Ecological Benefits Assessment
Strategic Plan
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Key to front cover photos:
Saw Palmetto
(Georgia):
A natural source
of commercially
valuable
Pharmaceuticals.
Striped Morning
Sphinx (Arizona):
One of many
no-cost natural
pollinators.
Ocean dunes
vegetation
restoration
(New Jersey):
Recreating the
natural dune form's
erosion resistance to
protect property.
Hiking by a
National Forest
stream (Virginia):
High-quality water
is one of the most
valuable goods from
wild lands; about
66 percent of the
nation's freshwater
resource originates
in forests.
Kayaking
(Washington):
Watercraft use on
high-quality waters
provides significant
enjoyment and
income for rural
economies.
Commercial
fishing in the
Chesapeake Bay
(Maryland):
The majority (roughly
80%) of fish sold and
consumed nationally
are wild-caught and
dependent on
healthy aquatic
ecosystems.
Recreational
birding
(Massachusetts):
In 2001, more than
66 million adult
American wildlife
watchers, including
nearly 46 million
birders, spent $38.4
billion on equipment
and recreational
trips.
Timber harvest
(Mississippi):
Continued timber
harvest depends
on sound and
sustainable
management
of forested
ecosystems.
Key to back cover photos:
Recreational
fishing (Florida):
More than 34 million
American adults in
2001 enjoyed fishing
trips and spent more
than $35 billion in
recreation-dependent
local economies.
Active floodplain
collecting sediment
(Virginia):
Floodplains perform
the service of settling
out excess sediment
and reducing
downstream floods,
improving water
quality, and
protecting property.
Green Drake Mayfly
(Virginia):
Fly fishing for trout
imitates natural prey
such as mayflies,
whose dense
hatches entertain
America's 4.1 million
flyfishers.
Osprey (Maryland):
The aesthetic
enjoyment of sights
like ospreysatthe
nest is difficult to
put a price on.
Blueberries
(West Virginia):
Wild plants were the
origin of all our food
crops, whether now
domesticated or
wild-harvested.
Canada Geese
(West Virginia):
Independent of
wildlife watching,
recreational hunting
by 13 million
Americans involved
spending more than
$20 billion in 2001,
more than $13 billion
of it on game birds.
Outdoor
photographer
(North Carolina):
In 2001, nearly
14 million Americans
photographed
wildlife near their
homes and another
8 million took trips to
photograph wildlife.
Black Rat Snake
(Virginia):
An important
provider of natural
rodent pest control.
(all photos by Doug Norton, USEPA Office of Water)
-------
EPA-240-R-06-OOI
OCTOBER 2006
Ecological Benefits Assessment
Strategic Plan
&ER&
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
Notice
This report has been subjected to peer and Internal reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
It describes policy-relevant actions and recommendations that were developed by a cross-Agency workgroup to assist EPA
Offices. These actions and recommendations do not constitute Agency policy or represent formal EPA strategic planning.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document should be cited as:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan. EPA-240-R-06-001. Office of the
Administrator, Washington, DC. Online publication at http://www.epa.gov/economlcs/.
-------
FOREWORD
Given the increasingly complex tradeoffs inherent in environmental protection, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the need to improve its ability to assess
the potential ecological benefits of its environmental policy decisions. Towards this end,
EPA has developed this Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan (hereafter referred to as
the EBASP or "the Plan").
The EBASP has been developed by a workgroup involving management and staff from sever-
al EPA offices. Participating offices include the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
(OPEI); Office of Research and Development (ORD); Office of Water (OW); Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR); Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS); and the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). The EBASP has undergone broad
internal Agency review, and a preliminary version of the Plan was reviewed by EPA's Science
Advisory Board (SAB) Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and
Services.
The EBASP promotes an integrated process for assessing ecological benefits that requires sus-
tained interdisciplinary work by both natural and social scientists. It highlights important
actions that would help the Agency achieve steady improvement in the ecological benefits
assessments it conducts to support its environmental decisionmaking. The EBASP focuses
on institutional and technical considerations that arise most often in national-level ecologi-
cal benefits assessments and where there are statutory requirements for conducting benefit-
cost analyses (BCA). Hence, the intended primary audience of the EBASP includes EPA man-
agers and staff in offices conducting ecological benefits assessments and those engaged in
research that supports such assessments. Rather than articulating specific research projects
or committing Agency program offices to particular courses of action, the Plan is intended to
inform the development of office-specific Action Plans and Multi-Year Plans for research.
Broad institutional actions are described to facilitate cooperation across offices to improve
Agency benefits assessments.
Completion of this Plan is the first of several steps intended to improve EPA's ability to
assess the ecological benefits of its policies. Importantly, its development already has pro-
moted increased communication across offices and between ecologists and economists in
the Agency. The actions outlined herein should help to build on this momentum, providing
the basis for sustained improvement in the Agency's ability to account fully for the ecologi-
cal benefits of its environmental policy decisions.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN HI
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword iii
Lists of Figures and Tables vii
Workgroup and Steering Committee Members ix
Acknowledgments xi
List of Acronyms xiii
Executive Summary xv
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Goal and Objectives of the Plan 1
1.2 Intended Audience and Scope 2
2 Agency Ecological Benefits Assessments 3
2.1 Focus on Ecological Benefits 3
2.2 Nature of the Challenge 6
2.3 An Interdisciplinary Ecological Benefits Assessment Process 9
3 Improving Ecological Benefits Assessments 11
3.1 Institutional Arrangements 11
3.2 Interdisciplinary Research To Support Ecological Benefits Assessment 14
3.2.1 Overarching Issues 14
3.2.2 Impacts of Policy on Stressors 16
3.2.3 Impacts of Changes in Stressors on Ecological Endpoints 17
3.2.4 Impacts of Changes in Ecological Endpoints on Social Welfare 20
3.2.5 Supplemental Approaches 21
3.3 Coordination With Partners 23
4 Implementation 25
4.1 Institutional Structure 25
4.1.1 Oversight Committee 25
4.1.2 Ecological Benefits Assessment Forum 26
4.2 Process 27
4.2.1 Program Office Action Plans 28
4.2.2 ORD and OPEI Research 28
4.3 Conclusion 29
References 31
Appendices
A; Current State of Agency Practice of Ecological Benefits Assessments A-l
B; Past and Current EPA Efforts To Improve Ecological Benefits Assessments B-l
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Representation of the benefits assessment process indicating where
some ecological benefits may remain unrecognized, unquantified,
or unmonetized 6
Figure 2: Interdisciplinary approach for ecological benefits assessment 9
Figure "5: Research planning and implementation relationships 27
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table E-l: Agency actions to improve ecological benefits assessment xvi
Table 1: Definitions of ecological benefits terms used in the EBASP 4
Table 2: Types of ecological benefits categorized by benefits type 5
Table "$'• Ecological benefits of the Clean Air Act 7
Table 4s Selected ecological benefits of reductions in air pollutants identified
in the analysis of the Clean Air Act 8
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN VII
-------
-------
WORKGROUP AND STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
The Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan was authored by a cross-Agency workgroup
under the general direction of a steering committee that represents offices involved with
ecological benefits assessment.
WORKGROUP
Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation
Nicole Owens (Chair)
National Center for Environmental
Economics
Rich lovanna
National Center for Environmental
Economics
Sabrina Lovell
National Center for Environmental
Economics
Steve Newbold
National Center for Environmental
Economics
Office of Research and Development
Randall J.F. Bruins
National Center for Environmental
Assessment
Wayne R. Munns, Jr.
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
William Wheeler
National Center for Environmental Research
Office of Air and Radiation
Linda Chappell
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
David Charters
Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
Lynne Blake-Hedges
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
T.J. Wyatt
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Water
Joel Corona
Water Policy Staff
Douglas Norton
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Contractor Support
Margaret McVey
ICF Consulting
STEERING COMMITTEE
David Charters
Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Sharon Hayes
Water Policy Staff
Office of Water
Robert Lee
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
Al McGartland
National Center for Environmental
Economics
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
Nicole Owens
National Center for Environmental
Economics
Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
Michael Slimak
National Center for Environmental
Assessment
Office of Research and Development
David Widawsky
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
IX
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The workgroup thanks the many individuals who participated in discussions and informa-
tion gathering meetings in the early stages of the Plan's development in 2002 and 2003.
These include EPA ecologists, economists, and managers, and staff from other federal
agencies. Appreciation also extends to the many Agency staff who reviewed earlier drafts
of the Plan.
In addition to EPA staff who became authors of the EBASP or members of the EBASP steer-
ing committee, many EPA staff members participated in the early informational meetings
that helped to inform this Plan. These included staff from the Office of Air (OAR); the
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS); the Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation (OPEI); the Office of Research and Development (ORD); the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER); and the Office of Water (OW).
Numerous staff from other federal agencies also contributed to the informational meet-
ings, including staff from the U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the U.S. Geological Service, and the Bureau of Land Management), the U.S.
Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service and
Natural Resources Conservation Service). Valuable comments on early drafts of the EBASP
were provided by EPA staff from across the Agency. The workgroup also would like to
thank EPA's Science Advisory Board Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological
Systems and Services for their detailed review of a preliminary draft of portions of the
Plan.
The workgroup would like to thank G. Tracy Mehan, III (former Assistant Administrator,
OW), Thomas Gibson (former Associate Administrator, OPEI), Paul Gilman (former
Assistant Administrator, ORD), Lee Mulkey (former Associate Director for Ecology, ORD
National Risk Management Research Laboratory), as well as Al McGartland (Director,
National Center for Environmental Economics [NCEE]) and Elisabeth LaRoe (former
Director, Water Policy Staff) for their instrumental roles in the initiation and continued
support of the development of the Plan.
Sabrina Lovell of OPEI, NCEE, served as the EPA Task Order Manager for the EBASP con-
tractor support provided by ICF Consulting under the direction of Beth Binns. Margaret
McVey of ICF Consulting provided extensive assistance throughout the development of the
plan. George Van Houtven of Research Triangle Institute assisted in developing the EBASP
Bibliography (available from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwRepNumLookup/
EE-0485A?OpenDocument), and Peter Bonner of ICF Consulting facilitated the information
gathering meetings. Sandra Seymour of ICF provided logistical support. For further infor-
mation, please contact Sabrina Lovell.1
'Ise-Lovell. Sabrina@epa.gov
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN XI
-------
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BCA benefit-cost analysis
CAA Clean Air Act
EBAF Ecological Benefits Assessment Forum
EBASP Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan
EERS Environmental Economics Research Strategy
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
GEAE generic ecological assessment endpoints
HAP hazardous air pollutant
ICR information collection request
NCEE National Center for Environmental Economics
NRC National Research Council
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OMEP Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
OPA Office of Policy Analysis
OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
OPPE Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OW Office of Water
RABA Risk Assessment for Benefits Analysis
SAB Science Advisory Board
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
STAR Science To Achieve Results
WTA willing to accept
WTP willing to pay
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
XIII
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ecological benefits of environmental policies depend on the effects of those policies on the activities of
individuals, households, and firms, and other public and private groups. These in turn affect ecosystem
functions and services, such as drinking water supply, commercial and game fish, food and fiber, timber, nat-
ural pollination and pest control, outdoor recreation, energy and nutrient cycling, pollutant filtration, and
protection of property from weather extremes.
In principle, economic valuation methods can estimate the net benefits—benefits minus costs—of any envi-
ronmental policy in monetary terms. This facilitates comparisons among policy alternatives to support deci-
sionmaking. In practice, however, ecological benefits, which are the contributions to social welfare derived
from ecosystems, are notoriously difficult to evaluate. Several factors contribute to this challenge, including
a limited understanding of the linkages between ecological and economic systems.
The overall goal of this Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan (EBASP or "Plan") is to help improve
Agency decisionmaking by enhancingEPA's ability to identify, quantify, and value the ecological benefits of
existingand proposed policies. The Plan's intended primary audience includes managers and analysts in
EPA Program Offices, and natural and social scientists across the Agency. It focuses primarily on opportuni-
ties to improve ecological benefits assessments conducted at a national level. The Plan also communicates
priority research needs to EPA's principal natural and social science organizations, ORD and OPEI. The spe-
cific objectives of the Plan are to;
1. Identify the major technical and institutional advancements that would facilitate performance of
rigorous and comprehensive ecological benefits assessments on a routine basis;
2, Describe a road map of specific actions that the Agency can take to promote those advancements; and
3. Describe mechanisms to facilitate the adaptive implementation of the EBASP, including periodic adjust-
ments to reflect progress in the state of knowledge.
Table E-l summarizes the actions recommended and described more fully in Chapter 3 of the EBASP. The
table also recommends a timeframe for initiating each action, in terms of the short, medium, and long run.
Short-run actions should be initiated first—for example, during the next 1 to 2 years. Medium- and long-
term actions either are lower priority or may require some results from one or more of the short- or medium-
term actions, respectively, before commencing. We fully expect that different offices will want to implement
different actions as dictated by their specialized goals and needs. In some cases, it may be advantageous for
multiple EPA offices to pool their resources to support actions that are mutually beneficial.
The Plan does not specify which office should implement each action; those decisions must be made by
present and future office management and staff. In Chapter 4, implementation activities are described that
will help EPA initiate the actions and activities discussed in Chapter 3. These include the formation of an
Agency oversight committee, an Agency-wide ecological benefits assessment forum, and individual office
action plans. These strategic activities should help ensure that continued progress on improving ecological
benefits assessment occurs in the years ahead.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN XV
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE E-1: AGENCY ACTIONS TO IMPROVE ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT.
ACTION
TIMING
(Short, Medium,
or Long Term)
Action 3,1-1: Promote formal and informal opportunities for improving
communication among disciplines.
Short and ongoing
Action 3.1-2: Provide basic training in the fundamentals of other disciplines. Short to Medium
Action 3,1-3: Increase interdisciplinary participation in assessing
ecological benefits,
Short and ongoing
Action 3,1-4: Expand the use of ecological risk assessment information in Short
economic benefits assessments,
Action 3-1-5: Conduct program-specific problem formulation workshops,
Short
Action 3.1-6: Develop guidelines for planning and conducting ecological
benefits assessments,
Medium
Action 3.1-7't Review and update Agency guidelines for developing
Analytic Blueprints,
Short
Action 3,1-8: Develop generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints.
Medium
Action 3.2.1-1: Revise environmental monitoring programs to include
indicators relevant for benefits assessments.
