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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSHabitat Classification Methods and TheirRelationship to Wetland and ConservationBankingAs discussed above, each state was required to covereight elements in its wildlife action plan. One of therequired elements is a description of “locations andrelative condition of key habitats and communitytypes essential to the identified species of conservationconcern.” 67 Guidance issued to the states suggestedthat the plans should be “spatially explicit,to the extent feasible and appropriate, with a fullcomplement of GIS and other maps.” 68There is tremendous variation among the approachesstates took to describe key habitats essential to thecritical species. In very general terms, the statewildlife action plans can be classified into one of fivecategories based on how they identify critical wildlifehabitat: (1) Plans that identify habitat types; (2)Plans that identify top priority habitats; (3) Plans thatidentify and rank relative priority of habitat types;(4) Plans that identify relative value of parcels withinhabitat type(s); and (5) Plans that identify generalgeographic priorities. 69 Each habitat classificationmethod offers a different set of opportunities for theplans to guide wetland and conservation banking. TheU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should consider offeringfurther guidance to the states on these differenthabitat classification approaches and the relativeeffectiveness of each in harnessing habitat banking toprotect critical wildlife habitat.Because of the preference for wetland restoration inthe §404 program, plans that identify historic wetlandacreage where significant wetland functions could67 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. State WildlifeConservation Strategies: Eight Required Elements. http://www.teaming.com/pdf/eight%20elements%20for%20conservation%20strategies.pdf.68 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. State WildlifeConservation Strategies: Guiding Principles. See: http://www.teaming.com/pdf/state%20strategies%20guiding%20principles.pdf.69 The Environmental Law Institute and Environmental Defenseworked with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to identifiedfive broad categories of methods used by the states in theirwildlife action plans to fulfill their habitat-related mandate. Thecategories were developed for the sole purpose of this project andshould not be considered to have the official endorsement of AFWA.be restored would be the most influential in guidingwetland mitigation bank siting and design. Inthe conservation banking realm, on the other hand,habitat preservation is a legitimate mitigation methodand plans that identify high quality existing habitatwould provide significant guidance. Plans that aremore detailed and site specific would be more usefulin guiding site selection, site design, and watershedbaseddecision-making.Plans that Identify Habitat TypesAlthough all of the state wildlife action plans wererequired to describe “locations and relative conditionof key habitats and community types essential to theidentified species of conservation concern,” 70 sometook a basic approach to identifying habitat types.These states generally provide land cover descriptionsor maps for the entire state that indicate the locationsof different habitat types. The plans also tend to narrativelydescribe the habitat types and do not identifypriority habitats, rank habitat types, or identify therelative value of specific parcels within a habitat type.Examples of plans that fit this description includeAlabama, Maryland, and South Carolina. For example,South Carolina’s plan – the South CarolinaComprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy –identifies 5 ecoregions, 38 habitat types, and 13 “ecobasins”(freshwater aquatic habitats) critical for theprotection of the plan’s identified priority species. Theplan does not identify top priority habitats, rank habitattypes relative to one another, or identify relativevalue of parcels within habitat type. For the most part,the habitat types and their locations are describednarratively, although some maps and aerial photos areincluded in a supplemental volume. The plan statesthat one of its early implementation objectives is toimprove the state’s habitat mapping capabilities. 71The plans that fall into this category provide little ifany guidance on priorities for siting wetland mitigationbanks and only provide nominal information tohelp guide the location of conservation banks.70 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. State WildlifeConservation Strategies: Eight Required Elements.71 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. South CarolinaComprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Ch. 3. See: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/.24 Environmental Law Institute
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSPlans that Identify Top Priority Habitat Type(s)Several of the state wildlife action plans not only provideinformation on the location of different habitattypes, but also identify priority habitat types. Some ofthese plans identify where the priority habitats arelocated but do not weigh the relative importance ofhabitat types or identify the relative value of specificparcels within a habitat type. Examples of plans thatfit this description include Florida, Idaho, Minnesota,and New York.For example, Florida’s plan – Florida’s WildlifeLegacy Initiative – identifies 45 habitat types in thestate and among these identifies 20 top priority habitatsbased on the relative threat to the habitats. Theplan does not rank habitat types but it does includehabitat distribution maps. 72 Minnesota took a similarapproach. Minnesota: Strategy for Tomorrow’s Habitatfor the Wild and Rare includes profiles for 25 ecologicallydefined landscapes within the state. High priorityhabitats for species in greatest conservation needare identified within each of these ecological landscapes,and maps of priority habitat are provided atthe township level. 73 The plan does not assign priorityto all of the identified habitat types, nor does it rankhabitat types.Plans that Identify and Rank Relative Priority ofHabitat TypesAnother set of the state wildlife action plans go astep further and assign relative values to the state’shabitat types or top priority habitats. For example,they indicate that white cedar swamp is the highestpriority, grassland habitat is the next highest, andoak-hickory forests are the third priority. These stateplans may include a ranked list of all habitat types ormay rank only the top priority habitats. The plans takingthis approach may or may not specify the valuesused to rank the habitat types. If values or criteriaare explicit, this may reveal valuable information,such as potential restorative value (wetland mitigationbanking) or existence of large, intact, functioningecosystems supporting critical wildlife (habitat banking).These plans do not, however, identify the relativevalue of specific parcels within a habitat type. Statesthat take this approach include Mississippi, Utah, andWisconsin.For example, Mississippi’s Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategy is organized by the state’secological communities as identified by the NaturalHeritage Program. The plan identifies top priorityhabitats and ranks the habitats relative to one anotherbased on the habitat’s value to priority species. Theplan primarily relies upon verbal descriptions of thesehabitat types, rather than maps. It does include mapsthat show species’ ranges, but not specific occurrences.74 Similarly, the Utah Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategy identifies 25 habitats statewideand further identifies 10 key habitats, one of which iswetlands. These 10 key habitats are assigned relativescores, although the plan does not emphasize thesescores to any significant degree. The plan identifiesthe location of priority habitats by including maps ofhabitat occurrence. In addition, the plan describes aprocess underway to identify focal areas for key habitats.75The plans in this category provide far greater informationon the relative priority of habitat that could helpguide habitat banking, but few of these plans providemuch site specific information.Plans that Identify Relative Value of Parcels withinHabitat TypesA small set of the state wildlife action plans identifythe relative value of specific parcels within a habitattype. Although these plans may or may not also identifytop priority habitats or rank habitat types, they doindicate which specific parcels of a specific habitattype are the most critical and where they are located.Again, the plans taking this approach may or maynot specify the values that were used to differentiate72 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Florida’sWildlife Legacy Initiative. http://myfwc.com/wildlifelegacy/.73 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. ”Strategy forTomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare.” http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/cwcs/strategy.html.74 Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks. Mississippi’sComprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. http://www.mdwfp.com/level1/cwcs.asp.75 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Utah Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategy. http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/cwcs/utah_cwcs_strategy.pdf.Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species 25
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 and 28: State Wildlife Action Plans3. State
Page 29: STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSshed). C
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?