Report from the Workshop on Indicators of Final
Ecosystem Services for Streams
Meeting Date: July 13 to 16, 2009
(EPA/600/R-09/137)
Prepared by
Paul L. Ringold1
James Boyd2
Dixon Landers3
Matthew Weber4
1 ringold.paultgiepa.gov. Research Ecologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division,
Corvallis, OR 97333
2 bovd(@,rff.org. Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future, 1616 P St. NW, Washington, DC 20036
3 landers.dixontgiepa.gov. Senior Research Environmental Scientist (Limnology), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR 97333
4 weber.matthew(@,epa.gov. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Sustainable Technology Division, Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Table of Contents
Section Page
Acknowledgments 2
Preface 3
Executive Summary 5
Introduction 6
Workshop Organization 7
Workshop Results 9
Indicators 9
How big is a site? 14
Other Questions 15
Next Steps 17
Literature Cited 20
Tables 22
List of Workshop Participants Attachment 1
Workshop Agenda Attachment 2
Workshop Presentations Attachment 3
Specific Measures of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams Attachment 4
Acknowledgments
The quality of this report was greatly improved by comments from Alan Covich (University of
Georgia), Michael McDonald (USEPA, Office of Research and Development) and Steven
Newbold (USEPA, National Center for Environmental Economics). The information in this
document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
cooperative agreement 83235601 to the Council of State Governments. It has been subjected to
review by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Page 2
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Report from the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
PREFACE
As ecosystems are restored, degraded, protected or managed the social wealth derived from them
correspondingly rises and falls. Public policies that seek to protect or enhance social wealth
derived from ecosystems must recognize measure and manage that wealth. This requires
ecological and social analysis that is integrated in terms of underlying principles and approaches
to measurement.
The desire to quantitatively incorporate the role of ecosystems in sustaining human-well being in
policy deliberations is not new5. It has been embodied in repeated Executive Orders, National
Academy of Sciences Reports, EPA Science Advisory Reports and agency policies and academic
debates for decades. The motivation to build policies on this ecosystem human well-being
linkage has increased, and refocused, in recent years, especially by the development of the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). This global
assessment defines a comprehensive taxonomy of four categorizes of "ecosystem services":
regulating (such as climate regulation), supporting (such as nutrient cycling), provisioning (such
as the production of food and fiber) and cultural (such as spiritual inspiration). These services, in
combination with human systems, cultures and values benefit human well-being. While this
categorization is seen as a useful heuristic tool it does not provide an operational definition
useful for accounting, landscape management or valuation (Fisher et al. 2008). In order to
facilitate the interaction between ecological assessment and economic valuation of changes in
' Nor without question, e.g. (McCauley 2006)
Page 3
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
ecosystem goods and services, Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) advocate the need to clearly distinguish
between "final ecosystem services" or endpoints and other ecosystem services more
appropriately termed "intermediate services"(Daily and Matson 2008). As they argue, an
accounting perspective (a perspective with a set of internally consistent rules avoiding both
double counting and exclusion of substantial benefits) and an emphasis on biophysical outcome
measures that facilitate economic analyses is essential if we wish to aggregate or bundle benefits
so that cumulative changes in ecosystems and the consequent changes in human well-being can
be described over time or projected as a result of a suite of policy options.
To be clear, while "final services" may be the units upon which accounting systems and
valuation are based, an understanding of "intermediate services" and their relationship to final
services is of great importance in understanding, assessing, predicting and managing final
services and the human well-being provided. This relationship between intermediate and final
services is described by "ecological production functions" that relate changes in one set of
biophysical features and conditions to changes in other biophysical features and conditions.(See
slide 3 and the 6 following slides starting on page 20 of Attachment 3). They are essential to the
delivery of policy-relevant ecological benefit analyses.
This workshop explored the concept of "final" ecosystem services - and the corollary concepts
of intermediate services and production functions and its relevance to the design of ecological
monitoring systems that can support decision-making. The focus of this exercise was on one
type of ecosystem streams. In addition to this specific purpose, the workshop report (under the
heading "Other Questions") also documents key elements of the broader discussion that needs to
Page 4
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
take place between natural sciences and social sciences if we are to succeed in making the
contribution of ecosystems to human well-being a richer part of our decision making.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Policy-relevant management of ecosystem services requires extensive collaboration between
natural and social scientists. This report documents a workshop - featuring such collaboration -
designed to answer the following questions: (1) What biophysical metrics directly facilitate the
integration of biophysical measurement, analysis, and models with analyses of the social benefits
derived from ecosystem goods and services?; (2) are these metrics already available?; (3) if not
available, what steps would be required to make them available?; and (4) to what use will
economic analyses of ecosystem services be put?. The workshop achieved consensus on an
approach designed to identify policy- and economically-relevant ecological metrics and
illustrated it via a collaborative identification of metrics applicable to the ecology of streams.
Translation of these metrics into implementation ready monitoring protocols involves significant
further collaborative work. However, the meeting achieved agreement among social and natural
scientists on a framework and set of practices that can direct a more detailed design and
implementation phases. Importantly, the framework and practices are consistent with both
ecological and economic best practices related to the analysis of ecological systems.
The report identifies categories of indicators that could contribute to estimates of human well-
being and evaluates the current capacity to represent those indicators in a national aquatic
ecosystem monitoring program. It also identifies opportunities to refine the workshop's results,
Page 5
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
transfer the framework and process to other ecosystems and organizations, and demonstrate the
measurement approach in field efforts. As important, the document addresses key underlying
issues that too often thwart effective collaboration and communications between natural and
social scientists.
INTRODUCTION
EPA's Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) is structured to create:
"A comprehensive theory and practice for quantifying ecosystem services so that
their value and their relationship to human well-being, can be consistently
incorporated into environmental decision making."(Linthurst and Goodman 2009)
To contribute to this vision, EPA's MARA (Monitoring and Aquatic Resource Assessment)
program organized a workshop to identify ecological indicators (hereafter just "indicators")
characterizing the relationships between stream ecosystems and human well-being. The central
objective of the workshop was to focus on indicators of final ecosystem services as developed in
(Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Boyd 2007), relate them to other important features of natural systems
(including intermediate goods and services and biophysical production functions), and using that
framework identify indicators that could be included in a national stream monitoring program
such as those demonstrated by EMAP efforts6 or implemented in EPA Office of Water
Programs7 in the NARS (National Aquatic Resource Surveys) program. An additional goal was
6 For example (Stoddard et al. 2005b; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 2006)
7 http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/nationalsurveys.html
Page 6
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
to determine if indicators selected for use in national scale monitoring could be useful for
monitoring programs covering smaller assessment areas (e.g. regions, watersheds, or even for
short reaches of single streams) or as response variables that could be the focus of stressor-
response (i.e. ecological production function) models.
Indicators of final services are not a substitute for existing ecological metrics. Rather, they are
an important addition and complement to indicators already being monitored. Existing metrics
are an important part of analytical systems designed to model and predict changes in final goods
and services. They also have demonstrated utility in scientific, legal and planning contexts.
Indicators of final services for streams can be used for three purposes. First, they help
communicate the roles of stream ecosystems to decision makers in an effective manner. Second,
they provide the biophysical information necessary for cost effectiveness analysis, i.e. analysis of
ecological change (e.g. miles of fishable streams) in response to policy choices, and third they
facilitate valuation studies, i.e. studies that monetize incremental changes in biophysical features
over time or in response to policy choices. These latter two types of analysis, linking ecological
responses to policy choices rely on production function models. The need for these models,
based on indicators of "intermediate services" to predict "final services", underscores the need to
continue the collection of information in addition to indicators of final services.
WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION
Page 7
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Workshop planning started in December 2008. The planning committee8 developed an approach
to translate the final ecosystem services concept into a framework that would allow experts to
identify specific measurements. The key element of the approach was the development of a
matrix with users of stream ecosystem services listed as rows, and stream attributes which might
provide final services for categories of users of stream ecosystems listed as columns. This matrix
was similar in form to that provided as Table 1. We provided our initial entries in this matrix by
asking ourselves the question: "What biophysical amounts, features and qualities does each user
want more of or less of? Is this the most concrete, tangible and intuitive feature for the user?9
This was an initial iteration of what we intended to complete during the workshop. The
development of this framework enabled the planning committee to identify the categories of
expertise needed to pursue the workshop goals. Participants were then identified and invited to
the workshop based on their individual and collective capacities to contribute to the goals of the
workshop, and particularly for their knowledge of stream attributes that the organizers believed
would need to be characterized to quantify the role that streams play in human well-being.
Approximately equal number of natural and social scientists participated in the workshop.
Background material and workshop presentations ensured that workshop participants had a
common understanding of workshop goals, concepts and terms. Key structural elements of the
workshop were:
A definition of final ecosystem goods and services: Biophysical features, quantities, and
qualities that require little further biophysical translation to make clear their relevance to
James Boyd, Dixon Landers, Paul Ringold and Matt Weber
9
Examples of this thought exercise were provided in the presentations (See slide 4 and the following 5 slides
starting on page 23 of Attachment 3).
PageS
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
human well-being. These goods and services tend to be directly or tangibly used,
experienced or appreciated by households, firms, and communities. While we refer to
"users" of ecosystem goods and services, the concept is meant to include non-
consumptive beneficiaries of natural resources (e.g. Arrow et al. 1993). A final ecosystem
service is also an "ecological endpoint"10. (See slide 2 on page 19 of attachment 3)
The presentation of an initial matrix, developed by the planning committee as noted
above, with candidate categories of users and candidate attributes of streams. The
purpose of this matrix was to organize expert knowledge linking attributes of streams that
are directly or tangibly used by various groups of people. (See slide 5 on page 25 of
Attachment 3).
The list of participants, prepared presentations and the agenda for the workshop are provided as
attachments 1, 2 and 3. In addition, participants were provided with background material to
review in advance of the workshop (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Boyd 2007; Chee 2004; Stoddard
et al. 2005b).
WORKSHOP RESULTS
Indicators
10 Note that this definition is not identical to that used in ecological risk assessments. That definition is: "An end
point is a characteristic of an ecological component (e.g., increased mortality in fish) that may be affected by
exposure to a stressor ... Two types of end points are distinguished in the framework: Assessment end points are
explicit expressions of the actual environmental values that are to be protected; measurement end points are
measurable responses to a stressor that are related to the valued characteristics chosen as the assessment end points
... ."(Norton et al. 1992)
Page 9
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
The agenda (Attachment 2) allowed ample time for discussion of the material presented. After
the initial presentations and discussion the group split into six groups. Each group attempted to
identify indicators of stream attributes that constitute the ecological endpoints for collections of
users. In this process each group was challenged to go through the following thought exercise
(the same one that we had gone through in organizing the workshop): "What biophysical
amounts, features and qualities does each user want more of or less of? Is this the most concrete,
tangible and intuitive feature for the user?11 For example one category of user is a catch and
release angler. The biophysical amounts, features and qualities that this user wants more of have
something to do with fish and with the aesthetics or appeal of the location (e.g. Arlinghaus
2006). Exactly what these measures are and how they would be combined into a measure of
well-being for a catch and release angler is an example of an issue that needs more focused
attention as noted in Step 1 of the NEXT STEPS section. Notably, in this example, watershed
condition, stream habitat, riparian condition, and water quantity timing and quality are all
important ecosystem attributes that can change fish distribution and abundance. Within the
context of the "final services" taxonomy that we adopted these are examples of intermediate
services that are vitally important and would be candidates to be included in production function
models useful for assessing or managing the final service.
We noted that because there are diverse users of ecosystems some ecological features are
intermediate services in one context and final services in another. For example12, for a
11 Examples of this thought exercise were provided in the presentations (See slide 4 and the following 5 slides
starting on page 23 of Attachment 3).
12 See slides 1 and 2 on page 21 of Attachment 3.
Page 10
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
recreational boater water clarity may be an indicator of a final service. However, for a
commercial crab harvester, water clarity may be a factor in the production of crabs and thus
provide an indicator of an intermediate service for this user.
This initial attempt at completing the matrix was a heuristic effort for workshop participants. By
working through specific examples we intended to determine if participants felt that the general
approach made sense, and if the proposed user groups or stream attributes (See slide 5 on page
24 and the following 3 slides of attachment 3) should be modified. The sentiment was that the
general approach made sense. In addition the group consensus was to add one category of user,
research and education, as well as one stream attribute - genetic diversity. Other categories of
users and stream attributes were clarified or modified.
After this initial heuristic analysis we reviewed the revised matrix and came to consensus upon
the entries that should fall in each cell of the matrix and on the usefulness of the "final services"
concept. The result of this discussion, viewed as a working hypothesis, is provided as Table 1.
The entries in this table are general stream attributes (such as fish); rather than specific
measurements or indicators (e.g. the number of large game fish). In many instances the group
discussion provided detail beyond the identification of the stream attribute that would help to
define the specific indicator of the final ecosystem service or endpoint. These discussions are
provided in Attachment 4. Further refinement of these entries is necessary and is noted in the
Next Steps section.
Page 11
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
The extensive discussions that led to Table 1 required us to develop and adhere to a set of
general principles to determine which stream attributes should be measured to quantify final
ecosystem services for each category of users (Table 3). These principles are important not only
because they define how workshop participants translated expert knowledge into a delineation of
indicators of final stream ecosystem services but also because these principles should be readily
transferrable to other ecosystems. These principles were evaluated and revised during the course
of the workshop. The first three principles were adopted directly from the background material.
The fourth "Regulations alone could not create a final ecosystem service" was an important
additional consideration13. Had we chosen to assume that regulations could create final services,
a number of additional stream attributes would have been identified as providing final ecosystem
services. However, since regulations are not biophysical features, quantities or qualities, they
cannot provide a final ecosystem service (cf slide 3 on page 19 of Attachment 3).
We split into four groups to determine the usefulness of the indicators identified for use in a
national monitoring program (as shown in Table 1) for use in monitoring programs at smaller
scales and in stressor-response models. Each group was asked to identify and work through a
case study of an analysis of an ecological problem at a small scale and consider what indicators
of final ecosystem services they might use. The four case studies were acid rain in the
13 Two examples illustrate the manner in which regulations could be viewed as creating a final service.
1. A point source discharger, e.g. an industrial plant or a municipal waste water treatment plant (subcategories
He and Illb in Table 1), is required to discharge its effluent to meet a set of regulatory requirements. These
regulatory requirements limit physical or chemical changes in the stream associated with the discharge.
Thus, stream chemistry or physical attributes could be construed as providing a final service for this user
category.
2. Water users, e.g. a farmer withdrawing irrigation water or a plant manager withdrawing cooling water
(subcategories la and Ha in Table 1) can be limited in the timing or amount of their withdrawals if
threatened or endangered species might be affected as a result of the withdrawal. Thus, threatened or
endangered species could be construed as providing a final service for this user category.
Page 12
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
northeastern United States, Ohio River pollutant trading, a hypothetical cold water fishery, and
Root River, WI management. In all four cases, the final ecosystem services indicators identified
for use in national scale monitoring were found to be useful at a smaller scale in both a
monitoring and a modeling context. This provides us with some evidence that the indicators
identified would be useful not only for national scale monitoring, but also for other scales and
purposes.
After preparing Table 1 we evaluated the extent to which those attributes were included in
existing programs that characterize the nation's waters. The results of this analysis were
presented to workshop participants during a plenary session and were revised in response to
comments from those participants. This comparison is provided as Table 2. Steps are specified to
address the gaps identified, and were developed after the workshop. Some of the options listed in
the section "NEXT STEPS" are designed to address the results of this comparison. Current data
collection is likely to be sufficient for four stream attributes: fish, conductivity, clarity and
streambed characteristics. However, analyses need to be conducted to express these data in terms
that "require little further translation to make clear their relevance to [human] well-being". For
attributes that have a high degree of temporal or temporal and spatial variability (indicators of
water quantity, temperature, dissolved oxygen and pathogens), monitoring programs are likely to
play a role, but it seems likely that models will need to be developed to provide national
estimates of these attributes. In some cases (plants, wildlife and aesthetics), a wide range of
quantitative collection protocols exist, but are not deployed in national surveys. In parallel with
the definition of clear endpoints, renewed consideration can be given to including these
measurements in national surveys. For the visual component of aesthetics, which may rely on
Page 13
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
reformulations of existing topographic and landcover/landuse data, this may be more achievable
than for measures which require additional field efforts.
How big is a site?
