The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. Preview Meeting Washington, D.C. July 22, 2014

Transcription

1 The Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook Preview Meeting Washington, D.C. July 22, 2014

2 What is the Guidebook? An online resource for natural resource managers on incorporating ecosystem services into decisionmaking processes Developed for federal natural resource agencies However, methods and examples are broadly applicable ABOUT

3 Why Create the Guidebook? 1998 PCAST report - Teaming with Life: Investing in Science to Understand and Use America s Living Capital 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Farm Bill Establishment of USDA Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets Inter-agency dialogue on payments and markets for ecosystem services PCAST Report - Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy Forest Service Planning Rule International Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services CEQ Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources ABOUT

4 Motivation Early 2012 meeting (ACES & NESP) 1. Growing interest among federal agencies 2. Many questions about how to make this happen 3. Concern that if nothing is done to help bridge the gap between concept and practice, the opportunity could be missed. ABOUT

5 Goals of the Project Help to fill the gap between concept and practice Educate newcomers & managers on the ground Shared learning across agencies Connect ecological and social methods for ES evaluation Common framework that spans decision contexts and geography Bring together agency and academic experts to bring credibility while remaining practical ABOUT

6 Over 175 People Engaged Project Leads Lydia Olander, Dean Urban, Tim Profeta (Duke University) Lynn Scarlett (The Nature Conservancy) Jim Boyd (Resources for the Future) Sally Collins (Consultant, Formerly USFS and USDA OEM) Funders Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center Duke University USDA Office of Environmental Markets Seed funding from several agencies Universities & Consultants Clark University Colorado State University Duke University University of Maryland Ohio University University of Wisconsin Vanderbilt University The New School Institute for Natural Resources Parametrix Spatial Informatics Group Agency Partners U.S. Forest Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Agency Observers Council on Environmental Quality Office of Science and Technology Policy Office of Management and Budget USDA Office of Environmental Markets NGOs Compass Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Science Partners NatureServe Resources for the Future The Nature Conservancy United Nations Environment Programme ABOUT

7 Process ABOUT

8 What Does the Guidebook Include? EXPLORE THE ADVANTAGES of Ecosystem Services Approaches Definitions, benefits, limitations, FAQs FEDERAL AGENCIES and Ecosystem Services Agency decision contexts and examples THE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK for Ecosystem Services Methods for connecting ecological and social analyses ABOUT

9 EXPLORE THEADVANTAGES OF AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES APPROACH

10 An Ecosystem Services Approach Katie Locklier, 2013 Tony Alter, Wikimedia Commons USDA FS Rob Haight, USFS N. Research Station Katie Locklier, 2013 USDA, FS Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net ADVANTAGES

11 An Ecosystem Services Approach George Gentry, FWS U.S. EPA BLM Montana Office Alan Cressler, USGS Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net U.S. EPA Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net Shannon Bauer, USACE ADVANTAGES

12 Focus on Decision Support Comparing the effects of changes in management on ecosystem service outcomes for options under consideration: Alternative management options, sites, or scenarios Prioritization across different project types or investments Comparison of projected scenarios of alternative futures (regional or national scale) ADVANTAGES

13 Potential Benefits BLM Montana Office George Gentry, FWS BLM Montana Office Alan Cressler, USGS versus Shannon Bauer, USACE Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net U.S. EPA U.S. EPA Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net A better assessment of impacts on human health, wealth, and well-being ADVANTAGES

14 Potential Benefits BLM Montana Office George Gentry, FWS BLM Montana Office Alan Cressler, USGS versus Shannon Bauer, USACE Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net U.S. EPA U.S. EPA Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net A clear assessment of trade-offs ADVANTAGES

15 Potential Benefits Flood Zone BLM Montana Office versus Reduced High Flows Crayfish Habitat Fish population BLM Montana Office Riparian Habitat ADVANTAGES A more holistic or complete assessment of how management will effect people and improved communications and stakeholder buy in

16 Potential Benefits BLM Montana Office George Gentry, FWS BLM Montana Office Alan Cressler, USGS versus Shannon Bauer, USACE Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net U.S. EPA U.S. EPA Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net Inclusive of all ecosystem service benefits even if they are difficult to quantify ADVANTAGES

17 Potential Benefits $500,000 BLM Montana Office George Gentry, FWS BLM Montana Office Alan Cressler, USGS versus Shannon Bauer, USACE Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net $750,000 ADVANTAGES U.S. EPA Ecosystem service benefits can sometimes be expressed in monetary terms improving cross comparison and communication U.S. EPA Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net

18 Potential Benefits ADVANTAGES Analysis of who has access and benefits from changes in services can be the basis for understanding distributional or equity implications

19 Agencies are seeing benefits Incorporates additional services into decision making NOAA Blue Carbon Can result in more efficient NEPA process Deschutes National Forest, Marsh restoration project Improves stakeholder engagement California regional forest planning Helps to identify potential partners to improve costeffectiveness of management USFS Forest to Faucets project Identifies best options for supporting public welfare EPA NOxand SOxstandards ADVANTAGES

20 Frequently Asked Questions Does this approach. 1. Replace assessments of traditional economic outputs? No 2. Favor easy to quantify services? No 3. Require monetization of all services? No 4. Always change the outcome of a decision? No 5. Replace existing agency priorities? No An ecosystem services approach complements existing processes by providing additional information. ADVANTAGES

21 Potential Challenges Terminology may cause confusion Gaps in data and modeling for ecosystem services could limit quantification Insufficient in-house technical capacity Managing greater engagement with a larger number of stakeholders Concern that significant effort is required for potentially small impact on decisions ADVANTAGES

22 ECOSYSTEMSERVICES ANDAGENCIES HOW ARE AGENCIES THINKING ABOUT ECOSYSTEM SERVICES?

23 Exploration of Legal Authority The National Environmental Policy Act analysis of the effects of proposed actions on the value of ecosystem services is appropriate to include in documents prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Such analysis helps to fulfill both the public policy purposes and the legal requirements of NEPA. -Dinah Bear - The Federal Land Policy and Management Act Analysis of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and its components in relation to ecosystem services suggest that the BLM does have the legal authority to manage public lands for both the preservation and use of ecosystem services. -Paul Smyth - AGENCIES

24 U.S. Forest Service An ecosystem services approach may be helpful in 1. Forest-level planning (2012 Planning Rule) 2. Project-level NEPA decisions to compare management alternatives 3. State-level assessments and valuation of forest ecosystem services under different future scenarios AGENCIES Johan Hogervorst

25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lisa Cox, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service An ecosystem services approach may be helpful in refuge planning. 1. To improve outcomes of resource management decisions 2. To enhance support for conservation-related actions 3. To identify non-traditional sources of funding AGENCIES

26 Bureau of Land Management An ecosystem services approach may be helpful in. 1. Land use planning e.g. identifying areas where energy infrastructure or grazing are allowed 2. Implementation decisions e.g. the conditions of specific permits for development AGENCIES Laura Crane Johan Hogervorst

27 Nat. Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration An ecosystem services approach may be helpful in Moving towards a more quantified, spatially explicit consideration of ecosystem services and how they are affected by different management alternatives. 1. Fisheries management to understand how management impacts the services that flow from productive, sustainable fisheries 2. Place-based management at regional and local scales to maximize the delivery of a suite of benefits NOAA AGENCIES

28 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Historical goal is to balance economic and environmental concernsof water management Createda new work unitto explore integrating ecosystem services into planning processes Currently prohibited from implementing CEQ s Principles and Requirements by Congress AGENCIES New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

29 EPA and USGS EPA Incorporating ecosystem services into NOxand SOxsecondary air quality standards Building new database and web based tools for analyzing ecosystem services, EnviroAtlas Ongoing work to develop a framework for final ecosystem goods and services USGS Exploring methods and tools for ecosystem services assessments, in partnership with a number of agencies Also coordinates ACES AGENCIES

30 Agency Applications and Explorations Agency Example BLM Upper Green River Conservation Exchange Program BLM Solar Energy Program EPA FWS FWS FWS NOAA NOAA USFS USFS USFS USFS USFS Ecosystem Services and NOx/SOx Secondary Standards Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge Evaluating Ecosystem Services in Coastal and Marine Environments: Marine InVEST An Ecosystem Services Framework for Conservation of Coastal Blue Carbon Pacific Southwest Region The Cool Soda All Lands Restoration Proposal The Marsh Project Ecosystem Services and Land Management Plan Revision Integrating Ecosystem Service into Forest Service Programs and Operations AGENCIES

31 Why Agencies Are Using Ecosystem Services 1. Improving transparency and understanding of trade-offs 2. Improving prioritization of projects 3. Ability to enhance cost-effectiveness 4. Aligns well with a more integrated and holistic approach to management 5. Possibility of enhancing resilience in a changing climate 6. Capacity to increase trust and communication with the public 7. Potential to generate innovative investments in conservation and natural resource management AGENCIES

32 THEASSESSMENTFRAMEWORK CONNECTING ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL ANALYSES

33 General Assessment Steps REACTION Monitoring outcome of decision Using outcomes to inform next steps SCOPING Evaluating ecological status and trends Identifying and engaging stakeholders Determining options DECISION Combining assessment results with other decision factors Implementing a management plan ASSESSMENT/ANALYSIS Evaluating ecological implications of management Determining stakeholder preferences Comparing alternatives ASSESSMENT

34 Engaging Stakeholders Determining desired outcomes Determining stakeholder preferences ASSESSMENT

35 Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Ecological Analysis: Means-Ends Diagrams Wetland structure Vegetation (sp. counts) Depth to water table (m) Open water area (m 2 ) Total area (m 2 ) flow duration curves Flow regime Max. water depth (m) Freq. of inundation (per yr) Anoxia (% O 2 ) species distribution models Species habitats Bird habitat (m 2 ) Fish habitat (m 2 ) At-risk sp. habitat (m 2 ) Flood zone (m 2 ) ASSESSMENT

36 Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Linking Indicators to Stakeholders Biophysical Indicators Ecosystem Services Vegetation types Depth to water table Open water area Total area Shannon Bauer, USACE Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net Max. water depth Freq. of inundation George Gentry, FWS Anoxia Flood zone Bird habitat BLM Montana Office Fish habitat At-risk sp. habitat Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net ASSESSMENT

37 Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Social Impact Analysis Ecological changes Human interaction with and preferences for changes # of beneficiaries Access to service Substitutes to Service Reliability of service 3 focal approaches: 1. Monetary valuation 2. Non-monetary valuation (MCDA) 3. Socially qualified indicators ASSESSMENT

38 ASSESSMENT Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Social Impact Analysis: Monetary Valuation What is measured: Willingness to pay (WTP) Techniques: Revealed preference (Travel cost, property values) Stated preference (Surveys asking WTP) Production/profit function Yields: Dollar value of ES provided (or change in ES) Allows BCA Requires: Quantified ecological outcome to value Travel Costs Caveats: Some services difficult, or deemed unsuitable to monetize Difficult but possible to transfer values BLM Montana Office Shannon Bauer, USACE Property values Vera Kratovchil, PublicDomainPictures.net Survey for WTP

39 Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Social Impact Analysis: MCDA What is measured: Relative preference Techniques: In-person elicitation Surveys Yields: Standardized units of relative preferences for all outcomes Requires: Production functions and capacity to elicit stakeholder preferences Relative Satisfaction Caveats: Elicitation can be difficult Local, not transferable George Gentry, FWS Both = 0 1 sp. < 5 1 sp. > 5 Both sp. < 5 1 sp. < 5, 1 sp. > 5 Number of Each Species of Bird Seen Both sp. > 5 ASSESSMENT

40 Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Using Socially Qualified Indicators What is measured: Social factors that affect how a service is used or valued Techniques: # of beneficiaries, access, etc. Yields: Socially relevant ecological indicators modified by social information Requires: Information on beneficiaries and how they interact with services Caveats: No stakeholder preference information Biases are less transparent Biophysical Indicator: Fish habitat + Social Information: # of fishing permits # of access points for fishing # of other fishing sites BLM Montana Office ASSESSMENT

41 Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Social Impact Analysis: Choosing a Method Choose this approach when: Monetary Valuation Benefit Cost Analysis desired or required by mandate All services can be monetized Non-Monetary Valuation Socially Qualified Indicators Inappropriate, or difficult to monetize all services Benefit Cost Analysis not required Stakeholder preferences are available or obtainable Decision scope does not require full analysis (localized) Stakeholder preferences inaccessible ASSESSMENT

42 Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Assessment and Analysis: Goal To create an alternatives matrix that feeds into the decision process Ecosystem Service Status Quo Levee Floodplain Non-wildlife land recreation Non-wildlife water recreation Fishing Wildlife watching Existence (protection)of at-risk species Flood risk reduction ASSESSMENT

43 Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Making a Decision Other Information: Agency mandates Fiscal constraints Job creation Sustainability Equity Decision ASSESSMENT

44 Scoping Assessment and Analysis Decision Reaction Evaluating the Process Other Information: Agency mandates Fiscal constraints Job creation Sustainability Equity Decision Reaction: Monitoring to re-evaluate status and trends Using outcomes to inform future decisions ASSESSMENT

45 In Summary the Framework Focuses on decision support choosing among alternatives Integrates ecological and social analysis Incorporates multiple evaluation methods to span agency needs Ecological qualitative Ecological quantitative Socially enriched measures of ecological change Non-monetary Valuation Monetary valuation Provides a common framework and suite of methods that can be used across geographies and decision context Consistent with other frameworks and methods in use or under development with agencies Provides a high level overview showing how the pieces fit together with enough detail to get a sense of what it would take to apply the methods, but not enough details to apply them step by step, particularly for the more technically challenging methods ABOUT

46 Guidebook will be Available December 2014 For more information, contact Lydia Olander: