Evaluating Ecological Benefits

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Salt Marsh Restoration Site Selection Tool An Example Application: Ranking Potential Salt Marsh Restoration Sites Using Social and Environmental Factors.
Advertisements

Planning for fish bearing waters between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead.
Process – Resource Evaluation Design and perform a set of geographically based resource assessments Develop a methodology for prioritizing land according.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® A New Indicator of Ecosystem Restoration Benefit: The Biodiversity Security Index Richard Cole Environmental.
Floodplains by Design: natural infrastructure for people and for nature Kris Johnson, PhD 5/29/2013.
5/15/2015Slide 1 SOLVING THE PROBLEM The one sample t-test compares two values for the population mean of a single variable. The two-sample test of a population.
CERP Guidance Memorandum
Northeast Corridor Greenway Acquisition – Mitigation Feasibility Study Results City Council Workshop June 24, 2014.
Introduction to Management Science
Water Resources Systems Modeling for Planning and Management An Introduction to the Development and Application of Optimization and Simulation Models for.
Ensemble Learning: An Introduction
Anadromous Fish Run Site Selection Tool An Example Application: Identifying Restoration Projects for Community-Based Efforts.
Restoration of Chamberlain Creek Amy Clinefelter Riparian Wetland Research Program Restoration of Chamberlain Creek Amy Clinefelter Riparian Wetland Research.
Advantages of Monitoring Vegetation Restoration With the Carolina Vegetation Survey Protocol M. Forbes Boyle, Robert K. Peet, Thomas R. Wentworth, and.
Introduction to Management Science
Add your Logo in the slide master menu Module IMPLICATIONS WP8- SERVICES WP9-SOCIOECON WP10-VALUATION.
City of New Braunfels Edwards Aquifer and the Habitat Conservation Plan HCP Implementing Committee May 29,
9-1 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall Multicriteria Decision Making Chapter 9.
Multicriteria Decision Making
Millennium Assessment (MA) 2003 Typology of Ecosystem Goods and Services Regulating Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes climate regulation.
US FOREST SERVICE REGIONAL ROUNDTABLE Planning Rule Revision Photographer: Bill Lea.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® STEP FOUR: EVALUATE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
Measuring Habitat and Biodiversity Outcomes Sara Vickerman and Frank Casey September 26, 2013 Defenders of Wildlife.
Commonly referred to as MIS.  From the 1982 planning regulations 36 CFR (a)(1)- “… certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the.
Proposed Action Purpose and Need A proposal to authorize, recommend, or implement an action in response to the need identified in the Purpose and Need.
Interim Headwater Drainage Feature Guideline: Protecting HDFs through Urbanization Laura C.R. Del Giudice, B.Sc., M.F.C., Senior Planning Ecologist.
Roles of Economists and New Analytical Requirements
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® STEP FIVE: COMPARE ALTERNATIVE PLANS Planning Principles & Procedures – FY11.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Climate Change Adaptation Challenges: Maintaining Ecosystem Services in Shoreline Management.
LETABA ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CONSEQUENCES OF SCENARIOS Presented by: Greg Huggins Nomad 03 April 2014.
Chapter 9 - Multicriteria Decision Making 1 Chapter 9 Multicriteria Decision Making Introduction to Management Science 8th Edition by Bernard W. Taylor.
Models in GIS A model is a description of reality It may be: Dynamic orStatic Dynamic spatial models e.g., hydrologic flow Static spatial models (or point.
Belize National Protected Areas Policy and System Plan.
Fish migration from a Water Framework Directive perspective
CHEVRON PIPE LINE COMPANY Risk Based Prioritization Process.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council Sep 12-13, Science Policy Exchange Habitat Issues.
A Pivotal Moment for Leaders Across the Gulf Coast States and Connected Communities Throughout the Country.
IERM Overview Goals: 1. Development of an integrated, whole-system model for ecological response to water level/flow scenarios 2. Blend ecological research.
Establishing the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management On the Upper Mississippi River Dr. Ken Lubinski, USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center.
STRATEGIES FOR FRESHWATER. CONTEXT FOR STRATEGIES.
PRESENTATION TITLE Presented by: Name Surname Directorate Date Classification, Reserve & RQO determination of water resources in the Mvoti to Umzimkulu.
What do we have in common? Do more with less! PNAMP Integrated Status & Trend Monitoring Workgroup.
Classification of water resources and determination of the comprehensive reserve and Resource Quality Objectives in the Mvoti to Umzimkulu Water Management.
South Bay Salt Pond Restoration-- Challenges to Ecological Restoration.
New Approaches for Getting from Wetland Scores, to Wetland Ratings, to Credits and Debits Paul Adamus, Ph.D Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. Corvallis,
Millennium Assessment (MA) 2003 Typology of Ecosystem Goods and Services Regulating Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes climate regulation.
Natural Ecosystems and Native Species. Natural Ecosystems and Communities  Multiple populations  Interaction between populations  Natural  Pre-Columbian.
Ecology --- primary definition The scientific study of how organisms interact with the natural world.
MRERP Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan and Environmental Impact Statement One River ▪ One Vision A Component of the Missouri River Recovery Program.
Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) Supported Assessment Tools Gulf of Mexico Alliance Tools Café June 2016 Southeast Aquatic Connectivity Assessment.
Source: Stream Corridor Restoration Manual WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.
“Low Flow” “Water is taken out of the stream for a variety of uses, such as irrigated agriculture, municipal and industrial. Low flow means that amount.
An Overview of the Flathead Subbasin Planning Process
Supplement S7 Supplier Selection.
IBFMPs Goals and Objectives
NEAFWA Aquatic Connectivity
Estimating the impacts of complementary measures on fish abundance in the Murray-Darling Basin Sam Nicol, Martin Mallen-Cooper, Lee Baumgartner, Paul Brown,
Delaware Bay Regional Biologists
Determining and Scaling Habitat Services
Louisiana Coastal Area
Diversity in Ecosystems
Revision of MSFD Decision 2010/477/EU - overview
What is a Shoreline Master Plan?
Green Infrastructure and Natura 2000
Multicriteria Decision Making
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
North Atlantic LCC RFP Topics 1&2: Recommendations for Funding
Potential Process and Decisions for Conn. River Watershed Pilot
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
MANAGEMENT of INFORMATION SECURITY, Fifth Edition
Presentation transcript:

Evaluating Ecological Benefits A draft of guidelines presented by ENP Bruce Boler, Joffre Castro, Christine Chan Salient features and recommendations suggest inclusion of all PMs, but weighting those under authorized objectives more heavily (quantitative step) rank PMs on a numerical scale using guidelines developed by scientists and focusing on contribution to systemwide ecological benefits (subjective input to a quantitative step) alternative scoring begins with evaluation of model output for each PM (quantitative step) final score for each alternative relies on application of a distribution formula to model output. Goal is to maximize high scores and minimize low scores. Several distributions are presented, but we recommend a nonlinear approach.

EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES RANK PMs SELECT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

RANKING OF PM 1. Compile list of PMs 2. Classify PMs according to objectives (or functional category) 3. Weight objectives (authorized vs. additional) 4. For each objective: a) score PMs (science experts) b) derive partial weights 4. Compute overall weights (PM partial weight X objective weight)

Objectives Ecosystem Restoration in TS and EPh ENP Natural Values 1 0.5 = 7.5 WEIGHT Ecosystem Restoration in TS and EPh ENP Natural Values Damaging Freshwaters Flows Flood Protection for C-111 Basin East Everglades Mitigation Quality of Waters Diverted to ENP Water Deliveries into ENP Additional Objectives In this example, the 7 authorized objectives carry a weight of 1, while the additional objectives carry a collective weight of 0.5. Final weights to be determined by the PDT.

Score the PMs. How important is each one to total system restoration? Develop a scoring system (e.g., 1-10) Develop guidelines, or classification system, for the scoring system. See following slides for examples Guidelines should consider each PM’s contribution within the larger context of the combined authorized objectives. Scoring system, guidelines, and scoring should be accomplished by scientific experts

Obj. 1: Ecosystem Restoration in TS and EPh PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 4 3 1 2 9 8 7 5 6 = 45 (4/45)*100=9 16 18 11 13 20 = 100 Score PARTIAL WEIGHT Marl Prairie Habitat Spatial Distribution of marl- forming wetlands Fish and invertebrates Marl prairie vegetation Slough Habitat Sawgrass Plains Habitat Spatial Distribution of marl-forming wetlands

WEIGHTING PMs: multiply partial weight by objective weight 9 7 2 4 20 18 16 11 13 PARTIAL WEIGHT TOTAL 9 x 1 Partial weight Objective weight

EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES RANK PMs SELECT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

SCORING ALTERNATIVES Each alternative is scored according to model output, for each PM, as follows: a)populate table with model output b) score alternatives (see green button on next page for scoring schemes)

ALTERNATIVES For scoring schemes -->

Alternative Selection 1. Create summary table with results: a) list PM’s ( 1st. column) b) list alternatives (top row) 2. Populate table a)PM weight X alternative score b) obtain columnwise alternative totals 3. Select alternative with the highest score

(partial weight X objective weight) PM’S WEIGHTS (partial weight X objective weight) PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 9 7 2 4 20 18 16 11 13 ALTERNATIVE SCORES Multiply each PM weight by alternative scores to reach final score

SELECTION

END

SCORE OF 9 FULLY SUPPORTS ONE OR MORE SYSTEM-WIDE RESTORATION OBJECTIVES, INCLUDING INCREASING THE TOTAL SPATIAL EXTENT OF NATURAL AREAS, IMPROVING HABITAT AND FUCTIONAL QUALITY, AND IMPROVING RELATIVE PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY.

SCORE OF 7 PROVIDES IMPROVEMENTS IN ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS; HOWEVER, IMPROVEMENTS ARE LESS THAN OPTIMAL AND/OR TOO LOCALIZED TO SIGNIFICANTLY SUPPORT SYSTEM-WIDE RESTORATION.

SCORE OF 4 Guidelines for assigning a score of 4: should be expanded from the example given here, and developed by scientists MAINTAINS EXISTING ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS, BUT DOES NOT ENHANCE SYSTEM-WIDE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS.

SCORE OF 1 DOES NOT SUPPORT ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS, LOCALLY OR SYSTEM WIDE

SCORES Alternative score Model output (e.g., number of acres)