Workshop participants considered the issue of the spatial scale of the units of observation
(natural science terminology), or the size of the biophysical commodity directly or tangibly used
(social science terminology). Consideration of this issue is a well developed question in the
natural sciences for which a variety of approaches exist14. The three approaches are
1. Compare the relationship between sampling effort and the value of the metric of interest
as compared to a true value (where the true value is estimated by much more intensive or
extensive sampling)15.
2. Capture a predictable level of natural variability
3. Best professional judgment.
16
14 That approaches to address these questions are well developed does not mean that they are universally applied.
15 The development of the EMAP stream and river protocols are examples of the use of this approach. Hughes et al
(2002) and Reynolds et al (2003) conclude that sampling a stream length of 40 channel widths is sufficient to
characterize a vertebrate species richness for wadeable streams while a reach length of 100 channel widths is
necessary for rivers (streams large enough to be sampled by raft, but excluding "Great Rivers", e.g. the Colorado,
Columbia or Mississippi)
16 Physical and biological attributes of streams vary within stream meanders. If sampling were confined to one part
of one meander, the data derived would characterize very local conditions. If another field crew were to go to the
same stream reach and sample in a slightly different location their results could be very different. Monitoring
designs demonstrated by EMAP and used by NARS address this issue by distributing sampling effort across
multiple meanders. Since observations of many streams reveal that stream meanders are typically 7 to 10 times the
channel width (Leopold et al. 1964) distributing sampling over 40 channel widths is expected to capture the range of
very small scale local variability and provide data that should be repeatable and ecologically meaningful.
Page 14
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
In contrast to the recognition of this questionhow big is a sample site?within the natural
sciences, the brief discussion we had during the workshop led us to conclude that future
discussions of scale, and particularly its two components: extent and grain (Forman and Godron
1986) would be productive in furthering the interaction between natural and social scientists.
Other Questions
In addition to, and in the course of, identifying indicators of final ecosystem services the
scientists at the meeting identified a number of technical issues that served as barriers to
communications across the disciplines.
One significant barrier was the economists' view that value can only sensibly be calculated in
dollar terms when comparing differences in ecosystem states (or choice scenarios) where both of
the states are comprehensible and sensible. Thus a question such as "What would be the value of
water lost by a policy that reduces water produced from land in Colorado administered by the
National Forest System by 10%?" is one that can be plausibly addressed. In contrast, a question
such as "What is the value of all streams in the United States?" cannot be addressed in
quantitative economic terms.
Furthermore, participants pointed out that often determining what these final commodities (or
biophysical features, quantities or qualities) are is an important research topic. For example, in a
study of consumer preferences for ecological restoration Johnston et al (2009) found that
indicators must be "grounded in feasible restoration outcomes identified by ecological models,
Page 15
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
field studies or expert consultations. Choice scenarios represent each ecological attribute in
relative terms with regard to upper and lower reference conditions (i.e., best and worst possible
in the Pawtuxet) as defined in survey informational materials." For example people were asked
about their preference for restoration that would provide 80% offish dependent wildlife native to
the study area (i.e. 28 of 36 species) being common as compared to 60% (22 of 36 species). In
addition questions of similar form were asked about five other ecological attributes of the study
area. Notably, the formulation of this questionnaire was based on theoretical principles and
"developed and tested over 2V2 years through a collaborative process involving interactions of
economists and ecologists; meetings with resource managers, natural scientists, and stakeholder
groups; and 12 focus groups with 105 total participants.... In addition to survey development and
testing in focus groups, individual interviews were conducted with both ecological experts and
non-experts." This is an example of the kind of effort that needs to be undertaken to
communicate ecosystem status and its relationship to human well-being. The need to conduct
research on this issue is not new; and has been thoroughly identified by natural scientists. 17
A second issue that we addressed was the usefulness of a national monitoring program
addressing broad "strategic" questions, for example, is water quality in the nation improving?18,
rather than a narrow set of questions tied to the implementation of a specific policy change based
17E.g. "Results of water-quality monitoring programs need to be translated into formats that enhance effective and
informed responses from a wide range of stakeholders" (Covich et al. 2004); "Application of ecological knowledge
will re- quire better communication between ecologists and decision-makers in all sectors of society" (Lubchenco et
al. 1991); Communication must flow in both directions and become an iterative dialogue, and the scientific
community must understand what pieces of information are critical... "(Christensen et al. 1996). These statements
aren't all necessarily interesting in and of themselves, but the authors of these statements include 13 past presidents
of the Ecological Society of America and provide evidence of the recognition on the part of natural scientists that the
details of communication of natural science information is a priority.
18 (See slide 2 on page 3 of Attachment 3)
Page 16
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
on the application of a stressor-response or ecological production function model19. We termed
this second set "tactical" question. After an exchange of views participants acknowledged the
legitimacy of both types of questions and concluded that indicators defined with strategic
questions in mind would also likely be useful for tactical questions and vice versa.
A third issue was the relationship between intermediate ecosystem services and final ecosystem
services. For example lakes, floodplains and wetlands provide flood storage which has the
capacity to modify the magnitude and duration of flooding. Similarly stream habitat supports
biodiversity. Natural scientists believe that such assets (flood storage or stream habitat) have
value. Social scientists note that such assets do have value, but that value is reflected in and
accounted for in measurements of water quantity and timing in the first case, or in measurements
of specific components of biodiversity which are directly and tangibly used by various categories
of users in the second case. Social scientists suggest that it is useful to think of these systems in
the context of ecological production function models (Daily and Matson 2008). The features in
these constructs that are valued are the final services; other ecosystem features, "intermediate
ecosystem services", produce these final services and have value which is captured in the final
services.
NEXT STEPS
There are numerous opportunities to capitalize on the success of the workshop. A few examples
are:
19
(See slide 6 on page 21 of Attachment 3)
Page 17
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
1. There is a great need to add operational specificity to the definitions of endpoints
provided in Table 1 and in Attachment 4. Efforts related to this task would engage natural
and social scientists in conducting studies, possibly including surveys of people, to add
this specificity. In parallel, where we have data, e.g. with vertebrate assemblages, natural
scientists could evaluate the characteristics of alternative candidate metrics under
consideration by social scientists. Jackson and her colleagues (Jackson et al. 2000)
provide a rich list of criteria to support this evaluation.
2. Workshop participants believe that the approach, principles and methods used in this
workshop are potentially highly transferable to other ESRP activities, to other landcover
categories (such as lakes, wetlands, forests, estuaries, etc.), to other research programs
(e.g. climate change), and to research supported by other organizations. EPA should find
opportunities to support this transfer. The October ESRP meeting would be one a good
opportunity to focus on transferring this perspective.
3. The next national lake survey will take place in 201220. The default design for this survey
would be to replicate prior designs which did not include an explicit consideration of
final ecosystem services. To address the absence of such consideration, the process
implemented in this workshop could be repeated along with a lake specific analysis of the
research listed in opportunity 1 above. The goal would be to provide a list of additional
measurements and indicators of final services that could be deployed with the 2012
survey.
20 http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/nationalsurveys.html
Page 18
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
4. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), along with numerous public and private
partners, has developed a pilot project "Ohio River Basin Trading Pilot Project"21.
Extending this partnership to include consideration of final ecosystem services could be
most beneficial in transferring these concepts outside of the research realm and outside of
EPA. This is an unusually appealing opportunity because of the rich monitoring datasets
developed by the Ohio EPA, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO22) over the past three decades for this study area, and the spatial overlap
between this pilot project and the ESRP Mid-West place-based study.
21 http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=40 !&&PageID=226975&mode=2
22 http://www.orsanco.org/
Page 19
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
LITERATURE CITED
Arlinghaus, R. 2006. On the Apparently Striking Disconnect between Motivation and
Satisfaction in Recreational Fishing: the Case of Catch Orientation of German Anglers.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:592-605.
Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of
the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.
Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What Are Ecosystem Services? The Need For Standardized
Environmental Accounting Units. Ecological Economics 63:616-626.
Boyd, J. W. 2007. The Endpoint Problem. Resources 165:26-28.
Chee, Y. E. 2004. An Ecological Perspective On The Valuation Of Ecosystem Services.
Biological Conservation 120:549-565.
Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D'Antonio, R. Francis, J. F.
Franklin et al. 1996. The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the
Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 6:665-691.
