Transcript Jonathan_Hauflerx

STRATEGIES AND METRICS FOR
MITIGATING IMPACTS OF ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT ON BIODIVERSITY
Jonathan Haufler
E.M.R.I.
Seeley Lake, MT
www.emri.org
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Energy and other
developments
needed and will
occur
 Impacts from
footprint and
avoidance

IMPACT STRATEGIES
Avoidance
 Minimization
 Monetary compensation
 Off-site mitigation

AVOIDANCE

Selective placement of developments

Tools: CHAT, Wind HCP, TNC Energy by
Design
MINIMIZATION

Minimization of on-site impacts

BMP’s- Reduction of footprints, timing of
activities, burying powerlines, etc.
MONETARY COMPENSATION

Examples
Voluntary offset programs
 NM lesser prairie chicken CCAA

To be effective must be shown to produce
equivalent or better results (off-site
mitigation)
 If only monetary, species will lose to
energy development

OFF-SITE MITIGATION

Examples
Conservation banks,
 CCAA net conservation benefit

Relies on metrics for tracking
 Must assure equivalency or better in
benefit:impact ratios

TYPES
OF OFF-SITE MITIGATION
 Species
focused
 Ecosystem focused
 Biodiversity focused
SPECIES
FOCUS
Only requires
tracking of habitat
requirements
 Addresses ESA
 Works for
charismatic
flagship species
 Numerous
problems and
constraints

ECOSYSTEM
FOCUS
“The purposes of this Act are to provide a
means whereby the ecosystems upon
which endangered species and
threatened species depend may be
conserved….”
 Feasible management approach to
provide for all species
 More palatable to landowners
 Recognizes disturbance processes,
community transitions and dynamics
 Can incorporate species considerations

CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY
Landscape Level
Ecosystem Level
Ecosystem A
Ecosystem B
Species A
Species B
Species Level
A1
Genetic Level
A2
Ecosystem C
A3
Subpopulations
A3a
Evolutionarily
Significant Unit
OFF-SITE MITIGATION

Goal: to provide equal or greater benefits
through improvements to an off-site
location to offset the impacts of
development.
METRICS
 Must
ARE THE FOUNDATION
consistently quantify impacts
and mitigation
 Commensurate quantification of
gains and losses
 Ability to track:
 Existing conditions
 Resulting conditions
SCALES
 Site
TO
MEASURE
level
 Changes to plant communities
and habitat conditions from
impacts and mitigation
treatments
 Landscape influences
 Configurations, fragmentation,
and animal population
distributions
Metric System
LANDSCAPE A
(Impacted Area)
Site A
(Existing)
Site A
(Future)
LANDSCAPE B
(Mitigation Area)
Site B
(Existing)
Site B
(Future)
SITE CONSIDERATIONS
 Area
affected
 Ecological sites
NRCS classification, within
Major Land Resource Areas,
 Existing and future vegetation
conditions- state and transition
models
 Contributions to habitat
green
needlegrass
western
wheatgrass
snowberry
Western
NATIVE
wheatgrass
Blue
grama
STATE
5
snowberry
western
wheatgrass
blue grama
blue grama
sedges
snowberry
blue grama
sedges
MORE FREQUENT
TIME SINCE
FIRE
LESS FREQUENT
tame grass
conversion
noxious weed
invasion
annual/perenn
ial weed
invasion
HERBIVORY /
DISTURBANCE LEVEL
green
needlegrass
western
wheatgrass
Human-produced States
HEAVIER
Native Plant Communities
LIGHTER
Loamy STM
MLRA
Ecological
Site
Precip.
Zoneinches
Nest
Value
1-10
Brood
Value
1-10
Acres in
Planning
Area
% Current
Conversion
70A
Shallow
upland
Shallow
sandstone
14-16
3
4
2,112
<1
14-16
5
5
56,781
<1
14-16
5
5
46,054
<1
16-22
2
2
1,445,363
74
77A
Malpais
breaks
Deep
hardland
Limy upland
16-22
3
5
258,800
89
77A
Sand hills
16-22
10
9
8,488
<1
77A
Sandy loam
16-22
7
9
396,686
88
77A
Very shallow 16-22
4
4
75,549
9
77A
Sandy
10
9
398,236
31
70A
70A
77A
16-22
SITE
LEVEL QUANTIFICATION
 Current
conditions in comparison to
a reference plant community


