A New Indicator of Ecosystem Restoration Benefit: The

A New Indicator of Ecosystem Restoration Benefit: The Biodiversity Security Index Richard Cole Environmental Planner Institute for Water Resources US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG

Presentation Objectives: Summarize restoration planning issues Determine desired benefits metric attributes Summarize BSI and habitat unit metrics Compare metric attributes BUILDING STRONG

Basic Issues The Corps is authorized to improve EQ EQ improvement is limited to ecosystem outputs Congress requires benefits to at least equal costs Corps policy requires nonmonetary benefit metrics Programs need to rank projects based on benefit No single metric has been found widely suitable Different metrics have proliferated Communication problems have resulted BUILDING STRONG

Policy Sources of Desired Attributes: Authority (Section 206, 1996 WRDA) The Secretary may carry out an aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection project if the Secretary determines that the project— (1) will improve the quality of the environment and is in the public interest; and (2) is cost-effective. Federal Project Planning Objective (PGN, USACE 2000) Protection of the Nation’s environment is achieved when damage to the environment is eliminated or avoided and important cultural and natural aspects of our nation’s heritage are preserved. Measurement of NER is based on changes in ecological resource quality as a function of improvement in habitat quality and/or quantity and expressed quantitatively in physical units or indexes (but not monetary units). BUILDING STRONG

Outputs (supply) (Ecological Resource Quality) Desired output level (public interest, demand) Benefits (Value Added) “ecological resource quality as a function of improvement in habitat quality and/or quantity” Inputs (Habitat Improvements, Costs) BUILDING STRONG

PGN Examples of Habitat Improvement (Inputs): Use of dredged material to restore wetlands Reconnection of oxbows to the main channel Providing for more natural channel conditions Modifying blocked fish passage; e.g., dam removal Modifying dams to improve oxygen or temperature Removing structural impediments to hydrology Restoration of native aquatic and riparian vegetation BUILDING STRONG

PGN Examples of Ecological Resource Quality Metrics (Outputs): Habitat-based Increased habitat units Increased acres of spawning habitat Increased stream miles of habitat Increased diversity indices Population-based Increased number of breeding birds Increased abundance of target species Increased diversity indices BUILDING STRONG

Resource Quality/Quantity Ecological Resource Significance Desired output level (demand) National Resource Scarcity Forecast Resource Condition (supply) “The significance of the outputs is a critical factor in determining if the monetary and/or non-monetary benefits of the proposed project justify monetary and/or non-monetary costs. The scarcity of the outputs is also a factor in this determination.” PGN Time BUILDING STRONG

Resource Quantity/Quality Ecological Resource Significance Desired output level (Demand) Resource scarcity Resource Significance and Scarcity Forecast level of ecological resource in response to ecosystem restoration and protection (Supply) Time and Effort BUILDING STRONG

Study Objective A less degraded, more natural ecological resource condition Ecological indicators of success High native plant and animal diversity (direct value) More biologically desirable species (direct value) Self-regulating ecosystem support (indirect value) More of indicator species (indirect value) Note: No explicit mention of habitat BUILDING STRONG

Desired Metric Attributes: Indicates ecological resource quality Reflects public interest in natural heritage Indicates resource scarcity Indicates sustained value added Is commensurate across projects BUILDING STRONG

Habitat Units 1.0 0.5 Temperature 0.6 Velocity HSI 0.8 HSI HSI 1.0 Project Habitat Condition Depth Simple Example of HU Calculation Composite HSI score 1.0x0.6x0.8 0.48 Acres 12 Habitat Units Acres x Composite HSI HU 12 x 0.48 5.76 BUILDING STRONG

Cost Attributes 0 -Indirect index to resource quality -Public interest is unclear -Resource scarcity is unclear -Sustainable value added is unclear -Is not commensurate over projects 5 10 15 20 25 Habitat Units BUILDING STRONG

Biodiversity Security Index: BSI (h(wR)(wD)(wG)(A1-A0))s S 1 n S species, (n total number) A1 final number of viable population units A0 initial number of viable population units wG policy weighted security status wD policy weighted distinctiveness (0 to 1) wR risk (probability of success; 0 to 1) h threat source authority (Yes, 1; no, 0) BUILDING STRONG

Biodiversity Security Index: BSI (h(wR)(wD)(wG)(A1-A0))s S 1 n S species, (n total number) A1 final number of viable population units A0 initial number of viable population units wG policy weighted security status wD policy weighted distinctiveness (0 to 1) wR risk (probability of success; 0 to 1) h threat source authority (Yes, 1; no, 0) BUILDING STRONG

