Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

17 Innovative Process Solutions Identification of Typical Process Challenges Regulatory agencies and airport sponsors may occasion- ally find themselves on different sides of endangered species issues. To overcome this, it is important to identify those areas where potential conflicts exist between airport safety and endangered species protection and develop processes to over- come them. Examples of such processes include the MOA and the various case studies included in this publication. By developing the Airport Environmental Program website, the FAA established a mechanism to provide airports with a variety of guidance, resources, and even funding opportu- nities for environmental compliance. Similarly, by creating mechanisms for coordination and incidental take, Congress and the agencies that regulate listed species have recognized that development and operations can occur alongside endan- gered species conservation. The challenge is to make the pro- cess work—to ensure that airport activities do not reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of at-risk species and that the conservation of species does not compromise airport operations and safety. This section includes a series of typical process challenges and describes mechanisms for overcom- ing them. Process Challenge: Variable Experience Inexperience on the part of one or both entities in dealing with the other entities’ issues (e.g., an airport sponsor and a regulatory agency) is a common process challenge. While mechanisms usually exist for both sides to reach an accept- able compromise, lack of institutional knowledge, inexperi- ence with non-standard compliance options, or a variety of other case-specific issues may make those situations chal- lenging. On the one hand, airport managers are responsible for every aspect of their airport(s), including, but not limited to, maintenance of all facilities, FAA compliance, budgeting, staffing, public relations, and comprehensive environmental compliance. With such a wide range of responsibilities, it is understandable that most airport managers may not have background, specialized education, or experience in address- ing endangered species issues. On the other hand, federal regulatory staff charged with the implementation of federal law related to species protection and conservation of wild- life may not have experience specific to aviation facilities and airport safety requirements, including requirements that may affect suitable habitat for listed species. Additionally, as non-federal entities, airport sponsors must support the lead federal agency’s (FAA’s) obligations to consult with the Ser- vices and comply with section 7 of the ESA. This means that the relationship is not two sided and limited to the airport and the regulatory agency, but also includes the lead federal agency (per NEPA). This three-way relationship can create challenges, but also presents an opportunity for constructive collaboration. Mechanism(s) for Overcoming the Challenge It is important for all parties to establish a common under- standing of each other’s perspective and mission. While most airports have well-established working relationships with their FAA Airport District Office (ADO) and often the environmental specialists, they less frequently have a well- established relationship with Services regulatory staff. One mechanism to help build this relationship might be work- ing with the local Service office to request a single point of contact, or in cases of larger or multi-airport sponsors, a dedicated reviewer. Having a single point of contact has advantages to both parties. The airport sponsor can take the time to educate the reviewer on the myriad of airport safety and operational requirements and various restrictions or requirements related to funding and/or the FAA (includ- ing schedule). The reviewer can work with the airport spon- sor to identify high-priority resources (i.e., suitable habitat) S E C T I O N 5

18 within the airport area, while the airport sponsor can edu- cate the reviewer on the typical types of activities required at the airport to maintain safety and operational compliance. Providing information on the types and location of suitable habitat at the airport provides a common reference point and offers early guidance to planners without unduly restricting the range of alternatives. Improved understanding of airport operational requirements can improve reviewer skills in con- ducting effects analysis at the airport, decrease data requests, and focus analysis where the impacts are most likely to occur. It is important to maintain positive working relationships with all reviewers, but there are advantages to having a dedi- cated reviewer. Key considerations include the following: • Strong working relationships form the basis for coopera- tive negotiation. • A single point of contact can significantly streamline a complex process. • A dedicated reviewer may require cost sharing. If the air- port sponsor has the ability to fund or partially fund a reviewer position, it may be more readily accomplished. • Existing agreements can provide models for the process. Example In June of 2004, Successes in Stewardship, a newsletter pub- lished by FHWA, reported on an effort in Arkansas to stream- line the compliance process required by NEPA (FHWA 2004). Staff at the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Depart- ment (AHTD), the Arkansas Division of the FHWA, and the three Arkansas USACE offices worked for years within what was felt to be a restricted, multi-USACE, district