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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CONCLUSIONSnificant environmental impacts of their actions andto avoid or mitigate them. In 2005, a provision wasadopted requiring mitigation for projects that resultin the “conversion of oak woodlands that will havea significant effect on the environment.” The newprogram allows for several mitigation alternatives,including preserving existing oak woodlands througheasements, planting an equivalent number of trees, orcontributing funds to an Oak Woodlands ConservationFund that is administered by the California Fish andGame Commission. The funds may be used for a varietyof purposes, including the purchase of conservationeasements, land improvement grants and cost-shareincentive payments, public education and outreach bylocal government entities, and for assistance to localgovernments to encourage the incorporation of oakconservation elements into local general plans.Establishment of new banks under existing provisionscould support the conservation objectives of the statewildlife action plans in a variety of ways. A state mightallow certain conservation banks to be establishedonly in areas designated as priority conservation areasin the state’s wildlife action plan. Alternatively, a statemight allow the siting of conservation banks anywhere,but reward those sited in priority conservation areasthrough the use of a crediting methodology that givesextra credit for banks sited in such areas. That samecrediting methodology could also discourage developmentin conservation priority areas by requiringdevelopments there to be offset with more creditsthan would be required of a comparable developmentelsewhere.Recommendations for Creating New HabitatBanking SystemsNew regulatory requirements would be necessary tosupport habitat banking systems that are not currentlycaptured by existing federal or state regulatory programs.As with new banking programs, new bankingsystems should also rely upon the set of effective bankingpractices outlined in Appendix I.Adopt laws or regulations to require compensationfor currently unaddressed impacts to the environmentImpacts to the environment from land developmentand land use practices are widespread and frequent.Only a small fraction of those impacts, however,require compensatory activities to offset permitteddamage. Federal and state wetland, endangered species,environmental assessment, and natural resourcedamage laws are the most common type of provisionsrequiring compensation for permitted impacts.By adopting new federal and state provisions thatrequire compensation for impacts to habitat types orspecies, public agencies can more effectively seek offsetsfor impacts that currently go unaddressed. Severalnew compensatory programs have been developedin recent years, largely due to the public’s increasedunderstanding of the negative cumulative effects ofincremental environmental damage.There are still other possibilities for states todevelop new banking initiatives to meet plan goals.In Wyoming, for example, there is concern about thefragmentation of sage grouse habitat by an explosionof energy development and other threats. The grouseis identified as a “species of conservation need” inWyoming’s plan, but the plan itself identifies no newmeasures to conserve it. Concerned that the grousemight be headed toward federal listing, Wyoming’sGovernor asked a special advisory team to recommendactions to avert that outcome. Among the team’s recommendationswas that the state develop and enforce“conservation thresholds” for the grouse. These conservationthresholds would apparently take the form ofpopulation or habitat acreage targets high enough topermit continued recreational hunting while ensuringthat the species remain off the endangered specieslist. Exactly how such thresholds would be enforcedhas not yet been clarified, but banking could be a usefulpart of any such mechanism. That is, those whosecured some quantity of habitat could sell creditsto energy companies, whose actions detrimentallyaffected habitat, thus creating a clear incentive to conservehabitat and a flexible mechanism to accomplishmitigation. Through measures such as this, states maydiscover that their plans can give rise to creative newconservation strategies incorporating lessons learnedfrom the habitat banking experience.64 Environmental Law Institute
CONCLUSIONSGeneral RecommendationsFuture iterations of the state wildlife action plans orancillary efforts can more effectively support wildlifeconservation by: (1) providing greater specificity as tothe location of priority habitats so as to increase thelikelihood that banks will be established to conservethose habitats; (2) more fully considering the role thatbanking can play as a conservation action; and (3)providing information on habitat restoration opportunities.Provide greater specificity as to the location ofpriority habitatsThe ability of states to take advantage of many of theopportunities to support the conservation of priorityhabitats through banking may ultimately depend onthe specificity of state plans. Our review of the firstgeneration of those plans indicated a wide range ofapproaches taken by the various states (see Chapter 3,Habitat Classification Methods and Their Relationshipto Wetland and Conservation Banking). Some actionplans, for example, simply identify important habitattypes, without ranking them relative to each other orfurther prioritizing within a habitat type. Other plansmay rank habitat types, but not prioritize areas withina habitat type. Some plans identify where high priorityhabitats occur, but often at a very coarse level. Veryfew plans identify priority habitats with the precisionthat would provide clear guidance to a potentialbanker as to what parcels he or she should acquire toadvance the state’s objectives most effectively.There appears to have been an understandable reluctanceon the part of most states to be very specificin their action plans about precisely where priorityhabitats are located. Landowner sensitivities, potentialimpacts on property values, and similar concernsmay have led states to articulate their conservationpriorities in general rather than specific terms.Conservation banking decisions, on the other hand,are of necessity quite focused on the values and functionsof particular parcels of land, both for purposesof evaluating the negative environmental impacts ofdevelopment and for evaluating the environmentalbenefits offered by a potential bank site.Future generations of state wildlife action plans, orancillary efforts undertaken to supplement existingplans, may provide the more detailed information thatis most useful for banking decisions. Because statewildlife action plans are so new, none of the conservationbanks established to date has been influenced bythem. As more states experiment with conservationbanking, however, it would be instructive to evaluatehow, if at all, state wildlife action plans have influencedthe development of the next generation of conservationbanks.More fully consider the role that banking can playas a conservation actionOur review of the 50 state wildlife action plansrevealed that only eleven state plans make any referenceto habitat banking. In five of these states, theonly reference to banking is relegated to the appendicesand in four states the plans make only a singlebrief reference to banking. Future iterations of theplans should more fully explore the role that bankingcan play in meeting their conservation objectives.Provide information on habitat restorationopportunitiesFor the state plans to effectively direct wetlandmitigation banking, they should identify lands withhigh wetland restoration potential. Virtually all of thestate wildlife action plans – 47 of the 50 plans or 94percent – identify wetlands as a key habitat type. Inaddition, 37 of the 50 plans – 74 percent – includemaps that identify wetland habitat. Clearly the plansrecognize the significance of wetland habitat forwildlife conservation.However, in their current iteration, the state wildlifeaction plans present some limitations to guidingmitigation banks to protect critical wildlife habitatidentified in the plans. Most of the wetland acreagethat is identified in the plans is existing, high qualitywetlands that retain much of their functional capacity.Although this is valuable information for wetland habitatacquisition, these highly functional wetlands offerlittle opportunity to the mitigation banker to providefunctional “lift” through wetland restoration. Wetlandmitigation providers more generally seek to identifyopportunities to restore wetland acres, as these siteswill generate far more wetland credits for banking.Design of U.S. Habitat Banking Systems to Support the Conservation of Wildlife Habitat and At-Risk Species 65
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: 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 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: CONCLUSIONSthe state Attorney Gener
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 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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?