Medium to Long
Action 3.2,1-2: Increase coordination of long-term, large-scale data collection Medium
efforts across the Agency, and identify new efforts where needed,
Action 3.2,1-3: Develop methods for using information from short-duration
and localized monitoring programs in ecological benefits assessments of
long-term, large-scale policies,
Medium to Long
Action 3.2,1-4: Develop improved methods to measure inherent variability Long
in ecological benefits assessments,
Action 3,2,1-5: Develop improved methods to identify and reduce knowledge Medium
uncertainties in ecological benefits assessments.
Action 3,2.2-1: Incorporate and improve consideration of behavioral
responses to environmental policies.
Medium
Action 3.2.2-2: Identify priority areas where trade-offs between risks are Medium
critical and enhance capacity for relative risk assessments,
Action 3.2.2-3: Invest in research on methods to estimate expected stressor Medium
reductions from ecologically based pollution controls.
Action 3.2,2-4: Increase and improve ex-post analysis of the effects of
EPA policy, including remediation or restoration projects,
Medium to Long
XVI
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Action 3.2.3-ls Develop capacity for population modeling applicable to
ecological benefits assessment.
Medium
Action 3.2,3-2: Improve linkages between stressor exposure data and
effects on populations,
Medium
Action 3-2-3-3: Identify and develop critical community-level
modeling capacity,
Medium
Action 3-2,3-4: Develop capacity to model ecosystem processes for ecological Medium
benefits assessment,
Action 3-2-3-5: Improve ability to measure and to model changes in
ecological endpoints across spatial scales,
Long
Action 3-2-3--6: Expand use of linked ecological-economic models in
ecological benefits assessment.
Medium
Action 3-2.4-1.1 Support research to adapt and apply economic valuation Medium
methods that are best suited for valuing changes in ecological goods
and services,
Action 3-2.4-2: Improve survey methods by expanding pre- and post-survey Long
validity testing.
Action 3-2,4-3: Improve capacity and methods for benefit transfer for
ecological goods and services,
Medium
Action 3-2-5-1: Evaluate rating and ranking procedures to complement
economic valuation,
Long
Action 3-2-5-2: Evaluate analytical methods based on ecological-economic Medium
system properties,
Action 3-2-5-3: Conduct trial applications of hybrid decision approaches in Long
future benefits assessments.
Action 3-3-1: Provide direct support to studies relevant to Agency ecological
benefits assessments.
Medium to Long
Action 3-3-2: Improve communication with outside researchers about the Short
Agency's needs for ecological and economic research.
Action 3-3-3: Increase coordination of data collection, monitoring programs,
and research with other agencies.
Medium to Long
Action 3.3-4s Explore approaches for facilitating approval of information Medium
collection requests (ICRs) related to collecting information from the public
for use in ecological benefits assessments,
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
XVII
-------
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
Society benefits from both a healthy environment and a strong economy, but difficult and complex tradeoffs
are inherent in these and other sometimes competing goals. EPA recognizes the need to improve its ability
to evaluate the benefits and costs of its environmental policy decisions. Ecological benefits, which are the
contributions to social welfare derived from ecosystems, are especially difficult to evaluate. The Agency has
developed the EBASP to improve its ability to identify, quantify, and value the ecological benefits of its poli-
cies to provide decisionmakers with better information for choosing among policy alternatives.
The EBASP is the most recent in a series of efforts designed to improve the methods and data available for
evaluating Agency policies. In 1998, the Agency published Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA
1998). In 2000, EPA published its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (USEPA 2000a), an update and
expansion of its Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analyses (USEPA 1983, 1991). The Economic
Guidelines acknowledge that the current state-of-the-science is sometimes insufficient to characterize many
of the impacts of Agency policies accurately or to value those impacts in monetary terms for comparison
with expected costs. In 2002, EPA published A Framework for the Economic Assessment of Ecological
Benefits (USEPA 2002a), which draws from both the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines and Economic
Guidelines to assist EPA analysts in conducting economic assessments of ecological benefits.
Implementation of these guidelines, however, requires appropriate methods, models, and data, the availabili-
ty of which are limited for many types of ecological benefits. The complexity of interacting ecological and
economic systems creates substantial conceptual and technical difficulties for estimating ecological benefits.
Thus, much work remains before rigorous, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary evaluations of the ecological
benefits of EPA policies can be performed on a more routine basis.
1.1 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN
The overall goal of the EBASP is to help improve Agency decisionmaking by enhancing EPA's ability to identi-
fy, quantify, and value the ecological benefits of existing or proposed policies. Our vision is one of rigorous,
comprehensive, and interdisciplinary ecological benefits assessments supporting the design and selection of
policy alternatives.
The specific objectives of the Plan are to;
1. Identify the major technical and institutional advancements that would facilitate performance of
rigorous and comprehensive ecological benefits assessments on a routine basis;
2, Describe a road map of specific actions that the Agency can take to promote those advancements; and
3. Describe mechanisms to facilitate adaptive implementation of the EBASP, including periodic adjustments
to reflect progress in the state of knowledge.
The Plan is organized as follows. The remainder of this section describes the intended audience and scope
of the Plan. Section 2 describes current ecological benefits assessment practices at EPA, the nature of the
challenge facing the Agency, and an integrated approach to ecological benefits assessment that emphasizes
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
interdisciplinary collaboration. Section 3 describes a variety of key institutional and technical actions that
would help the Agency improve its ability to conduct comprehensive and accurate ecological benefits assess-
ments on a more routine basis. The Plan concludes by proposing a structure and a process to implement and
adapt the EBASP (Section 4). Information about the state-of-practice of ecological benefits assessment in the
Agency, and about previous efforts focusing on ecological benefits assessment, is provided in two appen-
dices.
1.2 INTENDED AUDIENCE AND SCOPE
The EBASP emphasizes the role of benefits assessments in designing and evaluating proposed or existing
Agency policies. We define "policies" broadly as encompassing all actions that the Agency may take. The
Plan is primarily focused on the rule-making or regulatory process at the national level where BCAs often are
required. Ecological benefits assessment in this context arguably requires the greatest rigor in predicting the
biophysical and economic impacts of each policy alternative and the valuation (generally in monetary terms)
of these impacts. Other decisionmaking contexts may not require a formal BCA as considered here.
However, the usefulness of improved methods for quantifying and valuing the ecological benefits of EPA
policies will not be limited to situations requiring BCA, and so the actions proposed in this Plan will have
implications beyond the narrow scope defined here.
The Program Offices of EPA are largely responsible for developing and evaluating Agency policies that apply
nationwide, so the managers and analysts in those offices are a key audience for the Plan. In addition, the
substantial advances needed in the science that supports ecological benefits assessment require the concert-
ed effort of EPA's natural and social science researchers, located largely in ORD and OPEI. These audiences
can use the priorities communicated in the Plan to help guide their internal planning processes and to
inform external partners of EPA's research needs. Although not among the Plan's primary target audiences,
the EBASP also may be of value to EPA Regional Offices, other federal agencies, and state and local decision-
makers.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
2 AGENCY ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS
Virtually all government policies, including environmental policies, have both advantages and disadvantages.
When the advantages and disadvantages of a policy are obvious to all concerned, few will debate the appro-
priate course of action. However, ecological benefits may come about through indirect pathways, they may
be distributed widely across the population, or there may be little agreement about their value. In these situ-
ations, quantifying ecological benefits can play an important role in the decisionmaking process. Clear artic-
ulation of the benefits derived from EPA policies can help communicate the rationale for taking action and
promote consensus by providing more information about the advantages and disadvantages of various alter-
natives.
BCA is an accepted economic approach for comparing the advantages and disadvantages of policies in a con-
sistent format to help decisionmakers make more informed choices (Arrow et al., 1996). Support for BCA has
increased over time, as reflected in Executive Order 12866, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and in parts
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). BCA estimates the net benefits to society as a whole by comparing the expected
benefits accruing to those made better off by a policy to the expected costs imposed on those made worse
off. BCA can be used prospectively to provide information to decisionmakers for choosing among proposed
alternative policies. It also can be applied retrospectively to determine whether a policy has been successful,
to learn from any unintended consequences, or to determine whether further action is needed. Furthermore,
the results of BCAs can be useful for communicating to the public the value of EPA's regulatory programs and
for providing guidance for its voluntary programs.
Formal BCA is not required in all regulatory contexts, such as when Congress legislates specific pre-determined
environmental policy objectives. In fact, certain statutes prohibit consideration of benefit-cost information
in regulatory decisions. For example, the Food Quality Protection Act requires the Agency to set limits on
pesticide residues in food, without regard to the cost of meeting those standards. Yet even when BCA is not
required, quantifying the benefits of policy provides important information. Situations where quantified
benefits are critical include allocating limited resources across restoration projects to obtain the greatest
impact and measuring the Agency's performance in meeting its strategic goals.
This plan is premised on the belief that the Agency faces a new and growing demand for more rigorous and
comprehensive ecological benefits assessments. Meeting this need will require concerted, interdisciplinary
efforts. This section explains why we focus on ecological benefits, discusses the nature of the challenge in
measuring those benefits, and presents a simple conceptualization of an interdisciplinary approach to assess-
ing the ecological benefits of EPA policies.
2.1 FOCUS ON ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS
In the EBASP, ecological benefits refer to the contributions to social welfare derived from ecosystem goods
and services (Table 1 provides definitions of these and related terms used throughout the Plan). EPA policies
may discourage or restrict activities that are harmful to theenvironment, may encourage or require activities
to restore damaged ecosystems, or may combine these approaches. The ecological benefits of such policies
depend on how the policies influence the behavior of individuals, households, and other public or private
groups, which in turn affect the quantity, flow, and timing of stressors in the environment. Reductions in
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE 1: DEFINITIONS OF ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS TERMS USED IN THE EBASP.
Ecological benefits3: Contributions to social welfare of ecological goods and services. In the EBASP, the
term applies specifically to net improvements in social welfare that result from changes in the quantity or
quality of ecological goods and services attributable to EPA policy.
Ecological functions or processes3: Characteristic physical, chemical, and biological activities that influence
the flows, storage, and transformations of materials and energy within and through ecosystems, such as the
uptake of nitrogen from soil by vegetation.
Ecological goods and services3: Outputs of ecological functions or processes that directly or indirectly con-
tribute to social welfare or have the potential to do so in the future. Some outputs may be bought and sold,
but most are not marketed (Table 2).
Social welfare: Human well-being, measured at some aggregate level.
Stressors: By-products of human activity that impact ecological functions or processes, including past activi-
ties that leave ecosystems in a degraded condition.
Ecological Benefits Assessment: Evaluation of the expected changes in social welfare resulting from EPA
policies via changes in ecological functions or processes; outcomes are described qualitatively and are quanti-
fied in physical and monetary terms when possible.
Quantification: Expression of benefits in numerical units.
Valuation: Process of estimating the worth, merit, or desirability of something. In the EBASP, the term is
used more specifically to mean estimating the worth of a wide variety of environmental conditions in com-
mon units that can be aggregated and compared.
Monetization: Valuation in monetary (dollar) terms. Also "economic valuation" or "monetary valuation."
Ecological Risk Assessment11 is an evaluation of the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or
are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors.
EPA policies are any plans, actions, or guiding principles, adopted by EPA to reduce environmental risks by
implementing, encouraging, or discouraging particular activities that affect the environment. Policies can
include regulations, formal guidances, permits, funding decisions, educational initiatives, and environmental
management plans, among others.
"Adapted from Freeman (2003), Daily (1997, 2000), King (1997), and Whigham (1997).
bUSEPA 1998.
CUSEPA 2000a.
stressors should improve ecological functions or processes and lead to increases in ecosystem goods and
services enjoyed by society at large. Table 2 lists examples of ecosystem goods and services, categorized
according to the types of economic benefits they provide; market or non-market and direct-use, indirect-use,
or non-use.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The focus in this Plan is on the value of changes in ecosystem goods and services that result from EPA poli-
cies (as defined in Table 1). In this document, "ecological benefits assessment" refers to both the quantifica-
tion of relevant ecological outcomes in physical terms and to the estimation of the social value of those out-
comes. Further, the term "ecological benefits" refers to the net ecological benefits of an EPA policy, consider-
ing any negative as well as positive changes in ecological services that might result. A benefits assessment
should begin with qualitative descriptions of ecological outcomes. Because changes in social welfare are dif-
ficult to quantify directly, changes in the condition of ecosystems per se may be taken as measures of bene-
fits when the relationship between ecosystem conditions and social welfare is conceptually clear. The Plan
recognizes the importance of nonmonetary measures of social value in many situations and proposes
research into supplemental assessment approaches.
TABLE 2: TYPES OF ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS CATEGORIZED BY BENEFITS TYPE.
Benefit Category Explanation
Examples
Market
Generally relate to primary
products that can be bought or
sold as factors of production or
final consumption products
Food and water sources; commercial fish and
livestock, game fish and wildlife, drinking water
Building materials; timber
Fuel; methane, wood
Clothing; leather, fibers
Medicines; nature-derived pharmaceuticals
Non-
market
Direct-use Directly sought and used or
enjoyed by society; includes
both consumptive uses and
nonconsumptive uses
Consumptive recreational; fishing, hunting
Nonconsumptive recreational; boating,
swimming, camping, sunbathing, walking,
climbing, bird watching, sightseeing, enjoyment
of visual amenities
Indirect- Indirectly benefit society; may
use be valued because they support
offsite ecological resources or
maintain the biological and/or
biochemical processes required
for life support
Maintenance of biodiversity
Maintenance and protection of habitat
Pollination of crops and natural vegetation
Dispersal of seeds
Protection of property from floods and storms
Water supply (e.g., groundwater recharge)
Water purification
Pest and pathogen control
Energy and nutrient exchange
Non-use Benefit does not depend on
current use or indirect benefits;
individuals might value the
resource without ever intending
to use it or might have a sense
of environmental stewardship;
includes bequest value, existence
value, and cultural/historic value
Perpetuation of an endangered species
Wilderness areas set-aside for future generations
Sources; Principe (1995), Daily et al. (1997), and USEPA (2000b, 2002a).
