Tag Archives: OffsetArt

Miller, M., Stevens, C. and M. S. Poesch. (In Press). Effectiveness of spawning substrate enhancement for adfluvial fish in a regulated sub-Arctic river. River Research and Applications.

Abstract:

This study was conducted to meet regulatory requirements under the Fisheries Act in Canada, specifically for a hydroelectric facility on the Yellowknife River in the Northwest Territories. The research focused on annual snorkel surveys of adfluvial fish and their spawning habitat below the facility. Initial observations of egg mortality, potentially due to overcrowding, prompted the investigation of natural and enhanced habitat for spawning Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and cisco (Coregonus artedi) from 2016 to 2019. The design and composition of the installed habitat were based on fish utilization of the natural channel below the hydro facility and design principles from previous habitat rehabilitation projects for anadromous fishes. Pre- and post-enhancement data on egg density and survival were collected using 1 m2 plots on both natural and artificially enhanced substrates. Three years of post-enhancement monitoring indicated higher egg densities and a greater proportion of live eggs in the artificially enhanced habitat compared to the natural habitat, with more pronounced trends observed for coregonids (lake whitefish and cisco) compared to lake trout. These findings suggest that habitat enhancement has the potential to enhance juvenile recruitment for adfluvial fish. A critical factor in the design was the substrate composition, providing adequate interstitial spaces for egg development and protection. This study represents the first documented attempt at habitat improvement in a regulated sub-Arctic river in Canada. The findings offer valuable guidance for stakeholders involved in new or existing development projects that require conservation actions to maintain fisheries productivity.

Citation: Miller, M., Stevens, C. and M. S. Poesch. (In Press). Effectiveness of spawning substrate enhancement for adfluvial fish in a regulated sub-Arctic river. River Research and Applications.

Also Read:

McPherson, M.*, Lewis, J.B., Cott, P.B., Baker, L.F., Mochnacz, N.J. Swanson, H.K., and S. Poesch. (2023) Habitat use by fluvial Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) across life stages in northern mountain streams. Environmental Biology of Fishes 106: 1001-1020.

*Lab members: Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Theis S.* and M. S. Poesch. (2024). What makes a bank a bank? Differences and commonalities in credit calculation, application, and risks in mitigation banks targeting freshwater fish species and associated ecosystems. Environmental Management: 73(1): 199-212.

Abstract:

Mitigation banking is part of the ever-expanding global environmental market framework that aims to balance negative approved anthropogenic impacts versus third-party provided ecosystem benefits, sold in the form of credits. Given the need to conserve freshwater biodiversity and habitat, banking has received great traction in freshwater systems. While extensive reviews and studies have been conducted on evaluating if equivalency between impacts and offset can be achieved, there is almost no research being done on the way credits are being generated. Synthesizing banking data through cluster analyses from 26 banks in the United States generating credits for freshwater species and systems, we show two dominant approaches: removing barriers and targeting whole communities. Both address crucial freshwater conservation needs but come with their risks and caveats. Using common characteristics and management practices within these two groups, we showcase and conclude that credit generation via barrier removal can be at risk of granting credit generation for too large of an area, leading to over-crediting. Banks targeting whole freshwater communities and accounting for landscape-level interactions and influences can potentially be detrimental for species on an individual level and large-scale credit availability as well as transfer can incentivize non-compliance with the mitigation hierarchy.

Citation: Theis S. and M. S. Poesch. (2024). What makes a bank a bank? Differences and commonalities in credit calculation, application, and risks in mitigation banks targeting freshwater fish species and associated ecosystems. Environmental Management: 73(1): 199-212.

Also Read:

Theis S.*, and M.S. Poesch (2022) Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability 14: 6652.

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis, Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Theis, S.* and M. S. Poesch. (2024).  Mitigation bank applications for freshwater systems: Control mechanisms, project complexity, and caveats. PLOS One 19(2): e-292702.

Abstract:

Biodiversity and mitigation banking has become a popular alternative offsetting mechanism, especially for freshwater species and systems. Central to this increase in popularity is the need for sound control mechanisms to ensure offset functionality. Two commonly used mechanisms are monitoring requirements and staggered release of bank credits over time. We used data from 47 banks in the United States, targeting freshwater systems and species. Based on the 47 banks meeting our criteria we showed that control mechanisms generally scale with increased project complexity and that banks release most of their total credit amount within the first 3 years. We further showed that advance credits are common and can increase the potential for credit release without providing tangible ecological benefits. Physical and biological assessment criteria commonly used by banks let us identify three main bank types focusing on connectivity, physical aspects, and habitat and species and their application possibilities and caveats to provide different ecosystem benefits for freshwater species and systems affected by anthropogenic development.

Citation: Theis, S. and M. S. Poesch. (2024).  Mitigation bank applications for freshwater systems: Control mechanisms, project complexity, and caveats. PLOS One 19(2): e-292702.

Also Read:

Theis S.*, and M.S. Poesch (2022) Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability 14: 6652.

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis, Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Theis, S.*, Ruppert, J. L. W. and M. S. Poesch. (2023) Coarse woody habitat use by local fish species and structural integrity of enhancements over time in a shallow northern boreal lake assessed in a Bayesian modeling approach. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 4(2): e12200.

Abstract:

  1. The introduction of coarse woody habitat has been a widely adopted management practice for restoring and enhancing freshwater aquatic ecosystems. Although responses of aquatic fish and invertebrate communities have largely been documented for lotic systems, benefits for lentic ecosystems have been mostly unevaluated.
  2. We tested the responses of fish populations to coarse woody habitat structures through a Bayesian modeling approach in a northern boreal lake in Alberta, Canada by enhancing a stretch of littoral zone with low structural complexity through introduction of coarse wood bundles and whole tree structures. The study site was split into three treatments, a Spaced treatment (structures 30 m apart), a Clustered treatment (structures 15 m apart), and an unaltered area (Control).
  3. Catch per unit effort and Catch per unit area data were collected over 2 years and posterior model predictions showed an increase in habitat use of the enhanced areas by spottail shiner – Notropis hudsonius; northern pike – Esox lucius; white sucker – Catostomus commersonii; brook stickleback – Culaea inconstans. No probable effect on overall fish condition, measured in Relative Weight, was linked to the enhancements.
  4. Across the two-year study, wood bundles degraded faster compared to the whole tree drops, coinciding with leveling off catch per unit effort and catch per unit area predictions near wood bundles, although catch predictions increased near the whole tree structures. Structural degradation set in as early as 1 week post construction for wood bundles and was mostly related to anchoring aspects.
  5. Results from our study provide evidence for the benefits provided by coarse woody habitat within northern boreal lake systems.  They furthermore highlight the short-lived nature of wood bundles built with biodegradable substances.  Methodologically our results offer evidence on the feasibility and utility of predictive modeling frameworks in addressing pseudoreplication and providing informative value for ecological studies.

Citation: Theis, S., Ruppert, J. L. W. and M. S. Poesch. (2023) Coarse woody habitat use by local fish species and structural integrity of enhancements over time in a shallow northern boreal lake assessed in a Bayesian modeling approach. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 4(2): e12200.

Also Read:

Theis, S.*, Ruppert, J.*, Shirton, J.* and M.S. Poesch (2022) Measuring beta diversity components and beneficial effects of coarse woody habitat introduction on invertebrate and macrophyte communities in a shallow northern boreal lake: implications for offsetting. Aquatic Ecology 56: 793-814.

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis, Jonathan Ruppert and Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Theis, S.*  Castellanos D.A., Hamann A. and M.S. Poesch. (2022) Exploring the potential role of habitat banks in preserving freshwater biodiversity and imperiled species in the United States. Biological Conservation 273: 109700.

Abstract:

Habitat banking, a conservation approach to offset habitat loss, has been widely accepted and implemented in the United States, especially for the protection of freshwater ecosystems. The potential adequacy of the habitat banking approach has, however, not yet been formally quantified in the context of its underlying framework and policies. Using a gap analysis approach, we test the current adequacy and future potential of habitat banking for 2313 approved and 552 pending banks in the United States. In the analysis, we consider water stress due to projected climate change, freshwater diversity, imperiled species, and human population growth, among other factors. The results show that the highest conservation urgency was assigned to states in the Southwest with high levels of species imperilment and large increases in anticipated water stress. The banking network covers most of the freshwater biodiversity hotspots in the East and Southeast. Land ownership is a potential driver for the low bank density in western states, with large proportions of land being owned and managed through federal agencies and only 58 banks situated on federal land. While the banking network in the United States is one of the most developed on a global level, gaps and priority areas can be clearly identified to strengthen the current network and its role in preserving freshwater habitat and diversity. Keywords: Offsetting; Conservation policy; Biodiversity market; Preservation.

Citation: Theis, S.  Castellanos D.A., Hamann A. and M.S. Poesch. (2022) Exploring the potential role of habitat banks in preserving freshwater biodiversity and imperiled species in the United States. Biological Conservation 273: 10970.

Also Read:

Theis, S.* and M. S. Poesch. (In Press).  Mitigation bank applications for freshwater systems: Control mechanisms, project complexity, and caveats PLOS One.

 

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis and Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Theis, S.*  Koops, M. and M.S. Poesch. (2022) A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of offsetting strategies for harm to freshwater fishes. Environmental Management 70(5): 793-807.

Abstract:

Offsetting aims to compensate for negative impacts due to authorized anthropogenic impacts. While anchored into legislation through extensive frameworks across many countries, residual or chronic impacts can occur after offset establishment for example because of the ephemeral timescale of some projects. Advice and best practice on how to approach these impacts is rare. To address this, we reviewed 30 projects based on a systematic review and meta-analysis in freshwater ecosystems dealing with residual or long-term negative impacts to provide application advice for the three main identified approaches of: habitat creation, habitat restoration and biological and chemical manipulation. Project information was obtained from scientific databases and grey literature through Boolean search terms and web-scraping. Habitat creation projects, mainly targeting salmonids, had a pooled effect size of 0.8 and offsetting ratios of 1:5 with high biomass increases of over 1.4x compared to pre-establishment, associated with them. Habitat restoration projects targeted a wide range of species and communities with a pooled effect size of 0.66, offset ratios ranging from 1:1.2 to 1:4.6, and biomass increases generally > 1x compared to pre-restoration. Biological manipulation had the lowest effect size (0.51) with stocking efforts being highly variable both in terms of biomass benefits and project outcomes pointing towards stocking being mostly applicable in cases of direct fish harm not related to environmental degradation or habitat loss. Many projects targeted salmonid species and application for a wider range of species needs to be further assessed. We conclude that 1) all three assessed approaches have a potential application use for offsetting Residual or Chronic Harm with approach specific caveats. 2) time to record first benefits required one to two years with time lags needing to be accounted for in the implementation and monitoring process, 3) monitoring timeframes of more than four years and conducting pre-assessments increased projects success significantly. Keywords: Offsetting; Conservation policy; Biodiversity market; Preservation.

Citation: Theis, S.  Koops, M. and M.S. Poesch. (2022) A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of offsetting strategies for harm to freshwater fishes. Environmental Management 70(5): 793-807.

Also Read:

Theis S.*, and M.S. Poesch (2022) Current capacity, bottlenecks, and future projections for offsetting habitat loss using mitigation and conservation banking in the United States. Journal for Nature Conservation 67:126159.

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis and Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Theis S.*, and M.S. Poesch (2022) Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability 14: 6652.

Abstract:

Conservation and mitigation banks allow proponents to buy credits to offset negative residual impacts of development projects with the goal of No net loss (NNL) in ecosystem function and habitat area. However, little is known about the extend to which bank transactions achieve NNL. We synthesized and reviewed 12756 transactions in the United States as to meeting area and ecological equivalence (n = 4331) between approved negative impact and offset. While most transactions provided an offset equal or greater in area than the impacted area, approximately one quarter of transactions, especially targeting wetlands, did not meet ecological equivalence between impact and offset. Missing ecological equivalence was often due to the significantly increasing use of preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation over creating new ecosystems through establishment and re-establishment. Stream transactions seldom added new ecosystem area through creation but mainly used rehabilitation to add offset benefits, in many cases leading to net loss of area. Our results suggest that best practice guidance on habitat creation as well as incentivization of habitat creation must increase in the future to avoid net loss trough bank transactions and meet the ever-accelerating global changes in land-use and the increase pressure of climate change. Keywords: Offsetting; Conservation policy; Biodiversity market; Preservation.

Citation: Theis, S.  and M.S. Poesch. (2022) Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability 14: 6652.

Also Read:

Ruppert, J.L.W.*, Hogg, J., and M.S. Poesch. (2018) Community assembly and the sustainability of habitat offsetting targets in the first compensation lake in the oil sands region in Alberta, Canada. Biological Conservation 219: 138-146.

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis and Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Theis S.*, and M.S. Poesch (2022) Current capacity, bottlenecks, and future projections for offsetting habitat loss using mitigation and conservation banking in the United States. Journal for Nature Conservation 67:126159.

Abstract:

Habitat banking in its many iterations is an established and popular mechanism to deliver environmental offsets. The United States can look back at over 30 years of banking experience with the underlying framework and policies being consistently updated and improved. Given the increased demand in habitat banking, we provide insights into how bank area capacity is distributed across the United States for four different bank targets (wetlands, streams, multiple ecosystems, species) based on information extracted from the Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System, as well as, estimating future capacities and area reserves through a predictive modeling approach based on data from the past 26 years. Future predictions indicate a decrease in available reserves for banks targeting wetlands or multiple ecosystems, with potential bottlenecks relating to large reserves being limited to the southeast and release schedules not catching up to the current and anticipated demand. Banks targeting species or streams are predicted to meet future demand, with species banks (conservation banks) following a different legislative and operational approach based on the listing of endangered species and pro-active approaches with anticipated future demand. Most current reserves for all four bank types are restricted to very few service areas with around one-third of all bank areas still awaiting release, limiting their availability on a broader scale. Strategic planning networks are necessary to meet future demand on a national scale and to identify areas suitable for banking or likely to experience future environmental or developmental stress.

Citation: Theis S., and M.S. Poesch (2022) Current capacity, bottlenecks, and future projections for offsetting habitat loss using mitigation and conservation banking in the United States assessed through the Regulatory In lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System. Journal for Nature Conservation 67: 126159.

Also Read:

Theis S.*, and M.S. Poesch (2022) Assessing conservation and mitigation banking practices and associated gains and losses in the United States. Sustainability 14: 6652..

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis and Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Theis, S.*, Ruppert, J.*, Shirton, J.* and M.S. Poesch (2022) Measuring beta diversity components and beneficial effects of coarse woody habitat introduction on invertebrate and macrophyte communities in a shallow northern boreal lake: implications for offsetting. Aquatic Ecology 56: 793-814.

Abstract:

Structural habitat enhancement has been long established as a popular tool to counter habitat loss due from land-use and development. One enhancement approach is the introduction of Coarse Woody Habitat (CWH) to improve the establishment of macrophyte, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities. Here we assess the benefit of CWH in Northern boreal lakes in the context of mitigation projects. We constructed Coarse Woody Habitat structures in a structure-less littoral zone of Lake Steepbank within the Oil Sands Region of Alberta, Canada. Enhancement structures featured increased macrophyte and invertebrate richness and biomass compared to reference sites and pre-treatment assessments over the course of three years. Enhanced sites also retained improved richness (macrophytes), diversity (macroinvertebrates) and biomass (both), despite STIN loss and degradation of enhancement structures over time. Using beta diversity components, constituting richness agreement, community differentiation and site relationships, and testing their relative importance revealed that replacement was more dominant for invertebrates and increasing similarity more important for macrophyte communities post-enhancement. Our study shows the value of CWH addition for macroinvertebrate and macrophyte communities in what is otherwise a structure-less environment. Community changes over time showcase how beta diversity should be more strongly incorporated in restoration and enhancement studies to quantify community shifts that otherwise would not be captured in alternative diversity measures.

Citation: Theis, S., Ruppert, J., Shirton, J. and M.S. Poesch (2022) Measuring beta diversity components and beneficial effects of coarse woody habitat introduction on invertebrate and macrophyte communities in a shallow northern boreal lake: implications for offsetting. Aquatic Ecology 56: 793-814.

Also Read:

Ruppert, J.L.W.*, Hogg, J., and M.S. Poesch. (2018) Community assembly and the sustainability of habitat offsetting targets in the first compensation lake in the oil sands region in Alberta, Canada. Biological Conservation 219: 138-146.

*Lab members: Sebastian Theis, Jonathan Ruppert, Jesse Shirton and Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!

Theis, S.*, Ruppert, J.W.R*, Roberts, K.*, Koops, M., Minns, K. and M.S. Poesch. (2020) Compliance with and ecosystem function of biodiversity offsets in North American and European freshwaters. Conservation Biology 34(1) 41-53.

Abstract:

Land‐use change via human development is a major driver of biodiversity loss. To reduce these impacts, billions of dollars are spent on biodiversity offsets. However, studies evaluating offset project effectiveness that examine components such as the overall compliance and function of projects remain rare. We reviewed 577 offsetting projects in freshwater ecosystems that included the metrics project size, type of aquatic system (e.g., wetland, creek), offsetting measure (e.g., enhancement, restoration, creation), and an assessment of the projects’ compliance and functional success. Project information was obtained from scientific and government databases and gray literature. Despite considerable investment in offsetting projects, crucial problems persisted. Although compliance and function were related to each other, a high level of compliance did not guarantee a high degree of function. However, large projects relative to area had better function than small projects. Function improved when projects targeted productivity or specific ecosystem features and when multiple complementary management targets were in place. Restorative measures were more likely to achieve targets than creating entirely new ecosystems. Altogether the relationships we found highlight specific ecological processes that may help improve offsetting outcomes.

Highlighted by CBC Radio: (link).

Citation: Theis, S.*, Ruppert, J.W.R*, Roberts, K.*, Koops, M., Minns, K. and M.S. Poesch. (2020) Compliance with and ecosystem function of biodiversity offsets in North American and European freshwaters. Conservation Biology 34(1) 41-53.

Also Read:

Theis, S.*  Koops, M. and M.S. Poesch. (2022) A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of offsetting strategies for harm to freshwater fishes. Environmental Management 70(5): 793-807.

*Lab members:  Sebastian Theis, Jonathan Ruppert, Karling Roberts and  Mark Poesch. Check out opportunities in the lab!