Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Integrating state and regional plans and programs into federal public land management Robert L. Fischman Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Integrating state and regional plans and programs into federal public land management Robert L. Fischman Indiana University Maurer School of Law."— Presentation transcript:

1 Integrating state and regional plans and programs into federal public land management Robert L. Fischman Indiana University Maurer School of Law

2 Why Integrate? Landscape scale conservation Ecosystem management Climate change adaptation Good neighbor—social capital—collaborate Project conservation benefits beyond borders Abate external threats

3 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)

4 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



7 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

8 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%

9 Neighboring Land Use rural 81% (at least 67% in each region) suburban 36% industry 19% wilderness 19%

10 No mentionAddressed in some wayRefuge concernRefuge concern w/ prescription No mention Addressed in some way Refuge Concern Refuge Concern w/ prescription Fire regime33.067.055.754.1 Aquatic connectivity31.968.157.854.1 Terrestrial connectivity22.777.360.549.2 Landscape other2.747.039.534.6 Existing development27.073.053.537.3 Future development32.467.647.628.6 Proportion of CCPs Addressing Conservation Topics

11 Proportions of CCPs with prescriptions addressing climate change (CC) impacts % of total CCPs Climate-change impacts 2005200620072008200920102011 Discuss threat Prescribe action Habitat/plant community 53.531.9 Sea-level rise 42.719.5 Desirable (non-fish) wildlife 38.918.4 Fresh-water availability 38.913.5 Desirable fish 34.611.4 Undesirable plants or animals 26.59.2 Changes in extreme weather 23.28.6 Changes in fire regime 16.85.4 Spread/arrival of diseases & parasites 14.63.2 % CCPs discussing CC25. % CCPs w/ CC prescriptions6.35.416.038.766.779.365.0

12 No mention Mention/ citation/ description Refuge context noted Used to justify prescription Forest Legacy Program96.22.70.5 Federal land-use plans95. Landscape Conservation Cooperative88. Habitat Conservation Plans96. North Am Bird Conservation Initiative4.39.226.560.0 Recovery Plans29.812.410.647.2 State Wildlife Action Plans38.920.018.422.7 Farm Bill Programs68.114.65.411.9 Degree of integration into CCPs (% of CCPs) (n=185 except ESA plans n=165)

13 Degree of integration of major landscape conservation plans and programs in CCPs

14 % of CCPs that list various statutes as establishment purposes (n = 185 CCPs). Most CCPs list multiple purposes. Migratory Bird Conservation Act58.9 Fish and Wildlife Act43.8 Executive Action33.0 Refuge Recreation Act32.4 Endangered Species Act25.4 Emergency Wetland Act21.6 Wilderness Act18.9 Special legislation15.7 Refuge Administration Act14.1

15 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)

16 What if there is not plan to integrate? Private landowners NGOs Ad-hoc opportunities

17 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 Proportions of CCPs using actions outside the refuge (n = 185) 68% of CCPs had ≤ 1 action

18 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

19 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

20 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

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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

25 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

26 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

Download ppt "Integrating state and regional plans and programs into federal public land management Robert L. Fischman Indiana University Maurer School of Law."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google