The State of the Science on Compensation Performance

Transcription

1 The State of the Science on Compensation Performance Trends, knowledge gaps, and directions for future study Joe Morgan, ORISE Participant Palmer Hough, Environmental Scientist July 2015

2 2 Overview Background Questions for study Approach Results Summary of findings Knowledge gaps Problems with performance Question break 2013 Study Design Goals Key highlights Pilot Ohio Long-term approach to evaluating compensation Questions

3 3 Compensatory mitigation Methods: restoration, establishment, enhancement, and preservation Mechanisms: mitigation banks (MB), in-lieu fee (ILF), and permitteeresponsible mitigation (PRM) Past Problems with Performance 2001 NRC Study: Lack of success due to a variety of factors, most prominently noncompliance and lack of effective performance standards 2005 GAO Report: Call for increased monitoring requirements, including periodic compliance checks

4 Compensation Rule Sustainable, ecologically effective compensatory mitigation Equivalent standards, including more effective performance standards and monitoring Use of best available science Addresses all applicable NRC recommendations Encourages use of MB and ILF programs Considered less risky than PRM

5 5 Questions for this study How well has the ecological performance of mitigation projects been measured since 2000? Field studies vs. file review? Number of sites visited/reviewed? Field methods and reference sites? Recent vs. old sites? How does this vary by: Geographic location? Aquatic resource type? Mitigation mechanism (MB, ILF, PRM)? Mitigation method (restoration, establishment, etc.)? Which areas of mitigation are lacking most in research? What don t we know?

6 6 Approach Comprehensive review of all quantitative mitigation studies published since 2000: Both academic and governmental publications Must include actual mitigation sites not just voluntary restoration No case studies or niche papers of purely academic value Relevant data pulled from studies and summarized in a spreadsheet Shapefiles created in ArcMap to show spatial extent of studies. Quantitative study? Published after 2000? Mitigation-focused? Not case study/niche topic? Included

7 7 38 studies met criteria Resource type: 33 (87%) look at wetlands 6 (16%) look at streams 4 studies come from NC 2 (5%) look at reefs 1 (3%) looks at other waters 3 (8%) look at more than one type Mitigation mechanism: 34 (89%) look at PRM 9 (24%) look at MB 4 (11%) look at ILF 6 (16%) compare PRM to TPM Mitigation method: 31 (82%) look at restoration 31 (82%) look at establishment 13 (34%) look at enhancement 12 (32%) look at preservation

8 Studies published file review field assessment DRAFT NRC Report GAO Report Mitigation Rule 8 36 (95%) involved file review, 29 (76%) involved any kind of field assessment Spike in studies following the publication of the 2001 NRC report Number remains low in the years since the release of the 2008 compensatory mitigation rule. Only 4 of 7 studies published since 2008 have involved actual field investigations. Only 3 studies have investigated sites constructed after the 2008 Rule. Major need to evaluate compensation performance, especially post-rule

9 9 DRAFT : Included in Spieles (2005)

10 10 DRAFT : Included in Spieles (2005)

11 11 What we don t know Changes since Mitigation Rule Performance of post-rule sites Differences among MB, ILF, and PRM? Neglected geographic areas Upper Midwest Southeast Mountain West Pacific Northwest Non-wetland compensation Streams

12 12 Regulatory vs. ecological performance Until ~2005, studies overwhelmingly focused on compliance/regulatory success: What percentage of sites are being constructed? What is the real mitigation rate? This approach is area-based, allowing for some comparison between studies this is what Kihslinger (2008) and NRC (2001) had to work with. Over the last decade, focus has shifted to ecosystem function and performance: How do compensation wetlands compare to natural wetlands? How much better are they than the most impacted, and how much worse than the least impacted? Important questions, but lots of diverse approaches

13 13 Evaluating performance What constitutes performance? How do you measure it? 26 (68%) looked at vegetation 18 (47%) looked at hydrology 14 (37%) looked at soils 14 looked at all three 11 (29%) looked at fauna/wildlife habitat Vegetation metrics are important, but may not show the whole picture

14 14 Evaluating performance How does location/siting affect performance? 4 (11%) looked at water quality 10 (26%) looked at surrounding land use What is the baseline? Only 10 (26%) compared to reference conditions Reference approach is not standard: paired reference sites? From statewide condition assessment? Using locally calculated IBI?

15 15 Summary There is a major need to evaluate compensation performance, especially post-rule. For some large geographic areas, compensation performance has not been evaluated at all. There is a lack of consistency between studies in how compensation performance is defined and assessed.

16 Question break 16

17 17 Need for comparability Largely been one-off studies with low degree of repeatability Fine for review-type articles, but leave no room for meta-analysis Standardized methods would help 2013 Study Design

18 18 Proposed National Study Design Via a wetland program development grant (WPDG), EPA funded the Environmental Law Institute to create a study design that could be used to evaluate compensatory mitigation sites nationally. Towards a National Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Sites: A Proposed Study Methodology was released in summer

19 19 Authors M. Siobhan Fennessy, Professor of Biology, Kenyon College Eric D. Stein, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Richard Ambrose, Director and Professor, UCLA Christopher B. Craft, Professor, Indiana University Alan T. Herlihy, Senior Research Professor, Oregon State University Mary E. Kentula, Wetland Ecologist, U.S. EPA, Western Ecology Division Rebecca Kihslinger, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. John J. Mack, Chief of Natural Resources, Cleveland Metroparks Richard Novitski, Consultant/Mitigation Banker Michael J. Vepraskas, North Carolina State University Paul Wagner, IWR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Joy B. Zedler, Professor of Botany and Aldo Leopold Chair of Restoration Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

20 20 Study Design Goals National Scope Compare performance of three compensation mechanisms MB, ILF, PRM Develop protocol for ongoing assessment [Recognized limitations regarding availability of impact site data]

21 21 Study Design Questions What is ecological condition of wetland mitigation sites: Relative to ambient condition? Relative to reference wetlands? Does the condition of mitigated sites differ as a function of the three mitigation mechanisms (MB, ILF, PRM)? Does the condition of mitigated sites differ as a function of the four mitigation methods (restoration, establishment, enhancement, preservation)?

22 22 Key Facets of Study Design Leverages National Wetland Condition Assessment Site selection protocol (GRTS survey design) Field operations manual protocols for assessing vegetation (e.g., VMMI), soils, and hydrology Network of reference sites Identifies relevant information for file review Outlines steps for data analysis

23 23 Study Design Pilots Two small pilots conducted in: Ohio North Carolina Forthcoming journal article will summarize findings, lessons learned

24 24 Ohio Pilot: Great Lakes Basin 60 randomly-selected sites 30 MB, 30 PRM Data collection methods same as NWCA protocols: Vegetation Buffer characterization Hydrology Water chemistry, algae taxonomy, algal toxins, chlorophyll-a USA RAM Modified methods Soils

25 Ohio Pilot: 2 Methods to Assess Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI) Level 3 assessment tool Developed in same study area Utilizes vegetation metrics collected using NWCA methods Provides a score as a gauge of the wetland s ecological condition Mitigation Sites Landscape Density Intensity index (LDI) Level 1 assessment tool Used in similar mitigation studies in Ohio Assess surrounding land use Utilizes GIS and national land cover dataset 25

26 26 Ohio Pilot: MB Results Overall increase in MB success rate 9.7% in the Ohio study 30% for GLBECS MBs May be a result of quantifiable ecological performance standards linked to credit releases started in 2003 Importance of site selection, restoration design, implementation and adaptive management Using successful projects as models for future proposals.

27 27 Ohio Pilot: PRM Results A slight decrease in success rate from earlier study: 19.2% in 2007 Ohio study 13% in GLBECS PRMs 87% failure rate Highlights the need to increase the performance levels of PRM projects.

28 28 Long-term Approach Conducting these evaluations can be resource intensive, even a for single study How can a State develop a long-term approach to compensation evaluation? Long-term vision Leverage multiple EPA WPDGs over time

29 29 Implementation via WPDG Grant 1 Organize historic files Create electronic files of past permits, including georeferencing data Record/upload necessary meta-data to facilitate future evaluation Leverage existing data sources (e.g. RIBITS) Include plan for how to keep information current moving forward How will future mitigation data be added? Key considerations: How many years of historical data will be included? Will any of this information be available publicly online?

30 30 Implementation via WPDG Grant 2 Conduct first evaluation Develop a study design Protocols for site selection, file review, field evaluation, data analysis Execute sampling plan and analyze results Consider making changes to study design based on results Consider changes to policy

31 31 Implementation via WPDG Grant 3+ Conduct additional evaluations At regular intervals (e.g., every 5 yrs), complete additional evaluations Identify new sample frame using project database Analyze data, including trends based on data from previous studies Use information to inform policy and regulatory changes

32 32 Summary There remain several unanswered questions about compensation performance: Is it getting better since 2008 Rule? How are streams and other non-wetland resources doing? Large geographic data gaps Approaches have changed in the last decade to focus more on ecological performance, but incompatible methods, as well as a slowdown in study frequency has made it difficult to evaluate compensation nationally. The 2013 Study Design represents a potentially useful resource to inform approaches to State/Regional evaluations

33 Three Questions for Discussion What are States currently doing to evaluate compensation performance? 2. What can we do to encourage further study of compensation ecological performance? 3. How can we ensure that studies are conducted in a way that is tailored to State needs AND allows for continued improvement of national policy?

34 34 Next Steps If there is interest, could form a workgroup to: share what is happening at State, District, Regional level explore 3 questions identify other relevant questions identify action items