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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSBox 2. State Wildlife Action Plans: Eight Required ElementsCongress identified eight required elements to be addressed in each state’swildlife action plan (technically called a “comprehensive wildlife conservationstrategy”). Congress also directed that the plans must identify and be focusedon the species in greatest need of conservation yet address the full array of wildlifeand wildlife-related issues.1. Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife,including low and declining populations as the state fish and wildlife agencydeems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of thestate’s wildlife – termed “species of greatest conservation need”;2. Descriptions of the extent and condition of habitats and community typesessential to conservation of species of greatest conservation need;3. Descriptions of problems that may adversely affect the species or theirhabitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factorsthat may assist in the restoration and conservation of these species andhabitats;4. Descriptions of the proposed conservation actions for conserving the identifiedspecies and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions;5. Proposed plans for monitoring the species and their habitats, monitoringthe effectiveness of the conservation actions, and adapting these conservationactions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions;6. Descriptions of procedures to review the plan at intervals not to exceedten years;7. Plans for coordinating the development, implementation, review, and revisionof the plan with federal, state, and local agencies and Indian tribesthat manage significant areas of land and water within the state or administerprograms that significantly affect the conservation of identified speciesand habitats; and8. Plans for broad public participation as an essential element of developingand implementing these plans, carrying out conservation projects during thedevelopment of these plans, and conserving the species in greatest need ofconservation.Adapted from: Teaming With Wildlife. “State Wildlife Action Plans: Eight Required Elements.” http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/eight_elements_handout.pdf(among others), all have active banking programs andmany active or pending banks (at least 47 in Virginiaalone), but none of their plans even mention banking.California was another surprising example. Its formalconservation banking policy in 1995 has fostered thedevelopment of a thriving conservation banking industry,including wetland mitigation banks and endangeredspecies conservation banks, among others. Yet,the California plan makes only passing references tobanking in its appendices.The Oregon Plan is alone in providing an extensive discussionof banking. Among other things, the chaptersummarizing the state’s overall strategy recommendsthat the State “[e]xpand conservation banking toa statewide approach.” In explaining this recommendation,the plan states that “Conservation bankscould be expanded for broader uses at larger scales.As an example, the Willamette Partnership is forminga conservation banking system in the WillametteBasin that they hope will serve as a prototype forOregon.” 64 In addition, the chapter concludes with alist of “first steps in achieving the goals” of the plan.Among these is the following: “In coordination withvarious state agencies (i.e., Oregon Department ofTransportation, Oregon Department of State Lands,Oregon Department of Energy), explore options forestablishing regional ‘conservation banks’ that couldbe used to meet mitigation requirements in a mannerthat benefits Strategy Species and Habitats.” 65The state significantly expands upon the above recommendationin the section designated “Stepping Downfrom Statewide to Local.” The drafters of the Oregonplan clearly had a sound grasp of banking, includingboth its potential and its limitations:A statewide system of conservation banks wouldprovide a tool for implementing this ConservationStrategy and for achieving statewide habitat conservationgoals. Working at the state level allows thebanking system to be flexible by receiving mitigationfees and voluntary investments from parts ofthe state where habitat impacts occur and by developingconservation banks in areas with the highestpriority conservation needs. The ConservationStrategy recognizes there are ecologically significantvalues in both rural and urban areas and prioritizationregarding where to invest in conservationbanks should take these values into account. Thestatewide conservation banking system could allowoff-site (away from the impact) banking perhapswith an ecoregion focus while other banks could becloser to the project site (same or nearby water-64 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 2006. “TheOregon Conservation Strategy.” p. 25.65 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 2006. “TheOregon Conservation Strategy.” p. 31.22 Environmental Law Institute
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSshed). Currently, state and federal requirements formitigation banks do not always provide flexibility.Conservation banks can be in-kind (same or similarhabitat type) in order to replace lost ecosystemservices. In many cases it may be desirable to makeout-of-kind (different habitat type) investmentswhen there is opportunity to trade a more commonhabitat type for an extremely rare one such asWillamette Valley prairie. The statewide conservationbanking system would need to balance thebenefits of conserving the highest priority habitats(regardless of location and type of impact) withthe benefits of replacing impacted habitat with thesame habitat and in close proximity.Careful planning, coordination and managementwill be needed to create an effective, flexiblestatewide conservation banking system. Significantcoordination will be needed between agencies thatset conservation goals, potential and actual conservationbank owners and managers, and agencies ororganizations that contribute mitigation fees or voluntaryfunds toward credits. One or more agenciesor organizations would need to take responsibilityfor coordination, program management, habitatmanagement, measuring performance, monitoring,reporting, and fiscal management. 66The discussion in the Oregon Plan references a numberof the most important and challenging issues relatedto banking, most of which are explored in greaterdetail later in this report. These include issues relatedto: using banks in one area to offset impacts that occurin more distant areas, offsetting impacts to a particulartype of resource by conserving a different type ofresource, and dealing with challenges related to themanagement of bank sites, the monitoring of bank performance,and the coordination of disparate parties.Only two plans, New Mexico and Colorado, specificallymention a type of banking known as “grass banking.”The New Mexico Plan includes the followingconservation action for four of its several priorityecoregions: “work with land management agencies,private land managers, and the agriculture industry toidentify and promote grazing systems on rangelandsthat ensure long-term ecological sustainability andintegrity and are cost effective for livestock interests.Such practices may include … promoting ‘grass banking’opportunities that allow degraded rangelands torecover.” Whereas grass banking is listed as twelfthamong twelve for the Arizona-New Mexico MountainsEcoregion, it is the top action for the ChihuahuanDesert Region, and the third highest (among eighteen)for the Western Great Plains Short-Grass PrairieEcoregion. This suggests that the drafters of the NewMexico Plan gave careful thought to the potential benefitsof grass banking and where those benefits weremost needed.The absence of any mention of banking in the majorityof plans, and the very brief mention of it in most others,presents a challenge for taking fuller advantageof the plans in the banking context. The paucity ofdiscussion of banking in the various plans might meanthat the drafters of those plans were relatively unfamiliarwith the topic. On the other hand, it could bethat plan drafters were quite familiar with banking,but did not think it was a useful tool to achieve theplans’ goals. Still other explanations are possible aswell. Given that uncertainty, this report tries to reacha broad audience. It provides a basic understandingof banking, so that those who have been previouslyunfamiliar with it can better evaluate its potential utilityfor their plans. At the same time, this report seeksto be more than just a primer on banking by offeringanalysis that should be helpful to those who alreadyhave a solid grasp of the subject.66 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 2006. “TheOregon Conservation Strategy.” p. 82.Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species 23
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 27: State Wildlife Action Plans3. State
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 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 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
APPENDIX GErwin, K.L. 1991. An Eval
Page 120 and 121:
APPENDIX GPorej, D. 2004. Faunal As
Page 122 and 123:
Appendix HAppendix HBibliography of
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?