix HBibliography of Published Banking InformationCompensatory Mitigation and Habitat BankingStudies and ReviewsBarnett, Harold C. 2000. Mitigation Banking ina Habitat Conservation Plan. (An unpublishedpaper prepared for the Sonoran DesertConservation Plan’s Implementation TechnicalAdvisory Team.)Bauer, Marybeth, Jessica Fox, and Michael Bean.2004. “Landowners Bank on Conservation:The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Guidanceon Conservation Banking.” EnvironmentalLaw Reporter. 34 ELR 10717. Washington, DC:Environmental Law Institute.Bean, Michael and Lynn Dwyer. 2000. “MitigationBanking as an Endangered Species ConservationTool.” Environmental Law Reporter. 30 ELR10537. Washington, DC. Environmental LawInstitute.Carroll, Nathaniel, Ricardo Bayon, and Jessica Fox.“Conservation and Biodiversity Banking: A Guideto Setting Up and Running Biodiversity CreditTrading Systems.” In press.Colburn, James E. 2005. “Trading Spaces: Habitat‘Banking’ Under Fish & Wildlife Service Policy.”20 SUM Nat. Resources & Environment 33.Environmental Law Institute. 1993. WetlandMitigation Banking. Washington, DC.Environmental Law Institute.Fox, Jessica and Anamaria Nino-Murcia. 2005. “Statusof Species Conservation Banking in the UnitedStates.” Conservation Biology. Vol. 19, No. 4.Gripne, Stephanie. 2005. “Grassbanks: An Evaluationof a Conservation Tool. An unpublished PhD dissertation.Hay, Derald. 2006. “When Sealing the Leaks ofHabitat Conservation Banking, MultipleGaskets Are Needed: The Case for Bog Turtle inPennsylvania.” 14 Penn. St. Envtl. L. Rev. 299.Hearings on Wetlands Mitigation Banking in theSenate Committee on Environment and PublicWorks (1996) and the House Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure (1997).Kieser & Associates. 2004. “Ecosystem MultipleMarkets: A White Paper.” An unpublished draftdated April 2004.McCollum, Michael. 1997. “Conservation Banks:Regional Planning’s Newest Tool.” Linkages.Institute for Ecological Health. Available athttp://www.fscr.org/html/1998-02.html.Mills, Christopher S. 2004. “Incentives and the ESA:Can Conservation Banking Live Up to Potential?”14 Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 523.National Research Council. 2001. Compensatingfor Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Nevel, Bonnie, Joan Milam, Gwen Arnold, and RachelHarris. April 2004. “Measuring Mitigation:A Review of the Science for CompensatoryMitigation Performance Standards.” Washington,DC: Environmental Law Institute. See: http://www.mitigationactionplan.gov/PerformanceStandardsReview.htm.Rolband, Michael S., Ann Redmond, and Tom Kelsch.2001. “Wetland Mitigation Banking.” AppliedWetlands Science and Technology. (2d ed., DonaldM. Kent, ed.). Boca Raton, FL. Lewis Publishers.Ruhl, J.B. and Salzman, James E. January 2006. “TheEffects of Wetland Mitigation Banking on People.”FSU College of Law, Public Law Research PaperNo. 179.Ruhl,J.B., Alan Glen, and David Hartman. 2005.“A Practical Guide to Habitat ConservationBanking Law and Policy.” Natural Resources &Environment 26-32. Available at: www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/profiles/ruhl/2005-HabitatBanking20NRESummer.pdf.Salzman, James. 2005. “Creating Markets forEcosystem Services: Notes from the Field.” 80(3)NYU Law Review 870-961.Stratus Consulting Inc. 2003. “A Nationwide Survey ofConservation Banks.” Prepared for the NorthwestFisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries,Seattle, WA. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st5/abstracts/A_Nationwide_Survey_of_Conservation_Banks.htm.116 Environmental Law Institute
APPENDIX Hten Kate, Kerry, Josh Bishop, and Ricardo Bayon,Biodiversity Offsets: Views, Experience, and theBusiness Case, IUCN 2004.Thomas, Roxanne, Austin Kane, Sandra Nichols,Rebecca Gruby, Allison Watkins, RebeccaKihslinger, and Jason DeRosa. 2008. State WetlandProgram Evaluation: Phase IV. Washington, DC:Environmental Law Institute.Thomas, Roxanne, Rebecca Gruby, Rebecca Kihslinger,Allison Watkins, and Austin Kane. 2007. StateWetland Program Evaluation: Phase III.Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.Thomas, Roxanne. 2006. State Wetland ProgramEvaluation: Phase II. Washington, DC:Environmental Law Institute.Thomas, Roxanne. 2005. State Wetland ProgramEvaluation: Phase I. Washington, DC:Environmental Law Institute.Toyon Consulting. “Conservation Banking: A TechnicalReport.” Prepared for the California Departmentof Fish and Game. Available at: www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/conplan/mitbank/CB%20Tech%20Rept.pdf.