Guest Blog: Ginormous Midwest HCP for Wind Energy Impacts to Bats et al.

Guest blogger Jemma Denny discusses a large Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan being developed for impacts to endangered species from wind energy in the Midwest.

Parts of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin could be eligible for ESA Take under a draft “Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Within Eight-State Planning Area” (MSHCP) currently open for public comment. The MSHCP involves several bat species, numerous birds and some really interesting approaches to permits — there is a ‘Programatic’ and a ‘Template’ design being considered. With the Programmatic option,

“Under the template approach, the Service would issue individual ITPs to applicants that agree to implement the MSHCP, whereas under the programmatic approach, each State agency would apply for and receive an ITP and would issue certificates of inclusion to wind energy companies that agreed to implement the MSHCP at their facility.”

Wind entities are just some of numerous partners: collectively they’re called WEBAT or Wind Energy Bat Action Team and they’re represented by American Wind Energy Association, the national trade trade industry. Along with the Fish and Wildlife and 8 state conservation agencies, the Conservation Fund looks to be setting themselves up to mitigate these wind impacts:

“The Conservation Fund would develop a regional framework of conservation lands to be used as a decision support tool for the selection of appropriate mitigation options required for offsetting incidental take of the ‘covered species’ “

Is there room for budding conservation banks as mitigation for this plan? I’m sure there are plenty of private landowners across the Midwest with one or more of these species, that might be interested in staying on their land and conserving species, and who might be interested in conservation banking. There is precedent for this idea:

• a 2009 Indiana bat habitat enhancement plan developed for surface mining impacts to habitat noted “buying credits from an approved Indiana bat conservation bank” as appropriate off-site mitigation.
• a 2009 American Wind and Wildlife Association-commissioned report discussed scenarios including conservation banking for wind energy mitigation
• There is a pilot habitat bank for Indiana bats in the Hudson Valley region (p.15).

Either way, those with permits under the MSHCP would be covered under Section 7 and NEPA, avoid further FWS consultations, and receive a ‘no surprises’ assurance as well. But none of this will go ahead without public comment and consideration – of both the draft and the EIS to follow. Make your comments on or before October 1, 2012.

Federal Register notice of the draft MSHCP

US FWS Draft Indiana Bat Recovery Plan

Fire Suppression and Ecosystem Services

I think the tide may be turning on perceptions of forest management and forest fires. NPR ran this story today on the legacy of fire suppression.

The idea that every fire is bad and should be put out runs contrary to centuries of evidence of ‘natural’ fires. A lightning strike. A fire runs its course. The Father of American Forestry, Gifford Pinchot, found evidence of frequent fires in tree rings:

On June 2,1900, Gifford Pinchot was riding horseback through park-like stands of ponderosa pine on the Mogollon Rim near Chevlon, Arizona. As he rode up onto a ridge he noticed a fire-scarred tree that appeared to have recently died. He dismounted, and taking a hatchet he chopped into one side… On the cut surface he could see the annual tree rings and the successive scars that had formed by the re-burning of the resinous scar boundaries each time a surface fire swept past the tree. He counted the tree rings between the scars, and then he estimated the dates of each fire. In all he counted 14 separate fires, the most recent in 1898 and the earliest in 1785. (Swetnam and Baisan 1994, p.11-12)

In a natural fire regime, yes there’s damage. But because fires are periodic, when they occur they are not the massive, raging beasts they are today. Forests looked different pre-fire suppression. Did you know that? Here’s a photo comparison as an example:

The photo above is from Klamath National Forest (Oregon). Photo from CA Department of Fish and Game, found at this link.

So now we have these massive tinderboxes of forests just waiting for a match. Possibly from a bored firefighter arsonist (for real).

An interesting thing though, is that the story never mentioned forest management like thinning as a solution. Maybe that will be another part in the five-part series. My 17-year old self thought cutting a forest was just awful, immoral even. What I didn’t realize until taking a Sustainable Forestry class is that leaving a forest alone… no harvesting, no thinning, no fires… is actually a kind of management. Or mis-management, because the result is an unnatural build-up of fuels and a forest ecology that doesn’t match  patterns from pre-European settlement.

Here’s a short list of the damage to ecosystem services from fire suppression:

• Reduction of water quality from increased sedimentation from catastrophic fires
• Reduction of water supply (in some areas)
• Loss of habitat (for example, the endangered Red Cockaded Woodpecker’s favorite home is longleaf pine forest with frequent low level fires)
• Potential loss of sequestered carbon

Speed blogging through July

Back from an extended hiatus travelling for fun, for learnin’, and for work. The learnin’ part was a 2-week Enviropreneur fellowship sponsored by the Property and Environment Research Center which is a libertarian-style organization that advocates for market solutions for environmental problems. A couple of intriguing examples include the positive effect of for-profit game ranching on white rhino populations in South Africa, and a proposal to Save Rivers, Destroy Trees (not always, not everywhere… but read more here for a compelling case).