Viable Population Units (A): Viable population concept May target whole population for many species 5,000 to 10,000 members for larger species # varies with species—related to individual size Subpopulation concept May target subpopulations for some species Large mobile species with few populations Reproductive pairs & larger groups BUILDING STRONG

Biodiversity Security Index: BSI (h(wR)(wD)(wG)(A1-A0))s S 1 n S species, (n total number) A1 final number of viable population units A0 initial number of viable population units wG policy weighted security status wD policy weighted distinctiveness (0 to 1) wR risk (probability of success; 0 to 1) h threat source authority (Yes, 1; no, 0) BUILDING STRONG

Security Status (G): Security Status Viable Pop.Units Weight GX Presumed Extinct 0 0 GH Possibly Extinct (Watch) ? 0 G1 Greatly Imperiled 0 6 64 G2 Imperiled 6 24 16 G3 Vulnerable 24 96 4 G4 Generally Secure (Watch) 96 384 1 G5 Secure 383 0 Information is provided by NatureServe Explorer BUILDING STRONG

Biodiversity Security Index: BSI (h(wR)(wD)(wG)(A1-A0))s S 1 n S species, (n total number) A1 final number of viable population units A0 initial number of viable population units wG policy weighted security status wD policy weighted distinctiveness (0 to 1) wR risk (probability of success; 0 to 1) h threat source authority (Yes, 1; no, 0) BUILDING STRONG

Distinctiveness (D): Based on taxonomic distinction D 1/ x where x is # of species in Family A Family with: 1 species 1.000 5 species 0.200 30 species 0.033 The term reduces index based on security Ultimately, genetic methods are best BUILDING STRONG

Biodiversity Security Index: BSI (h(wR)(wD)(wG)(A1-A0))s S 1 n S species, (n total number) A1 final number of viable population units A0 initial number of viable population units wG policy weighted security status wD policy weighted distinctiveness (0 to 1) wR risk (probability of success; 0 to 1) h threat source authority (Yes, 1; no, 0) BUILDING STRONG

Probability of Success (R): Project Area Limiting Factors 0.1 Connectivity 0.5 Resource Population Reliability 0.9 Materials/Energy Reliability 0.5 Invasive Species 0.9 Disturbance scale 0.5 Mean Probability (R value) 0.6 BUILDING STRONG

Biodiversity Security Index: BSI (h(wR)(wD)(wG)(A1-A0))s S 1 n S species, (n total number) A1 final number of viable population units A0 initial number of viable population units wG policy weighted security status wD policy weighted distinctiveness (0 to 1) wR risk (probability of success; 0 to 1) h threat source authority (Yes, 1; no, 0) BUILDING STRONG

TABLE 1. Example of basic calculations to determine the BSI score. Species/ Pops G G Wt D D Wt R R Wt H Score SPS 1 1 GH 0 - - - - SPS 2 1 G1 64 0.11 1.0 0.9 1.0 1 6.34 SPS 3 1 G2 16 0.05 1.0 0.6 1.0 1 0.48 SPS 4 2 G2 16 0.50 1.0 0.1 1.0 1 1.60 SPS 5 1 G3 4 0.08 1.0 0.7 1.0 1 0.22 SPS 6 1 G3 4 0.20 1.0 0.3 1.0 0 0.00 SPS 7 0.1 G4 1 0.33 1.0 0.4 1.0 1 0.01 SPS 8 2 G5 0 - - - - 0.00 SPS 9 1 G5 0 - - - - 0.00 Biodiversity Security Index 0.00 8.65 BUILDING STRONG

Cost Attributes 0 -Directly indicates resource quality -Public interest is clearer –ESA etc -Resource scarcity is clearer -Sustainable value added is clearer -Is commensurate across projects 5 10 15 20 25 Viable Population Units BUILDING STRONG

Metric Comparison Summary HU Indirect indicator of ecological resource quality Public interest is unclear Resource scarcity is unclear Uncertain sustainability value Not commensurate VPU Direct indicator of ecological resource quality Public interest indicated in ESA Indicates resource scarcity Indicates sustainability value Commensurate across projects BUILDING STRONG

Stages of BSI Development: Review of nonmonetary measures 2008 Basic Concept Development Concept formulation Concept Description & Documentation 2009 Concept Comparison to Existing Metrics Concept Refinement 2010 Technical and policy vetting (review process) Case study application for Feasibility Study Risk assessment protocol 2011 Integration with planning process/protocols User guidance Concept Implementation PCX resources Training BUILDING STRONG

Conclusions Conceptually, indication of benefit is better served by VPUs than by HUs. Much less has been invested in developing VPU concepts than HU concepts Practical guidance and application issues need to be better addressed for both approaches Forecasting ecological resource quality condition Resource significance and scarcity Sustainability Commensurate indication of benefit BUILDING STRONG