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacrament Fishand Wildlife Office. September 2006. ValleyElderberry Longhorn Beetle – 5-Year Review:Summary and Evaluation. Available at:http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/documents/VELB%205-year%20review.FINAL.pdf.U.S. Government Accountability Office. September 6,2006. Endangered Species: Many Factors Affectthe Length of Time to Recover Select Species.Washington, DC: GAO. GAO-06-730.U.S. Government Accountability Office. September2005. Wetlands Protection: Corps of EngineersDoes Not Have an Effective Oversight Approachto Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation IsOccurring. Washington, DC: GAO. GAO-05-898.U.S. Government Accountability Office. May 15, 2002.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Scientific Panel’sAssessment of Fish and Wildlife MitigationGuidance. Washington, DC: GAO. GAO-02-574.U.S. Government Accountability Office. February15, 2001. Endangered Species Act: Fee-BasedMitigation Arrangements. Washington, DC: GAO.GAO-01-287R.Wilcove, David S. and Joon Lee. 2004. “Using Economicand Regulatory Incentives to Restore EndangeredSpecies: Lessons Learned from Three NewPrograms.” Conservation Biology. Vol. 18, No. 3.Wilkinson, Jessica and Jared Thompson. April2006. “2005 Status Report on CompensatoryMitigation in the United States.” Washington, DC:Environmental Law Institute.Wilkinson, Jessica, Roxanne Thomas, and JaredThompson. June 2006. “The Status and Characterof In-Lieu Fee Mitigation in the United States.”Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.Wilkinson, Jessica, Christina Kennedy, Kelly Mott,Margaret Filbey, Sarah King, and Jim McElfish.2002. “Banks and Fees: The Status of Off-SiteWetland Mitigation in the United States.”Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.Additional and Noteworthy Habitat BankingResourcesCalifornia Department of Fish & Game. Various wetlandand habitat banking reports at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/cmb_pubs.html; http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/catalogue/catalogue.html.• “California Wetlands Mitigation Banking - 2005Report to the Legislature.”• “California Wetlands Mitigation Banking - 2003Report to the Legislature.”• “California Wetlands Mitigation Banking - 2001Report to the Legislature.”• “Brief Report on Conservation Banking.” 1998.• “Bucks in the bank .... land bank that is.” 1997.• “Conservation Banks: Regional Planning’sNewest Tool.” 1997.• “Conservation Banking - A Technical Report.”1995.Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species 117
Page 3:
Design of U.S. HabitatBanking Syste
Page 7 and 8:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYExecutive SummaryA
Page 9 and 10:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYbanks or habitat b
Page 11 and 12:
IntroductionIntroductionAvariety of
Page 13 and 14:
WETLAND AND CONSERVATION BANKING IN
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
State Wildlife Action Plans3. State
Page 29 and 30:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSshed). C
Page 31 and 32:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSPlans th
Page 33 and 34:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSFuture i
Page 35 and 36:
A DETAILED LOOK AT WETLAND AND CONS
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
ConclusionsConclusionsThis report c
Page 67 and 68:
CONCLUSIONSsuch as habitat conserva
Page 69 and 70:
CONCLUSIONSthe state Attorney Gener
Page 71 and 72: CONCLUSIONSGeneral RecommendationsF
Page 73: AppendicesA. Federal Wetland Compen
Page 76 and 77: APPENDIX AProjects for Aquatic Reso
Page 78 and 79: APPENDIX Aland mitigation banks, um
Page 80 and 81: APPENDIX BMemphis District, U.S. Ar
Page 82 and 83: APPENDIX BJacksonville District, U.
Page 84 and 85: Appendix CAppendix CState Wetland M
Page 86 and 87: APPENDIX CState Statute(s) Regulati
Page 88 and 89: Appendix DAppendix DState Conservat
Page 90 and 91: APPENDIX Emitigation banking and ha
Page 92 and 93: APPENDIX EDelaware (Phase IV)Delawa
Page 94 and 95: APPENDIX Estaff intend to make the
Page 96 and 97: APPENDIX EMitigation banking regula
Page 98 and 99: APPENDIX EMississippi (Phase IV)The
Page 100 and 101: APPENDIX ENew Mexico (Phase III)The
Page 102 and 103: APPENDIX Eand mitigation banking. 1
Page 104 and 105: APPENDIX EVirginia (Phase III)Virgi
Page 106 and 107: APPENDIX Egation bank may be used t
Page 108 and 109: APPENDIX FGeorgiaGeorgia Department
Page 110 and 111: Appendix GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 112 and 113: APPENDIX GWETLAND MITIGATION BANKIN
Page 118 and 119: APPENDIX GErwin, K.L. 1991. An Eval
Page 120 and 121: APPENDIX GPorej, D. 2004. Faunal As
Page 124 and 125: APPENDIX HEcosystem Marketplace, Sp
Page 126: APPENDIX ILegal and Financial Mecha
show all

Design of US Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?