Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accounting for Uncertainty and Time Lags in Equivalency Calculations for Offsetting in Aquatic Resources Management Programs

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biodiversity offset programs attempt to minimize unavoidable environmental impacts of anthropogenic activities by requiring offsetting measures in sufficient quantity to counterbalance losses due to the activity. Multipliers, or offsetting ratios, have been used to increase the amount of offsets to account for uncertainty but those ratios have generally been derived from theoretical or ad-hoc considerations. I analyzed uncertainty in the offsetting process in the context of offsetting for impacts to freshwater fisheries productivity. For aquatic habitats I demonstrate that an empirical risk-based approach for evaluating prediction uncertainty is feasible, and if data are available appropriate adjustments to offset requirements can be estimated. For two data-rich examples I estimate multipliers in the range of 1.5:1 – 2.5:1 are sufficient to account for the uncertainty in the prediction of gains and losses. For aquatic habitats adjustments for time delays in the delivery of offset benefits can also be calculated and are likely smaller than those for prediction uncertainty. However, the success of a biodiversity offsetting program will also depend on the management of the other components of risk not addressed by these adjustments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Applications for Authorization under Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act Regulations (SOR/2013-191)

References

  • Allen PD, Chapman DJ, Lane D (2005) Scaling environmental restoration to offset injury using habitat equivalency analysis. In: Bruins RF, Herberling TF (eds) Economics and ecological risk assessment: application to watershed management. CRC Press, Baton Rouge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bérubé M, Verdon R, Durocher G, Guay J-C (2005) A comprehensive framework for assessing changes in fish habitat productive capacity resulting from large hydroelectric projects. Can Sci Adv Sec Res Doc 2005/051

  • Bradford MJ, Smokorowski KE, Clarke KD, Keatley BE, Wong MC (2016) Equivalency metrics for the determination of offset requirements for the Fisheries Protection Program. Can Sci Adv Sec Res Doc 2016/046

  • Brown MA, Clarkson BD, Barton BJ, Joshi C (2013) Ecological compensation: an evaluation of regulatory compliance in New Zealand. Imp Assess Proj Appr 31:34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown MA, Clarkson BD, Barton BJ, Joshi C (2014) Implementing ecological compensation in New Zealand: stakeholder perspectives and a way forward. J R Soc N Z 44:34–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull JW, Suttle KB, Gordon A, Singh NJ, Milner-Gulland EJ (2013) Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47:369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) (2013) To no net loss and beyond: an overview of the business and biodiversity offsets programme. Forest Trends, Washington, DC

  • Clarke KD, Bradford MJ (2014) A review of equivalency in offsetting policies. Can Sci Adv Sec Res Doc 2014/109

  • Cochrane JF, Lonsdorf E, Allison TD, Sanders-Reed CA (2015) Modeling with uncertain science: estimating mitigation credits from abating lead poisoning in Golden Eagles. Ecol Appl 25:1518–1533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, Hellweg S, Beck J (2014) Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? Ecol Appl 24:617–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker AS, Bradford MJ, Higgins PS (2008) Rate of biotic colonization following flow restoration below a diversion dam in the Bridge River, British Columbia. River Res Appl 24:876–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA (2012) Technical paper: the metric for the biodiversity offsetting pilot in England, March 2012 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. http://wwwdefragovuk/publications

  • DFO (1986) Policy for the management of fish habitat. Communications Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, Ontario

  • DFO (2013) Fisheries productivity investment policy: a proponent’s guide to offsetting. URL http://wwwdfo-mpogcca/pnw-ppe/offsetting-guide-compensation/offsetting-guide-compensation-engpdf