Covich, A. P., K. C. Ewel, R. O. Hall Jr., P. S. Ciller, W. Goedkoop, and D. M. Merritt. 2004.
Ecosystem Services Provided By Freshwater Benthos, Pages 44-72 in D. H. Wall, ed.
Sustaining Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Soils and Sediments. Washington,
D.C., Island Press.
Daily, G. C., and P. A. Matson. 2008. Ecosystem Services: From Theory To Implementation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:9455-9456.
Fisher, B., K. Turner, M. Zylstra, R. Brouwer, R. d. Groot, S. Farber, P. Ferraro et al. 2008.
Ecosystem Services And Economic Theory: Integration For Policy-Relevant Research.
Ecological Applications 18:2050-2067.
Forman, R. T. T., and M. Godron. 1986, Landscape Ecology. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Hughes, R. M., P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, S. S. Intelmann, S. C. Corbett, M. C. Arbogast,
and R. C. Hjort. 2002. Electrofishing Distance Needed to Estimate Fish Species Richness
in Raftable Oregon Rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1229-
1240.
Jackson, L. E., J. C. Kurtz, and W. S. Fisher. 2000. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological
Indicators. EPA/620/R-99/005., Pages 107. Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
Johnston, R. J., E. T. Schultz, K. Segerson, and E. Y. Besedin. 2009? Bioindicator-Based Stated
Preference Valuation For Aquatic Habitat And Ecosytem Service Restoration in J.
Bennett, ed. International Handbook on Non-Marketed Environmental Valuation.
Cheltenham, U.K., Edward Elgar.
Kaufmann, P. R. 2006. Physical Habitat Characterization, Pages 107-164 in D. V. Peck, A. T.
Herlihy, B. H. Hill, R. M. Hughes, P. R. Kaufmann, D. J. Klemm, J. M. Lazorchak et al.,
eds. EMAP Surface Waters: Western Pilot Study Field Operations Manual for Wadeable
Streams. Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964, Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology: A
Series of Books in Geology. San Francisco, W.H. Freeman.
Linthurst, R. A., and I. A. Goodman. 2009. The Ecosystem Services Research Program
Page 20
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Lubchenco, I, A. M. Olson, L. B. Brubaker, S. R. Carpenter, M. M. Holland, S. P. Hubbell, S.
A. Levin et al. 1991. The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An Ecological Research
Agenda. Ecology 72:371-412.
McCauley, D. J. 2006. Selling Out On Nature. Nature 443:27-28.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Washington, D.C., World Resources Institute.
Norton, S. B., D. J. Rodier, J. H. Gentile, W. H. Van Der Schalie, W. P. Wood, and M. W.
Slimak. 1992. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment at the EPA. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 11:1663-1672.
Reynolds, L., A. T. Herlihy, P. R. Kaufmann, S. V. Gregory, and R. M. Hughes. 2003.
Electrofishing Effort Requirements for Assessing Species Richness and Biotic Integrity
in Western Oregon Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:450-
461.
Stoddard, J. L., D. V. Peck, A. R. Olsen, D. P. Larsen, J. Van Sickle, C. P. Hawkins, R. M.
Hughes et al. 2005a. Environmental Montoring and Assessment Program (EMAP):
Western Streams and Rivers Statistical Summary, Pages 1762 in United States
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, ed.
Stoddard, J. L., D. V. Peck, S. G. Paulsen, J. Van Sickle, C. P. Hawkins, A. T. Herlihy, R. M.
Hughes et al. 2005b. An Ecological Assessment of Western Streams and Rivers. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. 2006. Wadeable Streams
Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams, Pages 117. Washington,
D.C.
Page 21
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Human "Use" Categories and
Subcategories
Agriculture
a) Irrigated Crops
b)
c)
d)
e)
Indus
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Munic
a)
b)
Livestock (CAFO)
Aquaculture
Processing
Grazing
:ry
Cooling Water
Processing
Hydroelectric
Extracting (Sand and Gravel)
Discharge
Commercial Extraction
Pharmacuetical Industry
;ipal
Drinking Water Source
WWTP Sink
c) Property Owners
Non-Use
a) Existence/Option/Bequest
Recreational Use
a) Viewing
b)
c)
d)
Cultu
a)
b)
c)
Comr
a)
b)
Educ
a)
Swimming
Fishing
Boating
al
Spiritual
Ceremonial
Subsistence
lercial Transportation
Goods
People
ation and Research
Education and Research
Strea
Quantity
Amount
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
?
/
?
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Timing
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
?
^
?
^
^
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
n Attributes
Quality
Physical
Temperatur
e
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
/
Posited to b
Conductivity
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
e a comp
Stream
Bed
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
/
anents
Clarity
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Workin
af Indicator
Chemical
Dissolved
Oxygen
^
^
/
g Hypoth
s of Final EC
Chemicals
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
This attribute is posited to be of direct use to specific user categories
iesis
osysts
Odor
^
^
^
^
^
/
/
This attribute is posited to not be of direct use to specific user categories
;m Service t
Biological
Pathogens
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
o Specific Us
Ecosystem
Health / Biotic
Integrity
/
/
/
/
/
/
er Ca
Fish
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
egories
Wildlife
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
/
/
/
and Sul
Plants
^
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3 categories
Landscapes
(Human
"Experience
Shed")
Aesthetics
^
^
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Genetic
Diversity
^
^
/
Table 1. Stream attributes that provide final ecosystem services for various user categories of stream users. See Attachment 4 for details on the indicators thought to be
important for each cell.
Page 22
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Stream Attribute
Current Status
Measured in
Current
Programs to
support
national
estimates of
Steps that could be taken to improve data collection or
reporting in terms of endpoints
Water
Quantity
Stream
Qualities Physical
Amount
Timing
Temperature
Conductivity
Stream Bed
Clarity
An extensive USGS hydrographic system provides consistent easily available Existing network provides a foundation for models that could
data. These data do not represent the stream network as a whole describe water quantity in terms of endpoints.
Abundant records of stream temperature data exist housed in disparate
locations, temporal resolution and extent, formats and collection protocols.
Estimates of national extent of temperature tied to endpoints
1 should be provided from models rather than from
1 1 measurements because of the high temporal variability of
Ithis attribute. Efforts to define the fom of the endpoint should
also be pursued.
Indicators of these measures are included in programs of national extent. 3 The scalf a"d rePresenf j°n °f these *»* that best
represent endpoints needs to be evaluated.
Dissolved Oxygen
Chemical
Chemicals
Biological
Wildlife
Plants
(Human
"Experience Shed")
Landscapes Aesthetics
Other Genetic Diversity
Abundant records of stream dissolved oxygen exist housed in disparate
locations, temporal resolution and extent, formats and collection protocols.
I Estimates of national extent of dissolved oxygen tied to
endpoints should be provided from models rather than from
measurements because of the high temporal variability of
this attribute. Efforts to define the fom of the endpoint should
also be pursued.
Chemical data are included in surveys of national extent. Abundant additional
records of stream chemistry exist housed in disparate locations, with different
lists of chemicals, temporal resolution and extent, formats and collection
protocols.
The scales and representation of these data that best
represent endpoints needs to be evaluated. Efforts to define
the fom of the endpoint should also be pursued.
Odor
Pathogens
Ecosystem Health /
Biotic Integrity
Fish
? 1 ?
Abundant records of stream pathogens exist housed in disparate locations,
with different lists of chemicals, temporal resolution and extent, formats and 1
collection protocols.
Diverse measures which may equate to ecosystem health are collected in
programs of national extent.
Existing protocols to collect fish consistently are included in programs of -
national extent.
Estimates of national extent of pathogens tied to endpoints
(^should be provided from models rather than from
measurements because of the high temporal variability of
this attribute. Efforts to define the fom of the endpoint should
|also be pursued.
The representation of these data or alternative data that best
represent this endpoints needs to be evaluated.
The representation of these data that best represent
endpoints needs to be evaluated.
A range of protocols of these streams attributes exist but are not included in
current programs of national extent
Feasible measures of this attribute don't exist
The clear definition of the endpoint needs to be developed
and existing protocols which could support the estimation of
these endpoints would need to be evaluated adapted and
deployed as appropriate
This is a research topic.
Table 2. Steam attributes required to support national estimates of endpoints; their current status in national monitoring programs and steps that could be taken to
improve our capacity to estimate these endpoints at the national scale. Status of | implies great discrepancy between current capacity and needs; 2 implies moderate
discrepancy, and | implies slight discrepancy.