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2.2 NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE
Assessing the broad variety of ecological benefits potentially affected by EPA policies is challenging. Despite
significant advances made by natural scientists in understanding ecosystem services and the natural process-
es that provide them, knowledge of these complex systems remains incomplete. Likewise, economists regu-
larly confront problems when estimating the benefits of proposed policies, in part because the values of eco-
logical goods and services are difficult to estimate, particularly when the effects of policy changes cannot be
articulated clearly, and in part because the data and methods needed for benefits assessments often are lim-
ited. Even the institutional characteristics of the Agency can impede effective collaboration among the
Agency's natural and social scientists in addressing these issues. Opportunities for improving the ecological
benefits assessments that the Agency conducts can be identified by examining these challenges more closely.
Current Agency benefits assessments often are incomplete with respect to identifying, quantifying, and valu-
ing changes in ecological goods and services, as illustrated in Figure 1. During the early stages of an assess-
ment (i.e., planning and problem formulation), some benefits may go unrecognized because complex ecosys-
tems and their interactions with economic systems are not understood completely. As the assessment pro-
ceeds, recognized benefits may remain unquantified, much less monetized, because of methodological
EPA action
Ecosystems
Ecological goods and services
affected by the action
Planning and problem formulation
Goods and services
identified
Ecological analysis
Goods and services
quantified
Goods and services
monetized
Goods and
services not
identified
Identified
goods and
services not
quantified
Economic analysis
Quantified
goods and
services not
monetized
Figure 1: Representation of the benefits assessment process indicating where some ecological benefits may
remain unrecognized, unquantified, or unmonetized.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and data limitations. Tables 3 and 4 illustrate how the diversions shown in Figure 1 can limit the Agency's
ability to estimate the value of the ecological benefits of policies to protect air quality. The strategy commu-
nicated in this Plan is intended to help reduce these diversions and improve the rigor and comprehensive-
ness of ecological benefits assessments at EPA.
TABLE 3: ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
In The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010 (USEPA 1999), EPA presented an extensive
assessment of the outcomes of regulations that addressed many sources of air pollution. Under the Clean
Air Act (CAA), EPA established regulations that set maximum ambient air quality levels for several types of
pollutants. The Agency, supported by independent panels of physical and social scientists and public health
experts, conducted an extensive assessment of the impacts of these regulations, including estimates of the
ecological benefits (USEPA 1999).
To assess the benefits of CAA regulations, analysts developed conceptual models linking the reduction in pol-
lutants to ecological benefits. Some of these benefits are identified in Table 4. The complete list of benefits
can be found in Appendix E of the report (USEPA 1999). Generally, analysts need to assess the effectiveness
of EPA actions in achieving reductions in pollutants. Control technologies and emission limits specified in
EPA's CAA regulations have several directly measurable effects, but other effects would need to be estimated.
Reductions in ambient concentrations of pollutants over particular ecological systems, including water bod-
ies, forests, and agricultural areas, would need to be estimated with the aid of air dispersion models.
Ambient concentrations of certain pollutants directly influence some ecological benefits, such as visibility at
national parks. For most situations, however, the relationship between pollutant concentrations and ecologi-
cal goods and services depends on ecological functions. For example, analysts first would need to estimate
how reductions in atmospheric pollutants affect timber and crop growth, or fish and wildlife mortality and
morbidity, to quantify changes in production or populations. For the CAA assessment, if changes in ecologi-
cal goods and services could be quantified, analysts could attempt to estimate the value of those changes to
society.
The third column in Table 4 lists the benefits of regulations under the CAA that analysts were able to quanti-
fy in physical units, such as additional tons of timber per acre harvested or the additional number of days of
clear viewing at national parks. For example, analysts were able to estimate the relationship between reduc-
tions in ozone and increased timber growth. On the other hand, due to data limitations, analysts were
unable to quantify the relationship between reduced acid deposition and timber growth. Of those benefits
that were quantified, even fewer could be measured in monetary terms, as shown by the last column in
Table 4.
The regulatory assessment experience with the CAA illustrates some of the challenges of determining the
effect of EPA policies on ecological outcomes and benefits. If plausible connections between emission
sources and ecological changes cannot be quantified, the outcomes of the policy cannot be estimated in phys-
ical or dollar terms. Estimating the relationships between changes in emissions and changes in ecosystem
processes, ecological goods and services, and the value of those services, requires appropriate ecological and
economic data, much of which currently is not available.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE 4: SELECTED ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF REDUCTIONS IN AIR POLLUTANTS
IDENTIFIED IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
Pollutant reduced Ecological benefits identified
Quantified? Monetized?
Particulate matter Improved visibility at national parks
yes
yes
Acidic deposition Improved recreational freshwater fishing
yes
Increased productivity of commercial forests (e.g.,
timber and non-timber forest products)
no
Improved commercial freshwater fishing
no
Reduced watershed damages (e.g., improved water
filtration and flood control)
no
Improved recreational amenities in terrestrial
ecosystems (e.g., forest aesthetics and nature study)
no
Maintained existence value and option values for
ecosystems impacted by acid deposition
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
Nitrogen deposition Reduced nitrogen deposition for eastern estuaries
yes
Increased productivity of commercial fishing, decreased
productivity of agriculture and forests
no
Reduced watershed damages (e.g., improved water
filtration and flood control)
no
Improved recreation in estuarine ecosystems (e.g.,
recreational fishing, aesthetics, and nature study)
no
Maintained existence value and option values for
ecosystems impacted by nitrogen deposition
no
no
no
no
no
no
Tropospheric ozone Increased commercial timber yields'
yes
Increased tons of carbon sequestered in forests
yes
Increased agricultural yields'
yes
Hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs)
deposition
Improved commercial and recreational fishing
no
Maintained existence value and option values for
ecosystems impacted by HAPs (e.g., biodiversity values)
no
yes
no
yes
Improved recreational amenities in terrestrial ecosystems no no
(e.g., forest aesthetics and nature study)
Maintained existence value and option values for no no
ecosystems impacted by ozone
no
no
Source; USEPA (1999), adapted from Tables 7-5 and 7-11.
"Analysis was restricted to the Adirondacks.
'Analysis was restricted to a limited set of timber species.
"Analysis was restricted to a limited set of agricultural crops.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2.3 AN INTERDISCIPLINARY ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Improving Agency ecological benefits assessments will require a new approach that emphasizes interdiscipli-
nary teamwork. Traditionally, natural scientists at EPA have focused primarily on assessing risks, while econ-
omists have focused primarily on assessing the costs and benefits of regulations (Appendix A). Because eco-
logical risk assessments typically are designed to address questions different from those addressed by ecolog-
ical benefits assessments, the immediate value of risk assessment results to benefits assessments often is
limited. Benefits assessments at the Agency historically have been the responsibility of economists, receiv-
ing limited input from the natural scientists. Increased collaboration among EPA's natural and social scien-
tists and analysts will improve ecological benefits assessments at the Agency in several ways, including help-
ing to identify appropriate ecological endpoints, collecting the necessary data, and developing and applying
the appropriate methods to quantify and value changes in those endpoints.
Sociocultural
context
(values)
Ecological knowledge, methods, models, and data from ecology and
other natural sciences
V
Problem
formulation
Identify
management
alternatives
A
\,
Estimate changes
in stressors
(for each
alternative)
/•
/
A
-v
\
Estimate changes in
ecosystem services
When \/ feasible
Monetize changes
•^
Synthesize and
communicate
results to
decisionmakers
[Ecological knowledge, methods, models, and data from economics and
other social sciences
Figure 2: Interdisciplinary approach for ecological benefits assessment.
Figure 2 depicts a collaborative approach for ecological benefits assessment that builds on the conceptual
foundations of the Agency's ecological risk assessment framework and borrows from its terminology (USEPA
1998). The assessment approach emphasizes collaborative interaction among Agency decisionmakers, social
scientists, natural scientists, and analysts throughout the process. Such collaboration should begin at the
earliest stages of the process, with identification of the need to evaluate alternative policy options for a deci-
sion. The options under consideration may be defined partly by the statutory and legal context under which
EPA operates, information from existing risk assessments, and technological and socioeconomic considera-
tions. The best science available would then be applied to understand how each policy option would change
the environmental stressors they are intended to control, to forecast changes in the affected ecosystems and
the services they provide, and to estimate the economic value of the change in those services.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The first step of the assessment is problem formulation; defining the scope of the problem and potential
relationships among policy alternatives, stressors, and ecological changes. Both social and natural sciences
are critical in developing the conceptual model of how policy ultimately impacts social welfare and identify-
ing the appropriate benefits assessment endpoints. Analysts next determine the extent to which alternative
policies reduce the quantity, flow, and timing of stressors into the environment. This phase also depends on
multiple disciplines. Social sciences are needed because EPA policy impacts human activity, and firms and
individuals will respond to those policies in ways that may enhance or mute the impact. Natural sciences
are needed to evaluate the technical effectiveness of the policies. Given changes in stressors, analysts next
estimate the changes in ecosystem processes and changes in the output of ecological goods and services.
This is primarily the domain of ecology and natural sciences. Where possible and appropriate, the changes
in social welfare resulting from changes in the quantity or quality of ecological goods and services are esti-
mated. This primarily is the domain of the social sciences. Even in these later phases, however, interdisci-
plinary teamwork is important, and both disciplines are required to synthesize and communicate findings to
decisionmakers. The output of the process is a comprehensive package of synthesized information that sup-
ports selection of the best policy alternative. Although outlined linearly in Figure 2, the new approach for
ecological benefits assessment is iterative to help ensure that decisions are made with the best information
available. For example, the assessment itself might identify other policy options, or different linkages
between stressors and ecosystem changes—information that could be incorporated in a subsequent pass
through the process.
Successful implementation of this approach will require new mechanisms to enhance the collaboration that
is so critical for comprehensive assessments. Increased research attention at the intersection of natural and
social sciences can provide the advanced tools and information needed to ensure the rigor of those assess-
ments. The Agency has identified the priority actions needed in these areas to realize the goals of this Plan.
These actions and a road map for sustained progress toward improved ecological benefits assessment are
described in the following two sections.
10 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
3 IMPROVING ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS
EPA can reach its goal of improving decisionmaking by conducting rigorous, interdisciplinary assessments of
the ecological benefits resulting from its policies. This section discusses a variety of strategic actions,
grouped into three main areas, that should enhance EPA's ability to identify, quantify, and value the ecologi-
cal benefits of its policies. The areas of focus are;
• Institutional arrangements that foster interdisciplinary analyses and provide analysts with appropriate
guidance and tools;
• Interdisciplinary research that directly supports ecological benefits assessments, including broad
methodological development and specific studies about resources, stressors, localities, and policies; and
• Coordination of efforts with external partners.
The actions described below respond to institutional opportunities within EPA and the evolving science-
based needs of environmental decisionmaking. Although this list does not exhaust the possibilities for
improvements in this area, these actions were judged to be among the most important and promising
avenues for EPA to pursue in the coming years. The importance of these actions was recognized through
reviews of existing practices in EPA (Appendix A) and other agencies, consideration of previous efforts to
improve ecological benefits assessment (Appendix B), evaluation of feedback from staff within EPA, and con-
sideration of input from EPA's SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services.
The actions in the next section are intended to provide a general direction for the Agency. Specific actions
are to be developed by EPA's Program Offices, ORD, and OPEI according to their individual needs and capabil-
ities (as described in Section 4).
3.1 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Rigorous ecological benefits assessments require collaboration between many disciplines and specialties.
Professionals in engineering, chemistry, hydrology, and atmospheric sciences are needed to evaluate the
effectiveness of control measures and the fate and transport of stressors through the environment.
Biologists and ecologists are needed to estimate how changes in stressors affect ecological conditions and
processes. Economists and other social scientists are needed to assess the value that society places on
changes in the goods and services that affected ecosystems provide and to predict how people respond to
policies. Policymaker participation is critical for establishing objectives and placing the assessment in con-
text. Their participation also is important to make certain that they understand how to interpret and use the
information provided by the assessment. For this collaboration to work effectively, EPA must ensure commu-
nication among all of the participants in the process. Two specific actions that can help facilitate communi-
cation are;
Action 3.1-ls Promote formal and informal opportunities for improving communication among disciplines.
EPA can stimulate communication between natural and social scientists by promoting greater interaction
within the Agency and through grants supporting interdisciplinary research.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 11
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Suggested activities include;
• Organized workshops, symposia, and seminars to encourage the transfer of knowledge and skills;
• Exchange of personnel through temporary staff assignments (details) among offices to immerse staff in
the culture and practices of other disciplines, and to educate them about missions and needs of other
parts of the Agency; and
• Creation of an interdisciplinary Web site with reference information about the basics of both economics
and ecology to foster information exchange.
Action 3.1-2: Provide basic training in the fundamen-
tals of other disciplines. In the near-term, analysts, sci- Institutional Actions To Promote
entists, and policy staff involved in ecological benefits Interdisciplinary Assessments
assessments should be provided crossdisciplinary train-
ing. Such training would enhance understanding of the Facilitate communication among disciplines
concepts, approaches, and methods of others involved in
the assessment process, improving the effectiveness of Provide crossdisciplinary training
communication supporting benefits assessments.
Ensure interdisciplinary participation
True collaboration among natural and social scientists in
planning and executing assessments helps to ensure Expand the use of ecological information
that those assessments are rigorous and comprehensive.
Collaboration begins and is especially crucial in the over- Conduct problem formulation workshops
all planning stage of the action development process and
assessment formulation. Throughout the assessment
process, continued collaboration is needed to evaluate and interpret interim results and to ensure that any
needed changes in focus or direction of the assessment are recognized. Three actions that can promote
crossdisciplinary collaboration during planning and performance of ecological benefits assessments are;
Action 3-l-3s Increase interdisciplinary participation in assessing ecological benefits. From the outset of
each assessment, policy analysts, economists, and natural and social scientists should be assembled into
interdisciplinary teams to conduct the assessment. Social scientists should participate in the development of
conceptual models describing the causal relationships between stressors, endpoints, and human welfare, and
natural scientists should participate in the development of valuation studies, especially if surveys are used to
elicit social values. Broad participation can be ensured through better use of Analytic Blueprints (see Action
3.1-7 on the next page).
Action 3.1-4: Expand the use of ecological risk assessment information in economic benefits assessments.
