Upload
lisa-newton
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
US Army Corps of Engineers
BUILDING STRONG®
Ecosystem Restoration Overview
Jodi Staebell
Operational Director, Ecosystem Restoration Planning Center of Expertise
Rock Island, IL
August 7, 2009
BUILDING STRONG®
Overview
Ecosystem Restoration Basics► Policy, authorities► Significance
Evaluating Ecosystem Restoration Alternatives► Basics► Planning Models for Ecosystem Evaluation
Comparing Ecosystem Restoration Alternatives
Slides from presentations by Craig Fischenich, Greg Steele, Susan Smith, Leigh Skaggs
BUILDING STRONG®
Ecosystem Restoration in the Corps Purpose: “…to restore degraded significant
ecosystem function, structure, and dynamic processes to a less degraded, more natural condition.” ER 1105-2-100 Section E-30
Intent: “…to partially or fully reestablish the attributes of a naturalistic, functioning, and self-regulating system.” ER 1165-2-501 Sec 6
Scope: Nationally and regionally significant wetlands, riparian and other floodplain and aquatic systems OASA Memo 29 July 05; CECW-PB Memorandum 15 March 07
BUILDING STRONG®
Structure and FunctionStructure: The characteristic structure of an
ecosystem is obtained by the systematic physical organization of the abiotic and biotic components of that particular ecosystem.
Function: The characteristic exchanges of material, energy and nutrients within an ecosystem are called ecosystem functions. The specific ecosystem functions that are apparently beneficial to human civilization are called ecosystem services.
BUILDING STRONG®
Structure and Function
BUILDING STRONG®
System Dynamics
Evolution Processes Energy Processes Riparian Succession
BUILDING STRONG®
Hydrologic Condition
Surface Water Storage Processes Surface - Subsurface Exchange Processes Hydrodynamic Character
BUILDING STRONG®
Sediment Processes/Character
Sedimentation Processes Substrate and Structural Processes Quality and Quantity of Sediments
BUILDING STRONG®
Biological Support
Biological Communities and Processes Necessary Habitats for all Life Cycles Trophic Structures and Pathways
BUILDING STRONG®
Chemical Processes & Pathways
Water and Soil Quality Processes Chemical Processes and Nutrient Cycles Landscape Pathways and Processes
BUILDING STRONG®
Corps Ecosystem Restoration Authorities
Specifically Authorized Continuing Authorities Programs
Section 206, WRDA 96 – Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program
► Cost Share 65 Fed/35 Non-Fed Section 204 WRDA 92 – Beneficial Use of Dredged
Material► Protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically
related habitats, including wetlands, in connection with dredging in new project construction and maintenance of existing Federal navigation projects
► Cost is increment above base plan: Cost Share 75 Fed/25 Non-Fed
BUILDING STRONG®
Competition for Restoration Funds
President's FY10 Budget - $546M for aquatic ecosystem restoration
Top 5 projects were: Everglades/South FL Eco Rest (Construction) - $214M Columbia R Fish Mitigation (Construction) - $96M Missouri River Recovery (Construction) - $70M Louisiana Coastal Area (Investigations) - $25M Upper Mississippi River Restoration (Construction) - $20M
These 5 projects total $425 or 78% of the President's FY10 Budget for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Annual Appropriation for Ecosystem Restoration $750-900M
BUILDING STRONG®
Which is more Important?
BUILDING STRONG®
Resource Significance
What is the first thing we want to Know?Answer: Significance of the Resource.
WHY?
Relates to Federal Interest Drives budget decisions for limited
Federal dollars
BUILDING STRONG®
RELEVANCE OF SIGNIFICANCE TO CORPS ER INITIATIVES – A “Sexy” Short
List Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP) Chesapeake Bay Native Oyster Restoration
Master Plan (NORMP) Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) Sacramento River Upper Mississippi River System Environmental
Management Program (UMRS-EMP)
BUILDING STRONG®
Recognition Factors: The Three Bases for Significance
Institutional Recognition Public Recognition Technical Recognition
BUILDING STRONG®
Resource Significance
Significance is defined by institutional, public, and technical considerations
Reflects an effort to measure the value of ecological functions to the nation.
Constitutes a budget decision factor for non-monetary outputs
Determinations of significance need to be clearly described
Significant resources relate to problems, opportunities, objectives and constraints and most importantly federal interest
BUILDING STRONG®
Specify ProblemsSpecify Problemsand Opportunitiesand OpportunitiesSpecify ProblemsSpecify Problemsand Opportunitiesand Opportunities
Inventory andInventory andForecast ConditionsForecast Conditions
Inventory andInventory andForecast ConditionsForecast Conditions
Evaluate Effects ofEvaluate Effects ofAlternative PlansAlternative Plans
Evaluate Effects ofEvaluate Effects ofAlternative PlansAlternative Plans
Compare AlternativeCompare AlternativePlansPlans
Compare AlternativeCompare AlternativePlansPlans
FormulateFormulateAlternative PlansAlternative Plans
FormulateFormulateAlternative PlansAlternative Plans
Select RecommendedSelect RecommendedPlanPlan
Select RecommendedSelect RecommendedPlanPlan
BUILDING STRONG®
Flood Damage Reduction
Annual Implementation
Costs
Annual Damages Prevented
Cost Output
National Economic Development (NED) Plan A plan recommending Federal action is to be the alternative plan
with the greatest net economic benefit consistent with protecting the Nation’s environment
BUILDING STRONG®
Ecosystem RestorationAnnual
Implementation Costs
Annual Ecosystem
Output
Cost Output National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan A plan that reasonably maximizes ecosystem restoration benefits compared to
costs, consistent with the Federal objective. The plan must be shown to be cost-effective and justified to achieve the desired level of output.
BUILDING STRONG®
Evaluate Alternatives
Evaluation process focuses on quantitative and qualitative restoration outputs
Units that measure an increase in "ecosystem" value and productivity are preferred ER1105-2-100 Section 3-5 c.
“habitat-based evaluation methodologies … shall be used to the extent possible to describe and evaluate ecological resources and impacts” ER 1105-2-100 Section C-3
BUILDING STRONG®
Evaluate Alternatives
Two minimum categories – cost and outputs
May have multiple output categories At least one “Output category that
reasonably represents ecosystem restoration benefits”
BUILDING STRONG®
Evaluation Tasks
1 – Forecast most likely with project condition for each alternative
2 – Compare with-project to the without project condition
3 – Characterize beneficial and adverse effects by:► magnitude, ► location, ► timing and ► duration
BUILDING STRONG®
Ecosystem Outputs
Benefits ≈ ecosystem outputs Outputs consider quantity and quality
Generally, use the Habitat Evaluation Procedures which is an accounting framework
BUILDING STRONG®
History of Habitat Evaluation
National Environmental Policy Act Systematic techniques for planning and decision-
making Consider values previously not quantified
Use in Planning Impact Assessment Mitigation and compensation Ecosystem Restoration
BUILDING STRONG®
History of HEP (Habitat Evaluation Procedures)
Developed by US Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS Ecological Services Manuals ESM 101 – Habitat as Basis for Environmental
Assessment ESM 102 – Habitat Evaluation Procedures ESM 103 Standards for the Development of Habitat
Suitability Index Models for use in HEP► http://www.fws.gov/policy/ESM101.pdf ► http://www.fws.gov/policy/ESM102.pdf► http://www.fws.gov/policy/ESM103.pdf
BUILDING STRONG®
Basic Concepts
Index = Value of interest _________________________________________________________
Standard of comparison
HSI = Habitat condition of site ________________________________________________________
Optimum habitat condition
Index is 0 to 1
BUILDING STRONG®
Basic Concepts
Ecosystem Output = Quantity * Quality
1 HU = 1 Acre of Optimum Habitat
Habitat Unit = Area * Habitat Suitability Index
HU = Area * HSI
50 Acres * 0.5HSI = 25 HUs
BUILDING STRONG®
Annualized Output
0 10 20 30 40 50
Target Years
Hab
itat
Un
its
BUILDING STRONG®
0 10 20 30 40 50
Target Years
Hab
itat
Un
its
Output at each Target Year
BUILDING STRONG®
Cumulative Habitat Units
0 10 20 30 40 50
Target Years
Hab
itat
Un
its
Cumulative Habitat Units = Area A + Area B + Area C + Area D
Area AArea C Area DArea B
BUILDING STRONG®
Average Annual Habitat Units
AAHUs = Cumulative Habitat Units _______________________________________________________________
Number of Target Years
= Area A + Area B + Area C + Area D ____________________________________________________________________________________
50 years
BUILDING STRONG®
How do the benefits change over time?
