This is a First: Wetland Mitigation Infographic

Folks over at MS USA have developed what appears to be the first and only infographic about wetland mitigation available on the internet. It provides a nice explanation and history of wetland mitigation banking. Enjoy!

NOAA/NMFS NW Region has guidance on conservation banking for fish… if you can find it

See on Scoop.it – Nature + Economics

MoBettaEnv‘s insight:

Well this is interesting: 

"The Northwest Region of National Marine Fisheries Service finalized their Conservation Banking Guidance on January 31, 2013."

Darn it all that it is nowhere to be found on the NOAA NMFS NW site, the NOAA site, and all of the internets. Left a VM to find this and will post soon.

See on www.nwr.noaa.gov

Shut the Front Door. Richard Branson is Talking about Ecosystem Services.

See on Scoop.it – Nature + Economics

I am floored. My favorite mega-millionaire Richard Branson (is he Batman? you gotta wonder) just posted a piece on the WSJ’s LiveMint.com about how it’s important to pay attention to biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Let me boil down WHY he thinks it’s important:

– Consumer demand: “Consumers are becoming increasingly frustrated with corporations that are only out for themselves, rather than helping their communities and the planet. Our group and other companies are going to need to know the answers to such questions [about biodiversity and ecosystem services]”

– Community relations (eg, impacts of a company’s operations on ecosystem services/biodiversity upon which local communities rely upon/enjoy): “What impact will our new offices have on the surrounding ecosystem?”

– Company innovation (/employee retention): “Everyone was energized by this challenge of envisioning and creating a sustainable future… And as I was listening to the researchers and my team, I was reminded that learning is not just a luxury, but integral to the growth of our group and the health of our company.”

Here’s WHEN it’s important:

– Siting a new facility: “Where is the most suitable and sustainable location to position our new factory?”

Here’s HOW Virgin is considering biodiversity and ecosystem services:

–  Measuring impacts: “we are looking at ways to better account for the impacts our activities are having on the natural resources”

So cool to see a topic like this coming out of a CEOs mouth. My work here is done.

See on www.livemint.com

What’s the Added Value of an Ecosystem Services Approach for Business?

I’ve been up to my eyeballs in grey literature reports (eg, TEEB for Business), guidance (eg, Corporate Ecosystem Services Review) and tools (eg, InVEST) on integrating ecosystem services in the corporate world. Pretty much all of these sources talk about a business case for ecosystem services. Let’s say a company is convinced and tries to figure out what it means to integrate ecosystem services in their business. I think it gets tricky here because many companies are already undertaking corporate sustainability activities. Indeed, many of the actions held up as examples in TEEB, in the Corporate EcoForum’s “Valuing Natural Capital” commitments, and others could be put in the sustainability box. For example, commitments to tree-planting projects to offset a company’s impact on global climate regulation (an ecosystem service).

So what’s the difference between sustainability and ecosystem services? Look, there’s no guidance out there answering this question. I received some input from the Business & Ecosystem Services Professionals LinkedIn group that may help and I’ve got some ideas of my own, so I’m going to put out as a working hypothesis that the difference is thus:

1. A company has taken a holistic look at their impacts, dependencies and opportunities related to ecosystem services. This may be just a check-the-box process thing, but it indicates an intention to look at the big picture.
2. The action that a company is taking is somehow additional to what they’re already doing. I know a lot of companies are already thinking about their impacts on global climate change. So does that mean if they’re already buying carbon credits that they’re *check* done and done? Somehow that doesn’t seem right, even if it’s good work. In the above-mentioned LinkedIn discussion, Eric Landen noted “one of the key aspects of the ES approach is that it lets you examine tradeoffs and interconnections across multiple services, which doesn’t happen when you focus on one ES (such as water) to the exclusion of others.”
3. The company is somehow communicating their action on ecosystem services: in an annual report, in external voluntary reporting, in media communications… I know a lot of folks don’t like the term “ecosystem services” (see reports on messaging ecosystem services here and here), so it could be communicated in other ways.

I’m really interested in what other folks think about this. What do you think is the difference between regular corporate sustainability and corporate integration of ecosystem services? How can you tell/ what would be your indicator(s) that a corporation is taking action on ecosystem services?

OK, so now I’ll get to my original punchline: What’s the added value of an ecosystem services approach? That is to say: why would a company try to integrate ecosystem services instead of just doing their normal sustainability activities? I think the Dow/TNC partnership on ecosystem services just provided a good answer to this. In their recently released 2nd annual report on their collaborative, Dow/TNC report on their pilot project at their huge facility in Freeport, Texas along the Gulf Coast.