Although Agency risk assessments and benefits assessments often differ in their purposes and objectives,
they share many data and methodological needs. EPA should initiate an effort similar to the Risk
Assessment for Benefits Analysis (RABA) project focused on ecological benefits. RABA was conducted under
the Agency's Risk Assessment Forum to evaluate methods for expanding the use of human health risk assess-
ment information in economic benefits analysis. The interdisciplinary nature of RABA has been key to its
success. Like RABA, the first step in the new effort would be to conduct one or more case studies for quanti-
fying and monetizing ecological benefits. The case studies would require collaboration among analysts from
different fields and should provide valuable insights for making interdisciplinary collaboration routine.
12 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Action 3-1-5'- Conduct program-specific problem formulation workshops. The Agency's approach for ecologi-
cal risk assessment provides a successful model for planning benefits assessments—problem formulation.
Problem formulation workshops would allow those involved in an ecological benefits assessment to consider
the complex relationships among policy alternatives, stressors, and ecosystem goods and services. A primary
product of these workshops will be a set of conceptual models, relating policy alternatives to ecological bene-
fits, which should help identify the full range of ecological benefits that may result from each alternative.
Led by ORD and OPEI in conjunction with a program office, these workshops also would foster interdiscipli-
nary collaboration and highlight specific research needs. They could form a basis on which program offices
could build assessment teams, as well as provide valuable information useful for the development of assess-
ment guidelines (see Action 3.1-6).
The rigor of EPA's benefits assessments can be improved by providing clear standards for analysts to follow
and for managers to use to judge the quality of assessments. Three actions that can address this issue are;
Action 3.1-6: Develop guidelines for planning and conducting ecological benefits assessments. Clear guide-
lines assist practitioners in meeting the standards of the Agency and assist decisionmakers in evaluating the
appropriateness and quality of the planned analysis and final assessment. An interoffice and interdiscipli-
nary workgroup would be necessary to develop guidelines that address key issues in implementing the
approach shown in Figure 2. These issues include;
• Construction of conceptual models linking policy alternatives to changes in ecological endpoints, ecosys-
tem goods and services, and ecological benefits;
• Identification of appropriate and consistent temporal and spatial scales of analyses;
• Selection of appropriate analytical tools; and
• Development of approaches for reducing and describing uncertainty in estimates of ecological changes
and the value of those changes.
The new guidelines should build on A Framework for the Economic Valuation of Ecological Benefits (USEPA
2002a). This effort could be supported by issue papers, topically oriented workshops and instructive case
studies. Guidelines development could be overseen by a newly created Ecological Benefits Assessment
Forum (described in Section 4).
Action 3.1-7s Review and update Agency guidelines for
developing Analytic Blueprints. EPA develops an Institutional Actions To Promote
. . , , , , Rigorous and Comprehensive
Analytic Blueprint at the start or each new regulation .
development to guide the analysis of policy alternatives
(USEPA 2003b). Scientific and economic analyses are r-> r -j /•
3 Develop assessment guidelines
addressed separately in the current Blueprint approach.
Revising the guidelines for preparing Analytic Blueprints ^^ guldehnes forAnalytlc Blueprlnts
to encourage greater integration and interdisciplinary
analysis throughout the regulatory development process „ , , ,, f..
} } Develop generic ecological benefits assess-
would be an important step toward improving the j . .
r r & ment endpoints
Agency's benefits assessment approach.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 13
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Action 3-1-8: Develop generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints. EPA recently published its Generic
Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 2003a) to guide considera-
tion of endpoints potentially important for all of its ecological risk assessments. Developing a similar set of
ecological benefits assessment endpoints that encompass key ecosystem goods and services for routine con-
sideration in ecological benefits assessments would provide analysts with an initial list to consider in con-
structing conceptual models (see Action 3.1-6).
3.2 INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH TO SUPPORT ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
EPA is committed to basing its environmental protection decisions on good science. Greater emphasis on
research to fill critical gaps in the understanding of natural and social systems also would help improve the
Agency's ability to conduct rigorous and comprehensive ecological benefits assessments on a more routine
basis. Although the intention of this Plan is to support the evaluation of policies, in the broad sense, much
of the research described below may support other situations in which the estimation of the benefits of eco-
logical changes or conditions is important.
The research actions recommended in this section focus on two overarching issues and three key points of
connection between policy and social welfare. The overarching issues are; (1) establishing baseline scenar-
ios; and (2) characterizing uncertainties in assessments. The points of connection are; (1) how EPA policies
alter the exposure of ecological systems to stressors; (2) how changes in stressors influence ecological func-
tions and outputs; and (3) how changes in ecological outputs influence social welfare. Several research
actions on the use of supplemental approaches that help characterize, rank, and/or measure the effects of
policy are recommended.
3.2.1 OVERARCHING ISSUES
A primary objective of ecological benefits assessment is to support the selection of the best policy among
alternatives. Policy impacts are measured against the baseline case, in which ecological systems are left to
develop without the influences of new EPA policy. Monitoring programs can provide information to docu-
ment current ecosystem conditions and to track trends in those conditions through time. Monitoring pro-
grams are key to improving EPA's ability to measure and characterize natural variability in ecosystems. Many
of EPA's existing monitoring efforts are designed to assess compliance in a policy context and may be local-
ized or of short duration. Others, such as ORD's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP), were initiated to provide information about the status and trends of the nation's ecosystems gener-
ally (USEPA 2002b). Three actions that can improve the usefulness of monitoring programs for ecological
benefits assessments are;
Action 3.2,1-1: Revise environmental monitoring programs to include indicators relevant for benefits assess-
ments. EPA periodically should evaluate the indicators used in its monitoring programs for their relevance to
ecological benefits assessment. Working within the context of those programs, the Agency should seek
opportunities to incorporate new or modified indicators that are informative of relationships among Agency
policies and changes in valued ecosystem goods and services. Recommendations for new indicators should
be based on the recent considerations highlighted by the National Academy of Science in its report on
Valuing Ecosystem Services (NRC 2000). The most useful indicators will be those that either measure the
flow of ecosystem goods or services directly or can be combined with other environmental or economic indi-
cators to measure such flows, and those that are at least potentially responsive to EPA policies.
14 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Opportunities should be sought to expand the use of multi-metric indices that condense information on
ecosystem conditions to reflect net changes and that can simplify analytic resource requirements for ecologi-
cal benefits assessments. Indicators should be developed to reflect the generic ecological benefits assess-
ment endpoints recommended in Action 3.1-8.
Action 3.2,1-2: Increase coordination of long-term, large-scale data collection efforts across the Agency, and
identify new efforts where needed. Filling the gaps that occur among the environmental data collection
activities of EPA's programs will improve the Agency's ability to assess the effects of its policies. This can be
done by increasing support for large-scale data collection efforts that provide critically needed information
about ecosystems, especially about those currently under-represented in EPA's ongoing monitoring efforts,
such as terrestrial systems. Increasing the available information on current ecological conditions and
processes in these systems will lead to more accurate and robust estimates of benefits. Support should be
leveraged by coordinating with the monitoring efforts of other agencies (see Action 3.3-3).
Action 3-2.1-3! Develop methods for using information from short-duration and localized monitoring pro-
grams in ecological benefits assessments of long-term, large-scale policies. The Agency and others devote
substantial resources to short-term and focused data collection efforts. These efforts provide valuable
insights about ecosystem condition and processes and are critical for tracking and evaluating policy perform-
ance. However, the data derived from these efforts could be better utilized in ecological benefits assess-
ments of larger scale policies, including those at the national level. The Agency should explore methods to
aggregate data collected in short duration and localized monitoring efforts to estimate trends in ecosystem
conditions, measure natural variability, and track performance on larger scales.
A critical element of a rigorous benefits assessment is the
about the functions of ecological systems and social val-
ues. EPA seeks to reduce uncertainties in its estimates
of ecological benefits where possible, and to characterize
accurately the uncertainties that exist. Two sources of
uncertainty often are recognized that require different
characterization strategies. Virtually all ecological and
economic processes are subject to "inherent variability"
(also referred to as "natural variability" or "stochastici-
ty"), that cannot be reduced but can be accounted for
with appropriate computational tools. More difficult to
address is "knowledge uncertainty," including errors or
gaps in estimation methods that arise either from a lack
of knowledge or mistaken assumptions about relation-
ships between policy changes, ecological conditions, and
social welfare. Two actions that can help EPA improve
its ability to characterize and reduce uncertainties in its
ecological benefits assessments are;
Action 3.2,1-4! Develop improved methods to measure
inherent variability in ecological benefits assessments.
To improve characterizations of variability in ecological
benefits assessments, the Agency should invest in
sensitivity of results to alternative assumptions
Supporting Research: Overarching Issues
Incorporate relevant indicators in environ-
m en tal m oni taring program s
Increase coordination and development of
long-term, large-scale environmental moni-
toring
Develop methods for aggregating data from
short-term and local monitoring programs
Develop improved methods to measure
inherent variability and characterize uncer-
tainty
Develop improved methods to identify and
reduce knowledge uncertainties in ecologi-
cal benefits assessments
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
15
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
research to refine methods for incorporating probabilistic outcomes into benefits assessments using Monte
Carlo techniques, interval mathematics, and other approaches. EPA's ongoing environmental monitoring
efforts can provide valuable information about the frequency and magnitude of apparently random changes
in ecological systems (see Actions 3.2.1-1, -2, and -3).
Action 3-2,1-5: Develop improved methods to identify and reduce knowledge uncertainties in ecological
benefits assessments. Issues of model misspecification and uncertainties in parameter estimates are well-
known in both ecological and economic fields. Some of these effects can be measured or characterized.
Special focus is needed on uncertainties associated with linkages between ecological and economic models,
as these have received relatively less attention in previous research. As part of all of the actions described in
the following sections, EPA should investigate sources of uncertainty and methods for characterizing and
measuring it.
3.2.2 IMPACTS OF POLICY ON STRESSORS
The effectiveness of any policy is influenced by two key factors; the behavioral responses of individuals and
groups affected by the policy, and the technical efficacy of their responses. In addition to traditional com-
mand-and-control regulations, EPA policies include economic incentives, performance standards, information
campaigns, and voluntary programs. Information on how the targeted communities respond to different
policies helps to predict how those policies influence stressors in the environment. Sometimes, behavioral
responses result in a substitution of the original environmental risks with different risks, such as increases
in another stressor or a change in media through which a stressor passes.
Action 3.2,2-1: Incorporate and improve consideration
of behavioral responses to environmental policies. EPA
should ensure consideration of behavioral responses to
regulation in its development of guidance for benefits
assessments and by revising the guidelines for Analytical
Blueprints. EPA also should support applied studies that
characterize and quantify behavioral responses to a vari-
ety of regulatory strategies, including traditional com-
mand-and-control, economic incentives, voluntary pro-
grams, and information campaigns.
Action 3.2.2-2: Identify priority areas where trade-offs
between risks are critical and enhance capacity for rela-
tive risk assessments. EPA should revise the guidelines
for development of Analytic Blueprints to reflect the
importance of identifying when analyses of trade-offs
among risks are needed in the development of policy (i.e., when one or more policy options may decrease
some risks while increasing others). Increased training of risk assessors and the development of new meth-
ods for evaluating relative risks among stressors and pathways also would improve the Agency's ability to
account for risk-risk trade-offs that may arise from indirect human behavioral responses to policies.
Technical efficacy concerns the extent to which the measures taken are effective in reducing stressors. EPA
often has relied on mechanical technologies for pollution control, and the Agency's Environmental
Supporting Research: Policy Impacts
on Stressors
Improve consideration of behavioral
responses to environmental policy
Enhance capacity for relative risk assess-
ment
Support research to quantify the effective-
ness of ecologically based pollution controls
Increase and improve ex-post analysis
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Technology Verification (ETV) Program (USEPA 2006) has a long history of research on the effectiveness of
such technologies. The more recent emphasis on performance-based regulations has broadened the scope of
pollution control to include many ecologically based measures, such as maintenance of vegetative buffers or
rehabilitation of damaged ecological structure or function.
Action 3.2,2-3s Invest in research on methods to estimate expected stressor reductions from ecologically
based pollution controls. Estimating reductions in stressors is necessary for predicting the extent of changes
in ecological benefits assessment endpoints and requires the use of atmospheric, hydrologic, and other fate
and transport models. Whereas some of these models are well developed, others require further refinement
for specific situations, regions, and scales. In some cases, research on the influence of key parameters is
required. For example, models may need to account for the effects of scale-related parameters, such as the
location of a restoration project within a watershed, width of vegetation buffers, or shape of habitat patches.
Research also should address sources of variability and uncertainty, especially those contributing to down-
side risk or irreversibilities.
Action 3.2.2-4t Increase and improve ex-post analysis of the effects of EPA policy, including remediation or
restoration projects. Evaluation of policy alternatives across EPA programs could be improved by stronger
firsthand evidence and a firm understanding of the past effectiveness of similar actions, including the extent
of successfully restoring lost goods and services. Improving ex-post analyses involves identifying and track-
ing appropriate indicators (see Action 3.2.1-1) and supporting applied research to detect and measure site-
specific changes in the quantity, flow, and timing of stressors and ecological responses in the environment.
EPA should increase available empirical data by making post-project monitoring and reporting a condition of
project funding (see Action 3.3-1). In the longer term, the Agency should analyze results of individual poli-
cies and projects to identify patterns and conditions that determine the effectiveness of policies across
regional scales. Related research, which would support and benefit from more and better ex-post analysis,
includes methodologies to synthesize data from different environments and monitoring efforts (see Action
3.2.1-3), measurement of the effectiveness of ecologically mediated controls (see Action 3.2.2-3), and
improvements in fate and transport models.
3.2.3 IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN STRESSORS ON ECOLOGICAL ENDPOINTS
Rigorous benefits assessments require understanding and quantifying how ecological systems will respond to
changes in stressors. A substantial portion of the Agency's ecological research portfolio addresses how envi-
ronmental stressors affect ecological systems. This provides valuable information for risk assessments, some
of which is pertinent to benefits assessment. A reorientation of some ecological research according to two
concepts, however, could further improve EPA's benefits assessments. First, research should be more inter-
disciplinary. Including social scientists in ecological research projects can help improve the applicability of
the research in benefits assessment. Second, more research should apply a "production function" perspec-
tive. This approach views certain socially important ecological goods and services as outputs of ecological
processes, analogous to the way that human-made goods and services are outputs of industrial or service sec-
tor processes. The five actions that could help the Agency implement these two concepts as it adapts its eco-
logical research portfolio are;
Action 3-2,3-ls Develop capacity for population modeling applicable to ecological benefits assessment.