Page 23
-------
Table 3. Prinicples used in identifying indicators of final ecosystem services provided by streams.
1. Strictly biophysical features, quantities or qualities that require little further translation to
make clear their relevance to human well-being
2. Comprehensive identification of these entities requires the identification of the full set of
users (and non-users) who directly benefit from stream ecosystems.
3. While the list must be exhaustive and non-duplicative it should also provide for
parsimony by keeping a focus on substantive or material services.
4. Regulations alone do not create a final ecosystem service.
-------
Attachment 1
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
James Boyd
boyd@rff.org
Robert Brooks
rpb2@psu.edu
David Brookshire
brookshi@unm.edu
Thomas Brown
thomas.brown@colostate.edu
Deron Carlisle
dcarlisle@usgs.gov
John Duffield
john.duffield@mso.umt.edu
Jessica Fox
jfox@epri.com
Julie Hewitt
hewitt.julie@epa.gov
Brian Hill
hill.brian@epa.gov
Bob Hughes
hughes.bob@epa.gov
David Hulse
dhulse@uoregon.edu
Robert Johnston
rjohnston@clarku.edu
Julie Kinzelman
julie.kinzelman@cityofracine.org
Alan Krupnick
krupnick@rff.org
Melinda Laituri
mell@cnr.colostate.edu
Dixon Landers
landers.dixon@epa.gov
Timothy Lewis
timothy.e.lewis@usace.army.mil
Ryan McShane
ryan.mcshane@colostate.edu
Jay Messer
messer.jay@epa.gov
Wayne Munns
munns.wayne@epa.gov
LeRoy Poff
poff@lamar.colostate.edu
Brenda Rashleigh
rashleigh.brenda@epa.gov
Anne Rea
rea.anne@epa.gov
Paul Ringold
ringold.paul@epa.gov
Lisa Wainger
wainger@cbl.umces.edu
Matt Weber
weber.matthew@epa.gov
List of Workshop Participants
Resources for the Future
202-321-6470
Pennsylvania State University
814-863-1596
University of New Mexico
505-277-1964
US Forest Service
970-295-5968
USGS - NAQWA
703-648-6890
University of Montana
406-243-5569
Electric Power Research Institute
650-855-2138
US EPA OW OST EAD
202-566-1031
USEPAORDNHEERLMED
218-529-5224
Oregon State University
541-754-4516
Dept. of Landscape Architecture
541-346-3672
George Perkins Marsh Institute
508-751-4619
City of Racine
262-636-9501
Resources for the Future
202-328-5107
Colorado State University
970-491-0292
USEPAORDNHEERLWED
541-754-4427
Environmental Laboratory, USACE
601-634-2141
Colorado State University
970-310-1725
USEPAORDNCEA
919-843-6804
USEPAORDNHEERLAED
401-782-3017
Colorado State University
970-491-2079
USEPAORDNERLERD
706-355-8148
USEPAOAROAQPSHEID
919-541-0053
USEPAORDNHEERLWED
541-754-4565
University of Maryland
410-326-7401
USEPAORDNRMRL
541-754-4315
-------
Aft u to Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Agenda
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Denver Renaissance Hotel
3801 Quebec Street
Denver, Colorado 80207 USA
Phone: 1-303-399-7500
All meeting rooms are on the Atrium Level
Monday July 13
4:30 PM to 6 PM - Informal Reception and Registration [Durango Room]
Tuesday July 14
8:00 AM Continental Breakfast and Registration
8:30 AM Welcome and Introductions: Weber [Vail Room]
CSG Role and Procedures - Parks
Interests in Stream Monitoring and Ecosystem Services - Each Participant
9:00 AM What's the problem we're trying to solve?
Why Are We Here? Natural Science Perspective: Ringold (15 minutes)
Why Are We Here? The Social Science Version: Boyd (15 minutes)
9:30 to 10:00 AM Questions and Discussion
10:00 to 10:15 AM Break
10:15 AM Economics 101: Boyd (20 minutes)
Surface Water Monitoring: Landers (20 minutes)
Ecological Measures for Social Analysis: Boyd (20 minutes)
Questions and Discussion
12:30 to 1:30 PM Lunch [Buffet Lunch Provided]
1:30 to 3:45 PM Plenary: Develop a Working Hypothesis
How Can We Use the Final Services Concept in Monitoring Design? (20 minutes)
Discussion
Does this approach make sense?
Should some stream attributes be added or deleted?
Should user categories be added or deleted?
3:45 to 4:00 PM Break
4:00 to 5:00 PM Small Group Discussions - What are the issues raised? [Snowmass,
Breckenridge, Durango and Winter Park Rooms available]
-------
Aft u to Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
5:00 to 6:00 PM Plenary - Identify and Address Issues Raised [Vail Room]
Adopt a working hypothesis
6:00 PM Adjourn for Dinner [On Your Own]
Wednesday, July 15
8:00 AM Continental Breakfast
8:30 AM Plenary [Vail Room]
8:30 to 9:00 AM Introduction and Tasking -- Weber
Task 3 or 4 break out groups [Snowmass, Breckenridge, Durango and Winter Park Rooms
available]
Each breakout group will address the following questions and identify the range of opinions in
answering them:
1. What are user requirements for the character of information needed including it's
temporal and spatial characteristics?
2. What are FES indicators for each user category as identified in the matrix?
Existing/Currently available, Near Term, Long-Term
3. What does an FES at a point in time and space (and flow?) represent for other times
and places?
4. What is the current/probable future ability to predict FES based on the availability of
extensive data (e.g. landcover, roads, census, NHD, topography....)?
Noon Buffet Lunch [Provided]
1:00 - 2:00 PM Progress Reports from breakout groups, discussion, retasking, and as
necessary, restructuring.[Vail Room]
2:00 to 4:00 PM Reconvene breakout groups [Snowmass, Breckenridge, Durango and Winter
Park Rooms available]
4:00 to 5:30 PM Report from breakout groups [Vail Room]
Identification of Final Service Indicators
5:30 PM Adjourn for Dinner [On Your Own]
Thursday, July 16
8:00 AM Continental Breakfast
8:30 - 9:30 AM Boyd/Landers/Ringold reaction to breakout reports [Vail Room]
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Attachment 2
9:30 - 10:30 AM New breakout groups to address key issues [Snowmass, Breckenridge,
Durango and Winter Park Rooms available]
For example: 1) What practical challenges would be incurred in monitoring this set of indicators
in a national program?
2) What should we do next?
3)..
10:30 - 10:45 AM Break
10:45 to 11:30 AM Breakout group reports [Vail Room]
Refined List of Final Service Indicators
11:30 to Noon Wrap Up Discussion [Vail Room]
Noon Meeting Concludes for most participants
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Why Are We Here?
Natural Science Perspective
Sponsors Perspective
July, 2009
Paul L. Ringold
US EPA, ORD, NHEERL
Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR
Why are we here?
We want to tie human well-being to
stream ecosystems.
Why are we here?
We want to tie human well-being to
stream ecosystems.
What's our goal
Define a list of measurements that could be
used in a national monitoring program that
will support analysis of human well-being.
Or
"Tell me what to measure when I go to a site
and what a site is."
Tony Olsen
And
"Tell me what to measure when I go to a site
and what a site is."
Tony Olsen
"The best is the enemy of the good"
Voltaire
Attachment 3 Page 1
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Parsimony is a challenge
Summerhayes and Elton 1923
Another Challenge
Human Well-Being Social Sciences
Afferent Vocabularies, Cultures,
Human Weil-Being Social Sciences
3B§tt5£7i^Z" EF.
1 million km of streams
v'-4
O.
Ways we use
streams
Attachment 3 Page 2
Ways we stress t-ii^ '
streams
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
We spend a lot on water pollution
control
30
25
20
15
B
2 5
1980
1985
1990
1995
2 0
Can we answer simple questions?
1. What's the current status of streams?
2. Are streams improving?
3. Which places are in most need of
attention?
4. Which stressors are in most need of
attention?
5. What if...?
6. What are the connections between
human well-being and streams?