  • Doyle MW, Shields FD (2012) Compensatory mitigation for streams under the Clean Water Act: reassessing science and redirecting policy. J Am Water Res Assoc 48:494–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunford RW, Hausman JA, Desvousges WS (2004) The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecol Econ 48:49–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca MS, Julius BE, Kenworthy WJ (2000) Integrating biology and economics in seagrass restoration: how much is enough and why? Ecol Eng 15:227–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frissell CA, Nawa RK (1992) Incidences and causes of physical failure of artificial habitat structure in streams of western Oregon and Washington. N Am J Fish Manage 12:182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons P, Evans MC, Maron M, Gordon A, Le Roux D, von Hase A, Lindenmayer DB, Possingham HP (2015) A gain-loss calculator for biodiversity offsets and the circumstances in which no net loss is feasible Conserv Lett doi: 101111/conl12206

  • Harper DJ, Quigley JT (2005) No net loss of fish habitat: a review and analysis of habitat compensation in Canada. Environ Manage 36:343–355

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hill T, Kulz E, Munoz B (2013) Compensatory stream and wetland mitigation in North Carolina: an evaluation of regulatory success. Environ Manage 51:1077–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough P, Robertson M (2009) Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: where it comes from, what it means. Wetl Ecol Manage 17:15–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICMM IUCN (2012) Independent report on biodiversity offsets. The Biodiversity Consultancy. wwwicmmcom/biodiversity-offsets

  • Jones HP, Schmitz OJ (2009) Rapid recovery of damaged ecosystems. PLoS One 4(5):e5653. doi:10.1371/journalpone0005653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keagy JC, Schreiber SJ, Cristol DA (2005) Replacing sources with sinks: when do populations go down the drain? Restor Ecol 13:529–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall MG, Stuart A (1963) The advanced theory of statistics Volume 1, distribution theory. Charles Griffon Co, London

  • Kondolf GM, Anderson S, Lave R, Pagano L, Merenlander A, Bernhardt ES (2007) Two decades of river restoration in California: what can we learn? Restor Ecol 15:516–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laitila J, Miolanen A, Pouzols FM (2014) A method for calculating minimum biodiversity offset multipliers accounting for time discounting, additionality and permanence. Methods Ecol Evol 5:1247–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennox MS, Lewis DJ, Jackson RD, Harper J, Larson S, Tate KW (2011) Development of vegetation and aquatic habitat in restored riparian sites of California’s North coast rangelands. Restor Ecol 19:225–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levrel H, Pioch S, Spieler R (2012) Compensatory mitigation in marine ecosystems: which indicators for assessing the “no net loss” goal of marine ecosystem services and ecological functions? Mar Pol 36:1202–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsaglia G (2006) Ratios of normal variables. J Stat Softw 16(4):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM (2010) Policy developments for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manage 45:165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller SW, Budy P, Schmidt JC (2010) Quantifying macroinvertebrates responses to in-stream habitat restoration: applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restor Ecol 18:8–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minns CK (2006) Compensation ratios needed to offset timing effects of losses and gains and achieve no net loss of productive capacity of fish habitat. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:1172–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minns CK, Moore JE (2003) Assessment of net change of productive capacity of fish habitats: the role of uncertainty and complexity in decision making. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:100–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minns CK, Randall RG, Smokorowski KE, Clarke KD, Vélez-Espino A, Gregory RS, Courtenay S, LeBlanc P (2011) Direct and indirect estimates of the productive capacity of fish habitat under Canada’s policy for the management of fish habitat: where have we been, where are we now, and where are we going? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 68:2204–2227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, van Teeffelen AJA, Ben-Haim Y, Ferrier S (2009) How much compensation is enough? A framework for incorporating uncertainty and time discounting when calculating offset ratios for impacted habitat. Restor Ecol 17:470–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (1999) Discounting and the treatment of uncertainty in natural resource damage assessment Technical Paper 99-1, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, NOAA, Silver Spring MD