They determined priority ecosystem services for the facility (aka #1): impacts on air quality/opportunities for air quality mitigation, coastal hazard mitigation, and water supply. Then they did some specific studies looking basically at whether green infrastructure solutions would maintain or improve these ecosystem services, and whether it was more cost-effective than a grey infrastructure solution (a #2 activity). And here’s where I think they win on the value-added factor: they talk about the green infrastructure solution AND the additional ecosystem benefits that would occur (over and above the grey infrastructure solution). Maybe the green infrastructure solution didn’t slam-dunk win out in the cost-benefit analysis for all of the projects, but I think the additional ecosystem service benefits to the community are important. It’s fantastic that Dow/TNC have communicated these benefits in their annual report (a #3 activity). If they do end up implementing the green infrastructure projects, I wonder how they will communicate these benefits to the public? There aren’t a ton of examples of corporate communication of ecosystem services, but here are a few.

Please send your comments if you have other ideas on the value-add of an ecosystem services approach for a corporation.

Digging in: 2013 Research on ‘Level Playing Field’ of 2008 Wetland Mitigation Rules

In 2008, the US EPA and Army Corps of Engineers released their final rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (2008 Rules). The 2008 Rules were intended, in part, to right some wrongs of earlier wetland mitigation. For one, originally compensatory mitigation was steered towards mitigating close to the site of impact. But that could lead to postage-stamp mitigation, isolated from other resources and minimal ecosystem services. So the 2008 Rules gave preference to larger-scale wetland restoration in a watershed context.

(Image credit: Kerry ten Kate presentation, BBOP, circa 2010)

Another wrong to right was temporal loss of wetland functions and values. Let’s say I start restoring a wetland. Year 1 doesn’t look pretty – muddy, goopy mess with some tiny sticks trying to become trees. But it starts looking better and better as hydrophilic plants get established, as the hydrology is restored, etc. And as the wetland gets better, so do its functions – like its ability to filter water, its ability to absorb and slowly release storm flows, its ability to provide a home for critters. Mitigation banks have to have restoration in place before selling credits,*so the restoration is in place before the impact. Prior to the 2008 Rules, In Lieu Fee programs (ILFs) could collect funds and then perform the mitigation. Permittee-responsible mitigation didn’t and still doesn’t have to happen in advance of impacts.

Prior to 2008, there was not a ‘level playing field’ for mitigation. In-advance, larger-scale mitigation was costlier and riskier than at-the-time-of-impact mitigation. Cheaper, smaller-scale permittee-responsible mitigation could beat out other forms of mitigation even if it wasn’t the best thing for the environment.

The 2008 Rules set out a preference hierarchy for mitigation**:

“In order to reduce risk and uncertainty and help ensure that the required compensation is provided, the rule establishes a preference hierarchy for mitigation options. The most preferred option is mitigation bank credits, which are usually in place before the activity is permitted. In-lieu fee program credits are second in the preference hierarchy, because they may involve larger, more ecologically valuable compensatory mitigation projects as compared to permittee-responsible mitigation. Permittee-responsible mitigation is the third option, with three possible circumstances: (1) conducted under a watershed approach, (2) on-site and in kind, and (3) off-site/out-of-kind.” (Source: [2008 Rule] Questions and Answers, see also 40 CFR Chapter I § 230.93(b)(2))

So how’s that been going? Mitigation bankers say the preference hierarchy has not been followed in many US Army Corps of Engineers Districts. There is not, however, a national analysis of this (that I’ve seen). So it takes some digging at the District scale to see what’s going on. Like:

• What are these “consolidated mitigation areas” that are being used in Arkansas for frac pond mitigation? There is zero mention of the term in the 2008 Rules.
• Why did an Alaskan ILF sit on mitigation funds for more than 10 years before figuring out what to do with it?

The latter question is something that I wrote about on Scoop.It. Following that post, I was contacted by a law firm who asked that I dig into questions like these. So I’ll be digging in to the ‘level playing field’ question, FOIAs and all, and posting white papers and blog posts synthesizing the research. Wish me luck!

*Actually, they get to sell a small amount of credits after legal protections have been put in place.
**The 2008 Rules include a caveat to the preference hierarchy of mitigation:
“However, these same [see above] considerations may also be used to override this preference, where appropriate, as, for example, where an in-lieu fee program has released credits available from a specific approved in- lieu fee project, or a permittee- responsible project will restore an outstanding resource based on rigorous scientific and technical analysis.” (40 CFR Chapter I § 230.93(b)(2))

Academic Criticisms and Recommendations for the US Wetland Mitigation Banking System

See on Scoop.it – Nature + Economics
“Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies” was published in October 2012 by the journal Biological Conservation. Authors: Martine Maron, Richard J. Hobbs, Atte Moilanen, Jeffrey W. Matthews, Kimberly Christie, Toby A. Gardner, David Keith, David B. Lindenmayer, and Clive A. McAlpine.

This journal article includes criticism and recommendations for the current US wetland mitigation system from ecologists at University of Illinois. Here’s a quick synopsis.

Criticism 1: The emphasis on larger-scale restoration could lead to spatial arrangements that may not be optimal for society – aka, city folks might miss the wetlands/services they used to have as restoration focuses on cheaper land, further away in the watershed. The opposite of NIMBY: I *want* it in my backyard.

Criticism 2: There are time lags associated with replacing destroyed wetlands with wetlands created at the time of impact (aka “permittee-responsible mitigation”). Mitigation bankers agree with this criticism, which is why they lobbied to have a preference for mitigation from already-restored wetlands, seen in the 2008 Rules.

Criticism 3: Non-equivalence of the sites that are impacted and the sites that are restored.

“The deeper you look into complex ecosystems, the more nonequivalence you find,” [author] Matthews said. “You could look at two forests and say they’re the same. But as you look closer, you might find that species composition is different. Nutrient cycling processes, for example, may be very different in those two forests. And so as you look in finer and finer detail, you find layers and layers of nonequivalence. Where we place the value becomes critically important. The scale at which we consider two sites to be equivalent or nonequivalent and how we place value on certain uniqueness in sites becomes critical in what we accept as a truly successful restoration.”

Recommendations: Scientists are pushing for restoration that is closer to cities to maintain value to communities; includes more finer-scale like-for-like requirements; includes more monitoring and research; and utilizes adaptive management.

Reality Check: The recommendations would most likely translate to more costly restoration. And who would have to pay for this? Anyone who impacts wetlands: Departments of Transportation (everyone’s taxes), oil and gas developers (who have lobbyists), builders (who have lobbyists)… see what I’m getting at here? In order to change the system, you’d have to have enormous political will and evidence that the increased value to society would be offset by the increased cost to permitees.

See original article at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-wetlands-longer-devil.html#jCp

New “Nature Resilience” project proposal to bring business to ecosystem restoration

See on Scoop.it – Nature + Economics

In a December TEEBrief newsletter, I came across a new report… or should I say a proposal for a “Nature Resilience” project to bring business to ecosystem restoration partnerships. The project is supported by Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus University, NL) and IUCN (Commission on Ecosystem Management).

After some introductory chapters on biodiversity and ecosystem services value/value to companies, the report discusses a way forward. The core of which is envisioned as business understanding their impact on ecosystem services by valuing it. The “way forward” also includes support of international standards for ecosystem valuation and getting requirements for corporations to publish their impacts as a disclosure item (a la Puma’s environmental profit and loss statement). And along with that strong stick would be soft carrots – training corporations on valuing ecosystem services (a la WBCSD’s  business ecosystems training), and getting the next generation on board by incorporating ecosystem value in B-school training.

I agree with this vision of a way forward, particularly that some requirement to disclose (in a standard way) impact on ecosystem services would be a driver for business to finance in ecosystem restoration. And perhaps that’s moving forward. There was a recent external review of Puma’s environmental profit and loss statement, which to me smacks of developing an accepted standard for ecosystem service accounting.

I don’t agree quite as strongly with the report’s assessment that barriers for business participation in ecosystem restoration

“…range from a lack of networking across groups, to differences in the use of language and a lack of trust. Clearly, greater involvement from the private sector requires us to remove the barriers that exist between local communities, NGOs, farmers, businesses, business schools, ecologists, economists and policy-makers.”

I think a step that is more pressing is having drivers for a clear and pressing business case for action. Once the catalyst is in place, then yes breaking these barriers could create more efficient, or more community-oriented, or larger-scale ecosystem restoration. But I don’t know if we’re there yet.

The remainder of the report dives into the proposed solution – the “Nature Resilience” project. The project creates a partnership-broker entity to bring together business with other organizations in creating long-term (~20-yr) ecosystem restoration projects.

“Nature Resilience will help to facilitate the mobilisation and redirection of investment funds and business participation by acting as a broker or match maker between businesses (investors and individuals), governments, NGOs, communities, farmers and local civil society organisations (CSOs) working in the field of restoration and conservation. Nature Resilience will actively seek the creation of Ecosystem Restoration Partnerships. Nature Resilience will be a neutral and independent agency that brings together existing networks of businesses and business schools, scientific institutions, governments and local development partners. It will be empowered, endorsed and financed by committed private sector institutions as well as business schools and student communities.”

I didn’t see any mention in the report of tying the project idea to compensation from projects financed by the IFC or Equator Banks – which require screening for, and mitigation to impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services in projects that they fund. Perhaps that would be a good test case for the project.

See Rotterdam School of Management/IUCN report at data.iucn.org

Communicating Ecosystem Services Presentation

Last week, I assembled two sessions on communicating ecosystem services at the ACES 2012 conference. These sessions developed out of discussions on the topic on the soapbox of Ecosystem Commons earlier in the year. Here is my Prezi from the conference:

And here are my impressions of people’s challenges communicating ecosystem services:

1. It’s still a wild woolly world of jargon. Even for us insiders at the ACES conference, “ecosystem services” means different things to different people. I think we all get that the concept refers to the products and services that we get from Nature for free, but applying that concept to one’s work within a government agency, non-profit, or corporation is a big challenge.

2. We’re still working to make the case for incorporating ecosystem services into what we do. ACES attendees are still working to communicate the relevance of the concept of ecosystem services to agency leaders and corporate decision-makers. One big hurdle is leadership questioning how this is different than business as usual. Government agencies are already considering natural resources in their work. Businesses are already conducting Environmental Impact Assessments. They want to know succinctly, what’s the difference from what they already do (“what’s the delta?” I heard from one wonky friend of mine). And they don’t want consideration of ecosystem services to be just one more thing they have to do – one more report, one more analysis, etc.

3. Because people are working on problems #1 & #2 above, they don’t yet have simple communications challenges to address. I organized a working group session intended to let people work on their ecosystem services communications challenges and come out with a game plan. I envisioned that someone would come in and say “I need to convince the community about the value of watershed services” and then we’d get to work on a message to deliver to the audience, with help from my new buddy Brendan McLaughlin from Resources Media. Instead, what we heard from attendees were problems discussing ecosystem services within an agency due to a lack of common lingo. Or the challenge of communicating to different audiences at different levels of understanding of ecosystem services. Or how to develop an app for use in the developing world (ummm, I have no idea!).

So folks working in “ecosystem services” still have a lot to work on. Until we have everything figured out (…in 2030???), here are the basic messaging tips that our session highlighted in a nutshell:

Think about what you’d like to accomplish with your messaging, frame your message to your target audience &/or decision-makers, talk about common values, talk about the threats to those values, and then your solution to the challenge.

So easy, right? Good luck, folks!

$800,000+/tidal wetland credit for Naval base expansion

See on Scoop.it – Nature + Economics

I guess you pay a lot for mitigation when you’re building an explosives handling wharf. The Navy is building a new wharf in Hood Canal at their Kitsap-Bangor base (about 30 miles NW of Seattle, WA) which will overlay 6.3 acres of water. The cost of each ILF credit? $835,034, coming to a total of over $6 million. I would love to see this check:

Link for this mighty sales receipt.

Cost of building the new explosives handling wharf: $715 million
Cost of compensatory mitigation: $6.9 million
Mitigation cost as percent of total: <1%

The Hood Canal Coordinating Council In Lieu Fee Compensatory Mitigation Program (ILF) created in part to mitigate for this Naval base wharf expansion. The Council that sponsored the ILF is made up of 3 counties and two tribes. The ILF seems to have ruffled feathers with one county commissioner, who was surprised to find the ILF managers had already been in talks with the state department of transportation without the County Commissioner’s knowledge.

This article does a great job of explaining the ILF’s debit/credit methodology in plain language:

“On the debit side, the process begins with an estimate of the amount of habitat affected. For example, the damage from the wharf pilings alone was calculated to be .15 acre. Where the wharf casts a shadow on relatively shallow water, effects on eelgrass, kelp and other underwater plants are calculated at the full area of coverage, or about 0.25 acre.
-snip-

After acreage is calculated for each habitat type, the totals are multiplied by factors for impact and risk. Areas with partial shading, for example, are considered to have a lower impact than full shading. Risk relates to the ability to replace the lost habitat, based on experience and the types of plants and animals being displaced. Eelgrass, for example, has proved difficult to grow in new areas, so those areas get a higher risk factor.