Existing Monitoring Programs Fall
Short
1981 - "..reports .. are not reliable" GAO
1984 -"The greatest shortcoming... lack of a detailed
approach that specifies why monitoring is done and what
will be done with the results, p^eta
1998 - "...reports do not represent an accurate picture of
status for all waters and cannot be used to describe
trends in the number of impaired water bodies." m^a*
2000 - "Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by
Inconsistent and Incomplete Data" GAO
2002 - "A lack of information about actual environmental
conditions ... has been a major obstacle to improving the
effectiveness of state water quality programs" NAPA
Wadeable Streams Assessment
Macroinvertebrate IBI Results
The Clean Water Act Motivates the
Reporting Goal
Sec. 101. (a) "The objective of this Act is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
Sec. 305. (b) Annual state reports on the extent
to which waters "provide for the protection and
propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water"
Why Biological Indicators:
Ecological Understanding
Long track record
- 1894 Illinois State Laboratory of Natural
History
"..objects of our Station...to prevent progressive
pollution of our streams and lakes" iimm D 1995)
Integrates stressors over longer times and
larger areas
Diagnostic
Attachment 3 Page 3
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
But
Is that all we would measure to
describe the roles of streams in
human well-being?
Goal
A list of indicators that could be used:
1. in a national stream monitoring program
Also
2. in developing local and regional stream
monitoring programs
3. as the focus of stressor-response models
4
and provide the foundation for social
scientists to report on the role streams
play in human well-being.
Attachment 3 Page 4
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Why Are We Here?
The Social Science Version
Jim Boyd
What We Want
To measure changes in human wealth &
wellbeing
Arising from changes in nature
What We Want
To measure changes in human wealth &
wellbeing
Arising from changes in nature
What We Believe
Nature is a source of wealth
Wealth should be managed and protected
Choices must be made, tradeoffs faced
Information and analysis helps
Core Questions
What do people want from nature?
What is the biophysical measure of what they
want?
Can we measure that in practice?
A Day In the Life
Decision-makers, policy-makers ask us...
- What is most important?
Which should we choose?
What is the monetary benefit of a new
regulation?
What is the benefit of this wetland restoration
A Day In the Life
Decision-makers, policy-makers ask us...
- What is most important?
Which should we choose?
What is the monetary benefit of a new
regulation?
What is the benefit of this wetland restoration
program?
We have ways to answer these questions
- But all must be built on ecological foundation
- What is nature's state and what is changing?
Attachment 3 Page 5
1 !
3
5
2
4
6
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Problem
Problem
We have a hard time connecting what we do.
To what ecology
Measures
Thinks is important
We have a hard time connecting what we do.,
To what ecology
Measures
Thinks is important
It's not that we disagree or think we know
better
We need to connect the two realms
Frustrations Being Addressed
Problems with "inter-disciplinary" work
- Can we make progress on the linkages?
Inconsistent biophysical measures (even
within our own disciplines)
Can we converge on and articulate principles to
guide choice of measures?
(Again) Core Questions
What do people want from nature?
What is the biophysical measure of what they
want?
Can we measure that in practice?
Can we relate natural science measures to the
measure we want?
Audiences & Clients?
Goals of Meeting
Politicians, public administrators, planners (people
who make policy, spend public money)
Lawyers and judges
Businesses that rely on natural resources
Conservationists
Resource managers
Environmental accountants
Anyone drawn to "ecosystem services"
The good government crowd
What do I measure at a site, and what is a
site?
- Conceptual underpinnings to link natural and
social sciences
- Hypotheses and examples of what to measure
Want reactions to all of the above
Attachment 3 Page 6
1 !
3
5
2
4
6
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Post-Meeting Proof of Concept
Collaborations and coordination
Convergence on language, principles, and
measures
Transfer of insights to other resource types?
Pilots and practical deployment
Balances to Be Struck
Complexity of problem vs.
Need for practical guidance
The principles and measures we will advance
to trigger discussion
Where we wind up
Attachment 3 Page 7
1
3
5
2
4
6
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
What do We Do?
Economics 101
Jim Boyd
Assume we had the biophysical information
we wanted
What would we do with it?
Relate it to human welfare
Weight things
Compare the costs of protection/restoration to
the benefits
What is Human Welfare?
Synonyms
- Wellbeing
- Utility
- Happiness
Not just from market consumption
- Beauty
Biophilia
Cultural connections to place
How to Detect Changes in
Welfare?
Anthropology
Law
Marketing
Psychology
Physiology
Economics
Empirical behavior
Choice experiments
Economic Detection
Look for preferences, rankings, choices
Detect "willingness to pay"
- A particular kind of choice
- An environmental good versus an amount of
money
- Or versus anything whose value is known
Willingness to Pay
Consider a choice
If you are "willing to pay" X for choice A and
Yfor choice B
And ifX>Y
We infer that you prefer A to B
Attachment 3 Page 8
5 : : 6
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Willingness to Pay
Consider a choice
If you are "willing to pay" X for choice A and
Yfor choice B
AndifX>Y
We infer that you prefer A to B
How do we detect willingness to pay?
In a minute, but first...
The Goal to an Economist
Maximize overall social welfare
Caricature: economists care about maximizin
profits
- Focus on making companies richer
Wrong
- We want to maximize social profits
This includes the "profit" from species abundance,
beauty, clean air and water, etc.
Alternative Goals?
What is fairest?
What is cheapest or easiest?
What does the majority want?
What do scientists think is most important?
What is legal?
What is healthiest for the environment?
What is most morally acceptable?
Why Do Economists Like $'s
Need a uniform measure to compare
weights
Many things already denominated in dollars,
thus intuitive as a scale
Costs come in dollars
Seashells, 100-point scale, thermometer
readings could also work
The Challenge
Figuring out willingness to pay for nonmarket
loods and services
Easier for market goods
- Quantities of goods and services, and prices paid
are observable
What Is Valuable?
We seek to detect, reveal, uncover social
values,
We do not impose those values
Ways of knowing: Psychology, marketing,
anthropologists (other social scientists)
Attachment 3 Page 9
1 !
3
5
2
4
6
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Economic Valuation In Practice
Revealed Preference
Methods
Revealed preference
Stated preference
Key issues
Interpretation
Our behavior can "reveal" willingness to
pay
Hedonic
- Higher home prices near parks, beaches, rivers,
lakes, open space
Travel cost
- Amount we "pay" to enjoy resources (entrance
fees, permits, foregone wages, travel expenses)
Travel Cost Detection
The Benefit Pie
If people are willing to pay $700 to travel and
let access to a beach...
A lower bound on the value of the beach
experience
Much of that value is due to the natural resources
and qualities of the beach
What is the value of a stream reach?
- A collection of benefits
Enjoyed by different groups users
Need a suite of detection methods
Each is its own sub-discipline
Attachment 3 Page 10
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
The (Partial) Benefit Pie
<- I I ' ' i !
Different methods, different experts, different data
Travel Cost
Hedonics
J Avoided Cost
Ul 1 I 1 [''hM=*=
CV
Direct Market
Estimation
Stated Preference
Present people with a set of hypothetical
choices involving at least one good whose
value is known
The choice of environmental goods relative to
that good is informative
Advantage: you can cover a wider spectrum of
benefits
Management Implications
Loss of unique ecosystems
(OOOs of hectares)
Direct employment in region
(currently 36.000 jobs)
Hectares of Hatwe healthy vegetation
(currently 42 million)
Annual levy on your income tax ($)
(per household to -unci n it i, alive scheme)
Number of endangered species lost
Increase in regional income in 2003
($ million / per erinum)
Please indicate your preference
fcfieek only one option)
Option 1*
..
3 percent
Decrease by
n.n.
none
40
j I
Option 2
70
Increase by
1 percent
Deer ease by
13 percent
25
20
30
j i
Option 3
250
Increase by
12 percent
Deer ease by
75
120
25
j I
| (* current forest management regime)
Other Methods
Citizen juries
Expert elicitation
Voting behavior
Mediated modeling
Quantitative, but non-monetary, indicators of
benefits
Attachment 3 Page 11
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Hydrologic connection to
aquifer used as drinking
water by
Open space viewed by
All Social Methods
Benefit from ecological measures that are.
Directly relevant and interpretable by expert
nonusersand policymakers
Where Does Our Data Come From?
Scientific Paternalism
In addition to natural science data
Market data
Home values
Behavior surveys
- Recreational surveys
Census data
- Demography, incomes, property
Lab-like experiments
- Preference surveys
Should we believe what natural scientists tell
us is most important?