  • Ogsten L, Gidora S, Foy M, Rosenfeld J (2015) Watershed-scale effectiveness of floodplain habitat restoration for juvenile coho salmon in the Chilliwack River, British Columbia. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 72:479–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orzetti LL, Jones RC, Murphy RF (2010) Stream condition in Piedmont streams with restored riparian buffers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. J Am Water Res Assoc 46:473–485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Overton JMcC, Stephens RTT, Ferrier S (2013) Net present biodiversity value and design of biodiversity offsets. Ambio 42:100–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Allan JD, Meyer J, Bernhardt ES (2007) River restoration in the twenty-first century: data and experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restor Ecol 15:472–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkes D, Newell G, Cheal D (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecol Manage Restor 4:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett EJ, Stockwell MP, Bower DS, Garnham JI, Pollard CJ, Clulow J, Mahony MJ (2013) Achieving no net loss in habitat offset of a threatened frog required high offset ratio and intensive monitoring. Biol Conserv 157:156–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilgrim JD, Ekstrom JMM (2014) Technical conditions for positive outcomes from biodiversity offsets. IUCN, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Quétier F, Lavorel S (2011) Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: key issues and solutions. Biol Conserv 144:2991–2999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley JT, Harper DJ (2006) Compliance with Canada’s Fisheries Act: a field audit of habitat compensation projects. Environ Manage 37:336–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Race MS, Fonseca MS (1996) Fixing compensatory mitigation: what will it take? Ecol Appl 6:94–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robb JT (2002) Assessing wetland compensatory mitigation sites to aid in establishing mitigation ratios. Wetlands 22:435–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roni P, Morley SA, Garcia P, Detrick C, King D, Beamer E (2006) Coho salmon smolt production from constructed and natural floodplain habitats. Trans Am Fish Soc 135:1398–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld JS, Boss S (2001) Fitness consequences of habitat use for juvenile cutthroat trout: energetic costs and benefits in pools and riffles. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:585–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saenz S, Walschburger T, Gonzalez JC, Leon J, McKenney B, Kiesecker J (2013) A framework for implementing and valuing biodiversity offsets in Colombia: a landscape scale perspective. Sustainability 5:4961–4987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger DA, Regier HA (1982) Climatic and morphoedaphic indices of fish yields from natural lakes. Trans Am Fish Soc 111:141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strange EM, Galbraith H, Bickel S, Mills D, Beltman D, Lipton J (2002) Determining ecological equivalence in service-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environ Manage 29:290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis H, Kennedy CM, Ruckelshaus M, Goldstein J, Kiesecker JM (2015) Mitigation for one and all: an integrated framework for mitigation of development impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess Rev 55:21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischew S, Baasch A, Conrad MK, Kirmer A (2010) Evaluating restoration success of frequently implemented compensation measures: results and demands for control procedures. Restor Ecol 18:467–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Katwijk MM, Bos AR, de Jonge VN, Hanssen LSAM, Hermus DCR, de Jong DJ (2009) Guidelines for seagrass restoration: importance of habitat selection and donor population, spreading of risks, and ecosystem engineering effects. Mar Poll Bull 58:179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler J, Shabman L, Alvarez V, Evans RO, Gardner RC, Gibbons JW, Gilliam JW, Johnston CA, Mitsch WJ, Prestegaard K, Redmond AM, Simenstad C, Turner RE (2001) Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act National Academy Press, Washington, DC

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Bronwyn Keatley, Keith Clarke, Karen Smokorowski, and Melisa Wong of Fisheries and Oceans Canada for their contributions to this project and participants of the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat’s November 2014 meeting on equivalency metrics for offsetting for discussion. This work was supported by funds provided by the Ecosystem and Ocean Science Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and, School of Resource and Environmental Management Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, V5A-1S6, Canada

    Michael J. Bradford

Authors
  1. Michael J. Bradford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Bradford.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bradford, M.J. Accounting for Uncertainty and Time Lags in Equivalency Calculations for Offsetting in Aquatic Resources Management Programs. Environmental Management 60, 588–597 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0892-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0892-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation