Professional Documents
Culture Documents
261
Development by design: blending landscape-
level planning with the mitigation hierarchy
Joseph M Kiesecker1*, Holly Copeland2, Amy Pocewicz2, and Br uce McKenney3
Compensatory mitigation, or biodiversity offsets, provide a mechanism for maintaining or enhancing envi-
ronmental values in situations where development is being planned, despite detrimental environmental
impacts. Offsets are generally intended as an option for addressing any remaining environmental impacts of
a development plan, after efforts have been made to avoid, minimize, or restore on-site impacts. Although
offset programs require that developers adhere to the mitigation hierarchy to avoid, minimize, and restore
biodiversity on-site before considering an offset for residual impacts, no quantitative guidelines exist for
this decision-making process. What criteria are needed to require that impacts be minimized or avoided
altogether? Here, we examine how conservation planning can provide a way to address this issue. By blend-
ing landscape-level conservation planning with application of the mitigation hierarchy, we can ensure that
the use of biodiversity offsets is consistent with sustainable development practices.
Front Ecol Environ 2010; 8(5): 261–266, doi:10.1890/090005 (published online 20 Aug 2009)
rences of both rare plants and animals that are critical to 265
meeting ecoregional goals and are distributed across most of
the site. This means that avoidance or minimization strate-
gies should be considered in order to maintain viability of
the target species. The Flaming Gorge site, located in south-
western Wyoming, contains 37 separate rare plant targets,
20 rare animal targets, and 27 individual ecological systems.
The site is critical to meeting the ecoregional goals involv-
ing six of the rare plants – Uinta greenthread (Thelesperma
pubescens), Cedar Mountain easter daisy (Townsendia micro-
cephala), Wyoming tansy mustard (Descurainia torulosa),
Green River greenthread (Thelesperma caespitosum),
Nelson’s milkvetch (Astragalus nelsonianus), and Uinta draba
(Draba juniperina) – and three of the rare animals – roundtail
chub (Gila robusta), flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latip-
innis), and bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus). These
target species are critical, as they are extremely rare (often
5–20 known populations), are experiencing very steep popu- Figur e 4. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus),
lation declines, or face other factors that place them at risk. a sagebrush obligate now under consideration for listing under the
Because there is limited flexibility in where these target Endangered Species Act.
species can be conserved, impacts in this site would make
meeting ecoregional goals difficult. Proposed developments Conclusions
at these sites would either be rejected or could only proceed
if combined with efforts to minimize impacts, leaving little Predictions suggest that there will be increasing pressure on
or no residual impact (Figure 1). natural resources as human populations grow (World Bank
2007). In order to balance these growing demands with bio-
Mitigation funding fuels conservation diversity conservation, a shift from “business as usual” is
clearly needed. By blending a landscape vision with the mit-
Offsets represent an opportunity to mobilize billions of igation hierarchy, we move away from the traditional pro-
dollars for conservation (McKenney 2005; Burgin 2008). ject-by-project land-use planning approach. By avoiding or
When mitigation is a normal part of project costs, the minimizing impacts to irreplaceable biological targets and
level of funding available for conservation can greatly then ensuring that damaged ecosystems are restored on site,
exceed other funding sources. For example, in Wyoming, using the best available technology, and finally offsetting any
$24.5 million was established as a mitigation fund for a remaining residual impacts, we can provide a framework
single oil and gas field; compare this to the $4 million that is consistent with sustainable development (Pritchard
available for wildlife conservation from the Wyoming 1993; Bartelmus 1997). A landscape vision is essential,
Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust (Kiesecker et al. because it helps us to move beyond a business-as-usual
2009). Although this was the first application of offsets approach to conservation. It ensures that the biologically
associated with oil and gas development in the WBE, the
Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the man-
agement of over 260 million acres of land in the US and
administers the mineral estate for over 700 million acres,
has recently adopted a change to its offset policy and now
allows projects to include offsets associated with impacts
resulting from development (US BLM 2008). Given the
extensive amount of oil and gas development projected
for the WBE, a requirement that development projects
achieve no-net-loss could be the impetus needed to con-
serve biodiversity across the ecoregion as well as other
energy-rich ecoregions. This may be important, as the US
moves to exploit more of its domestic energy resources,
such as renewable energy in particular. Several countries
(eg Australia, Brazil, South Africa, and Colombia) are Figur e 5. Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) in a
developing policies to improve the mitigation process by Wyoming Basins gas field. Part of the greater Yellowstone
making planning more proactive and by including offsets ecosystem, the Wyoming Basins ecoregion contains some of the
as a stronger component for mitigating impacts (Gibbons world’s largest herds of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and
and Lindenmayer 2007; Burgin 2008). pronghorn.
Copeland HE, Doherty KE, Naugle DE, et al. Forecasting energy devel-
266 and ecologically important features remain the core conser- opment and impacts to biodiversity. BioScience. In review.
vation targets throughout the process. Without this vision, Copeland HC, Ward JM, and Kiesecker JM. 2007. Assessing tradeoffs
the overarching conservation targets are lost, prioritization in biodiversity, vulnerability and cost when prioritizing conserva-
becomes difficult, and scarce resources are wasted. tion sites. J Conserv Planning 3: 1–16.
Determining appropriate areas to preserve as habitat, as part Doherty K, Naugle D, Copeland C, et al. Energy development and
conservation tradeoffs: systematic planning for sage-grouse in their
of a conservation plan, is a challenging exercise; however, in
eastern range. Stud Avian Biol. In press.
reality, this is the easy part. The real challenge is identifying Doncaster CP, Micol T, and Jensen SP. 1996. Determining minimum
funding mechanisms to underwrite the conservation of these habitat requirements in theory and practice. Oikos 75: 335–39.
areas. By adopting the approach outlined here and requiring Ferrier S, Pressey RL, and Barrett TW. 2000. A new predictor of the
the application of the no-net-loss framework (Kiesecker et irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its appli-
al. 2009), not only do we balance development with conser- cation to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further
refinement. Biol Conserv 93: 303–25.
vation, but we also provide the funding to support conserva- Freilich J, Budd B, Kohley T, and Hayden B. 2001. The Wyoming
tion commensurate with impacts from development. basins ecoregional plan. Lander, WY: TNC Wyoming Field Office.
To see the benefits of a comprehensive approach to miti- Gibbons P and Lindenmayer DB. 2007. Offsets for land clearing: no
gation we need look no further than at existing oil and gas net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecol Manage Restor 8: 26–31.
development in the WBE. If a landscape-level plan had Groves CR. 2003. Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practioner’s
guide to planning for biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press.
been used, this might have included recommendations to Hardner J and Rice R. 2002. Rethinking green consumerism. Sci Am
avoid or minimize impacts from the ten gas fields currently May: 89–95.
in production within the Flaming Gorge site. Out of more IEA (International Energy Agency). 2007. World energy outlook
than 550 individual fields and 31 750 producing oil and gas 2007. Paris, France: IEA. www.worldenergyoutlook.org. Viewed
wells in the WBE, the developers of only one field have 27 Mar 2009.
Kiesecker JM, Copeland H, Pocewicz A, et al. 2009. A framework for
been required to include offsets to mitigate for impacts. implementing biodiversity offsets: selecting sites and determining
Although most individual fields do not represent substan- scale. BioScience 59: 77–84.
tial impacts, the cumulative damage is considerable, with a Lawrence D. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: practical solu-
combined footprint of over 300 000 acres. If the no-net- tion to reoccurring problems. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and
loss goal had been required as part of each of these devel- Sons.
Lovejoy TE. 1980. Discontinuous wilderness: minimum areas for con-
opments and offsets used to mitigate impacts where appro- servation. Parks 5: 13–15.
priate, the development that has already occurred could McKenney B. 2005. Environmental offset policies, principles, and
have resulted in a substantial benefits to conservation. methods: a review of selected legislative frameworks. Amherst,
NH: Biodiversity Neutral Initiative.
Noss RF, Carroll C, Vance-Borland K, and Wuerthner G. 2002. A
Acknowledgements multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of
sites in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Conserv Biol 16:
We thank N Nibbelink and T Hagen for providing tech- 895–908.
nical assistance, and the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Novacek M and Cleland E. 2001. The current biodiversity extinction
Program for helpful discussions. Funding was provided event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery. P Natl Acad Sci USA
by British Petroleum and the Wyoming Chapter of The 98: 5466–70.
Pressey RL, Possingham HP, and Day JR. 1997. Effectiveness of alter-
Nature Conservancy. native heuristic algorithms for identifying indicative minimum
requirements for conservation reserves. Biol Conserv 80: 207–19.
References Pressey RL and Bottrill MC. 2008. Opportunism, threats, and the evo-
Armbruster P and Lande R. 1993. A population viability analysis for lution of systematic conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22:
African elephant (Loxodonta africana) – how big should reserves 1340–45.
be? Conserv Biol 7: 602–10. Pritchard D. 1993. Towards sustainability in the planning process: the
Bailey RG. 1995. Ecoregions of the world. Washington, DC: role of EIA. ECOS: A Review of Conservation 14: 10–15.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Report No 1391. ten Kate K, Bishop J, and Bayon R. 2004. Biodiversity offsets: views,
Ball IR and Possingham HP. 2000. Marxan (v1.8.2): marine reserve experience, and the business case. Gland, Switzerland, Cambridge,
design using spatially explicit annealing. A manual prepared for UK, and London, UK: IUCN and Insight Investment.
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. www.uq.edu.au/ US BLM (US Bureau of Land Management). 2008. Offsite mitigation.
marxan/docs/marxan_manual_1_8_2.pdf. Viewed 18 Mar 2009. Washington, DC: Bureau of Land Management. Instruction mem-
Bartelmus P. 1997. Measuring sustainability: data linkage and integra- orandum No 2008-204.
tion. In: Moldan B, Billharz S, and Matravers R (Eds). US DOI (US Department of the Interior). 2006. Energy Policy and
Sustainability indicators: a report on indicators of sustainable Conservation Act of 2000 phase II inventory: scientific inventory
development. New York, NY: Wiley. of onshore federal lands’ oil and gas resources and the extent and
Burgin S. 2008. BioBanking: an environmental scientist’s view of the nature of restrictions or impediments to their development.
role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation. Biodivers Washington, DC: Department of the Interior. Report
Conserv 17: 807–16. BLM/WO/GI-03/002+3100/REV06.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2000. Protection of the Wilson EO. 1992. The diversity of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
environment (under the National Environment Policy Act). University Press.
Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. Report No World Bank. 2007. Global economic prospects 2007: managing the
40 CFR 1500-1517. next wave of globalization. Washington, DC: World Bank.