For the Navy’s wharf, the greatest number of debits (2.44) were accumulated on the terrestrial edge of the shoreline, followed by 2.0 debits for subtidal vegetated areas, 1.8 for subtidal nonvegetated areas, 1.51 for nonvegetated beach areas, and so on.”

In related Washington state news, Naval Station Everett just spent $317,000 for compensatory mitigation of a $2.5 million small craft launch dock. The Everett base is about 40 miles (as the car drives) northeast across Puget Sound from the above-mentioned Kitsap-Bangor base.

2 Legal Moves that Could Affect Water Quality Trading in the Chesapeake Bay

Following up on a previous review of the state of Chesapeake Bay water quality trading, come two different legal moves regarding the Chesapeake Bay. Lawyer up.

Photo source: Flickr chesbayprogram 

1. Agricultural and Homebuilding Groups Challenging the TMDL

The first legal move that could affect water quality trading was a day in court for agricultural and residential development interests wanting to block the Bay’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to improve water quality. TMDLs establish a line-in-the-sand that is the basis for water quality trading programs. Without it, no trading. Oh, and no (or limited?) enforceable water quality rules. The two groups’ legal challenges both came back in 2011, with the agricultural groups filing suit in January and the homebuilders’ group filing suit in June. If I can boil down the arguments, they were that 1) the EPA exceeded their authority, and 2) the way the EPA spread the blame of where pollution came from and who had to clean it up was not accurate/fair. The EPA defended itself, and noted that

“…the Bay states asked the agency to set the TMDL, and the schedule for its creation was established in a court settlement with environmentalists [sued in 2009, settled in 2010]. Further, the officials argued that EPA is owed deference in areas where the CWA is not explicit, such as how to address the impairment of a multistate waterbody.” (source)

So what happened on that day in court (Oct. 4th, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania)? District Judge Rambo heard arguments for four hours. Some key snippets from Baltimore Sun coverage:

Critics contend the EPA is using the plan to force states to regulate runoff from farms and other lands, which Congress never authorized the agency to do.

“If they can do it here, they can do it anywhere, on any scale,” said Don Parrish, a spokesman for the American Farm Bureau Federation… “We’re not saying we don’t want to clean up the water, or that states can’t do it,” he added. “We’re saying that EPA can’t do it and can’t force states to do it.”

—

Kent F. Hanson, a Justice Department lawyer for the EPA, said federal regulators worked closely with state officials in a years-long, open process to develop the pollution-reduction plan. While some states did resist and complain about the EPA’s handling of it, he noted that none joined in the farmers’ and builders’ lawsuit.

The ruling still hasn’t come down as of October 19th, but I’ll keep my eye out for it and update this when news comes through.

2. Environmental Groups Challenging the Use of Water Quality Trading

The second legal move says, we like the TMDL, we just don’t like water quality trading. Environmental groups Food & Water Watch and Friends of the Earth filed suit on October 3rd to drop water quality trading as an option for meeting Bay water quality improvements. What’s their beef with water quality trading? Their press release uses a lot of loaded words to indicate that trading makes them feel icky (see Spinning Water Quality Trading: Pros and Cons). More specifically, the lawsuit alleges that water quality trading:

…contravenes EPA’s authority and duty under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”),  33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(C), is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), and violates notice and comment required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553.

[My non-legal take on] The core of their argument is that a point source using a water quality credit can violate their permit, and that’s what is illegal. No doubt the case will take time to get through the system, but it looks like some environmental groups have decided that this is the opportunity to take a stand against something repugnant… which reminds me of a great Freakonomics podcast: “You say repugnant, I say let’s do it.”

Round II of a Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Trading Update…

So it looks like there’s a few fundamental stumbling blocks for water quality trading in the Bay. Namely, that major stakeholders think the fundamental rules (TMDLs) are bunk, and other stakeholders want to strike trading off the menu. What if they both prevailed? I guess that would leave business-as-usual: States responsible for meeting water quality deadlines, and reliance on treatment technology (which wastewater treatment plants have said they’ve maxxed out). Oy. Good times in the Bay.