Yes: you are the ones who can tell us what is
happening to nature
The experts
No: you have no special ability to know what is
right for society
Just another constituency
What If People Are Ignorant?
A big topic in economics, we're aware of the
problem
Public ignorance as excuse for not looking at
public preferences is a slippery slope
If we describe nature in ways people can't
understand, how can people learn?
Faith in social ability to correct mistakes,
overcome ignorance
Attachment 3 Page 12
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Introduction to Stream
Monitoring
Dixon H. Landers
USEPAM/estern Ecology Division
Corvallis, OR
Topics
Stream Basics
Monitoring Questions/Issues
Scales
Design tradeoffs
Indicators
Products
Topics
Stream Basics
A few stream basics
What is a stream
Stream perspectives
Broad range of stream types
One Definition of a Perennial Stream
An annually permanent, linear body of
flowing surface water.
This would include the Mississippi River and concrete
channelized drainage canals in the city of Los Angeles.
Identifying a universal population of streams can be difficult and
is definition driven.
Streams are
one
, .
component in
the hydrologic ;
cycle
TUf HYD8QIOGK CKtl
Attachment 3 ~ Page 13
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Streams don't hold much water
Gladers
Freshwater lakes I
Salt lakes r
Streams r
Grounctwater I
Soil moisture -
Atmosphere
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Cubic Miles
Orders of Magnitude Less Volume than
other inland components
But, if we change the indicator...
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Million Cubic Feet Per Year 9
The Great Variability of Streams in
Space and Time Has IMPORTANT
Implications for
Field Protocols
Assessment Methods
What do measurements at one time or
place mean for other times and places?
Stream Network
Drainage divide of
fourth order basin
Seventy Years
John Day River, OR
Attachment 3 Page 14
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Most Streams are Small
A few streams drain large areas
Topics
Monitoring Questions/Issues
Scales
Design tradeoffs
Indicators
Products
Monitoring Program Tradeoffs
\f Management
\ objectives
( Fundirii
Implementation
strategy
Operational ;
boundary i Timeline ;
institutional ".
constraints /
Space; Total
Area Asse$$ed
Recent emphasis in
monitoring programs
Time; Period
of Record
5p
Ar
/
/
^
ace Total EMAP and Other Current
»Au«»ed Monitoring Programs
,i
, A of Re
^
Page 15
Period
:ord
1
3
5
2
4
6
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Goals - EMAP West
2000 - 2004 12 Western States
Demonstration for streams in a large region
1. assessment of ecological condition
2. associations with stressors
Components
1. Reporting goals
2. Sample design and tradeoffs
Site selection
Field methods
3. Assessment methods
628,000 Stream Miles
All wadeable and non-wadeable streams
EPA Western EMAP
Sample Sites
Attributes of Indicators
Conceptual Relevance
Feasible Implementation
Meaningful Signal
Understandable
- Scientists
- Managers
-Public
Terminology and Approach
1ndexx
Metrics
Data
Terminology and Approach
/nd ex-
Indicator
Data
Attachment 3 Page 16
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Metrics
Number of Non-Tolerant Species
Corrected for Stream Size
Proportion of Individual Fish that are Alien
Index
Vertebrate: Index of Biotic Integrity = 37.53
Categories of EMAP Metrics
IB S ftenthic Macrjoinyertebrates
H E Aquatic Vertebrates
BE Water Chemistry
BE Physical Habitat
|B E Fish Tissue Contaminants (Metal£)
B E Invasive Riparian Plants
|B E Other Non-Native Species
EMAP Macroinvertebrate
Metrics
EMAP Physical Habitat and Fish Metal Metrics
!] Habitat Volume (CDF Figures PHAB-1 to 14)
5 Scaled Habitat Volume (CDF Figures PHAB-15 to 26)
!] Habitat Complexity and Cover for Aquatic Biota (CDF Figures PHAB-29 to 126):
!j Stfeambed Particle Size (CDF Figures PHAB-127 tc 168):
Scaled Bed Particle Size (CDF Figures PHAB-1E9 to 210):
Relative Bed Stability (CDF Figures PHAB-211 to 224):
9 Channel-Riparian and Floodplain Interaction (CDF Figures PHAB-225 to 280):
5 Hydrologic Regime and Hydrologic Alteration (CDF Figures PHAB-281 to 308):
?] Riparian Vegetation (CDF Figures PHAB-30S to 350):
!] Riparian Vegetation Alteration (CDF Figures PHAB-351 to 364):
5 Riparian Human Disturbances (CDF Figures PHAB-365 to 434):
Wesi
Attachment 3 Page 17
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Ecological Measures
for Social Analysis
Jim Boyd
Desired Characteristic for
Ecological Measures
Biophysical measures, indicators that are.
Easy for non-scientists to interpret
Directly or tangibly used by
- Households
Recreators
Plant operators
- Farmers
- Planners and politicians
Natural Science Indicators
Biotic integrity measures
Benthic disturbance
Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification
Habitat suitability rankings
Tissue burdens (toxics)
Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphorus
concentrations
Natural Science Indicators
Biotic integrity measures
Benthic disturbance
Are these
interpretable by
non-scientists?
Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification
Habitat suitability rankings
Tissue burdens (toxics)
Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphorus
concentrations
Natural Science Indicators
Biotic integrity measures
Benthic disturbance
Require translation
into "plain English"
Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification
Habitat suitability rankings
Tissue burdens (toxics)
Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphorus
concentrations
Translation into
what?
Attachment 3 Page 18
Examples
Input
Surface water pH
Acres of habitat
Wetland acres
Urban forest acres
Vegetated riparian
border
Biophysical Process
Habitat and toxicity
effects
Forage, reproduction,
migration
Hydrologic processes
Shading and
sequestration
Erosion processes
Ecological Endpoint
Fish, bird abundance
Species abundance
Flood severity
Air quality and
temperature
Sediment accumulation
in reservoirs
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
I Surface water pH
I Ac res of habitat
Examples
Biophysical Process Ecological Endpoint
Habitat and toxicity
effects
Fish, bird abundance
Forage, reproduction,
Species abundance
Natural science Biophysical Social science
indicators production functions indicators
Definition
Two interchangeable terms
(1) Ecological Endpoints
(2) Indicators of final ecosystem
pods & services
Biophysical features, quantities, qualities that
require little further translation to make clear
their relevance to wellbeing
Definition
Thought Experiment
vo interchangeable terms Many/most
(1) Ecological Endpoints natural science
indicators don t
(2) Indicators of final ecosystem meet definition
goods & services
Biophysical features, quantities, qualities that
require little further translation to make clear
their relevance to wellbeins
How would you explain the social value of
improved "surface water pH"?
-Why does pH matter?
It signals water and habitat degradation
Why does water and habitat degradation
matter?
»Changes in species and their abundance
Who Decides What These
Endpoints Are?
All of us do
- Ask people what they care about
Voters
Psychologists
Elected representatives
Marketing professionals
Social scientists
Attachment 3 Page 19
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Our Philosophy
Keep measuring what we already measure
But add to the suite of measures
Endpoints to facilitate social assessment
Methods to link the two
Ecological Production Theory
Inputs transformed into outputs via natural
processes
As a gross generalization
Biophysical inputs (natural science indicators)
- Biophysical outputs (natural science indicators)
A subset of outputs
Final goods and services (ecological measures for social
analysis
Inputs
Precipitation
Land cover
Soils
Output
The hydrograph
(speed, depth, timing
location of surface
An Inconvenient Truth:
Dual Measures
Many ecological commodities are both
endpoint and input
Example
Water clarity (may be desirable as an end in
itself)
But may also be
A signal of other conditions (anoxia)
An input to other biophysical production (seagrass)
Attachment 3 -- Page 20
Endpoint
Trout abundance
Biophysical Process Different Endpoint
Hydrological processes Species abundance
Hydrologic processes Flood pulse regulation
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
A different group
of users «.
One group of
users in particular
place at particular
time
Think about "Users'
Some History & a Metaphor for Us
The social science mindset
A way to identify endpoints that are directly
used, enjoyed
"final goods and services"
Helps organize the natural system into a
system of production
Medical science in the 1960s
- Inhaled particulate matter reduces "oxygen
transfer rates in the lung"
Are oxygen transfer rates an endpoint/final good
or service?
What is the value of oxygen transfer rates?
- Answer requires further biophysical translation
Public Health Endpoints
Premature mortality
Chronic bronchitis
Hospital admissions
Asthma attacks
No further translation
necessary
Thus, amenable to
social analysis
Abstract:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(U.S.EPA) recently promulgated regulations
to reduce air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles. This article reports the estimated health
benefits ofo^ with those
regulations bascdon!Sff1»«4^aiJ.ablc methods of benefits analysis. The results suggest that
when heavy-duty vehicle emission reductionsTfro^TBewguJa^onarc fully realized in 2030. they
will reiuh in substantial, broad scale reductions in ambicm paniculate mailer. Timyjf] f^du^f
;1iu Inudyncf of prciiiaIurc mona 1Uv by S.300. uhron i ^ bKmch] 1 i s bv 5.5 00. ard rc*pi!caii>fv and
can]jova.'iculiif hospital admissions by ",5fli.]. In addition, uncr 175.tK.KI aslhma attacks and
^ I ferns.of']T«ptratory ijjTnptoms will be avoided JD 2030. The economic value of these health
benefits is estimated s.1 ovei
Attachment 3 Page 21
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
These Public Health Endpoints
as Metaphor
The linkage between health science and social
analysis
The way actions are justified
Politically/socially influential
Attachment 3 -- Page 22
1
3
5
2
4
6
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
How Can We Use The Final
Services Concept In Monitoring
Design?
July, 2009
Paul L. Ringold
US EPA, ORD, NHEERL
Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR
Key Questions
What biophysical features, quantities and
qualities require little further translation to
make clear their relevance to human
wellbing?
How do we identify these?
-Complete set
-Avoid double counting
A Working Hypothesis to Defining
Indicators of Final Services
Identify significant user categories
Identify direct or tangible uses for each
user category
- Stream Components
Indicators
An Example for One User Category
Catch and release angler
- Stream Component 1: Taxa and sizes of fish
- Stream Component 2: Aesthetics of location
- Stream Components 3... n?
One Example
Catch and release angler
-Stream Component 1: Taxa and sizes offish
Presence, abundance, P(catch), Catch per unit
effort?
- Stream Component 2: Aesthetics of location
Visual features, odor, noise...
- Stream Components 3... n?
One Example
Catch and release angler
Stream Component 1: Taxa and sizes offish
- Stream Component 2: Aesthetics of location
-Attributes 3...n?
Choice, tradeoff or value
-Measures of individual attributes, or
Integrated measure
Attachment 3 Page 23
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
One Example
Catch and release angler
Choice, tradeoff or value
- Measures of individual attributes,
integrated measure
Social Science Research Question
Second Example
Irrigation Water
- Stream Component 1; Water Quantity and
Timing
- Stream Component 2: Chemistry
- Stream Component 3: Biology?
Second Example
Irrigation Water
- Stream Component 1: Water Quantity and
Timing
Water availability, or
Water use
-Stream Component 2: Chemistry
Salinity, Selenium....
- Stream Component 3: Biology?
Absence of pathogens
Absence of T&E species
Working Hypothesis Part 1: "User"
Categories
7 Categories
Agriculture
Industry
Municipal
Non-Use
Recreational Use
Spiritual/Cultural
Transportation
Number of Subcategories
>5
>7
>2
>0
>3
>0
>2
19
"User" Categories and
Subcategories (1/2)
Agriculture
- Irrigation, Livestock, Aquaculture, Processing,
Grazing
Industry
-Cooling water, Processing, Mining, Hydro,
Extracting, Receiving, Consumption
Municipal
- Drinking Water Source, Receiving
"User" Categories and
Subcategories (2/2)
Non-Use
Recreation
-Water contact, Viewing, Extracting
Spiritual/Cultural
Transportation
-Commercial, Tourism/Recreation
Attachment 3 Page 24
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Working Hypothesis Part 2: Stream
Components
Quantity
Physical Qualities
Chemical
Biological
Landscapes
Working Hypothesis Part 2: Stream
Components
Quantity
- Amount,Timing....
Physical Qualities
- Temperature, Conductivity, Stream Bed, Clarity....
Chemical
- Chemical Water Quality Criteria, Odor....
Biological
- Pathogens, Ecosystem Health, Fish, Wildlife,
Plants....
Landscapes
- Human Experience Shed....
User Categories
Iden
Agriculture
Industry
Municipal
Non-Use
Recreation
Spiritual /
Cultural
Transportation
tify Direct Uses
Stream Components
Quantity Chemical Biological Landscape
15
User Categories
Iden
Agriculture
Industry
Municipal
Non-Use
Recreation
Spiritual /
Cultural
Transportation
tify Direct Uses
Stream Components
Quantity Chemical Biological Landscape
s
/:
£
s
s
S
s
s,.
S
s
f
s
s
s
f
s
s
/
Not Just Individual Indications
Interpretation
Aggregation
Temporal and Spatial Scales
Attachment 3 Page 25
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Indicators and Spatial Scales
User definition of a site?
Ecological definition of a site
-Asymptote in Metric - Effort Curve
- Capture sufficient natural variability
- Best Professional Judgment
Additional Biophysical Measures to
Support Welfare Assessment?
Substitutes
- Relevance, location, function
Complements
- Access infrastructure
Definitions vary by user category?
Questions
Useful approach?
> No > Alternative to identifying a full set of indicators?
Modify user categories?
> Yes > Substantively different indicator
>Yes > Substantial additional user category
Modify stream attribute categories?
> Yes > Substantively improve capacity to understand
human welfare
More Examples?
Attachment 3 Page 26
Slide Number
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Attachment 4
Specific Measures of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
I. Water Quantity
A. Amount
Flow is important for many user categories.
B. Timing
The occurrence and predictability of flows above or below certain thresholds are likely to
be important for many user categories.
II. Water Quality - Physical
A. Temperature
Water temperature is a comfort issue for user categories that involve water contact; in
some cases a safety issue.
B. Conductivity
Water with high conductivity can salinize agricultural land and raise water treatment
costs.
C. Stream Bed
Sediment accumulation can inhibit hydroelectric generation. For swimmers (Vb) or other
stream visitors aspects of the streambed are important. People don't want to contact a
muddy channel. Mud can also inhibit livestock from freely transitting streams. Large
rocks such as rip-rap can also make stream access difficult. For several categories (VII,
and Vd) stream navigability is important. Measures for navigability include width and
depth of the main channel, presence of any obstructions (i.e. downed trees), and class of
any rapids.
D. Clarity
Many user categories care about water clarity. Recreationalists usually prefer higher
water clarity.
III. Water Quality - Chemical
A. Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen may not be widely understood by the public but is directly relevant for
some user categories such as aquaculture (Ic).
B. Chemicals
The presence of persistent chemicals could negatively impact organic agriculture.
C. Odor
Disagreeable odors can negatively impact many user categories.
IV. Water Quality - Biological
A. Pathogens
People care about the probability of getting sick from partial or full contact with the
stream. E Coli poisoning is one example.
-------
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams
Attachment 4
B. Ecosystem Health / Biotic Integrity
"Naturalness" and "Ecosystem Health" are frequently stated desires especially within the
non-use category.
C. Fish
For anglers (Category V.c) appropriate indicators would include abundance of desired
taxa and sizes offish and their appearance. For anglers consuming fish the presence of
contaminants would also be important. Biofouling which can arise from fish, wildlife or
plants is important for water intake users, but especially for Ha, lib, and Ilia.
D. Wildlife
Typically the presence of wildlife is positive. Biofouling which can arise from fish,
wildlife or plants is important for water intake users, but especially for Ha, lib, and Ilia.
E. Plants
Different user categories may enjoy seeing riparian vegetation, and may have preferences
for specific species. Biofouling which can arise from fish, wildlife or plants is important
for water intake users, but especially for Ha, lib, and Ilia. Some plants interfere with
grazing.
V. Landscapes
A. Aesthetics (Human "Experience Shed")
A measure that represents all five senses is important. Studies exist that have developed
aesthetic indices. The presence of garbage reduces aesthetic enjoyment. Sometimes
particular groups of people care about very specific things so an exhaustive list of
specific measures is difficult.
B. Genetic Diversity
Maintaining genetic diversity has been tied to nonuse values, a category which includes
existence, option, and bequest values. The Education and Research user category also has
a stake in genetic diversity.
------- |