structure. Over the years, they learned to communicate effectively, built relationships based on trust, and saw the mutually benefi- cial results of their efforts. When the transportation agencies approached their counterparts at the USACE about stream- lining the Section 404 permit process, representatives from each of the agencies worked to develop an agreement that changed the long-standing standard application process. This effort ultimately created a single point of contact for all transportation-related Section 404 inquiries and permit applications within the state of Arkansas (view the agree- ment at http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/ar_coe. asp). This was made possible because AHTD and the Arkan- sas Division of the FHWA agreed to fund a dedicated USACE staff position for transportation projects. The cooperative agreement was signed in December 2002, and the funded position was filled in the spring of 2003. Since then, all parties have noted improvements in process, com- munication, and outcome. The central processing of permits has improved processing time and consistency for the trans- portation agencies and has alleviated internal coordination and workload constraints for the USACE. Because the dedi- cated USACE reviewer must interface with all three of the USACE districts as well as with the AHTD/FHWA and other resource agencies, that reviewer has developed a thorough understanding of the specific issues and policies of all parties. Process Challenge: Level of Review at Planning Stage Another process challenge is the lack of early coordina- tion with regulatory agencies during the planning phase of projects. Because of various grant and funding requirements, airport sponsors often engage in planning efforts for projects that may take several years to get from planning to design to construction or implementation. Although many critical deci- sions affecting resources are made during the initial planning process, it is during NEPA review that most resource agencies become involved. Even then, workload priorities and the avail- ability of staff may limit agencies’ ability to participate in this review. Additionally, resource agencies often require develop- ment of a project description beyond typical airport planning detail in order to sufficiently review the project. While the FAA encourages early coordination, early design concepts may not contain sufficient detail to accurately estimate the extent of potential impacts or the level of endangered species coordi- nation required. When the level of coordination is underesti- mated during planning or FAA NEPA review, an airport may experience unexpected mitigation requirements coming late in the design process or even design modifications during per- mitting that adversely affect project cost and schedule. Mechanism(s) for Overcoming the Challenge One way to obtain consistent and accurate coordination is to provide relevant and sufficient environmental data as early in the process as possible, including making conservative assump- tions on the extent of the project “footprint” or extent of physi- cal impacts. While this may translate into added upfront costs, the additional level of detail can allow the resource agencies to make more accurate impact determinations at an earlier point in the process. As addressed in Draft FAA Order 1050.1F: Preparation for any applicable permit application and other review process requirements should be part of the planning pro- cess to ensure that necessary information is collected and pro- vided to the permitting or reviewing agencies in a timely manner. The FAA or applicant, as applicable, should prepare a list noting all obvious environmental resources the proposed action and the alternatives would affect, including specially protected resources. These tasks should be completed at the earliest possible time during project planning to ensure full consideration of all envi- ronmental resources and facilitate the FAA’s NEPA process. Suf- ficient planning and project justification should be available to support the environmental review.

19 It is equally important for the airport sponsor to engage the regulatory agencies early by proactively facilitating infor- mal dialogue between the lead federal agency and the regu- latory agency, and for those agencies to be receptive to this potentially expanded coordination period. This may include providing opportunities for resource agencies to comment on proposed alternatives, ALPs, and master plans. The early coor- dination can help airport operators to identify potential issues and create solutions. If all parties can exercise flexibility and thoroughly document the activities, agreements, and concerns of the early coordination, it can create a framework for more streamlined consultations. It should be noted, however, that it is recommended that the airport sponsor first develop an initial project description, including purpose of the project and the need it will fill, before meeting with the agencies so that it is clear what the project is (and equally, what it is not). Example The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) reports on an effort to improve procedures that was undertaken, in response to the “streamlining” provisions contained within TEA-21 (FDOT n.d.). In this effort, FDOT revised the proce- dures for planning transportation projects, conducting envi- ronmental reviews, and developing and permitting projects, with the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process. Before ETDM, agency interaction did not begin until the NEPA process, which