Biological populations may be valued by society as marketable commodities for a variety of uses, including
hunting and fishing; non-consumptive recreational uses; pollination, seed dispersal, and other indirect uses;
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 17
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and simply their existence. Many population models exist, particularly for commercial fish and forestry
species. Models for other species of interest to the Agency, however, are lacking. In the ecological research
community as a whole, attention increasingly is being paid to collecting data and developing models for
more species in more locations. EPA should take advantage of this opportunity to incorporate population
modeling more rigorously into its decision-support systems. A comparative survey of available population
modeling approaches and their relative strengths and weaknesses for use in ecological benefits assessments
would be an important first step. Gaps in existing modeling approaches should become priorities for new
research. On one side, research should link model parameters, such as reproduction and mortality, to expo-
sure to stressors. On the other side, research should align population model outputs with economic models
of social welfare.
Action 3.2,3-2: Improve linkages between stressor exposure data and effects on populations. As indicated
in Action 3.2.3-1, a critical requirement for expanding the use of population modeling is the linkage between
key population parameters and exposure to stressors. In this way, analysts can estimate how changes in the
quantity, flow, or timing of stressors lead to changes in a population. EPA ecological risk assessments often
are based on laboratory experiments that determine lethal doses or lethal concentrations, but these metrics
generally cannot be translated directly into changes in population abundances or viabilities. Further, they do
not always account for sublethal effects that might significantly alter population dynamics. A more complete
understanding of how stressors impact population dynamics would account for both the direct (lethal and
sublethal) effects of stressors on organisms, and their effects on intra- and interspecific interactions between
organisms. Expanded use of both laboratory- and field-derived data in population models could help to pre-
dict a wider range of potential effects.
Action 3-2,3-3t Identify and develop critical communi-
ty-level modeling capacity. Two situations call for more
extensive ecological modeling. First, the proximal
impact of stressors is often on species that do not affect
social welfare directly, but which contribute to the pro-
duction of species that are valued directly, such as har-
vested species. EPA should support further develop-
ment of models of species interactions (known as com-
munity or food web models) so that indirect effects of
changes in stressors on social welfare may be better
quantified. Second, society often values species assem-
blages that are highly diverse, independently of the
value derived from the abundances of particular species
within the assemblage, as often is the case with bird
watching activities. EPA should adapt existing models,
and develop more models as needed, that explicitly
include community-level attributes, such as species rich-
ness or other measures of diversity, as state variables for
use in ecological benefits assessments.
Action 3-2,3-4: Develop capacity to model ecosystem
processes for ecological benefits assessment. Many
environmental policies may produce ecological benefits through changes in ecosystem processes. Examples
Supporting Research: Stressor Exposure
on Ecological Endpoints
Develop capacity for population modeling
Improve linkage between stressor exposure
and population model parameters
Develop capacity for community-level mod-
eling
Identify and develop critical community-
level modeling capacity
Improve ability to measure and to model
changes in ecological endpoints across spa-
tial scales.
Expand use of bioeconomic models
18
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
of ecosystem processes that generate ecological goods or services valued by society are groundwater filtra-
tion, which may improve the purity of drinking water (a marketable commodity), and groundwater recharge,
which can help maintain the persistence of wetlands and thereby support recreational hunting activities
through otherwise dry seasons. One way to account for ecosystem processes in benefits assessments is to
treat them as production functions that may be influenced by the presence of stressors (e.g., a degraded envi-
ronment produces fewer services or lower quality goods). Research in this area should focus on the current
limitations in EPA's ability to describe the influence of the quantity, flow, or timing of stressors on ecosystem
processes. Research in this area should;
• Identify the ecological goods and services of importance to society and the processes that support them;
• Survey existing approaches for modeling these ecosystem processes as production functions;
• Focus on critical inputs and parameters affected by stressors responsive to EPA policies;
• Develop both mechanistic and statistical approaches, as well as approaches applicable at multiple geo-
graphic scales;
• Conceptually model critical ecosystem processes as production functions, identifying inputs and parame-
ters affected by stressors under EPA authority; and
• Identify the most important remaining gaps and support data collection and research to develop
improved or new approaches to fill these gaps.
Action 3.2.3-5s Improve ability to measure and to model changes in ecological endpoints across spatial
scales. Measures of changes in ecological endpoints can vary depending on the spatial scale that is under
consideration, from field plots and streams to river basins or larger scales. Extrapolating across scales could
lead to under- or overestimation of the benefits of a policy. Given the variation and interconnectedness of
ecosystems, EPA should invest in geospatial approaches that collect spatially referenced data to improve
models of the impacts of changes in stressors on ecological endpoints, which generally are not distributed
uniformly over space. In addition to those that can account for spatial heterogeneity, models are needed that
are designed specifically for applications at a variety of scales, including watersheds, regions, and the entire
country, because many EPA policies are implemented at those scales. Such models should be able to charac-
terize baseline ecosystem conditions and the natural vari-
ability of ecosystems at different scales as well as predict
potential impacts caused by policy alternatives.
Supporting Research: Ecological
Endpoints and Social Welfare
Action 3.2,3.-6: Expand use of linked ecological-economic
models in ecological benefits assessment. Models of
ecological processes and economic models of human
behavior can sometimes be linked. An advantage of such
linked models, sometimes called "bioeconomic models,"
is that they can provide the ability to account for ecologi-
cal dynamics and human behavioral feedbacks that may
result from policy changes in an integrated manner. A
variety of bioeconomic models have been developed for
use in forestry and fishery applications, but there is
Develop and apply valuation methods to
address EPA needs
Improve survey methods through pie- and
post-survey validity testing
Improve capacity and methods for benefit
transfer
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
opportunity for making wider use of this approach in EPA benefits assessments. Particular areas of need
include;
• Bioeconomic models that relate EPA policies to changes in stressors, ecological processes, and socially
valued goods and services;
• Adapting or developing models that incorporate recreational uses activities, including nonconsumptive
use; and
• Incorporating non-use values into bioeconomic models.
Bioeconomic models can also be useful for identifying critical ecological and economic data to be collected in
research supporting ecological benefits assessment.
3.2.4 IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN ECOLOGICAL ENDPOINTS ON SOCIAL WELFARE
Understanding the relative values that society places on ecosystem goods and services is critical for designing
effective and efficient environmental policies. Economists have developed a variety of methods for estimat-
ing the value of environmental changes. Some economic valuation methods may be more appropriate for
certain situations, but all have limitations that may hinder analysts' abilities to estimate values. A key diffi-
culty arises from the fact that few ecological goods and services are linked directly to a market, which other-
wise would provide some information about social value.
When evaluating different policy options, EPA may undertake original valuation studies, or as more often is
the case, may transfer results from previous valuation studies to estimate the value of new policies. This lat-
ter practice is known as "benefit transfer." Enhancing EPA's ability to estimate the economic value of ecolog-
ical changes in benefits assessments requires supporting applied, interdisciplinary valuation research and
methods development. Three actions that could help the Agency make improvements in this area are;
Action 3.2.4-ls Support research to adapt and apply economic valuation methods that are best suited for
valuing changes in ecological goods and services. Research is needed that combines both stated preference
approaches and revealed preference approaches to take advantage of their combined strengths. Other prom-
ising areas for advancement include;
• Adapting hedonic pricing models to estimate the implicit value of a wider variety of environmental
amenities and conditions;
• Adapting random utility models to estimate the value of a wider variety of ecological goods and services
from observed demand for similar or related market goods and services, or for nonmarket activities, such
as outdoor recreation;
• Estimating explicit production function models to incorporate indirect effects (see Action 3.2.3-3); and
• Applying mathematical optimization techniques to estimate the value of ecological resources and to
design more cost-effective strategies for targeting ecological restoration and protection activities.
Research in these areas also should examine sources of uncertainty in these methods and means of measur-
ing variability.
20 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Action 3.2,4-2: Improve survey methods by expanding pre- and post-survey validity testing. In addition to
estimating values for particular policy changes, stated preference surveys can provide a better understanding
of the kinds of changes in the environment that are most meaningful to the public in general. This in turn
can help identify ecological endpoints on which to focus in EPA's environmental monitoring programs. Two
key factors influence the quality of information obtained from surveys to estimate values of ecological goods
and services; (1) how well the respondents comprehend the good or service being valued (i.e., the attributes
of the ecological resources that may change under alternative policy scenarios); and (2) how well the
researcher can interpret respondents' answers to survey questions. In conducting original studies, EPA
should use accepted survey design methods, including focus groups and pre-testing, to address the first fac-
tor. More importantly, however, natural and social scientists should design the survey together so that it
appropriately bridges the outputs of ecological data and models to potentially valuable ecological goods and
services. The second factor calls for rigorously testing various hypotheses about the motivations underlying
survey responses. Expanded use of techniques developed through research in the psychology of decision-
making, including focus groups, debriefing, and experimental design protocols, could be helpful here. EPA
should review these techniques and compile a guidance document for benefits assessment practitioners.
Action 3.2.4-3t Improve capacity and methods for benefit transfer for ecological goods and services.
Conducting original studies in support of specific benefits assessments often is not feasible. EPA can pursue
a number of strategies to improve assessments that rely on information from studies conducted outside of
the policy context in question with a specific focus on ecological goods and services. Examples of such strate-
gies are;
• Conduct and support interdisciplinary valuation studies to cover a larger variety of ecological endpoints,
including generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints (see Action 3.1-8), and situations;
• Assess the influence of both the changes in ecological and economic variables and the features of the
policies that bring about those changes so that transferred estimates of value may be adjusted appropri-
ately for new policy scenarios; and
• Support research to characterize sources of variability and uncertainty in benefit transfer.
Increased research on integrative benefit transfer methods, such as meta-analysis, and their application also
should improve the Agency's ability to synthesize results from multiple studies for more accurate and precise
transfers to new cases.
3.2.5 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROACHES
Monetizing benefits is useful in part because it allows different types of benefits to be combined and com-
pared directly to costs, or to the benefits of alternative policies. Furthermore, dollars are a familiar medium
of exchange and may be more easily understood by the public than unfamiliar biophysical measures of bene-
fits. However, because combining different benefits into a single unit of measurement can mask critical dif-
ferences that may be important to policymakers and stakeholders, approaches that explicitly rate or rank
multiple attributes of different policy options are sometimes preferred. For example, experts might be asked
to rate policy alternatives according to attributes such as expected cost and feasibility as well as predicted
ecological, health, and social outcomes. Policymakers or stakeholders then might be asked to weight the rela-
tive importance of these attributes.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 21
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Whether ecological benefits are to be given a relative weight or be fully monetized, a preference elicitation
process often is required. Because choices involving ecological relationships tend to be unfamiliar, proce-
dures that allow for the construction of these preferences may have advantages over those that assume they
are formed already. Preference construction techniques may involve, for example, embedding iterative cogni-
tive tasks within a survey or conducting structured group discussions prior to administering a survey. Group
discourse also may encourage individuals to form preferences that reflect public policy concerns to a larger
degree as compared to surveys of individuals.
Some have argued that the complexity and indispensable life-support role of ecological systems are sufficient
reasons to develop valuation approaches that are founded on biophysical analysis rather than individual wel-
fare. Policy analysis using models of material or energy flows through linked, ecological-economic systems
may be a useful complement to standard economic analysis. Three actions that could improve EPA's ability
to apply supplemental valuation approaches in ecological benefits assessments are;
Action 3.2.5-1: Evaluate rating and ranking procedures to complement economic valuation. EPA should
determine the usefulness of rating and ranking approaches, including multi-attribute approaches, as supple-
mental methods for valuing ecological changes. This evaluation should consider the internal consistency and
robustness of values elicited by each approach, the
degree to which each approach is consistent with demo-
cratic processes, and the ability of each approach to
describe long-term ecological, financial, and social out-
comes of policy alternatives objectively.
Supporting Research: Supplemental
Approaches
Evaluate rating and ranking procedures
Evaluate biophysical approaches to
valuation
Apply hybrid decision approaches in
field trials
Action 3.2,5-2: Evaluate analytical methods based on
ecological-economic system properties. Various biophys-
ical approaches for measuring ecological changes in non-
monetary terms have different strengths and weakness-
es. These approaches should be reviewed and compiled
to develop a reference document for benefits analysis
practitioners and to identify areas where additional
research is needed. Special attention should be paid to
the unique assumptions underlying each approach and how directly each approach can be related to policy.
Action 3-2.5-3: Conduct trial applications of hybrid decision approaches in future benefits assessments.
The supplemental approaches referred to above are not mutually exclusive, nor are they necessarily incom-
patible with monetary valuation methods. Various hybridizations of standard economic approaches with
constructive, discourse-based or systems-based approaches also can be useful for policy analysis. Hybrid
approaches can be developed and their performance evaluated to determine their usefulness for Agency deci-
sionmaking.
22
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3.3 COORDINATION WITH PARTNERS
The challenges EPA faces in improving ecological benefits assessments are substantial, as are the opportuni-
ties for major advancement, especially if Agency efforts can be combined with those of partners in other
organizations and academia. Because EPA relies heavily on science and best practices developed outside of
the Agency, better communication and coordination of research efforts will be crucial to improve Agency ben-
efits assessments. EPA also could increase its influence on the direction of outside research and leverage
additional resources for internal activities through better communication. Actions that could help improve
Agency coordination with outside partners include;
Action 3-3-ls Provide direct support to studies relevant to Agency ecological benefits assessments. Grant
programs, such as the ORD's Science To Achieve Results (STAR) program, provide funding to external
research institutions to address the Agency's needs for ecological, economic, and interdisciplinary research.
Requests for proposals through such programs could be designed to help promote the actions outlined in
this Plan, especially by;
• Applying a production function approach that links changes in stressors to changes in ecological goods
and services of relevance to the Agency; and
• Emphasizing the transferability and scalability of results across ecoregions, geographic and temporal
scales, and landscape contexts.
