View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Successful Ecological Restoration Provides Diverse
Benefits to Public, Local Government and Industry
Tamera Minnick, PhDColorado Mesa University
Grand Junction, Colorado
Richard Alward, PhDAridlands Natural Resource Consulting
Grand Junction, Colorado
Outline• Concepts
• Challenges
• Research Results
• Solutions
• Benefits
Concepts• Ecosystem Structure & Function
• Exploitation
• Homogenization
• Ecosystem Services
Concepts• Ecosystem Structure & Function
• species, diversity, producers & climate, geology, topography
• dynamics of mass, nutrients, energy, water (flows, pools, rates)
• Exploitation
• Homogenization
• Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem StructureSpecies & Complexity
Eco
syste
m F
un
cti
on
Bio
mass, N
utr
ient,
& E
nerg
y D
ynam
ics
Goal
Degraded State
Alternative Results
?
Seacoast Watershed Information Manager, modified from Meffe, G.K.,
and C. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology.
Concepts• Ecosystem Structure & Function
• Exploitation
• simplifies ecosystem structure & function
• maintenance requires continual inputs
• Homogenization
• Ecosystem Services
Concepts• Ecosystem Structure & Function
• Exploitation
• Homogenization
• undisturbed habitats are heterogeneous
• Ecosystem Services
728452 728460
4417685
4417697
soc(g/kg)
34.0
32.0
30.0
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
728178 728187
4417141
4417153
SOC(g/kg)
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
(Minnick & Alward, Ecological Applications 2015)
Concepts
• Ecosystem Structure & Function
• Exploitation
• Homogenization
• Ecosystem Services
• human-desired outputs from ecosystems
(Palmer & Filoso, Science 2009)
The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (www.teebweb.org)
RecreationWildlife
HabitatPollination
Erosion
Control
Waste Water
TreatmentClean WaterFood
Outline• Concepts
• Challenges
• Research Results
• Solutions
• Benefits
Challenges
• Well pad construction is a catastrophic ecosystem simplification
• all vegetation is removed
• soils and sub-soils are removed, homogenized & stored
• replaced soils frequently mix sub-soils with top soil
• revegetated with a simplified mix of native and non-native species
• conflicting restoration objectives & requirements
• stormwater/erosion management vs. wildlife habitat restoration
• prescriptive vs. flexible seeding times
Challenges• Dispersed energy development
• 1-16 well pads per 640 acres
• continually adding new wells
• linear disturbances of roads and pipelines
• repeated disturbance
• Arid and Semi-arid climate
• Weeds
• Remoteness
• 50-100 miles from nearest towns
COGCC GIS Online [http://dnrwebcomapg.state.co.us/mg2010app/]
Challenges
• Over 15,000 wells in NW CO
• of > 53,000 statewide
Grand Junction
Rangely
Rifle
Meeker
Challenges
Grand Junction
Rangely
Rifle
Meeker
• Over 15,000 wells in NW CO
• of > 53,000 statewide
• Many within important wildlife habitat
• elk, mule deer, pronghorn, big horn sheep, cutthroat trout, eagles, sage grouse …
• And other uses
• hunting, fishing, grazing, photography, recreation all important components of economy, lifestyle, desirability of NW CO
Outline• Concepts
• Challenges
• Research Results
• Solutions
• Benefits
Scientific Investigations
Loss of Ecosystem Services
(Allred, Smith, Twidwell, Haggerty, Running, Naugle & Fuhlendorf. Science 2015)
From 2000-2012, vegetation lost to oil and gas development throughout central North America
• Rangelands: forage loss equivalent to 5,000,000 AUM• > 50% of available grazing on BLM managed lands
• Croplands: crop loss equivalent to 120,200,000 bushels of wheat• = 13% of wheat exported by U.S. in 2013
• Land area: approximately 3,000,000 ha• = area of 3 Yellowstone National Parks
Incomplete Restoration
1986 1992
1995 1996
(Simmers & Galatowitsch, Restoration Ecology 2010)
1961
Reference2004
1982
(Minnick & Alward, Ecological Applications 2015)
Even after 25 – 48 years for recovery, access roads and well
pads are still visible and distinct from their surroundings
• Natural gas development
impacts mule deer habitat• Direct loss of habitat through surface
disturbances
• Indirect loss of habitat use due to
increased human activity (noise, traffic)
• Pinedale, WY; primarily big sagebrush and
sagebrush-grassland communities
• No evidence that mule deer
acclimated or habituated to
development(Sawyer, Nielson, Lindzey & McDonald. Journal of Wildlife Management 2006.)
Loss of Wildlife Habitat
Media Coverage
Reclamation or Restoration?• Reclamation
• returning mining [disturbed] lands to pre-mining conditions or to an approved post-mining beneficial use (SMCRA 1977)
• Ecological Restoration
• the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (SER 2004) Ecosystem Structure
Species & Complexity
Eco
syste
m F
un
cti
on
Bio
mass, N
utr
ient,
& E
nerg
y D
ynam
ics
Goal
Degraded State
Alternative Results
?
Seacoast Watershed Information Manager, modified from Meffe, G.K.,
and C. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology.
Outline• Concepts
• Challenges
• Research Results
• Solutions
• Benefits
Solutions
• Performance-based Standards
• identify goals and objectives to be achieved and describe methods that can be used to demonstrate whether or not products and services meet the specified goals and objectives
• FLANGE MUST SUPPORT 150% OF MAXIMUM ANTICIPATED LOAD UNDER NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS. TEST RESULTS MUST BE POSTED ON SITE.
• Best Management Practices
• a prescriptive standard, which typically prescribes materials, design and construction methods frequently without stating goals and objectives
• FLANGE MUST BE A SPANDOMATIC MODEL X53009 AND ATTACHED USING A SPANDOTORK MODEL T-9 WELDER OPERATED BY AN ACME CERTIFIED INSTALLER.
Performance-based Standards vs. Best Management Practices
(http://cstools.asme.org)
Solutions
• Increases success rate
• Evaluate success
• Determine desirable and undesirable trends
• Adaptive management tool
• Compare across sites, ecosystems & operators
Quantitative Monitoring & Standardized Reporting
(Schelz, Moran & Alward. National Park Service. 2003.)
(Smith & Chambers. USFS- INT-417. 1993.)
Outline• Concepts
• Challenges
• Research Results
• Solutions
• Benefits
Benefits
Compared to degraded ecosystems:
• Restored ecosystems have enhanced ecosystem service functions
However, compared to reference ecosystems:
• Restored ecosystems are not fully functioning
(Benayas, Newton, Diaz & Bullock. Science. 2009.)
Benefits
• Ecosystem restoration is cost-effective
• woodlands and grasslands are some of the least expensive ecosystems to restore
• based on results from 94 studies around the world, typically < $2,000/ha or $800/ac
• (restoration costs per acre typically higher on smaller disturbances such as well pads)
• Benefits greatly exceed the costs
• Authors assumed restored ecosystems achieve 75% of the value of reference systems
• Even then, benefit:cost may exceed 30:1
Range of restoration costs (log 2007 $/ha)
Benefit to cost ratios (as a ratio)
(De Groot, et al. Conservation Biology. 2013.)
(Chenowith, Holland, Jacob, Kruckenberg, Rizza, & Whiteley.
Proceedings of the 19th High Altitude Revegetation Workshop 2010.)
Benefits
• Successful restoration reduces costs to industry
• Having to repeat restoration after initial failed attempts may increase costs by 50%
(Headwaters Economics. 2014.)
Benefits
• Restoration activities created jobs in numerous sectors
• Agriculture & Forestry• Mining• Construction• Professional Scientific & Technical Services• Administrative & Waste Services
• Annual average of over $10,000,000 of economic activity (2008-2013)
• Total annual average of 89 jobs• Compared to 181 manufacturing jobs & 87
in wholesale trade in these two counties
Conclusions• Successful restoration provides numerous benefits
• Public, Industry, State & Local Governments
• Minimizing disturbance area is most cost-effective practice
• Restored areas do not achieve full function and value of reference areas
Recommended