typically occurred at the 60-percent project design point, when a significant amount of time and money had already been invested. Additionally, long time gaps between steps meant that environmental information collected early in the process could be obsolete. To facilitate reviews, FDOT implemented an Internet-accessible interac- tive database tool called the Environmental Screening Tool (EST). Two opportunities to review projects, the “Planning Screen” and the “Programming Screen,” are open to agen- cies prior to the start of significant engineering work. The Planning Screen occurs in conjunction with development of cost-feasible plans where the information provided by agen- cies and the public helps identify project configurations that would avoid or minimize adverse effects on Florida’s natural or human environments. In the case of known unavoidable effects, agencies provide commentary on suggested alter- natives or mitigation measures. This information supports project cost estimates, and, in some cases, a project might not advance due to the costs associated with adverse effects. The Programming Screen occurs before projects are considered for the FDOT work program. Agency input during the Pro- gramming Screen is more detailed, and the agencies provide specific information to identify technical issues that must be addressed by engineers and planners during the NEPA phase. Agency input during the “Programming Screen” is used to develop the NEPA scope of work which focuses the study and therefore reduces costs. Process Challenge: Inconsistency Airport sponsors may receive inconsistent project condi- tions that are included in biological opinions or other types of incidental take permits due to changes in review agency policies or regulations, baseline conditions over time, or even staff turnover. The consultation process for any given project can be highly variable within a single airport or throughout a region depending on the type of species or habitat involved, the type of consultation (section 7 versus section 10 for example), the specific region, and other factors. Lack of predictability can make it difficult to accurately forecast and quantify compli- ance costs or schedule. The unpredictability ultimately leads to higher cost estimates to cover process uncertainties. More- over, uncertainty in permitting and consultation outcomes does not promote investment in the process by the regulated community. Mechanism(s) for Overcoming the Challenge While having a dedicated reviewer is ideal for maintaining consistency, this is not always possible. One mechanism for overcoming inconsistency in review is to establish a thorough documentation process, including historical information to determine precedence. In some cases, airport sponsors may choose to utilize tools such as geographic information systems (GIS)-based permit tracking software to comprehensively track project impacts and compliance actions over time. Per- mit tracking software can usually be customized to a particular airport’s needs and integrated into a variety of other systems, including aerial web viewers. While effectiveness of permit tracking requires maintenance of the data, the benefit is that the airport can maintain a detailed history of regulatory coor- dination, consultations, mitigation, and other actions that can serve as a basis for consistency in future agency coordination (as well as documentation of precedence). As an extension of permit tracking, many airports are researching and imple- menting environmental management systems (EMSs) to man- age critical and complex issues of environmental performance and compliance. More information on implementing an EMS is available from FAA Order 1050-21A at http://www.faa.gov/ documentlibrary/media/order/1050.21a.pdf and in ACRP Synthesis 44: Environmental Management System Development Process (Delaney and Thomson 2013). Example Westchester County Airport (New York) is located within an environmentally sensitive area, contains diverse operations,

20 and falls under the jurisdictions of a variety of county, state, and federal agencies. The airport, located in a community that values environmental protection, implemented an EMS to help manage the complex site and to support stakeholder confidence in the airport’s environmental management. Included as a case study in ACRP Synthesis 44, Westchester County Airport’s EMS consists of a management structure and processes that allow the sponsor to better identify, analyze, avoid, and reduce the environmental impact of all airport activities (Delaney and Thomson 2013). Developing and Maintaining Stakeholder Relationships Establishing relationships with stakeholders is essential to building support for an airport’s mission. Agency and pub- lic stakeholders can provide valuable input to help identify issues and to garner support for airport objectives. When an airport sponsor strives to work with stakeholder partners on environmental issues, the resulting projects can be beneficial to the airport, the protected species and their habitats, and the community. One example of this is the Indianapolis Air- port Authority’s (IAA’s) Environmental and Conservation Program, which is highlighted in Case Study #3. Through this program, IAA works with stakeholder partners to reduce environmental impacts, help maintain economic growth, and integrate IAA’s actions with the needs and values of the local community. It is important to define how stakeholders will work together to achieve an objective. This includes establishing mutually acceptable processes for information sharing and decision