Provides for an ecosystem assessment
Identifies desired conditions that can
be produced at that site
 Current

habitat quality
Evaluated using key habitat variables
for species of interest
LANDSCAPE- HABITAT MODELS
 Developed
for species that are of
concern or good indicators
 Applied at appropriate scale for
each species
MITIGATION TREATMENTS
 Control
invasive species
 Cheatgrass/field brome
Plateau herbicide application
 Leafy Spurge
 Spot herbicide application
 Establish long term grazing regime
REFERENCE COMMUNITY
 Light
herbivory, long fire return
interval plant community:


Dominant species: big sagebrush,
Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass,
green needlegrass, spike fescue,
western wheatgrass, needle and
thread.
Other species: listed in description
PRE-TREATMENT
POST-TREATMENT
Loamy Ecological Site
Plot
1
64.57
92.83
2
22.40
81.60
4
73.79
86.29
5
67.28
81.87
10
81.24
96.20
11
74.65
83.54
12
50.34
89.98
MEAN
62.04
87.47
STD ERR
7.57
2.15
Shallow Loamy Ecological Site
Plot
3
40.01
89.83
6
50.75
96.70
7
65.85
81.86
8
81.44
77.52
9
71.54
93.50
MEAN
61.92
87.88
STD ERR
7.40
3.58
BENEFITS PRODUCED
 Reduced
exotics from 16.2%
relative cover of vegetation to 1.9%
relative cover
 Equates to a 11% improvement that
produces a net gain of 39
mitigation units for the loamy site
and 83 units for shallow loamy site
 Production of 122 “mitigation units”
generated by these treatments
Selected sagebrush associated wildlife species
Sage
Grouse
Pronghorn
Antelope
Pygmy
Rabbit
Sage
Sparrow
Sage
Thrasher
Sagebrush
Lizard
Sagebrush
Vole
California
Ash Valley
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Idaho
Laidlaw
Butte
Utah
Deadman
Basin
Anthro Mtn
X
Wyoming
Fidelity
X
X
X
X
X
X
TBGPEA
X
X
X
X
X
X
PreHigh*
PreMedium
PreLow
PostHigh
PostMedium
PostLow
Pronghorn antelope
0
1
28
0
2
27
Sage thrasher
1
114
47
10
135
49
Sagebrush lizard
0
0
2449
0
0
1983
Sage sparrow
1
37
164
0
34
178
Sagebrush vole
30
3789
958
573
3708
730
Sage grouse- nesting
91
1015
958
79
1106
2384
Sage grouse
brood-rearing
151
650
69
103
765
81
0
6
106
0
6
109
Species
Sage grouse- wintering
LANDSCAPE BENEFITS
 Generally
neutral or positive for all
indicator species
 Net conservation benefit
APPLICATION
 How
can 122 mitigation units be
credited


Use mitigation credit to off-set
potential impacts to nearby future
energy development
Sell or exchange credit to off-set
another development
CONCLUSIONS
OF STUDY
 Science
should drive development
and quantification of metrics

Best estimates for some components
 Metrics
can be effectively
developed for either ecosystem or
species approaches at the site
level
 Landscape evaluations rely on
species models

Constrained by ability to remotely
sense habitat quality and quantify
fragmentation effects
POLICY QUESTIONS
 Should
a 1:1 ratio of
benefits:impacts be used, or should
different ratios be used?
 In LEPC core areas, should
impact be 10X?
 Should current condition of impact
sites be used, or should maximum
habitat potential be used, or should
a value of 1.0 be used?
POLICY
 Can
QUESTIONS CONTINUED
mitigation within an MLRA shift
among ecological sites?
 Can mitigation be credited across
MLRA boundaries?
 Can high quality habitat impacts be
mitigated with more acres of
improvement to moderate quality
habitat?