DOCSLIB.ORG

Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process By: Anna Bengtson Alyssa Cudmore Brian Fadie David Markowitz A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Natural Resources and Environment) at the University of Michigan August 2016 Faculty Advisor: Professor Steven Yaffee Client: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process Acknowledgements The authors of this report would like to express our gratitude for the mentorship and assistance of the following with this project: We would like to thank Dr. Steven Yaffee, Professor at the School of Natural Resources and Environment and Director of the Ecosystem Management Initiative at the University of Michigan. His insight and guidance were invaluable for the completion of this report. We would also like to thank Michael Sintetos, Renewable Energy Program Manager for the Bureau of Land Management in California. He was essential for setting up this project and introducing key players and sites to our team. In addition, we want to thank the Bureau of Land Management’s California state office for providing funding that allowed the team to visit the DRECP planning region and meet in-person with individuals. We are also grateful for the funding provided by the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment to assist with the creation and presentation of this material. Lastly, we would like to extend our gratitude to all those who allowed us to inquire about their experiences with the DRECP to allow for a more comprehensive report. Those interviewed gave their time and support, which was invaluable for this project. 2 Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process Abstract The state of California has one of the most aggressive renewable energy portfolio standards in the country with a goal of renewable energy sources supplying 50 percent of utility retail sales by 2030. At the same time, the Department of Interior has a goal of producing 20,000 megawatts of clean energy from public lands by 2020. The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) was a 22.5 million acre joint federal-state planning effort by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife to streamline the permitting process for renewable energy projects proposed in the California desert while allowing for the conservation and improvement of ecological and social resources. Due to its geographic scale and level of governmental and stakeholder collaboration, the DRECP was one of the most ambitious attempts at landscape-scale planning to date. As a requirement for the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) Capstone Master’s Project, four SNRE students performed an evaluation of the six-year planning process that created the Draft DRECP. Drawing from data collected from over 60 interviews of individuals involved, this report analyzes the six-year process by which the Draft DRECP was created to produce a series of lessons learned. These lessons are categorized by major elements of the process, including (1) Governance Structure, (2) Science and Analysis, (3) Public and Stakeholder Engagement, and (4) Tribal Consultation. The report concludes by making a series of recommendations for future landscape-scale planning processes. 3 Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction………………………………………….…...…………………………. 2 Purpose and Need……………………………………………………..….……………… 3 Goals and Structure of Report…………………………………………………...…......… 5 Methods……………………………………………………………………………....…... 6 Section 2: What was the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process?…… 11 The DRECP and its Context…………………………………...…………………….…. 12 The Story of the DRECP ……………………………………………………..….……... 20 Section 3: Key Findings …………………………………………………………………..…... 41 Governance Structure…………………………………………………………………... 42 Science and its Analysis………………………………………………………………... 64 Stakeholder and Public Engagement…………………………………………………… 96 Tribal Consultation……………………………………………….…………………... 140 Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations from the DRECP………………………....184 Conclusions and Lessons Learned……………………………………….………….... 185 Recommendations for Future Landscape Planning Processes….………………….…. 195 4 Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process List of Acronyms ACE: Areas of Conservation Emphasis GCP: General Conservation Plan ACEC: Area of Critical Environmental GIS: Geographic Information System Concern HCP: Habitat Conservation Plans BLM: U.S. Bureau of Land Management ISAP: Independent Science Advisory Panel CBI: Conservation Biology Institute LCC: Landscape Conservation Cooperative CDCA: California Desert Conservation Area LUPA: Land Use Plan Amendment CDFW: California Department of Fish and MOA: Memorandum of Agreement Wildlife MOU: Memorandum of Understanding CEC: California Energy Commission NCCPA: Natural Communities Conservation CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act Planning Act CESA: California Endangered Species Act NCCP: Natural Community Conservation CFLRP: Collaborative Forest Landscape Plan Restoration Program NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act CPUC: California Public Utilities NPS: National Park Service Commission OHV: Off-highway Vehicle CSLC: California State Lands Commission REA: Rapid Ecological Assessment DFA: Development Focus