making. This may include formal agreements with agency stakeholders (e.g., MOAs) to identify how airport and agency stakeholders will work together in specific situations. One such situation is the federal process for listing species and critical habitat designation. It may also be advantageous to agree to conflict resolution processes upfront in order to resolve disputes in a timely manner while preserving the relationships. Planning for Listing (Pre and Post) It is important not only for individual airports but also the FAA to be aware of changes to regulations that could have impacts, either positive or negative, on airport develop- ment or operations. Conversely, it is important for regula- tory agencies to be aware of changes to FAA regulations that could affect the trust resources under their purview. Before a species is listed, the Service must consider whether there are areas of habitat believed to be essential to the species’ conservation. The Service then may propose “critical habi- tat” designation, which normally excludes developed areas such as airports, but not always. According the USFWS, “the determination and designation of critical habitat is one of the most controversial and confusing aspects of the ESA” (USFWS n.d.). Pre-Listing It is important for airports to understand designation of critical habitat. Designating critical habitat helps protect areas that may or may not be occupied by the species pro- posed for listing, but this designation may result in project modifications that would not have occurred without the critical habitat designation. The critical habitat designation is to be based both on scientific data and “economic impact and any other relevant impact” and may even exclude an area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion out- weigh those of inclusion (unless exclusion for this reason will cause species extinction). Airports can contain habitat that is identified as critical habitat for one or more species, and, in many cases, the habitat can be managed for those species without adversely affecting airport operations or safety (see Case Study #2). There are circumstances, however, in which a proposed listing could adversely affect an airport’s ability to develop airside lands or perform required maintenance to effectively manage wildlife hazards (see Case Study #2). One such example is the case of the streaked horned lark (Ere- mophila alpestris strigata), which was proposed for listing and critical habitat designation in October 2012. This was an unusual case because it involved a species restricted to a small number of sites in the Pacific Northwest that was dependent on grassland habitats that were becoming increasingly scarce. Civilian airports and military installations—including Olym- pia Regional Airport, Shelton Airport, Corvallis Airport, Portland Airport, and Joint Base Lewis McChord (including McChord Airfield)—represented some of the largest areas of remaining suitable habitat. But birds are a known hazard to aircraft, and several of these facilities have active wildlife haz- ard management practices that could have been affected by the proposed designation. To address this case, a workshop on the streaked horned lark and Pacific Northwest airports was convened on March 9, 2011, in Vancouver, Washington. The key objective of the work- shop was to explore opportunities for conserving the species without impacting aircraft safety (see http://cascadiaprairieoak. org/documents/Proceedings-of-Streaked-Horned-Lark-and- Airports.pdf). The workshop drew stakeholders from airports, state and federal wildlife agencies, the USDA, the U.S. Navy’s Bird Air- craft Strike Hazard (BASH) Program, and nonprofits (e.g., The Nature Conservancy). By the end of the workshop, all participants better understood the issues, and a working group was developed that led to compromises. On October 3, 2013,

21 the streaked horned lark was listed as a threatened species under the ESA. USFWS designated 2,900 acres in Washing- ton and 1,729 acres in Oregon as critical habitat for the lark, half of which are federal lands belonging to the USFWS. The Service also announced a special rule to exempt the “take” or harm of streaked horned lark associated with civilian airport maintenance and operation, agriculture management, and noxious weed control on non-federal lands. The exemption means anyone engaged in those permitted activities will not be held responsible if the activities harm members of the sub- species. The streaked horned lark example underscores the importance of vigilance on regulatory decisions. Post-Listing In some cases, the conservation goals for a species are reached and it is removed from the federal list. When conser- vation goals for a species are met, the Services may consider changing its classification from “endangered” to “threatened” or delisting it. When delisting or downlisting, the Services fol- low the same legal procedures as for listing; they (1) propose the action in the Federal Register; (2) seek comments from independent species experts, other federal agencies, state biologists, and the public; (3) analyze the comments received on the proposed rulemaking; (4) decide whether to complete the proposed action or maintain the species status as it is; and (5) render a final decision and response to comments in the Federal Register. While the federal ESA listing and delisting process is clear, issues can arise when a species is federally delisted, but retains state protection and/or protection under another federal statute. One example is the bald eagle (see Case Study #8). Since federal delisting of the species on August 9, 2007, bald eagles are no longer protected under the ESA, but they retain protection under the MBTA and the BGEPA. Expansion of runways and airport improvement projects designed to increase safety often involve tree clearing and protection of airspace. Removal of trees with eagle nests may also be desired to reduce wildlife hazard and strike potential. Removal of trees with eagle nests, whether occupied or unoc- cupied, is illegal without a permit under the BGEPA. Unlike the ESA, neither the MBTA nor the BGEPA have explicit provisions that address incidental take, which has caused confusion within the Services and to airports dealing with active nests in and around runways. Additionally, in many states, the overlapping nature of federal and state permits for the bald eagle, a delisted species, can be particularly con- fusing to airport managers. Despite delisting, a federal per- mit from the USFWS is required for the take of eagles and eagles that pose a risk to human health or safety, and state consultation and permits to “take” bald eagles are often still required. Tools and Innovative Approaches With the large number of airports in the United States and significant acreage of land on those airports, there is a role for airports in the conservation of habitat. While habitat con- servation must be consistent with airport requirements for safe operation, there are numerous agreements, plans, and approaches (tools) that can be used to document the con- servation intents and goals for federally listed species on air- ports. Not every tool is right for every airport, but this primer has discussed many options and provided examples of suc- cesses to guide airports to some of the tools that will best fit their needs and management goals. Some additional tools are described below, with more information available on CRP- CD-160: Airport Toolbox for ACRP Report 122 (bound into this report and available on the ACRP Report 122 web page) and on provided websites. In a Safe Harbor Agreement, a landowner volunteers to maintain, create, restore, or improve habitat for endangered or threatened species in exchange for release from liability for the attraction or propagation of new or more species. A baseline condition (usually stated as a number of listed indi- viduals or a quantification of the habitat conditions) for each species is established. Once it is determined that the proposed actions will result in a net conservation benefit, in return for the participant’s efforts, USFWS will authorize incidental take through the section 10 (a)(1)(A) process of the ESA. In other words, these agreements essentially relieve landowners of liability under the ESA if conservation practices on their land attract and/or perpetuate federally listed species. To date, nearly three million acres of land have been enrolled in Safe Harbor Agreements, benefiting a variety of listed species. Because Safe Harbor Agreements establish baseline condi- tions, they have the potential to be utilized for ecosystem- based management rather than individual-species-focused management. Such an innovative approach could provide conservation benefits for multiple species sharing the same habitat including listed, candidate, and unlisted species. In return, it would be appropriate to expand the assurances under a Safe Harbor Agreement to include assurances similar to those of the candidate species agreements described below because measures would be in place for at-risk species. The intent of expanding the focus of Safe Harbor Agreements to ecosystem-based conservation is to provide a greater conser- vation benefit while at the same time providing broader assur- ances to the land manager for existing and future operations. A Candidate Conservation Agreement is a formal agree- ment between USFWS and one or more parties to address the conservation needs of proposed or candidate species or spe- cies likely to become candidates before they become listed as endangered or threatened. Landowners voluntarily commit to conservation actions that will help stabilize or restore the

22 species with the goal that listing will become unnecessary. In return, USFWS provides assurances that in the event that a species covered in the Candidate Conservation Agreement is subsequently listed as endangered or threatened, USFWS will not assert additional restrictions or require actions additional to those the property owner voluntarily committed to in the agreement. At the time the parties enter into the Candidate Conservation Agreement, USFWS would issue an Enhance- ment of Survival Permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizing the property owner to take individuals or modify habitat to return the property to the conditions agreed upon and specified in the Candidate Conservation Agreement, pro- vided that the take is at a level consistent with the overall goal of precluding the need to list. The effective date on the permit would be tied to the date any covered species becomes listed. Candidate Conservation Agreements may benefit land- owners in several ways. First, if the actions preclude list- ing, the landowner is not regulated by the ESA. Second, if the conservation actions are not sufficient and the species is listed, the Candidate Conservation Agreement automatically becomes a permit authorizing the landowner’s incidental take of the species. Thus, Candidate Conservation Agree- ments provide landowners with assurances that their conser- vation efforts will not result in future regulatory obligations in excess of those they agree to at the time they enter into the agreement. While such agreements have been utilized in the past, their use could be expanded by incorporating them with other ESA compliance tools such as Safe Harbor Agreements (discussed above) to provide complementary assurances and conservation benefits. (See http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ what-we-do/cca.html.) Habitat Conservation Plans are planning documents required as part of an application for an incidental take per- mit. They describe the anticipated effects of the proposed taking, how those impacts will be minimized or mitigated, and how the HCP is to be funded. But HCPs are not always tied to specific “take” actions and can apply to both listed and non-listed species, including candidates for listing. Conserv- ing species before they are in danger of extinction, or are likely to become so, can also provide early benefits and pre- vent the need for listing. HCPs offer non-federal landowners an opportunity to use or develop land that would likely be untouchable due to the ESA. Additionally, HCPs give local and state governments a viable option in determining their land-use planning and growth management techniques. HCPs can be a valuable planning tool where critical habitat of threatened or endangered species occurs and may provide for ecosystem-based management for species as opposed to individual-species-based management. Such an approach would allow HCPs to address management of multiple spe- cies that share the same habitat regardless of their status under the ESA, and the applicant could receive assurances for listed, candidate, and at-risk species. Utilizing HCPs focused on ecosystems rather than individual species on a project-by- project basis provides greater conservation benefit, consistent management operations, and regulatory predictability for the land manager. The Services are not just regulators of the HCP program; they can also provide technical assistance and work closely with an airport throughout the development of an HCP. This early involvement can reduce the probability of developing an HCP that does not meet all criteria. The Services play a “leadership” role in the HCP program, which involves not only technical expertise but attitude and philosophy (Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook 1996). Although the Services do not initiate HCPs, they encourage them and are to support them to the maxi- mum extent possible with experienced staff that can provide timely review of draft documents, advice on mitigation pro- grams, and help with solutions to contentious issues. Because airports may be owned or managed by local gov- ernments, there is also the potential to develop a local land- use comprehensive plan to serve as an HCP for select areas and for certain land-use activities, including airports. Such an approach provides upfront planning and conser- vation while at the same time providing a mechanism for the local government/airport sponsor to impose impact fees for development within the areas subject to the HCP and thereby adding a funding source for needed wildlife man- agement operations. Expanding HCPs as regional habitat conservation planning tools and covering multiple species not only provides the opportunity for greater conservation benefit but also provides an opportunity for streamlining regulatory approval processes. For example, in Florida, the primary tool for managing the Florida Manatee is county manatee management plans, which are planning documents that are incorporated into each coastal county’s local land-use plan. USFWS has issued a programmatic concurrence that any proposed project determined to be consistent with the appli- cable manatee management plan is authorized under the ESA. Such an approach has significantly reduced the time and effort spent on regulatory review while also providing con- sistent management of the listed species. Airports could take a similar approach, utilizing HCPs as the management plan and in return gaining the benefit of programmatic approval versus project-by-project review under the ESA. (See http:// www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/HCPsWorking Together5-2005web%20.pdf.) Conservation banking is a mechanism that allows a vari- ety of landowners—private landowners and tribal, state, and local governments—to permanently protect lands with spe- cific natural resource value and manage those lands for spe-

23 cies that are endangered, threatened, candidates for listing, or “at risk.” These banks function similarly to wetland miti- gation banks in that in exchange for preservation, enhance- ment, or restoration of habitat for species, USFWS approves a specified number of habitat “credits” that may be utilized by an airport for its operations or sold to third parties to offset impacts to those species within a designated “service area.” While lands previously designated for conservation purposes through another program, such as wetland mitiga- tion, are typically not eligible, there are cases where the addi- tional protections afforded by the conservation bank could qualify for some valuation. Requirements for establishing a conservation bank include obligations from the landown- ers to manage the bank in perpetuity. This involves entering into a Conservation Banking Agreement with the USFWS, granting a conservation easement to an eligible third party, and developing a long-term management plan and establish- ing funding for the perpetual management. In some cases, it may make sense for an airport to establish a conservation bank or partner with local government(s) or other landown- ers to develop a conservation bank that includes the airport in their service area. Often, with some assurance of future credit needs by an entity such as an airport, private investors are willing to establish the bank in return for future credit purchase. Conservation banking can be accomplished through a variety of mechanisms and is typically beneficial to all parties, including the species under protection. (See http://www.fws. gov/endangered/landowners/conservation-banking.html.) Adaptive management plans are a mechanism often used in complex environmental restoration projects to provide man- agement flexibility for the land manager within the context of applicable regulatory programs such as the ESA. Essentially, the plans are protocols that the land manager and the regula- tory agencies have agreed upon in advance to address out- comes that were not expected or factors that were unknown at the time of permitting. Consequently, if the unexpected should occur, the land manager has a framework to respond to the new circumstances while ensuring primary operations are not compromised and without the need for additional permitting. Such an approach could be utilized by airports for species management under the ESA. The plans could be incorporated into the conservation measures of an HCP, Safe Harbor Agreement, or standard biological opinion providing upfront incidental take authorization so long as the protocols agreed upon are followed. Since the adaptive management plan would be a component of the airport operations, there is a potential for public financing for the plan so that there would always be funding available for unexpected recovery actions (airport managers would need to be aware of any tax implications). Programmatic consultations and biological opinions are tools that allow frequently repeated actions to be evalu- ated on a program basis and thereby eliminating the need for individual consultation on a project-by-project basis. Instead of evaluating each activity authorized by a federal agency on a project-by-project basis, the federal agency’s regulatory program would be evaluated under the ESA in connection with a specific type of activity/project within a geographically defined area. Therefore, instead of having multiple consulta- tions, only one section 7 consultation would be required for applicable projects. The resulting biological opinion would set out the scope of the activities covered and the conserva- tion measures that must be employed for the associated take authorization to apply. Any proposed project that falls within the scope of an existing programmatic biological opinion would not require further section 7 consultation, signifi- cantly expediting the authorization process. A key point is that the programmatic consultation and resulting biological opinion must carefully define the scope of activities covered (by location, type, and size) and the protection measures that must be followed (i.e., included as permit conditions). In essence, such an approach sets up a compliance process for a particular type of federal agency permitting program as applied to specific types of activities that are common in nature and/or impacts. The advantages to such a streamlined approach include (1) promoting con- sistent application and expectations of conservation mea- sures, (2) addressing the effects of multiple activities on a regional scale, (3) managing project loads more efficiently, and (4) enhancing regulatory predictability (costs, timelines, and obligations). Given that there are a number of airport- related projects that could be categorized by type of activity, approaching such projects programmatically might serve to expedite authorizations and enhance conservation. An exam- ple would be airport-related projects that include dredging or filling of jurisdictional waters and thereby require a Clean Water Act permit from the USACE. Instead of conduct- ing section 7 consultations for every proposed permit, the USACE could consult with the appropriate wildlife agency and develop a biological opinion with incidental take autho- rization for the permitting program itself as it applies to certain defined airport projects within a defined geographic area. With such a biological opinion and incidental take authorization in place, any future airport-related project that falls within the scope of the biological opinion (type of activ- ity and location) is deemed to have completed the section 7 consultation in advance and would, therefore, require no further action under the ESA. By evaluating the regulatory program and establishing standard conservation measures, the need for project-by-project evaluation becomes unneces- sary and the consultation process is streamlined.

24 Federal land managers use recovery credits to mitigate impacts to listed species when onsite mitigation is not appro- priate. Essentially, the federal land manager receives conserva- tion credits for impacts occurring on the federally managed lands by providing mitigation outside of the managed lands. Currently, recovery credits have limited use for airports, but as many airports are either in proximity to or share habitats with federally or state-managed lands, the recovery credit tool could be expanded to allow airport managers to receive conser- vation credits for offsite mitigation they undertake on federal or state lands. Such an approach would enhance conservation measures on federally or state-managed lands (overall conser- vation benefit to listed species) while at the same time avoiding onsite mitigation that may result in increased wildlife hazard.