OCR Text |
Show 5. Biology Current Situation ( CS) Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 5.1 Identify strategies to preserve and maintain habitat and wildlife on GSL in order to preserve the integrity of this ecosystem. Feasibility/ Effectiveness Effective, however the ability to work within WMAs is limited to funding availability. Work outside WMAs is conducted through coordination. DWR has capability to work on 39 townships. Improve coordination within DNR ( statutory authorization). Allows for acquisition above meander as funding/ policy support these actions. Requires some additional resources through prioritization. Feasibility is limited by statutory multiple- use directives for sovereign lands. Would be most effective approach to protecting habitat and wildlife. Feasibility is likely limited by concern over extensive environmental litigation and statutory directive regarding multiple- use on sovereign lands. Not effective in protecting habitat and wildlife values. Possible Impacts Limited ability to effectively protect habitat and wildlife populations ( constrained by funding and land ownership). More direct DWR management responsibility and influence over a larger part of GSL. Stipulations on development activities that affect habitat and wildlife would be required. Improves the buffering capability of GSL ecosystems to absorb adverse impacts caused by development on adjacent state and private land. DWR would have a stronger influence in management over the entire GSL. New development not related to habitat, wildlife or recreational could be curtailed. Could result in a reduction of habitat and wildlife populations of hemispheric importance. May be beneficial to industry and economic development at the expense of habitat and wildlife values. Increased potential for loss of important habitat and its function. Conflicts/ Coordination Ability to respond to negative impacts is limited- funding, land ownership, legal authority, etc. Coordination with other entities required- COE, URMCC, local government and landowners. Requires closer coordination in DNR. Potential conflict with development projects, if proponents are interested in developing in sensitive areas. More conflicts with industry. Requires extensive coordination with developers if projects would be able to proceed. Increased conflicts with habitat, wildlife and other ecosystem values would be largely unresolved. Decreased need for coordination. Reduced ability of the ecosystem to absorb and buffer against development impacts. Public Trust/ Protection Not currently able to apply the appropriate response measures; resolve important ecosystem management concerns in a timely manner. Not the best level of public trust resource protections. Improved protection of wildlife and habitat aspects of the public trust doctrine. Shifts more attention toward habitat and wildlife preservation. Improves some recreational values. Ability to pursue statutory multiple- use directives would be hampered. Would provide the highest level of protection for habitat and wildlife related public trust resources. Habitat, wildlife and other ecosystem impacts would be difficult to justify from public trust perspective. 187 |