Area REAT: Renewable Energy Action Team DFG: California Department of Fish and REPG: Renewable Energy Policy Group Game RETI: Renewable Energy Transmission DOI: Department of Interior Initiative DOD: U.S. Department of Defense RMP: Resource Management Plan DOE: U.S. Department of Energy RPS: Renewable Portfolio Standard DRECP: Desert Renewable Energy SEZ: Solar Energy Zones Conservation Plan Solar PEIS: Six-State Programmatic EEMS: Environmental Evaluation Modeling Environmental Impact Statement or Western System Solar Plan EIS: Environmental Impact Statement TLC: Tribal-Federal Leadership Conferences EO: Executive Order or Tribal Leadership Forums EIR: Environmental Impact Report USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife ESA: Endangered Species Act Service FLPMA: Federal Land Policy Management USFS: United States Forest Service Act of 1976 WEMO: Western Mojave Plan 5 Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process SECTION 1: Introduction 2 Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process The DRECP was a 22.5-million-acre landscape-level conservation plan aimed at streamlining the permitting process of renewable energy projects in the California desert while providing conservation for a set of selected species, resources, and activities. The land covered in the plan was private, state, and federal land. The DRECP planning area extended over all or part of seven counties - Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego - and 21 cities. The entire aim of the DRECP was to create a more efficient way of permitting renewable energy projects in the southern California desert while conserving important ecological and cultural resources. The process began in late 2008 and saw its draft document released in late 2014. This draft plan identified development focus areas that were determined to be well-suited for renewable energy projects thanks to their high energy resource concentration and lower social and ecological resource values. The plan covered dozens of species and natural communities in addition to recreation, cultural, and other human resources. This process was very significant because it represented a paradigm shift in the way the BLM approaches land management. Previously, uses of the land would be evaluated in an individual, project-by-project manner with little attention paid to the cumulative impacts of these uses on a landscape. The DRECP attempted to survey the landscape first to identify places well-suited for certain uses (renewable energy development, recreation, conservation) and then designate areas for each given their cumulative effects on ecological and cultural resources across the landscape. This new “smart from the start” landscape-level approach seen for one of the first times in the DRECP is a strategy BLM is interested in replicating in the future. This report examines and analyzes the process by which the DRECP was created and what lessons and recommendations can be gleaned from it. The findings of this report attempt to extrapolate lessons from this process and make recommendations based on these lessons for how future landscape-level planning processes may be done more efficiently and effectively. The authors were asked by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) California state office to answer three primary questions: 1. Can landscape-level planning at this scale and complexity be successful and meaningful? 2. What about the DRECP has been effective and can serve as a good model for future efforts? 3. What could be done differently to improve future landscape-level planning efforts? Purpose and Need Today’s conservation challenges are larger than any one person or entity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conservation Covenants
    Law Commission Consultation Paper No 211 CONSERVATION COVENANTS A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod QC and Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation: This Consultation Paper examines the case for introducing “conservation covenants” into the law of England and Wales, and considers how a scheme of conservation covenants might be framed. A conservation covenant is a private agreement made by a landowner, for the purposes of conservation. We discuss the current law and set out a number of provisional proposals and options for reform on which we invite consultees’ views. Geographical scope: The Consultation Paper applies to the law of England and Wales. Impact assessment: In Chapter 9 of this Consultation Paper, consultees are asked also to comment on the likely costs and benefits of any changes provisionally proposed. Consultees’ responses will inform our final recommendations and a formal impact assessment document that will be published with our Report. Availability of materials: This Consultation is available on our website at: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/conservation-covenants.htm. Duration of the consultation: We invite responses from 28 March 2013 to 21 June 2013. Comments may be sent: By email to: [email protected] or By post to: Luke Campbell, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0200 / Fax: 020 3334 0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could send them to us electronically as well (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format).
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Element of the General Plan
    General Plan Land Use Element Adopted December 15, 1993 Amended November 9, 2011 Amended July 22, 2015 Amended July 26, 2016 Amended April 26, 2017 Amended September 26, 2017 Amended December 13, 2017 Amended December 17, 2019 Amended October 6, 2020 County of Sacramento Office of Planning and Environmental Review . This page is blank County of Sacramento General Plan Land Use Element Amended October 6, 2020 Table of Contents SECTION I ..................................................................................................................................... 1 ELEMENT INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 Required Contents of the Land Use Element .............................................................................. 1 Concepts of the Land Use Element ............................................................................................. 1 Relationship to Other Elements .................................................................................................. 2 Relationship to Other County Planning Tools ............................................................................ 3 Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts ................................................................................. 6 THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM ......................................................................... 7 How to Use the Land Use Diagram ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Report 2020
    London Borough of Enfield Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation An Addendumx to the Enfield Blue and Green Strategy Final report London Borough of Enfield Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation An Addendum to the Enfield Blue and Green Strategy Version Status Prepared Checked Approved Date 1. Draft report for client comment R. Turner S. Swindlehurst S. Swindlehurst 06.11.2020 A. Coleman R. Glackin 2. Final Report R. Turner R. Turner R. Turner 17.11.2020 3. Final Report – re-issued to take R. Turner R. Turner R. Turner 01.04.2021 into consideration comments from stakeholders Bristol Land Use Consultants Ltd Landscape Design Edinburgh Registered in England Strategic Planning & Assessment Glasgow Registered number 2549296 Development Planning London Registered office: Urban Design & Masterplanning Manchester 250 Waterloo Road Environmental Impact Assessment London SE1 8RD Landscape Planning & Assessment landuse.co.uk Landscape Management 100% recycled paper Ecology Historic Environment GIS & Visualisation Contents Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation November 2020 Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Background 1 Chapter 2 Methods 3 Site Selection 3 Desk Review 3 Site Survey 3 Site Evaluation 4 Limitations 6 Chapter 3 Summary of the SINC Assessment 7 Summary 7 Recommendations 7 Summary of SINC Review 8 Appendix A Figure 1.1-1.3: Biodiversity Assets in the Borough and Figure 1.2 Areas of Deficiency in Access to Nature A-1 Appendix B Figure 3.1: Summary of SINC Review Recommendations B-1 Appendix C Summary of SINC Review C-1 Appendix D Proformas D-1 LUC I i Chapter- 1 Introduction Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation November 2020 Chapter 1 Introduction LUC was appointed in June 2020 by Enfield London Borough Council to undertake a review of existing Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within the borough.
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve
    Scotland’s National Nature Reserves For more information about Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve please contact: Scottish Natural Heritage, Creag Meagaidh NNR, Aberarder, Kinlochlaggan, Newtonmore, Inverness-shire, PH20 1BX Telephone/Fax: 01528 544 265 Email: [email protected] The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve Foreword Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve (NNR), named after the great whalebacked ridge which dominates the Reserve, is one of the most diverse and important upland sites in Scotland. Creag Meagaidh is a complex massif, with numerous mountain tops and an extensive high summit plateau edged by a dramatic series of ice-carved corries and gullies. The Reserve extends from the highest of the mountain tops to the shores of Loch Laggan. The plateau is carpeted in moss-heath and is an important breeding ground for dotterel. The corries support unusual artic- alpine plants and the lower slopes have scattered patches of ancient woodland dominated by birch. Located 45 kilometres (km) northeast of Fort William and covering nearly 4,000 hectares (ha), the Reserve is owned and managed by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Creag Meagaidh has been a NNR since 1986 and during the last twenty years SNH has worked to restore natural habitats, particularly woodland, on the Reserve. Like much of the Highlands, the vegetation has been heavily grazed for centuries, so it was decided to reduce the number of grazing animals by removing sheep and culling red deer. The aim was not to eliminate grazing animals altogether, but to keep numbers at a level that allowed the habitats, especially the woodland, to recover.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Areas Such As the Cairngorms, Taking Into Consideration the Case for Arrangements on National Park Lines in Scotland.”
    THE MOUNTAIN AREAS OF SCOTLAND -i CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT A report by the COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND THE MOUNTAIN AREAS OF SCOTLAND CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND Opposite: Glen Affric. 2 CONTENTS CHAIRMAN’S PREFACE 3 INTRODUCTION 4-5 THE VALUE OF OUR MOUNTAIN LAND 7-9 LAND USEAND CHANGE 10-16 WHAT IS GOING WRONG 18-24 PUTTING THINGS RIGHT 25-33 MAKING THINGS HAPPEN 34-37 THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS 38-40 Annex 1: The World Conservation Strategy and Sustainable Development 42 Annex 2: IUCN Categories for Conservation Management and the Concept of Zoning 43 - 44 Annex 3: Outline Powers and Administration of National Parks, Land Management Forums and Joint Committees ... 45 - 47 Annex 4: THE CAIRNGORMS 48 - 50 Annex 5: LOCH LOMOND AND THE TROSSACHS 51 - 53 Annex 6: BEN NEVIS / GLEN COE / BLACK MOUNT 54 -56 Annex 7: WESTER ROSS 57 -59 Annex 8: How the Review was Carried Out 60 Annex 9: Consultees and Contributors to the Review 61 - 62 Annex 10: Bibliography 63 - 64 3 CHAIRMAN’S PREFACE The beauty of Scotland’s countryside is one of our greatest assets. It is the Commission’s duty to promote its conservation, but this can only be achieved with the co-operation, commitment and effort of all those who use and manage the land for many different purposes. The Commission has been involved with few environmental and social issues which generated so much discussion as the question of secur ing the protection of Scotland’s mountain heritage for the benefit, use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Action Plan for British Columbia