Action 3-3-2: Improve communication with outside researchers about the Agency's needs for ecological and
economic research. Increased communication with academic researchers will help encourage more policy-
relevant studies that EPA can use in benefits assessments (see Action 3.2.4-3). Some key points to communi-
cate include the importance of;
• Using generic ecological benefits assessment endpoints (see Action 3.1.7) and other priority endpoints
for both ecological and economic studies;
Establishing baseline conditions and trends in ecosystems of concern;
Using standardized indicators and other measures to
quantify policy-relevant endpoints (see Actions 3.1-8 Coordination With Partners
and 3.2.1-1); and
Support studies relevant to Agency policies
• Focusing on incremental changes in stressors, eco-
logical goods and services, and social welfare. Improve communication of Agency research
needs
Methods for communicating needs include; participa-
tion by EPA staff in professional meetings; publication Increase coordination of data collection and
of position papers, press releases, and journal articles; research across agencies
and support for new venues, including print or online
journals, books, and workshop proceedings for high- Expedite procedures for collecting informa-
quality applied research. Development of standard tion about public values
methods for under-represented ecological endpoints
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 23
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
could help fill some of the knowledge gaps that exist in Agency benefits assessments and currently are filled
through applications of benefit transfer and best professional judgment.
Action 3.3-3s Increase coordination of data collection, monitoring programs, and research with other agen-
cies. The quality and quantity of data supporting ecological benefits assessment can be enhanced by leverag-
ing EPA's efforts and resources with those of other agencies. EPA can work with its partners to coordinate
and consolidate ecological data collection and socioeconomic surveys. Promising opportunities for leveraging
resources include;
• Continued support for the international Earth Observation System of Systems
(http://www.epa.gov/geoss/index.html);
• Coordination with domestic partners to leverage resources for the long-term monitoring of a wider array
of ecosystems; and
• Coordination of collection and sharing of data to reduce duplication.
Action 3-3-4'- Explore approaches for facilitating approval of information collection requests (ICRs) related to
collecting information from the public for use in ecological benefits assessments. The ability to complete rig-
orous ecological benefits assessments will be enhanced by incorporating more information about the values
society places in ecosystem goods and services. An efficient approval process for EPA's ICRs would help
ensure that surveys and other data collection instruments can be administered in a timely and effective man-
ner. EPA should coordinate with other federal agencies to explore options that facilitate more rapid review
and approval of ICRs.
Implementing the actions described in this section will require a sustained effort, one that is fully coordinat-
ed throughout the Agency and with its external partners. An overall approach to implement these actions
for improving ecological benefits assessments is described in the next section.
24 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
4 IMPLEMENTATION
Section 3 identified strategic actions needed to realize this Plan's goal of helping to improve Agency decision-
making by enhancing EPA's ability to identify, quantify, and value the ecological benefits of existing and pro-
posed policies. Sustained progress towards this goal requires a strategy to implement these actions effective-
ly. This section proposes a structure and process to implement and adapt over time EPA's strategy, and iden-
tifies near-term implementation priorities.
EPA is a large and complex organization with two research offices, ORD and OPEI, and multiple program
offices operating under a variety of statutes. The implementation structure and process outlined in this sec-
tion emulates or uses existing Agency elements and functions to coordinate activities and refine priorities.
Its structural elements include an oversight committee at a high management level and a staff-level forum.
Its process for informing the actions of Program Offices, ORD, and OPEI relies on the development of pro-
gram-specific Action Plans. By identifying programmatic priorities and needs, these Action Plans form the
basis for discussion and coordination of ecological benefits assessment improvement activities across the
Agency.
4.1 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
Improving ecological benefits assessments requires a supportive institutional structure. Two groups within
the Agency are envisioned to provide that support. The first would be at a high management level to provide
guidance and direction. The second would be at the staff level to provide practical assistance and technical
expertise. Both would operate across the Agency's offices.
4.1.1 OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
A high-level Agency committee is needed to oversee and guide progress toward rigorous, interdisciplinary
benefits assessments supported by good science. An Oversight Committee, with technical and management
representation from across the Agency, ultimately would be responsible for implementing the strategy
described in this document. The Oversight Committee would coordinate activities among offices, promote
new institutional arrangements, and monitor general progress toward Agency goals.
A primary responsibility of the Oversight Committee would be to consider Program Office Action Plans and
the research agendas of ORD and OPEI (see below) to identify cross-Agency priorities for improving ecologi-
cal benefits assessment. One of its functions would be to leverage resources to support those priorities. Key
considerations for identifying cross-Agency priorities include;
• Relevance to the overall goal of this Plan and the actions it outlines;
• Significance to multiple offices, regulations, and policies;
• Likelihood of success; and
• Opportunity to leverage external resources and expertise.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 25
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
An important first step in implementing the EBASP would be for the Oversight Committee to supervise revi-
sions to the guidelines for preparing an Analytic Blueprints to promote;
• Formation of interdisciplinary assessment teams (Action 3.1-3);
• Coordination of information between ecological risk and benefits assessments (Action 3.1-4);
• Consideration of behavioral responses to regulations (Action 3.2.2-1); and
• Consideration of risk trade-offs (Action 3.2.2-2).
In the near term, the Oversight Committee would be responsible for developing performance measures and
tracking the success of EPA's efforts to improve ecological benefits assessment. The Committee also would
be responsible for the periodic review of the EBASP to set goals reflecting the changing needs of environmen-
tal protection and the evolving state-of-the-science.
The Science Policy Council may be well-positioned to take on the responsibilities of an Oversight Committee
and could be so charged by the Administrator upon release of this Plan.
4.1.2 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT FORUM
A staff-level forum, open to all analysts in the Agency, could provide an effective means of exchanging
knowledge and promoting good practices for ecological benefits assessment. This forum also could provide a
convenient source of expertise to advise EPA offices and the Oversight Committee. The Agency's Economics
Forum and Risk Assessment Forum provide potential models for an Ecological Benefits Assessment Forum
(EBAF), which would serve as a central point for Agency-wide communication, discussion, and evaluation of
crosscutting issues related to ecological benefits assessment. Its primary roles would be to ensure consisten-
cy in practices across the Agency, provide technical assistance to analysts, and facilitate the flow of informa-
tion.
In implementing this Plan, the EBAF would be responsible for developing guidelines for planning and con-
ducting ecological benefits assessments (Action 3.1-6), and for developing generic ecological benefits assess-
ment endpoints projects (Action 3.1-8).
The EBAF could undertake other activities described in Section 3 within its primary role. These include;
• Providing advice on adapting and developing monitoring programs (Actions 3.2.1-1 and 2);
• Reviewing and disseminating methods for characterizing and measuring variability and uncertainty
(Actions 3.2.1-4 and 5);
• Reviewing and disseminating available population models (Action 3.2.3-1); and
• Reviewing and disseminating supplemental approaches for policy analysis (Actions 3.2.5-1, 2 and 3).
26 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The EBAF also could be the lead group for the Agency to coordinate the collection of ecological and socioeco-
nomic data with other federal agencies (Action 3.3-3).
An Ecological Benefits Assessment Forum should be charged upon release of this Plan.
4.2 PROCESS
This Plan describes a series of broad actions that are meant to provide direction for the Agency to improve
ecological benefits assessment. Defining specific activities, particularly supporting research, should be left to
individual offices. Program Offices should develop Action Plans and research projects that address their spe-
cific needs but that also reflect the overall goal and actions described in this Plan. The Agency's research
offices, ORD and OPEI, would then use these Action Plans, along with the EBASP itself and additional input
from the Oversight Committee, to inform their research agendas.
Program Office
Action Plans
OPEI
Research Plans
ORD
Multiyear
Plans
STAR & Other
Collaborations
Ecological Benefits
Assessment Strategic
Plan (EBASP)
Figure 3s Research planning and implementation relationships.
Relationships among the planning activities in the Agency are illustrated in Figure 3. The EBASP can play a
central role in communicating the overall goals and direction to improve Agency ecological benefits assess-
ments. The Plan communicates broad actions that would lead to more rigorous, comprehensive, and inter-
disciplinary benefits assessments, and identifies the mechanisms that the Agency could use to facilitate
implementation. Actual implementation will be supported through the development of Program Office
Action Plans, research planning in ORD and OPEI, and interactions with external partners through STAR and
other grant programs and coordination activities.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
27
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
4.2.1 PROGRAM OFFICE ACTION PLANS
Individual EPA Program Offices operate under different statutory mandates and generally are concerned with
different stressors, although the potential for substantial overlap exists in many instances. Different stres-
sors, different media, and different regulatory authority imply that Program Offices will have different needs
relative to ecological benefits assessment. At the same time, multiple offices may be concerned with a simi-
lar set of ecological endpoints that influence social welfare. Furthermore, many benefits assessments will
have similar components regardless of which office conducts them. The differences will lie in the specifics
of the policy and the stressors involved.
To help inform Agency efforts, each Program Office should create an Action Plan that identifies its needs for
monitoring data, analytical methods, and targeted research. Plans should indicate short-term (1-2 years),
medium-term (up to 5 years), and long-term requirements. Research activities should follow from the
actions described in this Plan and indicate how they further programmatic and Agency goals. Action Plans
would be considered by the Oversight Committee, which would identify cross-Agency priorities based on
considerations like those noted in Section 4.1.1.
Research needs should reflect the office's statutory mandates and the office's mission under EPA's current
Strategic Plan. These considerations will help articulate the office's regulatory and policy priorities. In addi-
tion to informing EPA's internal process for identifying priority research needs, the Action Plans can play a
key role in communicating the Agency's needs to external researchers (Action 3.3-2). By placing research
needs in context, the Action Plans may help encourage relevant studies in academic and other research insti-
tutions. Equally important, Action Plans should specify any new institutional arrangements that the office
intends to make to foster interdisciplinary assessments and ensure rigorous assessments.
Development of Action Plans should be one of the first steps taken to implement the EBASP. Program
Offices may use a number of mechanisms to develop their Action Plans, including the problem formulation
workshops described in Action 3.1-5. Action Plans should be updated periodically to reflect evolving office
needs and should be designed to assist the Oversight Committee in implementing the broad actions
described in this Plan.
4.2.2 ORD AND OPEI RESEARCH
Broadly speaking, research conducted by the Agency can be described as problem-driven or core (USEPA
2001). Problem-driven research focuses on specific environmental problems reflecting immediate regulatory
and policy requirements. Core research seeks to improve fundamental understanding of the key biological,
chemical, physical, economic, and human behavioral processes that underlie environmental systems.
Problem-driven and core research are not entirely separable. In fact, they are highly complementary and
interactive. Both problem-driven and core research contribute to EPA's ability to conduct ecological benefits
assessments by improving understanding of ecological and economic systems, and enhancing EPA's ability to
quantify changes in those systems.
ORD focuses on developing the ecological and human health science and technology needed to fulfill EPA's
mission. ORD engages in a multiyear planning process, which identifies and communicates the direction
of its research program in 5- to 10-year time horizons. Planning is based on Agency priorities and needs,
28 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
direction from ORD senior leadership, and external advice. The ultimate goal of the planning process is the
alignment of resources to best address the Agency's evolving needs.
NCEE, housed within OPEI, fulfills a mission similar to ORD's with respect to economic science. NCEE's
mission is to advance the practice of economics within EPA by developing new economic methods and by
promoting the use of established methods to new areas. NCEE provides assistance to other EPA offices
through its research products, review of economic analyses of proposed EPA policies, and publication of eco-
nomic guidance materials. NCEE works with ORD's grants funding program on a continuing basis to commu-
nicate research needs. Periodic workshops and seminars sponsored by NCEE also help disseminate EPA's
research needs, original research by EPA staff, and EPA-funded research.
ORD and OPEI, based in part on the priorities communicated by the Oversight Committee, can use the
EBASP and program-specific Action Plans to guide development of their research agendas. ORD and OPEI
plans for research supporting ecological benefits assessment should be updated regularly as old goals are
reached and new goals are established. ORD and OPEI should coordinate to; provide cross-disciplinary train-
ing (Action 3.1-2); provide technical support for problem-formulation workshops (Action 3.1-5); lead the
development and adaptation of monitoring programs (Action 3.2.1-1 & 2), including coordination with exter-
nal partners (Action 3.3-3); communicate research needs to external partners through STAR and other mecha-
nisms (Action 3.3-1); support new publication outlets (Action 3.3-2); and lead EPA's efforts to facilitate data
collection (Action 3.3-5).
4.3 CONCLUSION
Improving EPA's ability to conduct rigorous, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary ecological benefits assess-
ments will take time and a strong commitment. EPA will need to facilitate interdisciplinary and cross-office
communication, establish and communicate priorities, align resources across the Agency, and plan and con-
duct a variety of specific research efforts. Some of the strategic actions identified in the Plan can be imple-
mented immediately, while others will require incremental changes in Agency practices and priorities. The
Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan can be a helpful road map to guide continuous improvement in
the Agency's ecological benefits assessments that support good decisionmaking using good science.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 29
-------
-------
REFERENCES
Arrow, KJ, ML Cropper, GC Eads, RH Hahn, LB Lave, RG Noll, PR Portney, M Russell, R Schmalensee, VK
Smith, and RN Stavins. Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regula-
tion? Science 1996;272;221-222.
Daily, GC. Introduction; what are ecosystem services? In; GC Daily (ed.). Natures Services: Societal
Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC; Island Press, 1997.
Daily, GC. Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services. Environmental Science Policy
2000;3;333-339.
Daily, GC, S Alexander, PR Ehrlich, L Goulder, J Lubchenco, PA Matson, HA Mooney, S Postel, S H Shneider, D
Tilman, and GM Woodwell. Ecosystem services; benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosys-
tems. Ecological Society of America, Issues in Ecology, Number 2, Spring 1997. Available from;
http;//esa.org/science_resources/issues/Text!ssues/issue2.php.
Freeman, AM, III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 2nd
Edition. Washington, DC; Resources for the Future, 2003.
King, DM. Comparing Ecosystem Services and Values. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, January 12, 1997. Accessed March 4, 2004 at;
http://www.darp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/kingpape.pdf.
NRC (National Research Council). Ecological Indicators for the Nation. Committee to Evaluate Indicators for
Monitoring Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments, Washington, DC; National Academy Press, 2000.
Principe, PP. Ecological benefits assessment; a policy-oriented alternative to regional ecological risk assess-
ment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1995; 1 ;423-435.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Washington, DC; Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, December 1983, Publication Number—
EPA-230-84-003.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Washington, DC; Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, December 1991, Publication Number—
EPA-230-84-003. 1983 Guidelines reprinted with Appendices in March 1991.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC;
Risk Assessment Forum, April 1998, Publication Number—EPA/630/R-95/002F. Available from;
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ecorsk.htm
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010.
