Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America pp 159–181Cite as

Energy by Design: Making Mitigation Work for Conservation and Development

  • Chapter

Abstract

The world faces a mass extinction event that threatens 10–30 percent of all mammal, bird, and amphibian species (Wilson 1992 Novacek and Cleland 2001 Kiesecker et al. 2004 Levin and Levin 2004). Anthropogenic stres-sors, such as invasive species, overexploitation, pollution, and climate change, contribute to the crisis, but habitat destruction is by far the most influential factor in this unprecedented loss of biodiversity (Vitousek et al. 1997b Hardner and Rice 2002). Development pressures will increase dramatically if global economic growth doubles by 2030 as expected (World Bank 2007), and unprecedented investment in energy development—more than $20 trillion—will be needed to support this growth, especially in developing countries (International Energy Agency 2007). This surge in development will only accelerate habitat destruction. Thus, given the importance of economic development for improving human well-being, substantial improvement in our ability to balance development needs with environmental conservation is crucial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Abbitt, R. J. F., J. M. Scott, and D. S. Wilcove. 2000. The geography of vulnerability: Incorporating species geography and human development patterns into conservation planning. Biological Conservation 96:169–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, P., and R. Lande. 1993. A population viability analysis for African elephant (Loxodonta africana): How big should reserves be? Conservation Biology 7:602–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arponen, A., H. Kondelin, and A. Moilanen. 2007. Area-based refinement for selection of reserve sites with the benefit-function approach. Conservation Biology 21:527–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, I. R. 2000. Mathematical applications for conservation ecology: The dynamics of tree hollows and the design of nature reserves. University of Adelaide, South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, I. R., and H. P. Possingham. 2000. Marxan V1.8.2: Manual for marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing. www.uq.edu.au/marxan/index.html? page=77655. Retrieved November 20, 2009.

  • Balmford, A., J. L. Moore, T. Brooks, N. Burgess, L. A. Hansen, P. Williams, and C. Rahbek. 2001. Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science 291:2616–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bartelmus, P. 1997. Measuring sustainability: Data linkage and integration. Pages 110–118 in B. Moldan and S. Billharz, eds. Sustainability indicators: A report on the project on indicators of sustainable development. Cheltenham, UK: Countryside Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartoldus, C. C. 1999. A comprehensive review of wetland assessment procedures: A guide for wetland practitioners. St. Michaels, MD: Environmental Concern, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. W. 2006. Eco-logical: An ecosystem approach to developing infrastructure projects. Washington, DC: Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, Federal Highway Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———Brown, W. K. 2006. Bird and bat monitoring at the McBride Lake Wind Farm, Alberta, 2003–2004. Calgary, AB: Vision Quest Windelectric, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgin, S. 2008. BioBanking: An environmental scientist’s view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:807– 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canter, L., ed. 1996. Environmental impact assessment, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. C. 2007. Sustainability science: A room of its own. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:1737–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, H. E., K. E. Doherty, D. E. Naugle, A. Pocewicz, and J. M. Kiesecker. 2009. Mapping oil and gas development potential in the US intermountain West and estimating impacts to species. PLoS One 4:e7400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, H., J. Ward, and J. M. Kiesecker. 2007. Threat, cost, and biological value: Prioritizing conservation within Wyoming ecoregions. Journal of Conservation Planning 3:1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council on Environmental Quality. 2000. Protection of the environment under the National Environment Policy Act. Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, sec. 5 (1500–17).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, D. R., T. C. Edwards, K. H. Beard, A. Cutler, and K. T. Hess. 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88:2783–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, P., and R. Cowling. 2004. Using the species-area relationship to set baseline targets for conservation. Ecology and Society 9:11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinerstein, E., G. Powell, D. Olson, E. Wikramanayake, R. Abell, C. Loucks, E. Underwood, et al. 2000. A workbook for conducting biological assessments and developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion-based conservation. World Wildlife Fund, Conservation Science Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, K. E. 2008. Sage-grouse and energy development: Integrating science with conservation planning to reduce impacts. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Montana, Missoula.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, K., D. E. Naugle, H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J. M. Kiesecker. 2011. Energy development and conservation tradeoffs: Systematic planning for sage-grouse in their eastern range. Number 22 in S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, eds. Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology. sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/monograph.aspx. Retrieved September 17, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doncaster, C. P., T. Micol, and S. P. Jensen. 1996. Determining minimum habitat requirements in theory and practice. Oikos 75:335–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Defense Fund. 1999. Mitigation banking as an endangered species conservation tool. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Law Institute. 2002. Banks and fees: The status of off-site wetland mitigation in the United States. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Law Institute. 2007. Mitigation of impacts to fish and wildlife habitat: Estimating costs and identifying opportunities. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Interagency Mitigation Workgroup. 2002. National wetlands mitigation action plan. December 24, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freilich, J., B. Budd, T. Kohley, and B. Hayden. 2001. The Wyoming basins ecore-gional plan. Lander: The Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Field Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, P., and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2007. Offsets for land clearing: No net loss or the tail wagging the dog? Ecological Management and Restoration 8:26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of New South Wales. 2003. Native Vegetation Act 2003, Number 103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, C. R. 2003. Drafting a conservation blueprint: A practitioner’s guide to planning for biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guisan, A., and N. E. Zimmermann. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135:147–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardner, J., and R. Rice. 2002. Rethinking green consumerism. Scientific American 286: 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to gas field development in western Wyoming. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency. 2007. World energy outlook 2007. Paris: IEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesecker, J. M., L. K. Belden, K. Shea, and M. J. Rubbo. 2004. Amphibian decline and emerging disease. American Scientist 92:138–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesecker, J. M., H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and B. McKenney. 2010. Development by design: Blending landscape-level planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:261–66. doi:10.1890/090005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesecker, J. M., H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, N. Nibbelink, B. McKenney, J. Dahlke, M. Holloran, and D. Stroud. 2009. A framework for implementing biodiversity offsets: Selecting sites and determining scale. BioScience 59:77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. M., and E. W. Price. 2004. Developing defensible wetland mitigation ratios: A companion to the five-step wetland mitigation ratio calculator. Solomons: Center for Environmental Science, University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusler, J. 2003. Recommendations for reconciling wetland assessment techniques. Association of State Wetland Managers. Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy, Berne, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, D. P. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: Practical solutions to recurrent problems. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, P. S., and D. A. Levin. 2004. The real biodiversity crisis. American Scientist 90:6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, T. E. 1980. Discontinuous wilderness: Minimum areas for conservation. Parks 5:13–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. I., J. Fargione, J. Kiesecker, W. M. Miller, and J. Powell. 2009. Energy sprawl or energy efficiency: Climate policy impacts on natural habitat for the United States of America. PLoS One 4:e6802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney,B.A., andJ. M.Kiesecker. 2010. Policy development for biodiversity off-sets:A review of offset frameworks. Environmental Management 45:165–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1999. Discounting and the treatment of uncertainty in natural resource damage assessment. Technical paper 99-1. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R. F., C. Carroll, K. Vance-Borland, and G. Wuerthner. 2002. A multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 16:895–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novacek, M. J., and E. E. Cleland. 2001. The current biodiversity extinction event: Scenarios for mitigation and recovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98:5466–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pocewicz, A., M. Nielsen-Pincus, C. S. Goldberg, M. H. Johnson, P. Morgan, J. E. Force, L. P. Waits, and L. Vierling. 2008. Predicting land use change: Comparison of models based on landowner surveys and historical land cover trends. Landscape Ecology 23:195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Possingham, H. P., I. R. Ball, and S. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. Pages 291–305 in S. Ferson and M. Burgman, eds. Quantitative methods for conservation biology. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, R. L., and M. C. Bottrill. 2008. Opportunism, threats, and the evolution of systematic conservation planning. Conservation Biology 22:1340–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, R. L., H. P. Possingham, and J. R. Day. 1997. Effectiveness of alternative heuristic algorithms for identifying indicative minimum requirements for conservation reserves. Biological Conservation 80:207–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, D. 1993. Towards sustainability in the planning process: The role of EIA. ECOS: A Review of Conservation 14:3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadar, M. H., D. R. Cressman, and D. C. Damman. 1995. Cumulative effects assessment: The development of practical frameworks. Impact Assessment 13:4.

    Google Scholar 

  • ten Kate, K., J. Bishop, and R. Bayon. 2004. Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom, and Insight Investment, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theobald, D. M., and N. T. Hobbs. 1998. Forecasting rural land-use change: A comparison of regression- and spatial transition-based models. Geographical and Environmental Modelling 2:65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, J. H., S. Y. Gao, A. D. Hollander, J. A. Kennedy, M. McCoy, R. A. Johnston, and J. F. Quinn. 2006. Modeling potential species richness and urban buildout to identify mitigation sites along a California highway. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment 11:277–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, J. H., P. R. Huber, E. H. Girvetz, J. Quinn, and M. C. McCoy. 2009. Integration of regional mitigation assessment and conservation planning. Ecology and Society 14:47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tisdell, C. A. 1995. Issues in biodiversity conservation including the role of local communities. Environmental Conservation 22:216–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. L., E. F. Lambin, and A. Reenberg. 2007. The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:20666–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, J. B., J. M. McElfish, Jr., R. Kihslinger, R. Bendick, and B. A. McKen-ney. 2009. The next generation of mitigation: Linking current and future mitigation programs with state wildlife action plans and other state and regional plans. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute and The Nature Conservancy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. 1992. The diversity of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K., R. L. Pressey, A. Newton, M. Burgman, H. Possingham, and C. We-ston. 2005. Measuring and incorporating vulnerability into conservation planning. Environmental Management 35:527–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2007. Global economic prospects 2007: Managing the next wave of globalization. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Nature Conservancy, Montana, USA

    Joseph M. Kiesecker (Scientist)

  2. The Nature Conservancy, Lander, Wyoming, USA

    Holly E. Copeland (spatial ecologist)

  3. The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Lands program, Washington, DC, USA

    Bruce A. McKenney (Senior Economic Advisor)

  4. The Nature Conservancy, Montana, Wyoming, USA

    Amy Pocewicz (Landscape Ecologist)

  5. U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service, Bismarck, North Dakota, USA

    Kevin E. Doherty (Wildlife Biologist)

Authors
  1. Joseph M. Kiesecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Holly E. Copeland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruce A. McKenney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amy Pocewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kevin E. Doherty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

David E. Naugle

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Island Press

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kiesecker, J.M., Copeland, H.E., McKenney, B.A., Pocewicz, A., Doherty, K.E. (2011). Energy by Design: Making Mitigation Work for Conservation and Development. In: Naugle, D.E. (eds) Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-022-4_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation