Transcript Ecosystem Restoration Overview, usace Building Strong

Ecosystem Restoration Overview
Jodi Staebell
Operational Director, Ecosystem
Restoration Planning Center of Expertise
Rock Island, IL
August 7, 2009
US Army Corps of Engineers
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 Function
Structure: 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 NonFed
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 nonmonetary 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 Problems
and Opportunities
Inventory and
Forecast Conditions
Formulate
Alternative Plans
Evaluate Effects of
Alternative Plans
Compare Alternative
Plans
Select Recommended
Plan
BUILDING STRONG®
Flood Damage Reduction
Annual
Damages
Prevented
Annual
Implementation
Costs
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 Restoration
Annual
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®
Habitat Units
Annualized Output
0
10
20
30
40
50
Target Years
BUILDING STRONG®
Habitat Units
Output at each Target Year
0
10
20
30
40
50
Target Years
BUILDING STRONG®
Habitat Units
Cumulative Habitat Units
Area B
Area C
Area D
Area A
0
10
20
30
40
50
Target Years
Cumulative Habitat Units = Area A + Area B + Area C + Area D
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?
Habitat Units
 Slow response
 Immediate response
 Decline over time
0
10
20
30
Target Years
40
50
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
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
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 newt
Fish - trout, sucker, shad, bass, salmon, catfish, sturgeon,
dace, herring, flounder, chub
Invertebrates – American oyster, brown shrimp, littleneck
clam
Mammals – Beaver, mink, muskrat
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris/emrishelp3/list_of_habitat_suitability_
index_hsi_models_pac.htm
BUILDING STRONG®
Hydrogeomorphic
Classification 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®
HGM for Wetland Functions
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
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®
Floristic Quality Assessment
Uses Coefficient of Conservatism
9-10 Native, high fidelity, threatened
7-8 Native, stable climax condition
4-6 Native, early successional
1-3 Native, widespread
0
Native, opportunistic invader
0
Alien, noxious invader
and number of species to determine the
Floristic Quality Index (FQI)
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 Problems
and Opportunities
Inventory and
Forecast Conditions
Formulate
Alternative Plans
Evaluate Effects of
Alternative Plans
Compare Alternative
Plans
Select Recommended
Plan
BUILDING STRONG®
Compare Plans
For TRADITIONAL PURPOSES:

Compare costs and benefits

Traditional benefits measured in $
BC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ Costs
Net Benefits = $ Benefits - $ Costs
For ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION:
$
•
Environmental benefits not in $
•
Therefore no B/C
•
Can still compare costs and benefits
OUTPUT
BUILDING STRONG®
Cost
Benefit
Oblivious
Decision
Increased Information
for Decision Making
Making
Cost
Incremental
Effectiveness
Cost
Analysis
Analysis
Cost
Analysis
BUILDING STRONG®
Plan Comparison
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
BUILDING STRONG®
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
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
BUILDING STRONG®
CEA
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
BUILDING STRONG®
Incremental Cost Analysis
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
BUILDING STRONG®
ICA
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
BUILDING STRONG®
Results of ICA
Alternatives
Plans
Plan
Costs
No Action
Plan
Green Plan
Red Plan
Plan
Outputs
Incremental
Cost
Incremental
Output
Incremental
Cost/Unit
Output
$0
0 HU’s
$0
0 HU’s
$0
$500,000
950 HU’s
$500,000
950 HU’s
~$526
$1,000,000 1000 HU’s
$500,000
50 HU’s
$10,000
BUILDING STRONG®
Cost Effectiveness
Alt 7
Alt 4
Alt 3
Alt 5
Alt 6
w/ artificial
Oyster & SAV (best
buy)
Alt 7a
(best buy)
Alt 7b
Alt 2
BUILDING STRONG®
Incremental Costs
Plan B Plan F
Plan E
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?
BUILDING STRONG®