Presentation on theme: "Strategic Habitat Conservation Planning in Conservation Opportunity Areas."— Presentation transcript:
Strategic Habitat Conservation Planning in Conservation Opportunity Areas
Members of the original SHC/COA planning team, left to right – Dan Witter, Gregg Pitchford, Rick Hansen and Dennis Figg. Sara Pauley and Charlie Scott (not pictured).
During our early planning effort, we decided we were on the same page SHC COA
A decision was made in that initial meeting (January, 2010) that a workshop would be valuable to introduce the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) planning process and show its application to specific issues in the Lower Grand River COA Teamwork
Missouri Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy Missouri’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy is an approach to conservation that uses ecologically-based assessments and existing Plans to integrate conservation action for all wildlife. Because it is not possible to conserve every plant and animal one at a time, the comprehensive strategy emphasizes functioning habitats, natural communities and healthy landscapes to best conserve wildlife
The primary purpose of Missouri’s strategy was to identify the best places in Missouri to go to work on all wildlife and then develop guidance/plan for these areas. Thus, Conservation Opportunity Areas (COA’s) were identified as the best places.
Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) is: A unified conservation approach for defining and pursuing landscape and population sustainability. At the core of SHC is a structured science-based framework founded on an adaptive process of biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, monitoring, and research
The Columbia Missouri Field Office decided that the Lower Grand River COA would be the initial area to apply the SHC process. The natural resources were there in the northern Missouri setting
The Basic SHC Framework is an Iterative, 5-Element Adaptive Process Priority Species Population Objectives Synthesis of science (models) Spatially-Explicit Models Habitat Objectives Program Priority Areas Population Impacts Build the scientific foundation for Management Program Accomplishments Net progress toward Population objectives Outcome-based Monitoring Biological Planning Conservation Design Assumption-based Research Conservation Delivery
Tom Woodward, “George Seek told me if we use diesel fuel, ditching dynamite, ammonium nitrate and a little luck, we could remove the logjam”. But don’t tell the COE!! Strategy and being adaptive
Watershed Approach The BIG watershed, Mississippi and Missouri Rivers The smaller more workable watershed including the Lower Grand River COA
RESOURCES ISSUES: Trust Resources for the FWS - Endangered Species and Migratory Species Habitat – Wetlands, Forested Habitat, Prairie, Streams Carbon Sequestration, Climate Change Water Quality Flood Abatement Landowner Education
Challenges : Logjams Intensive farming Water budget issues and reservoirs Channelization Sedimentation Successful restoration Cooperation Education And others Locust Creek Channelized upstream of Highway 36
It is not just a government effort. Eventually, we will involve landowners and N.G.O.’s in the planning effort.
Education Black Helicopter seen over Pershing State Park. Code name “Operation Massassauga Drop”
Regulatory issues – Section 404 permit of the CWA, Section 7 of the ESA and Section 109 of the SHPA What the heck have I gotten myself into?!
Proposed Milan Water Supply Lake East Fork Locust Creek Issues: Water budget downstream Wildlife habitat – 1,684 acres Alteration of stream – 29 miles of stream inundated Alteration of existing wetlands – 291 acres Endangered species – Indiana bat Cultural resources
“Dick-Dick-Dickcissel” Grassland and prairie bird on the list of Birds of Conservation Concern
Agency Programs in LGRCOA and Watershed DNR’s – LGR watershed USEPA’s Healthy Watershed Initiative COA/SHC NRCS’s MRBI and Farm Programs K.C. District’s Regulatory Program and Locust Creek Watershed Work Funding and Engineering
Swan Lake NWR Partners 2011/12 First Friday’s Partners Swan Lake Sportsman's Club Grand River Audubon Chapter Yellow Creek Ducks Unlimited Chapter Chariton County Farm Bureau Sumner American Legion Post 586 and Auxiliary Agriservices of Brunswick Mendon Lions Club Brunswick Lions Club Chariton County Tourism, Inc.
Swan Lake NWR Proposed NAWCA Project Projected Impacts To Habitat and Infrastructure ExistingProposedChange Habitat Wetland Acres194 Acres513+319 Acres Wet Prairie0 Acres43 Acres+43 Acres Native Grasslands0 Acres327 Acres+327 Acres Agricultural508 Acres0 Acres-508 Acres Tame Grasses71 Acres0 Acres-71 Acres Infrastructure Water Control Structures188-10 Levee’s43,955 Linear Feet29,996 Linear Feet-13,959 Linear Feet 1. None of these figures includes wetland acreages in Swan Lake (MSU 16), which is 987 Acres 2. Unit 1 and the new corner unit are factored in as Wet Prairie Acres 3. Water Control Structures do include those involved with the management of Swan Lake (MSU 16)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife – Prairie Restoration Mystic Plains
Resources Federally-listed species that may occur in the LGCOA
Wetland and Stream Mitigation Banks (to mitigate for Section 404 permits) and Conservation Mitigation Banks to mitigate for impacts to Federally listed species
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.