US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Ecosystem Restoration Overview Jodi Staebell...

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


Evaluate Effects ofEvaluate Effects ofAlternative PlansAlternative Plans


Compare AlternativeCompare AlternativePlansPlans


FormulateFormulateAlternative PlansAlternative Plans


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®


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®


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











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


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®


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


Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs





Cost Effectiveness Analysis

BUILDING STRONG®


Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs






Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs





CEA

BUILDING STRONG®


Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs





Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs




Incremental Cost Analysis

BUILDING STRONG®


Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs





Plans

Plan Outputs

Plan Costs




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?

US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Ecosystem Restoration Overview Jodi Staebell...

Documents

Transcript of US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Ecosystem Restoration Overview Jodi Staebell...