Lessons Learned Developing the Universal Best Management Practices Index for the Deepwater Horizon Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1004-1010
Author(s):  
Jessica Odell ◽  
Travis Coley
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Emergency Situation ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Deepwater Horizon ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Biological Assessment ◽  
Response Factors ◽  
Best Management

ABSTRACT In an oil spill emergency situation, how do you simultaneously protect listed species, track important events, and plan for a post-emergency Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment? This was the daunting question faced by hundreds of environmental regulators, field biologists, and technology developers during the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Incident Response. With the help of mobile technology, legacy expertise, and a dedicated field presence, they answered with a system of Best Management Practices (BMPs). During the response, factors such as urgency, expansive geography, response duration, and technical experience disparity threatened to compromise the integrity of the BMP datasets. Because of these factors, over one hundred separate BMP lists were issued, and highly accurate field data collection was often sacrificed for after-hours web entry or paper records. For the purposes of the Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment, the Universal BMP (UBMP) Index was created to retroactively track the implementation of these various lists and properly credit responders with conservation efforts. The development of this index yielded lessons from practical BMP implementation and documentation in a response environment to constructing sophisticated database architecture needed for consumption. Here we present the evolution of UBMPs, their role in the Effects Analysis of the Deepwater Horizon Biological Assessment, and a plan for a better way.

Generating a Visual Effects Analysis for the Deepwater Horizon Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 300294
Author(s):  
Travis Coley ◽  
Jessica Odell ◽  
Doug Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Deepwater Horizon ◽  
The United States ◽  
Biological Assessment ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Species Response ◽  
Species Responses

Although species expertise, professional judgment, and scientific literature pave the way for making determinations of effects, the vastness of the Deepwater Horizon Incident response inspired a systematic approach. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment (BA) for this response began with the development of ecological models for each of the listed species potentially affected by the response. These models are tabular and connect individual strands of logic, referred to as effects pathways, which relate a potential cleanup activity to the anticipated species response. Effects pathways cannot be used alone, as they are inherently isolated and independent of any response action data. To bring the effects pathways into the context of the actual cleanup effort, a forensic geographically aware action record was generated. This record was primarily built using prescriptions for cleanup, known as Shoreline Cleanup Recommendations (STRs), Incident Command System (ICS) Forms, and Best Management Practices (BMP) Checklists. The combination of effects pathways and the action record was completed using table joining techniques. The anticipated species responses to actions were then used to create a series of heat maps. These show the accumulation of species responses along the landscape based on temporal components of activities, such as frequency and intensity. These maps provide a visual means of consuming the vast occurrences of the response to facilitate the effects analysis of the BA.

New Guidelines for conducting Endangered Species Act Consultations on Oil Spill Planning and Response Activities

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 2017424
Author(s):  
John A. Tarpley ◽  
Stacey Crecy ◽  
William Marhoffer ◽  
Elizabeth Petras ◽  
Damian Higgins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Biological Assessment ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Service Agency ◽  
Environmental Compliance

The framework for cooperation and participation regarding Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance at every stage of oil spill planning and response activities is contained in an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed in 2001; and although the agreement is still valid, the guidance for implementation was in need of updating. The MOA was established between the USCG, EPA, Department of the Interior through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the National Ocean Service. These procedures are designed to help fulfill requirements under ESA Section 7(a)(2) as well as those mandated in the National Contingency Plan. It is a holistic approach to protection and conservation of the ecosystem upon which listed species depend that also facilitates interagency cooperation, reduces paperwork, makes the best use of limited financial and personnel agency resources, and develops a quality response plan. After more than a decade of no consultations on ESA, there was an overall lack of awareness and understanding about environmental compliance on the part of the “action” agencies (USCG & EPA), and about response actions and oil spills on the part of Service agency personnel (NMFS & FWS). Through the National Response Team - National Environmental Compliance (NEC) Subcommittee; guidelines to conduct an ESA Consultation and write a Biological Assessment (BA) were completely re-written for clarity and practicality to meet today's resource-challenged agencies. These guidelines will provide Sectors and Regional Response Teams with numerous suggestions on how to include Best Management Practices to protect species and habitats while developing protection and oil recovery strategies in their Area Contingency Plans (ACP). The guidelines reaffirm how the action agencies and service agencies must work together to best understand the others expertise and needs. The guidelines will identify economies of scale with consultations such that time, effort and costs are reduced for all agencies involved. Knowing the environmental risks in advance will allow planners and response practitioners to develop the most effective strategies while minimizing environmental harm. Smartly built ACPs and new-found economies to writing BAs will greatly advance the ability to be ESA compliant; avoid lawsuits; and support decisions for the most appropriate cleanup methods for specific habitats, in order to maximize oil recover and minimize any impacts to species or habitat.

Lessons Learned from Developing Best Management Practices for Urban Tree Care and Wildlife

2022 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Corinne Bassett ◽  
Ryan Gilpin ◽  
Kara Donohue
Keyword(s):  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Professional Training ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Urban Forestry ◽  
Urban Forests ◽  
Urban Wildlife ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Best Management ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Tree Care

Urban forests create indispensable habitat for declining wildlife populations. The tree care industry is essential to the viability of urban forests and thus the survival of urban wildlife. At the same time, tree care operations such as tree removal and branch pruning present clear threats to urban wildlife and their habitats. Here we describe the development of a grassroots coalition of arborists and wildlife advocates in the Western United States and the process of charting a path to best management practices and professional training to mitigate the impacts of tree care practices to wildlife. In particular, we describe the unique challenges and opportunities that arose through this multi-disciplinary process and build a case for the benefits of uniting diverse communities of practice around complex urban ecological problems. We finish by laying out recommendations to the international arboriculture and urban forestry practitioner and research communities.

scholarly journals Water Quality Regulations in the Chesapeake Bay: Working to More Precisely Estimate Nutrient Loading Rates and Incentivize Best Management Practices in the Nursery and Greenhouse Industry

HortScience ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 48 (9) ◽  
pp. 1097-1102 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Majsztrik ◽  
John D. Lea-Cox
Keyword(s):  
Chesapeake Bay ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Nutrient Loading ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Point Sources ◽  
Sediment Runoff ◽  
Nutrient Runoff ◽  
Best Management ◽  
Nutrient Trading

Restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay recently intensified with the 2010 introduction of federal total maximum daily load (TMDL) limits for all 92 bay watershed segments. These regulations have specific, binding consequences if any of the six states or the District of Columbia fail to meet interim goals, including loss of federal dollars for various programs and increasing regulation of point sources, if non-point source (agricultural and urban) nutrient reduction goals are not met in the watershed. As part of the effort to better understand and account for non-point sources of pollution in the watershed, a team of agricultural experts from across the bay region was recently assembled, including the nursery industry. The goal of this panel was to inform stakeholders and policymakers about the inputs and management practices used across all Bay states. To increase both the precision and accuracy of loading rate estimates, more precise information should guide future iterations of the Chesapeake Bay model. A more accurate accounting of land area by operation type (e.g., greenhouse, container, and field) is a primary issue for the nursery and greenhouse industry, because the current Chesapeake Bay model relies on USDA agricultural census data, which does not separate container and field production, which have very different nutrient and irrigation practices. Field operations also typically account for a higher percentage of production area in each state, which may skew model results. This is very important because the type of operation (field, container-nursery, or greenhouse operation) has a significant impact on plant density, types of fertilizer used, and application rates, which combine with irrigation and water management practices to affect potential nutrient runoff. It is also important to represent a variety of implemented best management practices (BMPs) in the Chesapeake Bay model such as vegetated buffer strips, sediment ponds, controlled-release fertilizer, and accurately assess how these mitigate both nutrient and sediment runoff from individual operations. There may also be opportunities for growers who have implemented BMPs such as low-phosphorus slow-release fertilizers (SRF), precision irrigation, etc., to gain additional revenue through nutrient trading. Although there are currently some questions about how nutrient trading will work, this could provide additional incentives for further implementation of BMPs by both ornamental and other agricultural growers. It is possible that the TMDL process currently being implemented throughout the Chesapeake Bay will be used as a remediation process for other impaired estuarine water bodies, which have similar water-use regulations and issues. The lessons learned about the Chesapeake Bay model in general, and for the nursery and greenhouse industry in particular, will likely provide guidance for how we can be proactive in reducing environmental impacts and protect the economic viability of ornamental growers in the future.

Lessons Learned Developing the Response Action Record for the Deepwater Horizon Endangered Species Act Biological Assessment

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (1) ◽  
pp. 1011-1018
Author(s):  
Jessica Odell ◽  
Travis Coley ◽  
Douglas Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Endangered Species Act ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Biological Assessment ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Schema Design ◽  
Seamless Transition ◽  
Daily Response ◽  
Oil Spill Response ◽  
National Significance

ABSTRACT In an oil spill response environment, urgency looms, and virtually every action is geared toward immediate needs. Clean-up, safety, and listed species protection are at the forefront of the collaborative efforts carried out by an incident management team. However, these needs do not complete the obligation of the Federal Action Agency responsible for the event. This agency must also complete an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Assessment (BA). To do that for a spill of national significance, it is paramount that response personnel track certain details about their daily operations. Unfortunately, in the BA for the Deepwater Incident Response, the action record had to be reconstructed forensically. Although operational permits to work, otherwise known as Shoreline Treatment Recommendations, used standard geographic references and response action terms, they are merely prescriptions for activity and provide only maximum default assumptions. To gain vital insight into more specific temporal elements such as frequency, intensity, and duration, daily response reports were required. These reports were not gathered into a central geodatabase along the way. They were printed to paper, boxed, shipped to a documentation unit, and scanned into image files. These files were organized into approximately 30,000 document sets of up to 4,000 pages each. Qualitative document content analysis was used to distill the needed details from these image sets into a database. This technique for generating the needed data for an effects analysis is arduous. However, the process of its development has produced valuable lessons learned. Here we present the needed schema design and architecture to promote a seamless transition on future responses from the urgency of immediate need to inevitability of post-spill ESA obligation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document