Transcript Integrating state and regional plans and programs into

Integrating state and regional
plans and programs into federal
public land management
Robert L. Fischman
Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Why Integrate?
•
•
•
•
•
Landscape scale conservation
Ecosystem management
Climate change adaptation
Good neighbor—social capital—collaborate
Project conservation benefits beyond borders
Abate external threats
Why Integrate? Legal Answers
• Organic acts
– cooperative federalism
• NEPA
– cumulative impacts
• Agency rules and manuals
– ecological role in broader landscape
• e.g. 36 CFR 219.7(f)(1) , 219.8(a)(1), & 219.9(b)(2)(ii)
Do federal plans integrate?
• National Wildlife Refuge CCPs
– comprehensive conservation plans = unit-level plans
– 1997 statute required FWS to complete plans
• 88% complete by Oct. 2012 deadline
• Recent, numerous
• Strong mandate for integration
– ecological integrity
– external threats
• Units are diverse and not isolated
Table 2. Distribution of CCPs examined, by USFWS region and year.
Year
Region
Pacific NW & Pac isl
Southwest
Midwest
SE & Caribbean isl
Northeast
Mountain-Prairie
Alaska
Pacific SW
Total
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
1
0
3
5
2
5
8
24
0
4
0
1
1
3
0
9
4
2
4
2
2
2
1
17
4 19 10 15 11 12 4
75
4
4
2
1
3
4
4
22
2
4
5
3
1
0
1
16
0
1
0
4
2
1
1
9
1
3
1
0
5
2
1
13
16 37 25 31 27 29 20 185
Total
% of
refuges refuges
in CCPs in region
36
53.0
13
28.9
22
40.7
105
82.0
37
51.4
80
64.5
11
68.8
20
40.0
324
555
CCP Study Domain
Jan. 1, 2005 – 2012
All CCPs covering at least one named refuge
185 CCPs covering 325 of 555 units
165 CCPs federally listed species occur
139 single-refuge CCPs
46 multiple unit CCPs
Lands and Waters Covered
Most frequently present habitat types
(not most extensive)
forest 71%
freshwater wetland 68%
grassland 44%
coastal/estuarine 36%
shrub-scrub 36%
Neighboring Land Use
rural 81% (at least 67% in each region)
suburban 36%
industry 19%
wilderness 19%
Proportion of CCPs Addressing Conservation Topics
No
mention
Addressed in Refuge
some way
Concern
Refuge Concern w/
prescription
Fire regime
33.0
67.0
55.7
54.1
Aquatic connectivity
31.9
68.1
57.8
54.1
Terrestrial connectivity
22.7
77.3
60.5
49.2
Landscape other
2.7
47.0
39.5
34.6
Existing development
27.0
73.0
53.5
37.3
Future development
32.4
67.6
47.6
28.6
Proportions of CCPs with prescriptions addressing
climate change (CC) impacts
% of total CCPs
Discuss
threat
Prescribe
action
Habitat/plant community
53.5
31.9
Sea-level rise
42.7
19.5
Desirable (non-fish) wildlife
38.9
18.4
Fresh-water availability
38.9
13.5
Desirable fish
34.6
11.4
Undesirable plants or animals
26.5
9.2
Changes in extreme weather
23.2
8.6
Changes in fire regime
16.8
5.4
Spread/arrival of diseases &
parasites
14.6
3.2
Climate-change impacts
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
% CCPs discussing CC
25.0 27.0 48.0 58.1 92.6 93.1 100
% CCPs w/ CC prescriptions
6.3
5.4
16.0 38.7 66.7 79.3 65.0
Degree of integration into CCPs (% of CCPs)
(n=185 except ESA plans n=165)
No
Mention/
Refuge
Used to
mention
citation/
context
justify
description
noted
prescription
Forest Legacy Program
96.2
2.7
0.5
0.5
Federal land-use plans
95.6
2.7
1.1
0.5
Landscape Conservation Cooperative
88.1
3.2
7.6
1.1
Habitat Conservation Plans
96.3
1.9
0.6
1.2
North Am Bird Conservation Initiative
4.3
9.2
26.5
60.0
Recovery Plans
29.8
12.4
10.6
47.2
State Wildlife Action Plans
38.9
20.0
18.4
22.7
100
90
80
70
60
50
Forest Legacy
Fedl landuse plans
LCCs
HCP
40
30
20
NABCI
10
0
Recovery Plans
SWAPs
Farm Bill
Degree of integration of major landscape
conservation plans and programs in CCPs
% of CCPs that list various statutes as establishment purposes
(n = 185 CCPs). Most CCPs list multiple purposes.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act
58.9
Fish and Wildlife Act
43.8
Executive Action
33.0
Refuge Recreation Act
32.4
Endangered Species Act
25.4
Emergency Wetland Act
21.6
Wilderness Act
18.9
Special legislation
15.7
Refuge Administration Act
14.1
5
4
NABCI
Recovery plan
SWAP
Farm Bill
3
LCC
Federal landuse
HCP
Forest Legacy
2
1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Average degree of integration of other landscape-scale conservation
plans and programs in CCPs over time, on a scale of 1 (no mention) to
5 (uses the landscape-scale plan to justify CCP goals and objectives)
What if there is not plan to integrate?
• Private landowners
• NGOs
• Ad-hoc opportunities
Proportions of CCPs using actions outside the refuge (n = 185)
68% of CCPs had ≤ 1 action
Common topics
Habitat
39.5
Invasive species
30.4
Federally listed species
26.1
Nongame species
14.6
Game species
16.2
Specialized topics
Landscape ecology
31.9
Climate change
4.9
Environmental quality
36.8
Prescriptions for Acting Outside Unit
Strong integration of plans correlates weakly
with high use of actions outside the refuge
• Abate specific threats and participate in state/local
planning
• Assist neighboring landowners to conserve habitat
• Wildlife management
• Invasive species control
• Partner with organizations
Lessons for Plans
• Threats/concerns must connect to prescriptions
• Prescriptions need priorities
– austerity planning
• Connect existing ad-hoc efforts to integrated plans
– Farm Bill programs, LCCs, SWAPS
– Need “step-up” plans
• Share tools across units and land systems
• Identify actions other than monitoring to adapt to
climate change
Lessons for Law
• Establish clear mandates for ecological integrity
– hydrological as well as terrestrial
• Require EISs to support tiering
• Put more Farm Bill money into PES
• Delegate Property Cl. authority to strengthen
agencies’ negotiating abatement of external threats
• Consider plans to be endowments
– require performance measures
– assure funding for monitoring and adaptive responses
Lessons for Research
• Apply adaptive mgt. principles
– monitor and adapt performance of planning
rules/manuals
• Establish protocols for comparing plans across
agencies and organizations
• Generate better benchmarks for conservation
– non-historic standards for integrity
• Identify key outcomes: measure plan effectiveness
– measurable, time-limited objectives
• Collaborate: law, natural science, social science
Abate specific threats and participate in
state/local planning
Work with Georgia Port Authority (GPA) and local
industries to manage effluent to prevent
“thermally trapping” manatees in the Savannah
River.—Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
Work with city and State officials to secure a
guaranteed minimum flow on Pennington Creek….
Cooperate with and support grassroots
organizations such as the CPASA to secure
legislation protecting ground and surface water in
the Washita River watershed from over
development and exploitation.—Tishomingo NWR
Assist neighboring landowners to conserve
habitat
Use a Partners for Fish and Wildlife biologist to work
with local partners and willing landowners to
identify, prioritize, and restore/enhance degraded
areas for the benefit of riparian birds.—Kirwin NWR
Work with partners and neighbors to make
boundaries fire resistant in accordance with local fire
codes and endangered species permits (e.g.,
hazardous fuel reduction, fuel breaks).—Ellicott
Slough NWR
Wildlife management
• Work with partners such as the ODFW and WDFW,
the CWT Deer Recovery Team, Columbia Land Trust,
The Nature Conservancy, private corporations, and
private landowners to establish new and experimental
subpopulations of CWT deer. Approximately half of
the current population of CWT deer resides on private
lands. Continued efforts to protect habitat on these
lands are vital to maintaining the health of the
population. Potential reintroduction and/or
experimental population sites need to include
sufficient acreage.—Lewis & Clark NWR & JBH Refuge
for the Columbian White-tailed Deer
Invasive species control
Efforts will be made to work with partners as much
as possible in a combined effort to pinpoint
infestations and plan and coordinate control efforts
both on and off the Refuge.—Willapa NWR
Work with partners and neighbors to identify and
control invasive plants (e.g., pampas grass),
facilitating cooperation among those working to
manage invasive plants.—Ellicott Slough NWR
Partner with organizations
Work with existing partners, including the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, Maryland DNR,
National Aquarium in Baltimore, Eastern Waterfowl
Festival, Kent County officials, and many corporate
and funding partners to maintain and monitor the
existing breakwaters, on-shore armoring projects,
and living shoreline projects.—Eastern Neck NWR
Work with ODFW to have the Oregon Islands
recommended 500-foot seasonal buffer zone for all
coastal rocks and islands included in annual sport
and commercial fishing [regs.] –Or. coastal NWRs