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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANShabitat types. States generally taking this approachinclude Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.The Illinois Comprehensive Wildlife ConservationPlan & Strategy identifies five top priority wildlifehabitat types and ranks the habitat types relative toone another. The upland forest, grassland, woodedwetlands (floodplain forest and swamp), emergent/shallow-water wetlands, and stream habitats areranked according to their relative importance forspecies in greatest need of conservation. The planprovides maps of where the high priority habitats arelocated. 76The Massachusetts Comprehensive WildlifeConservation Strategy utilizes the statewide map– the BioMap – developed by the state’s NaturalHeritage & Endangered Species Program in 2001. TheBioMap identified 1,160,000 acres in Massachusettsas Core Habitat and an additional 970,000 acresas Supporting Natural Landscape. Detailed maps,developed through a systematic evaluation of over7,000 site-specific records of rare plants, rare animals,and natural communities, identify the areas ofMassachusetts most in need of protection to conservebiodiversity. 77The New Jersey Wildlife Acton Plan identifies fourpriority habitat types, ranks the habitat types relativeto one another, and ranks the relative value of parcelswithin each of the habitat types. The plan utilizes theextensive wildlife habitat mapping already conductedby the Department of Environmental Protection’sEndangered and Nongame Species Program – theLandscape Project. The Landscape Project effort produceddetailed, site specific maps of the four top habitattypes that indicate the relative value of the parcelswithin each habitat type. 7876 Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Illinois ComprehensiveWildlife Conservation Plan & Strategy. http://dnr.state.il.us/ORC/WildlifeResources/theplan/final/Illinois_final_report.pdf.77 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife. MassachusettsComprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/habitat/cwcs/cwcs_home.htm.78 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. New JerseyWildlife Action Plan. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/wap/pdf/wap_draft.pdf.The plans in this category may provide significantguidance on site identification and project design towetland and conservation bankers. For example, theseplans provide information on the location and relativeimportance of wetland habitat to a wetland mitigationbanker looking to identify critical wildlife habitat.Unfortunately, most of the plans provide informationon high quality wetland habitat, rather than low qualitywetland habitat with high restoration potential.In the context of conservation banking, these planswould provide very valuable site-specific informationfor guiding the acquisition of parcels of the highestecological value.Identification of General Geographic PrioritiesFinally, a subset of the state plans takes an entirelydifferent approach. Although these state plans identifypriority habitats, they do not distinguish prioritysites by habitat type. Examples include California,Nebraska, and Oregon.The California plan – California Wildlife:Conservation Challenges – identifies general geographicpriorities within all nine of the state’s geographicregions. Within each region the plan providesa ranked list of the geographic priorities, as well asmaps identifying areas of critical environmental concernand critical habitat for specific species withinthe region. 79 The Nebraska plan – Nebraska NaturalLegacy Project – identifies 40 biologically uniquelandscapes and provides maps of the geographicpriorities. The plan identifies 69 specific heritage ecologicalareas for terrestrial and aquatic communities.It does not, however identify top priority habitats orrank habitat types. 80 And The Oregon ConservationStrategy identifies 165 “conservation opportunityareas” in the state’s 8 ecoregions. Maps that depictthe opportunity areas are provided for each ecoregion.The plan highlights a subset of “strategy habitats” andranks the habitat types relative to one another. 8179 California Department of Fish and Game. California Wildlife:Conservation Challenges. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/WAP/.80 Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Nebraska Natural Legacy.http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/programs/legacy/review.asp.81 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 2006. TheOregon Conservation Strategy. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/contents.asp.26 Environmental Law Institute
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSFuture iterations of the state wildlife action planswould be more effective at directing habitat bankingactivities to areas designated as critical wildlifehabitat if they were to identify wetland restorationopportunities, provide detailed information about thelocations of critical habitat, and provide informationabout the relative ecological value of habitat typesand parcels within each habitat type.Examples of How State Wildlife Action Plans AreBeing Used to Guide Wetland and ConservationBankingAlthough this study found that few state wildlifeaction plans identify wetland or conservation bankingas a conservation action, the plans are currently beingused to guide banking at the federal, district, andstate levels. Below are but a few examples of how theplans are being used in conjunction with banking topromote the conservation of wildlife habitat.At the federal levelIn April 2006 a broad team of representatives fromeight federal agencies and four state departmentsof transportation issued a report, “Eco-Logical: AnEcosystem Approach to Developing InfrastructureProjects,” 82 which provides a framework for makinginfrastructure development more sensitive to wildlife.The guide suggests a three-step method for makinginfrastructure decisions using an ecosystem approach.These include (1) integrated planning, (2) mitigationoptions, (3) and performance measures. The first stepin the framework – integrated planning – suggeststhat agencies first identify and integrate managementplans that have been developed by other groups. Theplans can then be used to support the development ofa regional ecosystem framework that can help guidecompensatory mitigation decision-making. The statewildlife action plans are highlighted as a resource forbaseline assessments or inventories of wildlife habitatresources. 83At the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field officelevelIndividuals seeking to satisfy their conservation mitigationrequirements in the area of California servedby the Service’s Sacramento field office routinelyapproach the office for guidance on identifying anappropriate site to offset impacts to species and theirhabitat. Although not required by existing servicepolicy, the Sacramento field office routinely suggeststo bankers that they review the state’s wildlife actionplan when making bank siting decisions. 84At the state levelIn January 2006, the Georgia Department ofTransportation and the Georgia Department of NaturalResources entered into a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) to enhance the agencies’ coordination on the“identification, acquisition, and stewardship of mitigationlands.” 85 The MOA acknowledges the intent ofboth agencies to promote the objectives outlined inGeorgia’s state wildlife action plan. In addition to avariety of collaborative efforts envisioned by the MOA,the agreement establishes a coordinating team that ischarged with meeting quarterly to develop cooperativegoals and objectives.82 U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department ofTransportation, Bureau of Land Management, Department of theArmy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine FisheriesService. April 2006. Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach toDeveloping Infrastructure Projects. Department of Transportation.http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp.(Hereinafter Eco-Logical (2006).)83 Eco-Logical (2006). pp.12-15.84 Sanchez, Kenneth. August 29, 2007. Personal communication.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento District.85 Georgia Department of Transportation and the GeorgiaDepartment of Natural Resources. January 2006. Memorandum ofAgreement Between the Georgia Department of Transportation andthe Georgia Department of Natural Resources.Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species 27
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 and 30: STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSshed). C
Page 31: STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANSPlans th
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?