To get back in the groove of blogging, here’s a bit of speed blogging from my backlog of 792 stories on Google Reader:

• Shareholders demand sustainability: “Advocacy group Ceres says of the some 110 resolutions is tracked in 2012, 44 proposals resulted in US companies making commitments to confront environmental and social risks in their operations and supply chains.”
• Coca-cola is improving its water efficiency by 35%
• Burning Our Rivers: a report on the water footprint of electricity generation
• Water quality trading – it’s not just for TMDLs, urges industry group to EPA.
• A quick run-down about why businesses were involved in the Rio+20 Summit and what they got out of it, including a nice compilation video of quick interviews with NGOs and business execs.
• Well I’ll be! Texas Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District investing in ecosystem services: “…we have initiated a comprehensive study of the upper Texas coast from Sabine to Galveston in collaboration with the Texas General Land Office that will look for opportunities for large-scale ecosystem restoration projects to protect not only habitats, but the Texas coast from storm surge and erosion.” Their partners include a county flood control district, multiple port authorities, and the Nature Conservancy.
• An NYT piece about the greening of professional sports.
• I know this is business-as-usual for Environmental Impact Statements for endangered species, but I still find it interesting to see what kind of projects impact species: road-building, mining, airports/ports, wind energy development, and more.
• Want to learn a lot about carbon markets and get paid (modestly)? Ecosystem Marketplace is hiring a Carbon Markets Research Assistant. Apply by July 30.
• Wolf hunting allowed in MT, while 3 are sentenced for wolf poaching in WA
• A west Texas op-ed says they’d rather deal with endangered species issues voluntarily because “those advocating extreme conservation measures bear little or none of the costs or consequences they so enthusiastically would impose upon landowners.”
• ..and on that note, there’s a nice, lighthearted piece reviewing the ideas in an Scientific American article about endangered species triage – the idea that given monetary constraints, which species do you want to save?
• Voluntary Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) on the lesser prairie chicken may be working – at least according to some optimistic results from a range-wide aerial survey conducted by the FWS. Final results are forthcoming. The l p chicken is a candidate species –  it’s in the ‘maybe’ pile re: endangered listing.
• Another candidate species – the greater sage grouse – is also getting some voluntary investments from energy companies out West. Apparently, by protecting sage grouse on private rancher land, in the hopes of precluding the need to list the species as endangered. New bumper sticker: “Save the species. It’s cheaper!”
• More demands for species protection under the ESA: 10 species in FL, 53 reptile and amphibian species
• Your 2 cents: open comment period (through Sept) on a Habitat Conservation Plan for endangered Indiana bat from impacts from wind farm development in OH.

If you’re hungry for news on a more regular basis, check out my Scoop.it page on Nature+Environment.

I’ve quickly come to love Scoop.it for its ability to be my online searchable ‘clipboard’ with a nice visual reference and ability to make notes on what I thought was interesting about the article/report. It’s also waaaay better than Pinterest for this purpose b/c it’s more geared for articles than pretty things.

FSC ForCES Pilot

See on Scoop.it – Nature + Economics

Whoa – FSC wants to certify ecosystem services. They’re looking at how to:

“evaluate and reward the provision of critical ecosystem services, such as biodiversity conservation, watershed protection and carbon storage/sequestration.”

See on www.fsc.org

“And that’s the deal with the chicken”

I’m here in Sacramento this week attending and blogging coverage of the National Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference (NMBEC) in Sacramento, California. The run-down of sessions and keynotes can be found over at the www.Eko-Eco.com blog, but I’d like to take this space to talk about… chickens.

The Lesser Prairie Chicken is just one of a suite of Western species that has come up in conversation in the hallways and outside the formal space of the conference.

A Fish & Wildlife factsheet about the LPC states:

The FWS is now in the initial stages of the listing process for the lesser prairie-chicken… We anticipate that over the next 18 months, beginning in January 2011, we will be working to develop a proposed listing rule… [and critical habitat]

For this and other candidate species like the Sage Grouse, DOI counsel Michael Bean yesterday mentioned the opportunity to take action prior to listing that might get ‘credit’ should a species later become listed. The FWS are asking for help to vet this idea via public comment period – due May 14th, but I’ve heard that this deadline has been extended 60 or so days. A small sample of what they’re asking for is:

(1) How can the Service allow for the recognition of conservation credits for voluntary action taken in advance of listing in a manner that is efficient, readily understood, and faster? How can this be accomplished in an expeditious manner?
(2) Should credits recognized for voluntary conservation actions taken prior to listing be available for use solely by the person who created them or should they be transferable to third parties?
(3) If voluntary conservation actions undertaken prior to listing generate conservation credits that can be used to offset impacts of post-listing activities, should they be based solely on the beneficial actions of the person undertaking them, or should they be based on the net impacts of both beneficial and detrimental actions?

Get your two cents in!

Here’s what my son thinks of the prairie chicken. Should I register his comments?

Conference Bound

This week, I’m heading to the National Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference (NMBEC) in Sacramento, California. I’ll be blogging with my old friends at Ecosystem Marketplace – check it out on their www.Eko-Eco.com blog.

I’m looking to catch up on news in the mitigation and conservation banking world, find out about innovative projects, and check in with colleagues. I’ll be posting some impressions from the conference this week, along with the official scoop on Eko-Eco.

Paying for Ecosystem Services, Option 4: Fashion!

When I think about nature’s services, my mind first goes to clean air and water. But there’s a whole gang of other services that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment identifies. Cotton, hemp and silk fall under ‘fibers’ and I suppose leather and crocodile skin falls under ‘livestock.’ Sounds unsophisticated to talk about the essential ingredients in high fashion in that way, but… there you go. Fashion through an ecosystem services lens. Going through my GoogleReader, I came across an article in the Huffington Post about fashion industry activities to protect their source ingredients. Two nice case studies:

1) Save the wool: invest in sustainable livelihoods and reduce threats to habitat.

blllaaagggg… I make a beautiful coat. Photo by HBarrison.

Zegna Group, a member of the International Vicuña Consortium, took in hand a project to protect the endangered South American camelid from poaching. The group, today, by investing in irrigation projects and working with local communities helps to keep vicuña in their habitat. “I think our project is the first one done by a private brand in Peru, which can be a good example for other enterprises or even to the Peruvian government,” comments Paola Zegna, head of luxury men’s outfitter Ermenegildo Zegna. Loro Piana, Zegna and Incapalca are three companies that convinced the Peruvian government in 1994 to revive the vicuña wool export after it was forbidden in 1969 to avoid its extinction. These companies by helping to maintain biodiversity have access to a scarce material — named “the fiber of the gods” — that allows them to sell coats as exclusive as $18,000.

2) No net crocodile loss

Yacare caiman. Photo by MiguelVieira

When asked to cite another successful ‘biodiverse’ story, Mr. Escobedo did not hesitate to state the Yacare caiman skins used by Bolivian communities. The sustainable management plan implemented in this area ensures that harvesting does not exceed reproduction rates and doubles the income of hunters selling legally-hunted crocodiles. The reptile skin industry, which developed widely in the 20th century, historically provided reptile skins coming from wild reptiles killed for commercial use. Today the context is changing with wildlife conversation public concerns. Though quite a bit of controversy can ensue as to whether it is ethical to harvest animal skins to begin with for fashion-based products, it no doubt important to enact proper policies, community sustainable development measures, and overall awareness to ensure that our world’s ecosystems remain intact.

 

Paying for Ecosystem Services, Option 3: Departments of Transportation

Like I wrote on my website’s mainpage “Bridges span vast wetlands. Interstates drive straight through endangered species territory.” Departments of Transportation, in fact, constitute a major source of demand for wetland and species mitigation. A good example from Florida just came into my inbox courtesy of Ecosystem Marketplace’s Mitigation Mail.

Private Sector Poised to Corner the Florida Mitigation Market

A bill that would steer a $116 million dollar Department of Transportation (DOT) wetland mitigation fund toward private banks in Florida is rapidly making its way through the state legislature. Currently public water management districts are responsible for about two-thirds of state DOT wetland mitigation projects. The bill, CS/HB 599, would channel all DOT funds to the private sector. Not everyone is happy about it: an article in the Tampa Bay Times points to the private wetland banking sector’s spotty track record when it comes to effective mitigation, citing a 2007 state Department of Environmental Protection study that found inadequate mitigation, both in permitting requirements and subsequent implementation.
– Learn more at the Tampa Bay Times.

Gopher Tortoise Slideshow

Todd Gartner of World Resources Institute updates us on the pilot candidate conservation market project for the not-yet-listed range of gopher tortoise in the Southeast US:

“A candidate conservation marketplace is a scalable, voluntary, and science-based market mechanism to spur conservation for imperiled species prior to their listing under the ESA. This approach may allow federal and private project developers, such as solar, wind and natural gas developers, to manage their environmental risk by investing in conservation on private lands in return for regulatory certainty from the USFWS.

That’s why WRI, Advanced Conservation Strategies, the American Forest Foundation, the Longleaf Alliance, and other partners are developing the demand, supply, and transactional infrastructure for such a marketplace through a pilot initiative in the nonfederally listed range of the gopher tortoise in the southern forests of the United States.”

Thank you flicker for a lovely selection of creative commons photos of said gopher tortoise.

Gopher tortoise, photo by USFWS/Southeast.

Here’s where they live – well managed longleaf pine. Photo by USFWS/Southeast.

Watch out, gopher tortoise! Photo by faul.

Gopher tortoise noodling? Yep. Video by WIDTTF.

Marine offsets ideas so crazy they just might work

Quick ideas from 2 journal articles:
1) Reduce whaling by selling individual trading quotas (ITQs):

 “…creating a market that would be economically, ecologically and socially viable for whalers and whales alike. Because conservationists could bid for quotas, whalers could profit from whales even without harvesting the animals. A market would therefore open the door to reducing mortality without needing to battle over whether whaling is honourable or shameful.”

Whale steak... ew. Photo by gromgull: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gromgull/974544996/

More about the concept:

“In such a system, ‘whale shares’ would be allocated in sustainable numbers to all member nations of the IWC, who would have the choice of exercising them, leaving them unused for a year or retiring them in perpetuity. The shares would be tradable in a carefully controlled global market, perhaps with the restriction that members could not trade whale products with non-members. The number of whales hunted would depend on who owned the shares. At one extreme (in which whalers purchase all the shares), whales would be harvested to the agreed sustainable level. At the other extreme (where conservationists purchase all the shares), all whales would be protected from harvest.”

Whale credit ownership is within your grasp!:

“Simple calculations based on current market prices, whale sizes and whaling costs, suggest that the per-whale profit for whalers is in the ballpark of $13,000 for a minke whale to $85,000 for a fin whale. Whale prices should therefore be within reach of conservation groups and even some individuals.”

Purchase of credits could even be more cost-effective than anti-whaling campaigns by non-profits. The authors estimate that non-profits are currently spending in the ballpark of $25 million/year on anti-whaling.

So crazy it just might work:

“Sea Shepherd, for example, estimates that its multimillion-dollar 2008 campaign saved about 350 minke whales in Antarctic waters. By our calculations, those whales could have been purchased for less than $4 million.”

Source: Costello C, Gaines S, Gerber LR, 2011. Conservation science: A market approach to saving the whales. Nature 481, p. 139-140. Published online 11 January 2012. Get it here.

2) Offset seabird by-catch mortality by reducing invasive predators (rodents) in nesting/breeding areas.The authors studied:

“[the] cost effectiveness of rodent control relative to fishery area closures for the conservation of a seabird population adversely affected by an Australian tuna fishery. We find that, in the example being examined, invasive rodent eradication is at least 10 times more cost effective than area closures. We conclude that, while this does not solve the actual bycatch problem, it may provide breathing space for both the seabird species and the industry to find longer term means of reducing bycatch.” [emphasis added]

Not everyone loves the idea:

“The potential for biodiversity offsets as a fisheries management option has received mixed, and mostly adverse, responses. Initial proposals [21,22] received severe criticism, with claims that it may do more harm than good if it diverts attention from the bycatch issue directly [23], that the model used in the analysis was flawed [24,25], or that it is limited in its application to only part of the bycatch problem [18].”

But that’s not what they meant:

“These criticisms were largely focused on the assumption that biodiversity offsets may replace the need for bycatch reduction. However, when a species is under threat and bycatch reduction technologies are not sufficient to address the problem, biodiversity offsets may be sufficient to ‘‘buy time’’ for the species while longer term solutions are sought [26]. If the only other feasible remedial measure is a fishery closure, then biodiversity offsets may be a viable option for fisheries management, even if only as a stop-gap measure while bycatch issues are addressed more fully.”

Fisheries closure to address the situation would be a big deal:

“a closure adequate to achieve the Environment Australia (1998) bycatch target would require an area closure of 785 km radius around Lord Howe Island, consistent with the observed foraging range [34]. This includes much of the area of high activity in the fishery, and may result in significant losses in total revenue.”

Give me the cost-benefit:

“Based on the location choice model results, the economic impact of the closure (estimated as reduction in fishery profits) is very specific to the underlying stock distribution, ranging from $0.6m (under 2004 stock conditions) to $2.2m (under 2007 stock conditions) in 2009–10 dollars. To place this in context, the total economic profits in the fishery in 2007–08 was estimated to be only $2m [28].

In contrast, the cost of eradicating ship rats and mice from the Island has been estimated to be only AU$0.92m (in 2009–10 dollars) [58]. These costs, while appearing relatively low, are consistent with rodent eradication costs experienced elsewhere [59]. This is a one-off cost, and assumes that re-infestation does not occur.”

Source:
Pascoe S, Wilcox C, Donlan CJ, 2011 Biodiversity Offsets: A Cost-Effective Interim Solution to Seabird Bycatch in Fisheries? PLoS ONE 6(10): e25762. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025762. Get it here.