Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened and Endangered Species (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 17-24
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 17... ...
17 Innovative Process Solutions Identification of Typical Process Challenges Regulatory agencies and airport sponsors may occasionally 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 overcome them.
|
From page 18... ...
18 within the airport area, while the airport sponsor can educate 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.
|
From page 19... ...
19 It is equally important for the airport sponsor to engage the regulatory agencies early by proactively facilitating informal dialogue between the lead federal agency and the regulatory 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.
|
From page 20... ...
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.
|
From page 21... ...
21 the streaked horned lark was listed as a threatened species under the ESA. USFWS designated 2,900 acres in Washington and 1,729 acres in Oregon as critical habitat for the lark, half of which are federal lands belonging to the USFWS.
|
From page 22... ...
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.
|
From page 23... ...
23 cies that are endangered, threatened, candidates for listing, or "at risk." These banks function similarly to wetland mitigation banks in that in exchange for preservation, enhancement, 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 mitigation, are typically not eligible, there are cases where the additional protections afforded by the conservation bank could qualify for some valuation. Requirements for establishing a conservation bank include obligations from the landowners to manage the bank in perpetuity.
|
From page 24... ...
24 Federal land managers use recovery credits to mitigate impacts to listed species when onsite mitigation is not appropriate. Essentially, the federal land manager receives conservation credits for impacts occurring on the federally managed lands by providing mitigation outside of the managed lands.
|
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.