Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 67-101
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 67... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-i APPENDIX A LITERATURE REVIEW, SURVEY, AND PRACTITIONER INTERVIEW REPORT
|
From page 68... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-ii APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................
|
From page 69... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Frequency of the respondents of the survey by state.
|
From page 70... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Agencies and corresponding number of respondents that participated in the online survey.
|
From page 71... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-1 1.0 ONLINE SURVEY The purpose of the survey was to develop a national perspective on the state of the practice of wildlife connectivity mitigation in the United States. The survey sought to elicit information from experienced practitioners on how they were developing approaches, protocols, and requirements for wildlife connectivity mitigation.
|
From page 72... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-2 31 of the states had 2 to 4 respondents, and five had one respondent, including the District of Columbia (Figure 1)
|
From page 73... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-3 Figure 1. Frequency of the respondents of the survey by state.
|
From page 74... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-4 Figure 2. Primary job title or role of respondents.
|
From page 75... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-5 1.2.2 States Incorporating Wildlife Connectivity Early in the Transportation Planning Process To identify the states where wildlife connectivity is an important consideration during transportation project development, we asked the following question: • "Does your state ever incorporate wildlife connectivity assessment and mitigation needs early in the transportation project programming, planning, and design process? " The respondents, to a large degree (84%)
|
From page 76... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-6 consulted. In several states, respondents said that wildlife advocacy groups were also included in preproject planning efforts involving wildlife connectivity assessments or evaluations of mitigation needs.
|
From page 77... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-7 Figure 5. Number of wildlife projects worked on by survey respondents.
|
From page 78... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-8 included enhancing existing or creating new wildlife crossing structures. An MOU between CDOT, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, USFWS, U.S.
|
From page 79... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-9 ESAs, and the CEQA. Also, New Jersey has a Flood Hazard Control Act that was identified, as was New York's Adirondack Park Travel Corridors Unit Management Plan.
|
From page 80... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-10 Figure 7. The types of wildlife connectivity mitigation respondents have experience in implementing under a regulatory framework.
|
From page 81... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-11 Figure 8. Identification of the regulatory framework by survey respondents that led to the implementation of wildlife crossing structures in their state.
|
From page 82... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-12 Figure 9. The sources of funding identified in the survey that pay for wildlife connectivity mitigation measures, such as wildlife crossing infrastructure.
|
From page 83... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-13 Figure 10. Percent of the respondents to the survey who listed each category as a primary source of funding for wildlife connectivity mitigation credits.
|
From page 84... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-14 Figure 11. Estimated number of large carnivore connectivity mitigation projects in respondent's state.
|
From page 85... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-15 Figure 13. Estimated number of small mammals (smaller than a coyote)
|
From page 86... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-16 Figure 15. Estimated number of amphibian connectivity mitigation projects in respondent's state.
|
From page 87... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-17 1.2.8 Availability of Mitigation Credits to Offset Wildlife Connectivity Impacts For the various taxonomic groups that were the focus of connectivity mitigation projects (Figures 11 thru Figure 16) , respondents were asked if there were credits available in various banking programs to provide for the mitigation.
|
From page 88... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-18 The survey sought to identify whether wildlife connectivity mitigation projects were used for impacts to wildlife connectivity by the project itself (self-mitigation) or as mitigation for another transportation project's impacts to wildlife connectivity (out-of-kind mitigation)
|
From page 89... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-19 Dam removal. In Maryland, the credits were based, in part, on protected streams and streams opened up for fish spawning.
|
From page 90... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-20 Figure 19. Responses to the question, "for the wildlife connectivity mitigation projects you worked on, was the enhancement to improve permeability at a particular location determined quantitatively?
|
From page 91... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-21 Figure 20. Responses to whether the survey participant would employ an opportunity to generate mitigation credits from wildlife connectivity projects if their state had the option.
|
From page 92... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-22 acres of habitat the project impacted, to a sliding scale of construction costs based on the project's impacts to a threatened species. One response indicated costs for in-lieu program fees are 1:1.
|
From page 93... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-23 2.0 FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS WITH KEY PRACTITIONERS For further insight into mitigation programs related to wildlife crossings and other enhancements, followup interviews were conducted with survey respondents that had extensive experience with wildlife connectivity mitigation programs within their state, which included Arizona, California, Colorado, and Florida. Interviewees included: • 8 state DOT planners or environmental managers • 4 wildlife biologists at state natural resource agencies • 1 federal transportation agency Wildlife connectivity mitigation projects pose unique challenges, such as a need for collaboration across agencies and jurisdictional boundaries, as well as the coordination of funding schedules and stakeholder objectives.
|
From page 94... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-24 existing or creating new wildlife crossing structures. Collaborative approaches such as this were widely supported by practitioners interviewed, although it was apparent that some state DOTs have better working relationships with USFWS and their state natural resource agencies.
|
From page 95... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-25 2.2.2 Valuation Metrics for Wildlife Connectivity Mitigation Methods to quantify mitigation credits for a given wildlife connectivity mitigation project are not well developed. Only California has generated credits for a single wildlife crossing "pilot" project, and the credits were calculated based on structural, or condition-based, metrics.
|
From page 96... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-26 crossing structures. Several well-placed motion-sensitive camera traps can be placed at each crossing structure to measure its use by large-to-medium and even small body-sized mammals.
|
From page 97... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-27 for wildlife crossings and other connectivity enhancements on a case-by-case basis, which is the current approach taken by CDFW (pers. comm.
|
From page 98... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-28 California would be subject to public comment, which would provide another level of scrutiny of the protocols used (CDFW pers. comm.
|
From page 99... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-29 wildlife from the Colorado State Patrol (CDOT pers. comm.
|
From page 100... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-30 In summary, although state DOTs have existing WVC and roadkill data-collection programs that could be used to calculate mitigation credits and monitor wildlife connectivity mitigation, the use of such data would depend on the focal species and may not be applicable to many taxa. These metrics could reasonably be used under certain situations to value wildlife crossings and other connectivity enhancements for big game, especially when used in combination with GPS collar data.
|
From page 101... ...
Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits A-31 standpoint, the program has thus been successful because it has motivated transportation project managers to find ways to avoid an adverse determination of effects to Canada lynx (CDOT pers. comm.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.