Slow response Immediate response Decline over time
0 10 20 30 40 50
Target Years
Hab
itat
Un
its
BUILDING STRONG®
HSI Blue Books
Developed by US FWS Variety of species available Modify as needed –
document modifications
All published USFWS Blue Book models “approved for use”
Smith et al.1995
BUILDING STRONG®
HSI Blue Book Example
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
1-5 6-25 26-60 61-90 >90
Percent cover of overstory
BUILDING STRONG®
FWS Blue Book Habitat Suitability Index Models
Waterbirds – ducks, gulls, terns, crane, pelican, spoonbill, ibis, heron, osprey
Songbirds – Marsh wren Reptiles/Amphibians – snapping turtle, slider turtle,
American alligator, bullfrog, red spotted newtFish - trout, sucker, shad, bass, salmon, catfish, sturgeon,
dace, herring, flounder, chubInvertebrates – American oyster, brown shrimp, littleneck
clamMammals – Beaver, mink, muskrat
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris/emrishelp3/list_of_habitat_suitability_index_hsi_models_pac.htm
BUILDING STRONG®
HydrogeomorphicClassification of Wetlands
Hydrologic and geomorphic factors control how wetlands function, and therefore the benefits they provide
The Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Wetlands is based on three factors:– Geomorphic setting– Water source– Hydrodynamics
Smith et al.1995
BUILDING STRONG®
HGM for Wetland Functions
Regionalization
Begins with wetland classification, analyzes possible functions, function models built by teams
Quantification
Scores 0-1 for each individual function, all functions assumed equal in importance
Reference conditions
range of variation of wetland quality in region
BUILDING STRONG®
Designed to estimate functional capacity of a target wetland relative to reference standard wetlands.FCI = Functional Capacity of Target = 0 to 1
Functional Capacity of Reference Standard
HGM for Wetland Functions
BUILDING STRONG®
FQA - Floristic Quality Assessment
• Standardized tool used for site
assessment of wetland floristic
quality
• Developed by Swink and
Wilhelm for Chicago area
• Assesses the “conservatism” of
plant species
• Quality of area is reflected by
richness in conservative species
BUILDING STRONG®
Uses Coefficient of Conservatism 9-10 Native, high fidelity, threatened7-8 Native, stable climax condition4-6 Native, early successional1-3 Native, widespread0 Native, opportunistic invader0 Alien, noxious invaderand number of species to determine the
Floristic Quality Index (FQI)
Floristic Quality Assessment
BUILDING STRONG®
FQA
Convert FQI to a 0-1 scale and multiple by acres
Software available from Conservation Design Forum
www.cdfinc.com
BUILDING STRONG®
FQA
Pros• Provides quantitative and uniform set of measure• Allows for comparison of quality among many sites and
for tracking changes over time• Availability of data
Cons Assignment of Coefficients is subjective Need individuals with good plant identification skills
BUILDING STRONG®
IBI –Index of Biotic Integrity
Multi-metric index for designed to measure the aquatic
vertebrate community and surrounding conditions using
fish species as indicators
Popular biological indicator of watershed health
Original index developed for Central IN and IL (Karr 1981)
Different versions were developed for different regions
and ecosystems
BUILDING STRONG®
IBI –Index of Biotic Integrity
Original IBI included 12 metrics in 5 categories► Species Richness and Composition
► Indicator Species
► Trophic Function
► Reproductive Function
► Abundance and Condition
Each metric is scored based on comparison of sampled
site with reference
BUILDING STRONG®
IBI –Index of Biotic Integrity
Pros IBI process and data available for many areas Good existing condition information
Cons No link between physical conditions of habitat and fish
assemblage Not good at future predictions – guessing at future fish
composition without linking to physical changes in habitat – not replicable or transparent
Can use reference areas to address these concerns
BUILDING STRONG®
QHEI – Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index
Index of macro habitat quality developed by Ohio EPA
Designed to measure habitat corresponding to physical factors that affect fish communities and are important to other aquatic life
Can use reference
reaches
BUILDING STRONG®
QHEI Variables
Substrate type, origin and quality Instream cover type and amount Meander pattern Riffle-pool sequence Riparian corridor
BUILDING STRONG®
BUILDING STRONG®
QHEI Scores
Total Score Max = 100►>60 potential to attain full use as warm water
habitat►45-60 effects of any stream modification usually
not severe►<45 modifications generally severe and
widespread
Convert to 0 – 1 scale and multiply by acreage
BUILDING STRONG®
QHEI Pros/Cons
Pros Minimally affected by ephemeral changes In some areas, QHEI score correlates strongly
with IBI (Lau et al. 2006) Good for warm water streams
Cons In some areas QHEI and IBI don’t correlate
BUILDING STRONG®
Specify ProblemsSpecify Problemsand Opportunitiesand OpportunitiesSpecify ProblemsSpecify Problemsand Opportunitiesand Opportunities
Inventory andInventory andForecast ConditionsForecast Conditions
Inventory andInventory andForecast ConditionsForecast Conditions
Evaluate Effects ofEvaluate Effects ofAlternative PlansAlternative Plans
Evaluate Effects ofEvaluate Effects ofAlternative PlansAlternative Plans
Compare AlternativeCompare AlternativePlansPlans
Compare AlternativeCompare AlternativePlansPlans
FormulateFormulateAlternative PlansAlternative Plans
FormulateFormulateAlternative PlansAlternative Plans
Select RecommendedSelect RecommendedPlanPlan
Select RecommendedSelect RecommendedPlanPlan
BUILDING STRONG®
Compare Plans
For ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION:
• Environmental benefits not in $
• Therefore no B/C
• Can still compare costs and benefits
For ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION:
• Environmental benefits not in $
• Therefore no B/C
• Can still compare costs and benefits
For TRADITIONAL PURPOSES:
Compare costs and benefits
Traditional benefits measured in $
For TRADITIONAL PURPOSES:
Compare costs and benefits
Traditional benefits measured in $
BC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ CostsBC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ Costs
Net Benefits = $ Benefits - $ CostsNet Benefits = $ Benefits - $ Costs
BC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ CostsBC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ Costs
Net Benefits = $ Benefits - $ CostsNet Benefits = $ Benefits - $ Costs
$ $
OUTPUTOUTPUT
$ $
OUTPUTOUTPUT
BUILDING STRONG®
BenefitBenefit
CostCost
AnalysisAnalysis
BenefitBenefit
CostCost
AnalysisAnalysis
CostCost
EffectivenessEffectiveness
AnalysisAnalysis
CostCost
EffectivenessEffectiveness
AnalysisAnalysis
IncrementalIncremental
CostCost
AnalysisAnalysis
IncrementalIncremental
CostCost
AnalysisAnalysis
Increased InformationIncreased Information
for Decision Makingfor Decision MakingIncreased InformationIncreased Information
for Decision Makingfor Decision Making
CostCost
ObliviousOblivious
DecisionDecision
MakingMaking
CostCost
ObliviousOblivious
DecisionDecision
MakingMaking
BUILDING STRONG®
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units
Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units
Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units
Plan Comparison
BUILDING STRONG®
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
Plan Costs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000
Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units $ 750,000
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units $ 1,000,000
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
Plan Costs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000
Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units $ 750,000
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units $ 1,000,000
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
BUILDING STRONG®
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
Plan Costs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000
Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units $ 750,000
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units $ 1,000,000
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
Plan Costs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000
Blue Plan 950 Habitat Units $ 750,000
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units $ 1,000,000
CEA
BUILDING STRONG®
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
Plan Costs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units $ 1,000,000
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
Plan Costs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units $ 1,000,000
Incremental Cost Analysis
BUILDING STRONG®
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
Plan Costs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units $ 1,000,000
Alternative Restoration
Plans
Plan Outputs
Plan Costs
No Action Plan 0 Habitat Units $0
Green Plan 950 Habitat Units $500,000
Red Plan 1,000 Habitat Units $ 1,000,000
ICA
BUILDING STRONG®
Alter-natives Plans
Plan Costs
Plan
Outputs
Incre-mental Cost
Incre-mental Output
Incre-mental
Cost/ Unit Output
No Action Plan
$0 0 HU’s
$0
0 HU’s $0
Green Plan
$500,000 950 HU’s
$500,000
950 HU’s ~$526
Red Plan
$1,000,000 1000 HU’s
$500,000
50 HU’s $10,000
Alter-natives Plans
Plan Costs
Plan
Outputs
Incre-mental Cost
Incre-mental Output
Incre-mental
Cost/ Unit Output
No Action Plan
$0 0 HU’s
$0
0 HU’s $0
Green Plan
$500,000 950 HU’s
$500,000
950 HU’s ~$526
Red Plan
$1,000,000 1000 HU’s
$500,000
50 HU’s $10,000
Results of ICA
BUILDING STRONG®
Cost Effectiveness
Alt 4
Alt 3 Alt 5
Alt 6 w/ artificial Oyster & SAV (best buy)
Alt 2
Alt 7a(best buy)
Alt 7b
Alt 7
BUILDING STRONG®
Plan E
Plan FPlan B
Plan E
Plan FPlan B
Incremental Costs
BUILDING STRONG®
Summary
Restore structure, function and dynamic processes of degraded aquatic ecosystems
Limited funding for ecosystem restoration Significance of resource is key Evaluate ecosystem output of alternatives Compare costs and outputs to identify cost
effective, incrementally justified restoration plans
BUILDING STRONG®
Questions?Questions?Questions?Questions?