Ecosystem Restoration Overview by wulinqing

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 64

									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 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 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
       Annual                                    Damages
   Implementation                                Prevented
       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                                  Annual
      Implementation                             Ecosystem
          Costs                                    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
Habitat Units




                0   10   20       30    40    50
                         Target Years




                                             BUILDING STRONG®
Output at each Target Year
  Habitat Units




                  0   10   20       30    40    50
                           Target Years




                                               BUILDING STRONG®
           Cumulative Habitat Units
            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?
 Slow response
 Immediate response
 Decline over time
           Habitat Units




                           0   10   20       30    40         50
                                    Target Years        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             BC Ratio = $ Benefits/$ Costs

                                             Net Benefits = $ Benefits - $ Costs
       Traditional benefits measured in $




For ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION:
                                                   $
•   Environmental benefits not in $
                                                          OUTPUT
•   Therefore no B/C
•   Can still compare costs and benefits                         BUILDING STRONG®
  Cost
                                          Benefit
Oblivious       Increased Information
                                           Cost
Decision         for Decision Making
                                          Analysis
Making



            Cost            Incremental
      Effectiveness             Cost
           Analysis           Analysis



                                          BUILDING STRONG®
 Plan Comparison

Alternative
Restoration      Plan Outputs
   Plans
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      Plan Outputs          Plan Costs
   Plans
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      Plan Outputs          Plan Costs
   Plans
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      Plan Outputs          Plan Costs
   Plans
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      Plan Outputs          Plan Costs
   Plans
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

  Alter-                            Incre-     Incre-      Incre-
 natives       Plan      Plan       mental     mental      mental
  Plans        Costs    Outputs      Cost      Output     Cost/Unit
                                                           Output
No Action
                $0       0 HU’s       $0        0 HU’s        $0
  Plan

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


                                                     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®

								
To top