    Wetland Action Plan for British Columbia IAN BARNETT Ducks Unlimited Kamloops, 954 A Laval Crescent, Kamloops, BC, V2C 5P5, Canada, email [email protected] Abstract: In the fall of 2002, the Wetland Stewardship Partnership was formed to address the need for improved conservation of wetland ecosystems (including estuaries) in British Columbia. One of the first exercises undertaken by the Wetland Stewardship Partnership was the creation of a Wetland Action Plan. The Wetland Action Plan illustrates the extent of the province's wetlands, describes their value to British Columbians, assesses threats to wetlands, evaluates current conservation initiatives, and puts forth a set of specific actions and objectives to help mitigate wetland loss or degradation. It was determined that the most significant threats to wetlands usually come from urban expansion, industrial development, and agriculture. The Wetland Stewardship Partnership then examined which actions would most likely have the greatest positive influence on wetland conservation and restoration, and listed nine primary objectives, in order of priority, in a draft ‘Framework for Action’. Next, the partnership determined that meeting the first four of these objectives could be sufficient to provide meaningful and comprehensive wetland protection, and so, committed to working together towards enacting specific recommendations in relation to these objectives. These four priority objectives are as follows: (1) Work effectively with all levels of government to promote improved guidelines and stronger legislative frameworks to support wetlands conservation; (2) Provide practical information and recommendations on methods to reduce impacts to wetlands to urban, rural, and agricultural proponents who wish to undertake a development in a wetland area; (3) Improve the development and delivery of public education and stewardship programs that encourage conservation of wetlands, especially through partnerships; and (4) Conduct a conservation risk assessment to make the most current inventory information on the status of B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – a Guide to Good Practice
    Planning for Biodiversity PLANNINGand Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice ISBN 13-978 185 112 852 8 ISBN 10-185 112 8522 Price: £18.00 Planning shapes the places where people live and work and the country we live in. It plays a key role in supporting the Government’s wider economic, social and environmental objectives and for sustain- able communities. Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – A Guide to Good Practice March 2006 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London Acknowledgement This guide has been produced by ODPM, Defra and English Nature. The Departments and English Nature wish to thank all those who assisted with the guide including those who kindly gave their permission for the use of case studies and other materials. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.odpm.gov.uk © Crown Copyright, 2006 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ.
    [Show full text]
  • General Plan 2040 August 2019 Draft
    General Plan 2040 August 2019 Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS How to Read this Preliminary General Plan Draft ............................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Trends and Forecasts ........................................................................................................................ 5 Sustainability Framework ................................................................................................................ 12 Section 1: Natural Resource Planning ................................................................................................ 15 Goals ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Protecting Native Habitats & Wildlife ............................................................................................ 15 Protecting Coastal Resources ......................................................................................................... 20 Coastal Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 20 Wetland Habitat ........................................................................................................................ 22 Managing Streams and Watersheds .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open Mosaic Habitats High Value Guidance: When Is Brownfield Land of ‘High Environmental Value’?
    Open mosaic habitats high value guidance: when is brownfield land of ‘high environmental value’? Wildlife and Countryside Link Wildlife and Countryside Link (Link) brings together 45 voluntary organisations concerned with the conservation and protection of wildlife and the countryside. Our members practise and advocate environmentally sensitive land management, and encourage respect for and enjoyment of natural landscapes and features, the historic and marine environment and biodiversity. Taken together our members have the support of over 8 million people in the UK and manage over 750,000 hectares of land. This guidance is supported by the following nine organisations: Amphibian and Reptile Conservation British Mountaineering Council Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust Butterfly Conservation Campaign to Protect Rural England Open Spaces Society Royal Society for the Protection Birds The Ramblers The Wildlife Trusts Introduction Redeveloping brownfield land can provide sustainable development opportunities, reduce pressure on the Green Belt and other undeveloped land, and offer chances to promote economic regeneration. However, a minority of previously developed sites are havens for wildlife. Two of the UK’s top sites for wildlife diversity, are brownfield land and support some of the UK’s most scarce and threatened species. In many cases they provide the last ‘wild space’ in urban areas for local communities, allowing them access to nature and consequently improving the communities’ well-being. The National Planning Policy Framework is explicit that ‘previously developed’ land, treated as synonymous with ‘brownfield’, should be prioritised for development as long as it is not of ‘high environmental value’. Further clarity on this is not provided and there is currently no definition of ‘high environmental value’.
    [Show full text]
  • Collier County, FL
    COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Prepared by Collier County Planning and Zoning Department Comprehensive Planning Section Prepared for COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Adopted October, 1997 AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT SYMBOL DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. May 1, 1990 90-32 February 5, 1991 91-15 May 19, 1992 92-34 May 9, 2000 2000-25 ** May 9, 2000 2000-26 *** (I) May 9, 2000 2000-27 (II) October 22, 2002 2002-54 (III) June 19, 2002 2002-32 ***** (IV) December 16, 2003 2003-67 (V) October 26, 2004 2004-71 (VI) January 25, 2007 2007-16 # (VII) December 14, 2010 2010-49 ## (VIII) October 25, 2011 2011-40 (IX) January 8, 2013 2013-12 ### (X) January 27, 2015 2015-07 (XI) June 13, 2017 2017-20 ♦ The parenthesized Roman numeral symbols enumerated above appear throughout this Element and provide informational citations to adopted documents recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, as required by Florida law. These symbols are for informational purposes only, meant to mark entries amended after the 1997 adoption of the full Element and typically found in the margins of this document, but are not themselves adopted. Note: Amendments made by Ordinance Nos. 90-32, 91-15 and 92-34 are no longer denoted on the pages of the Element with Roman numeral symbols. * Indicates adopted portions. ** Ordinance No. 2000-25 rescinded and repealed in its entirety Collier County Ordinance No. 99-63, which had the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR objectives and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Planning in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain
    Conservation Planning in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain Photo courtesy of Nancy Webb The Nature Conservancy 2002 Conservation Planning in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (Ecoregion 42) The Nature Conservancy May, 2002 For questions or comments on this document contact The Nature Conservancy at P.O. Box 4125, Baton Rouge, LA, 70821. (225) 338-1040 ii Preface The information presented herein is the result of four years of conservation planning and represents two iterations of the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (MSRAP) ecoregional plan as developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and many partners. The bulk of the text describes the process the MSRAP team undertook to: • identify important biological species, communities, and ecological systems, commonly referred to as “conservation targets,” existing in the ecoregion; and • select priority sites, or conservation areas, for biodiversity conservation based on the perceived viability of those targets. It should be noted that a considerable amount of time was spent developing data as few Heritage data, the common building blocks of TNC’s ecoregional plans, were available for the ecoregion. Much of the emphasis on data collection was focused on terrestrial targets. The dearth of aquatics data required that the team rely heavily on the use of coarse filter, abiotic information to identify aquatic systems warranting further investigation. To help fill the gap in aquatics data and better inform MSRAP conservation planning, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation provided funding to TNC’s Southeast Conservation Science Center and Freshwater Initiative to assess freshwater biodiversity in several southeast ecoregions including the Mississippi Embayment Basin (MEB), of which MSRAP is a part.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vision for Iowa's Wildlife in the Year 2030
    Chapter Six A Vision for Iowa’s Wildlife in the Year 2030 Required Element #4: “Descriptions of conservation actions proposed to conserve the identified species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions.” Background Few Iowans are aware that their state was once a land of unparalleled wildlife abundance and diversity. Early settlers discovered, however, that underneath Iowa’s prairies lay the finest farmland in the world. In less than a century the prairies were plowed and with them went flocks of prairie chicken, herds of bison and elk and the cougars, gray wolves, black bear and bobcat that preyed on them. Wetlands were drained and flocks of waterfowl numbering in the millions that nested here were diminished to a tiny fraction of their former numbers. Most of the forests were cleared, the white-tailed deer and wild turkey disappeared and once-uncountable flocks of passenger pigeons became extinct. Plowing freed the prairie soil to run into once-clear waters and game fish like brook trout, northern sunfish and grass pickerel disappeared. Once a wilderness, Iowa had become home to a multitude of small family farms. Only small animals like the bobwhite quail, rabbits, squirrels and the soon-to-be-introduced ring-necked pheasant thrived. The 20th century brought its own changes driven by the constant improvement in farming technology. Ever-larger and more powerful farm equipment; the introduction of herbicides, pesticides, plant hybrids and genetically modified crops; and Federal farm programs that have rewarded all-out production eventually made much of the state unsuitable for even farm-adapted wildlife.
    [Show full text]