EPA Report to Congress. Research Triangle Park, NC; Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Policy,
November 1999, Publication Number—EPA-410-R-99-001.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 31
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington,
DC; Office of the Administrator, September 2000a, Publication Number—EPA 240-R-00-003. Available from;
http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Assessing the Neglected Ecological Benefits of Watershed
Management Practices. Prepared by ICF Incorporated for the Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, April 2000b.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Office of Research and Development Strategic Plan.
Washington, DC; Office of Research, 2001, Publication Number—EPA 600-R-01-003.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). A Framework for the Economic Assessment of Ecological
Benefits. Washington, DC; Office of Science Policy, Social Sciences Discussion Workgroup, February 2002a.
Available from; http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Research Strategy: Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Research Triangle Park, NC; Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, July 2002b, EPA 620/R->02/002. Available from;
http://www.epa.gOv/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/E MAP_Research_Strategy.pdf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) for
Ecological Risk Assessments. Washington, DC; Risk Assessment Forum, October 2003a, Publication
Number—EPA/630/P-02/004F. Available from; http://epa.gov/ncea/raf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Action Development Process: Guidelines for Preparing
Analytic Blueprints, Final Review Draft. Washington, DC; September 2003b.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Technology Verification Program. Available
from; http://www.epa.gov/etv/index.html. Accessed February 21, 2006.
Whigham, DF. Ecosystem functions and ecosystem values. In; R.D. Simpson and N.L. Christensen, Jr. (eds.).
Ecosystem Function and Human Activities: Reconciling Economics and Ecology. New York, NY; Chapman
and Hall Publishers, 1997, pp. 225-239.
32 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
APPENDIX A
CURRENT STATE OF AGENCY PRACTICE OF ECOLOGICAL
BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS
During the past few decades, the Agency has made substantial progress in providing guidance and tools for
conducting ecological and economic assessments, particularly with regard to ecological risk assessments and
BCAs. In general, however, ecological and economic assessments at the Agency have been pursued independ-
ently for the most part. This appendix describes the Agency's current practice of ecological benefits assess-
ment from a general perspective. It focuses separately on the activities of ecological assessments and eco-
nomic benefits assessments, as these tend to be conducted separately even when ecological benefits are
identified as being important during planning stages. Noted are some of the key challenges that ecological
benefits analysts face as a result of this practice.
A. 1 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
Ecological assessments at EPA take many forms, depending on the legislative mandates and decisions that
they support. The forms include prospective risk assessments to evaluate environmental management
options (e.g., for a proposed waste site or registration of a pesticide) and retrospective assessments of ecolog-
ical impacts to diagnose their causes and to evaluate mitigation options (e.g., at a Superfund site). Also
included are assessments of ecological responses to stressors (e.g., toxic substances) to support the develop-
ment of environmental quality criteria (e.g., ambient water quality criteria) and assessments of environment
monitoring data to document the condition of the nation's ecosystems (e.g., for EPA's Regional State of the
Environment reports). In conducting ecological risk assessments, the Agency generally follows the principles
outlined in its Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998a).
In conjunction with many other factors, ecological risk assessment plays an important role in Agency deci-
sions. Ecological risk assessment is a process "used to understand and predict the relationships between
stressors and ecological effects in a way that is useful for environmental decision making" (USEPA 1998a, pg
1). Figure A-l shows a stylized representation of a standard ecological risk assessment at the Agency. This
figure is consistent with the representation in the Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998a),
but it has been generalized and simplified to focus on the key similarities and differences between ecological
assessments and economic benefits assessments, which are depicted later in Figure A-2. The shaded box
contains the stages of the assessment itself; the arrows from outside the box illustrate how ecological knowl-
edge, methods, models, and data inform each stage.
Problem formulation, the first stage in ecological risk assessment, begins with information from the planning
dialogue and includes several activities. Analysts determine the context and scope of the assessment, identi-
fy likely stressors and exposure pathways, and select assessment endpoints (USEPA 1998a). Assessment end-
points are the ecological entities and their attributes that have a clear relationship with risk management
goals (USEPA 1998a, 2003b). Examples of such endpoints are trout abundance and richness of species in a
fish community. Analysts then develop a conceptual model of the system in which they link the stressors to
the endpoints via direct and indirect pathways, considering also the effects of other co-occurring stressors.
Problem formulation concludes with the development of an analysis plan specifying the data and methods
that analysts will use to assess ecological risks.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN A-1
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ecological knowledge, methods, models, and data
Problem formulation: selection of
assessment endpoints and
development of a conceptual model
and analysis plan
Analysis of exposure and responses to
stressors, and characterization of risks
to ecological endpoints
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Decision-
makers
Figure A-l: Stylized representation of a standard ecological risk assessment.
The remainder of the ecological risk assessment involves analysis of ecological exposures and responses to
exposure (effects) and characterization of risks to (or effects on) the assessment endpoints. Analysis of expo-
sure entails an evaluation of the magnitude of co-occurrence of stressors and ecosystem components (e.g.,
organisms, populations, and communities) over time and space. Analysis of ecological effects requires the
development of stressor-response profiles that describe the likely responses of those ecosystem components
to such exposures. Analysis of effects generally is based on data from laboratory and field experiments or
observational studies of the same or similar stressors on similar ecosystem components. Risk characteriza-
tion integrates the exposure and effects assessments to estimate the potential for adverse effects on the
assessment endpoints. Ecological risks are communicated to the decisionmakers together with interpreta-
tion of the significance of the risks, and possibly with recommendations for actions to mitigate effects, or
with assessments of the effectiveness of different mitigation actions.
If the management goal is to protect against unacceptable adverse effects, a risk assessment may need only
to identify a level of exposure below which such adverse effects are not expected to occur. In such cases, a
full description of a stressor-response curve is not needed. This is the approach EPA currently uses to estab-
lish ambient water quality criteria and cleanup goals for Superfund sites (Stephan et al., 1985; USEPA 1997).
Other management goals (e.g., the selection of best management options where some adverse effects cannot
be avoided) may require an evaluation of changes in ecological endpoints in response to changes in exposure
levels for different management options, and thus may need full stressor-response curve information. In
these cases, estimated changes in the ecological assessment endpoints can be used to characterize the degree
of risk reduction associated with alternative management actions.
Although the assessment process described above appears as a series of steps, the process is generally itera-
tive, with information obtained during initial analyses informing refinements or re-evaluations of problem
formulation and analysis plans. For detailed information on how the Agency conducts ecological risk assess-
ments, see EPA's Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998a) and An Examination of EPA Risk
Assessment Principles and Practices (USEPA 2004a).
A-2
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Agency also conducts ecological assessments using monitoring data that represent the condition of vari-
ous ecosystem attributes (e.g., USEPA 1998b, 2004b). EPA can use that information to assess the effective-
ness of Agency programs in achieving environmental improvements; identify emerging environmental
issues; document changes in ecosystem condition caused by stressors beyond the Agency's immediate influ-
ence (e.g., changes in land use); and specify the baseline conditions against which the Agency should evalu-
ate the results of its actions. These data also are intended to support the prioritization of areas and ecosys-
tems for protection via enforcement actions and voluntary programs (USEPA 1998c).
EPA's primary monitoring efforts include its nation-wide EMAP and several regional EMAP efforts (R-EMAP).
EMAP is a long-term research effort designed to assess ecosystem conditions and trends across the United
States (USEPA 2002). In the Aquatic Resource Monitoring component—the only component implemented at
the national level to date—EPA uses the physical, chemical, and biological measurements from specified
EMAP sampling locations to develop indications of aquatic ecosystem condition. For more information on
EMAP, visit EPA's EMAP Web Site.1
A.2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS
The overall goal of an economic assessment of ecological benefits is to predict the changes in people's well-
being that result from changes in ecosystem services. The type of economic analysis that is performed
depends on legislative mandates, the type of environmental issues being addressed, and the type of benefits
in question. When data or methodological limitations preclude a comprehensive and reliable dollar estimate
of ecological benefits, those benefits can be expressed quantitatively (i.e., in biophysical measurements) or
even qualitatively. In these situations, an indication of the value of a resource, even absent estimates of
change, can provide information to decisionmakers about its relative importance.
Figure A-2 provides a stylized representation of a standard economic benefits assessment of ecological
changes as currently practiced at EPA. In general, the problem is defined by legislative statute or possibly by
an ecological risk assessment. Once policy options are identified, it usually falls to Agency economists to
estimate the benefits and costs of each option. The second stage of the economic benefits assessment is to
determine the likely changes in ecological conditions resulting from each potential policy action. Often, the
only sources of information readily available for predicting ecological changes are the risk assessment, if one
was conducted prior to the benefits assessment, or existing studies in the literature.
In the third stage of the economic benefits assessment, changes in ecological conditions are monetized using
one or more economic valuation methods. Economists generally attempt to estimate the value of ecological
goods and services based on what people are willing to pay (WTP) to increase ecological services or by what
people are willing to accept (WTA) in compensation for reductions in them. To enable a comparison of poli-
cy options, a common unit is needed to express the value of ecological goods and services. The dollar is
the preferred unit for valuation, because there is an extensive body of literature addressing its application
and interpretation and it is easily compared with costs for considering the net effects of alternative policy
choices. Three primary approaches for estimating these values exist; market-based methods, revealed pref-
erence methods, and stated preference methods (USEPA 2000).
1http://www.epa.gov/emap
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN A-3
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Characterization of
problem and
management options
I
i
>
EC
Assessment of
changes in
ecological
conditions
y
Valuation of changes in a
limited set of goods and services
JONOMIC ASSESSMENT &
i
Decision-
makers
Economic knowledge, methods, models, and data
Figure A-2: Stylized representation of a standard economic benefits assessment.
Market-based valuation methods can be used to estimate the gains and losses to producers and consumers
when ecosystem changes directly affect commercial activities (e.g., agriculture or commercial fishing). In the
simplest cases, increases in commercial production can be valued at the price observed in the market. EPA
has used market-based approaches for benefits assessments that include changes in ecosystem goods or serv-
ices. One example is the Economic Analysis of the Final Revisions to the NPDES and Effluent Guidelines for
[Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations] CAFOs (USEPA 2003a).
Revealed preference methods can be used to value ecosystem services that, although not bought or sold
directly, are associated with goods or services traded in markets. These methods are based on the idea that
people's behavior, even outside of well-established markets, reveals the value that they place on environmen-
tal goods or services. EPA used recreation-demand modeling, a type of revealed preference method, to evalu-
ate actions under the Clean Water Act (CWA); an example can be found in the Effluent Guidelines, Metal
Products and Machinery Final Rule: Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis (USEPA 2003b).
Unlike revealed preference methods, which rely on observed behavior, stated preference methods elicit peo-
ple's WTP or WTA from surveys that describe hypothetical situations. For example, survey respondents may
be asked how much they would be willing to pay to be able to boat, fish, or swim in a lake where water qual-
ity problems currently prohibit such activities, but where various efforts at clean-up might achieve condi-
tions that allow or favor those activities. Stated preference approaches are the sole means of estimating non-
use values, such as existence value, because they are not associated with any observable functioning market.
EPA has used the results of stated preference research in its economic analyses. For example, EPA relied
heavily on a stated preference study of the value of visibility at national parks in its analysis of the 1991 reg-
ulation of sulfur emissions at an Arizona coal-fired power plant to improve visibility in the Grand Canyon
(USEPA 1991). The study was funded by EPA and the National Park Service. A detailed description of the
survey and its use in the economic analysis can be found in Morgenstern (1997).
The time and resources available for economic benefits assessments at EPA, however, are typically insuffi-
cient for conducting original economic valuation studies for each new assessment. Thus, benefits assess-
ments often use values estimated for similar ecological goods and services from existing studies, a practice
called "benefit transfer." Most EPA analyses rely on benefit transfer to some extent. Even the Grand Canyon
A-4
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
example cited on the previous page could be considered an example of benefit transfer. The values applied
to visibility improvements at the Grand Canyon in the winter months were initially developed as estimates
of improvements in average visibility conditions over all seasons at all national parks in California, the
Southwest, and the Southeast. For more information on how the Agency conducts economic benefits assess-
ments, see EPA's Economic Guidelines (USEPA 2000).
A.3 REFERENCES
Morgenstern, RD (ed.). Economic Analyses at EPA. Assessing Regulatory Impact. Washington, DC;
Resources for the Future, 1997.
Stephan, CE, DI Mount, D. Hansen, JH Gentile, GA Chapman, and WA Brungs. Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; Office of Water, 1985. NTIS PB85-227049.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of a Revision of the Federal
Implementation Plan for the State of Arizona to Include SO2 Controls for the Navajo Generating Station.
Washington, DC; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1991.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process
for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final. Edison, NJ; Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, June 1997, Publication Numbers—EPA 540-R-97-006, OSWER 9285.7-25, PB97-
963211.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC;
Risk Assessment Forum, April 1998a, Publication Number—EPA/630/R-95/002F. Available from;
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ecorsk.htm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic
Region; A Landscape Atlas. Washington, DC; Office of Research and Development, 1998b, Publication
Number—EPA/600/R-97/130. Available from; http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/maia-atlas.html.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Ecosystem Targeting Workshop Summary Report, July 28-30,
1998, U.S. EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. Prepared by ICF Consulting,
Fairfax, VA, for the USEPA Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, Washington, DC. December
1998c.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington,
DC; Office of the Administrator, September 2000, Publication Number—EPA 240-R-00-003. Available from;
http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Research Strategy: Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Research Triangle Park, NC; Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, July 2002, Publication Number—EPA 620/R-02/002. Available
from; http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/EMAP_Research_Strategy.pdf.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN A-5
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Economic Analysis of the Final Revisions to the NPDES and
Effluent Guidelines forCAFOs. Washington, DC; Office of Water, 2003a, Publication Number—EPA-821-R-
03-002. Available from; http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafodocs.cfm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Effluent Guidelines, Metal Products and Machinery Final
Rule: Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis. Washington, DC; Office of Water, 2003b, Publication
Number—EPA-821-B-03-002. Available from; http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/mpm/eeba/index.htm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and
Practices. Washington, DC; Office of the Science Advisor, 2004a, Publication Number—EPA/1 OO/B-04/001.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Coastal Condition Report II. Washington, DC;
Office of Research and Development/Office of Water, 2004a, Publication Number—EPA-620/R-03/002.
Available from; http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/index.html.
A-6 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
APPENDIX B
PAST AND CURRENT EPA EFFORTS TO IMPROVE
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENTS
In recent years, EPA, other federal agencies, and a number of nongovernmental organizations have participat-
ed in collaborative efforts designed to improve the state-of-the-science and practice of ecological benefits
assessment. These efforts have included original research, workshops and symposia, case studies, discourse
among organizations, and the development of guidance for Agency staff. The EBASP builds on these past
and current efforts by identifying institutional changes and actions to advance the Agency's capabilities in
assessing ecological benefits. This Appendix briefly describes important past and current efforts in this area,
and in doing so, provides some of the rationale for the development of the EBASP. It also describes the key
features of this Plan that distinguish it from other efforts.
B. 1 PAST EPA AND OTHER EFFORTS
In 1981, the President issued Executive Order 12291, which directed federal agencies to assess the costs, ben-
efits, and economic impacts of their major regulations and established a formal review process by Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). To assist Agency analysts in meeting OMB requirements, EPA issued its
Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analyses (or RLA Guidelines, USEPA 1983), which provide a brief
description of what was required for assessing costs, benefits, and economic impacts of Agency policies and
actions. The RIA Guidelines were updated in 1991 with several appendices including the Analysis of
Benefits, which provide general recommendations on methods of estimating benefits in several categories,
including; human health; agriculture, fisheries, and silviculture; materials; recreation; aesthetics; and
ecosystems (USEPA 1991). For the last category, the RIA Guidelines acknowledge that "estimating the bene-
fits (or damages averted) of environmental regulations that affect ecosystems is perhaps the most complex
problem in benefits analysis" (p. A-19). The RIA Guidelines further note that many ecosystem service flows
may not be apparent, are difficult to understand, and are difficult to measure with conventional economic
methods (p. A-20).
Some offices within EPA developed more detailed guidance to help staff conduct economic valuations of at
least some ecological changes. For example, in 1990, the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP)
and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) published The Economics of Improved Estuarine
Water Quality; An NEP [National Estuary Program] Manual for Measuring Benefits (USEPA 1990a). This man-
ual provides guidance on using standard economic valuation techniques to monetize ecological benefits such
as recreational swimming, fishing, and boating, and commercial fishing. Around the same time, the Office
of Policy Analysis (OPA) was supporting the development of techniques for estimating economic values for a
wider range of ecosystem services, including many that typically are overlooked, such as pest and disease
control, pollination, microclimate control, and nutrient cycling (draft final report Ecosystem Services and
Their Valuation, USEPA 1990b).
In its 1990 report Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, the EPA SAB
stated that the value of natural ecosystems was inadequately considered in setting priorities at EPA and
insufficient for EPA decisionmaking in general (USEPA 1990c). The SAB identified two key problems; (1) the
focus of current economic models on structural attributes of ecosystems rather than ecosystem functions
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN B-1
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and relationships, and (2) the fact that current ecological models generally do not describe the "services" of
ecosystems. In that report, the SAB recommended that EPA "develop improved analytical methods to value
natural resources and to account for long-term environmental effects in its economic analyses" (USEPA
1990c).
Partly in response to SAB's recommendations, OPPE established an Ecosystem Valuation Forum in 1990. A
key purpose of the Forum was to assist EPA "in overcoming piecemeal approaches to incorporating ecosystem
values into a benefit/cost framework" (Brody and Kealy 1995, p. 67). Its objectives were to improve existing
methods and develop new methods for valuing ecosystem services. During 1991 and 1992, the Forum met in
a series of public workshops and identified many challenges to valuing ecosystem services, including the
limited understanding of the many complex relationships between ecosystems and human well-being. The
outcome of this effort was published in a special issue of Ecological Economics (1995, Vol. 14) and recom-
mended that economists and ecologists collaborate on additional case studies as a next step in the process of
improving ecological benefits assessments. Changing priorities and Agency reorganizations led to the discon-
tinuation of the Ecosystem Valuation Forum.
The issuance of Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review in 1992 reaffirmed requirements
for the analysis of social benefits and costs for significant regulatory actions. In addition to those require-
ments, economic assessments are called for under various administrative statutes (e.g., Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of1999). Recognizing the importance of high-quality economic analysis, in 2000, OMB released
its Guidelines to Standardize Measures of Costs and Benefits and the Format of Accounting Statements
(USOMB 2000).
In 2000, EPA significantly updated and revised its RIA Guidelines by publishing the Guidelines for Preparing
Economic Analyses (USEPA 2000a). The Economic Guidelines incorporate the advancements in techniques
for benefits estimation, different economic models for assessing costs and other effects, and the greatly
expanded data sources and related guidance materials developed since 1983. With respect to ecological bene-
fits, the Economic Guidelines provide a categorization scheme based on how directly benefits are experi-
enced by the public and how the benefits relate to the private good/public good continuum. That categoriza-
tion is intended to help analysts identify which monetary valuation techniques are applicable in different
situations. The Economic Guidelines assume implicitly that the necessary quantitative information on
changes in ecological conditions, processes, and service flows can be provided by ecologists and other natural
scientists.
In 2000, the SAB published Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-Making, a followup to its 1990
Reducing Risk report, which provided a conceptual vision for "the next step" in environmental protection for
the United States (USEPA 2000b). The report describes some important considerations for public environ-
mental decisionmaking and the need for broad participation in the decisionmaking process. The SAB recom-
mended that "when evaluating risk reduction options, EPA should strive to weigh the full range of advan-
tages and disadvantages, both those measured in dollars as costs and benefits and those for which there may
not be a comprehensive dollar measure, such as sustainability and equity" (USEPA 2000b, p. 39, Recommend-
ation 5). The SAB further recommended that "EPA should seek and develop methods to characterize public
values and incorporate those values into goal-setting and decision-making" (USEPA 2000b, p. 40,
Recommendation 6).
B-2 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
As a step toward implementing this recommendation, EPA sponsored a public workshop, Understanding
Public Values and Attitudes Related to Ecological Risk Management, which brought together experts from
ecology, economics, psychology, decision science, and anthropology to consider a specific case study (USEPA
2001). The case study chosen for evaluation was nitrogen deposition in Tampa Bay, because data on the eco-
logical services necessary to support economic valuation already had been collected. The centerpiece of the
workshop was a series of presentations on research approaches to assess public environmental values associ-
ated with the Bay. The workshop took a preliminary step toward implementing one of the suggestions in the
SAB report Toward Integrated Environmental Decision Makingby creating a forum for open discussion on
the topic of natural resource valuation. The workshop affirmed that the goal of understanding public values
requires the use of social science approaches, which must be selected according to context and fully integrat-
ed with the environmental science of the valuation problem.
In 2002, EPA published A Framework for the Economic Assessment of Ecological Benefits (USEPA 2002),
which was developed by an EPA Science Policy Council workgroup. The Ecological Benefits Framework out-
lines a process by which ecologists and economists can conduct and coordinate an ecological benefits assess-
ment. The steps of an economic benefits analysis, as identified in the Economic Guidelines, are matched
and associated with the steps of an ecological risk assessment as outlined in EPA's Guidelines for Ecological
Risk Assessment (USEPA 1998). The Ecological Benefits Framework describes a process for conducting assess-
ments of ecological benefits, which assumes that the necessary methods, models, and data are available.
Because gaps exist in the state-of-knowledge and available assessment tools, implementation of the
Ecological Benefits Framework in many cases will require the development of new tools and data.
Furthermore, implementing the Framework requires that ecological risk assessments provide all of the neces-
sary information for a benefits, which assessment. Risk assessments and benefits assessments, however,
often are conducted for different purposes, so in many cases additional ecological analyses will be required
to provide all of the necessary information for a benefits assessment.
In 2003, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) published Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment
and Economic Analysis in Watersheds: A Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies (USEPA 2003a), which
describes ecological risk assessments conducted in three watersheds, followed by economic analyses. The
report discusses the successes and shortcomings of attempts to integrate the ecological and economic analy-
ses for each watershed, and it recommends a conceptual approach for integration that could be used in
future watershed management efforts. This conceptual approach is similar to that laid out in the Ecological
Benefits Framework, except that it focuses on local or regional, as opposed to national, decisionmaking and
is not limited to the BCA context.
Other federal agencies also have been addressing the challenge of valuing ecological benefits (e.g., NMFS
2000; USAGE 1995, 1996, 2003; USDA 1999, 2002; USDOE 1995; USFWS 1985, 1995). For example, in 2001,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) sponsored a workshop on Improving Environmental Benefits
Estimation, which included representatives from EPA and several other federal agencies. The workshop was
part of its overall strategy to improve environmental benefits estimation in its assessments of ecological
restoration and multi-purpose projects. One of ACE's goals in holding the interagency workshop was to
encourage multi-agency participation in the strategy. ACE has developed a white paper, Improving
Environmental Benefits Analysis, articulating its strategy (USAGE 2003). ACE recognizes that before it can
value many of the ecological benefits resulting from its projects, it must invest in long-term research efforts
and policy development.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN B-3
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In its revised guidelines for regulatory analysis, Informing Regulatory Decisions: 2003 Report to Congress on
the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities
(USOMB 2003), OMB discusses ecological benefits in a section entitled Benefits and Costs that are Difficult to
Quantify, OMB recommends that with BCAs, analysts should present not only monetized benefits, but also
any relevant quantitative information and descriptions of unquantified ecological effects.
B.2 RELATIONSHIP OF EBASP TO ONGOING EPA EFFORTS
A number of ongoing EPA activities and initiatives are aimed at improving the valuation of ecological bene-
fits. In 2003, the SAB convened a Panel on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services, The
purpose of the Panel is "to provide advice to strengthen EPA's approaches for assessing the costs and benefits
of actions designed to protect ecological systems and services, to identify research needs to improve how
ecological resources are valued, and to support decision-making to protect ecological resources."2 In addition,
the SAB Council, which advises EPA on its assessments of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act, has
formed an Ecological Effects Subcommittee to guide EPA in quantifying additional ecological benefit cate-
gories.
EPA's National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) and National Center for Environmental Economics
(NCEE) recently have released their draft EPA Environmental Economics Research Strategy (EERS) (USEPA
2003b). The EERS identifies EPA's highest priority research needs in environmental economics, describes the
short- and long-term research objectives for each need, describes the resources and tools needed to achieve
those objectives, and suggests a timeframe to meet the objectives. The EERS was developed in cooperation
with EPA's program and regional offices. Interviews conducted to identify top priorities for the EERS
revealed ecological benefits valuation as one of the areas of greatest need. The EBASP complements the
EERS by articulating research needs for ecological benefits assessment.
Through its Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grants program and other research mechanisms, ORD is con-
tinuing to support research through the Valuation for Environmental Policy3 grants program, as well as a
number of other areas that have the potential to advance methods and data for conducting ecological bene-
fits assessment.4 Recent solicitations for grants have requested research on ecological classification, monitor-
ing, and indicators, and frequently have focused on aquatic resources. The EBASP will assist ORD in defining
key research areas related to ecological benefits valuation.
NCEE and OW, together with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Army,
cosponsored a National Research Council (NRC) project on Assessing and Valuing the Services of Aquatic
Ecosystems. The NRC committee of academic experts was charged with evaluating methods for assessing
services, including intangible ones, and the associated economic values of aquatic and related terrestrial
ecosystems. The final report (NRC 2004) focuses on existing economic methods to value ecosystem services
quantitatively in support of improved environmental decision-making, including in situations where ecosys-
tem services can be only partially valued. The report also calls for greater collaboration between ecologists
and economists in such efforts (NRC 2004).
2http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/vpesspanel.html
3Prior to 2003, this was known as the Decision-making and Valuation for Environmental Policy program.
4http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/research.search/rpt/abs/type/3
B-4 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
B.3 THIS EFFORT AND LOOKING FORWARD
The efforts described earlier in this section demonstrate that EPA and other agencies consider improving eco-
logical benefits assessment to be a high-priority need. Several of those efforts were initiated and conducted
as independent actions by specific EPA offices, with expectations for next steps and procedures for imple-
mentation largely left undocumented. As a result, follow-up activities often did not occur. The preceding
material indicates the clear need for improved capabilities in ecological benefits assessment across EPA
offices. An Agency-wide mechanism to address this need, however, has not yet been established; because of
shifting Agency priorities and reorganization of the single sponsoring office, the Ecosystem Valuation Forum
was short-lived, and therefore could not guide the Agency along a sustained and organized effort.
Confounding this situation is the near-exclusive focus by past and ongoing activities on economic methods.
The EBASP is intended to improve this situation by devising a road map of actions that will help the Agency
steadily improve its ability to identify, quantify, value, and communicate the ecological benefits of its poli-
cies. The Plan recognizes that past efforts have been valuable, but also that much work remains to be done.
The EBASP distinguishes itself from other efforts by describing and advocating an interdisciplinary approach
to ecological benefits assessment, as well as identifying research activities and institutional changes that will
improve the Agency's capabilities in this area. The EBASP also provides an implementation approach to help
ensure that improvement efforts are sustained.
B.4 REFERENCES
Brody, MS and MJ Kealy. Foreword to Issues in Ecosystem Valuation; Improving Information for Decision
Making. Report of the Ecosystem Valuation Forum to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Special
Issue of Ecological Economics 1995; 14:67-70.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Services). Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Fishery Management
Actions. Silver Spring, MD; Office of Sustainable Fisheries, August 2000.
NRG (National Research Council). Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-
Making. Washington, DC; National Academy Press, 2004; 290 pp.
USAGE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Review of Monetary and Nonmonetary Valuation of Environmental
Investments. Alexandria, VA; Water Resources Support Center, Institute for Water Resources and Vicksburg,
MS; Waterways Experiment Station, February 1995, IWR Report 95-R-2. Available from;
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/inside/products/pub/iwrreports/95r02.pdf.
USAGE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Monetary Measurement of Environmental Goods and Services:
Framework and Summary of Techniques for Corps Planners. Alexandria, VA; Water Resources Support
Center, Institute for Water Resources and Vicksburg, MS; Waterways Experiment Station, November 1996,
IWR Report 96-R-24. Available from; http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/inside/products/pub/iwrreports/96r24.pdf.
USAGE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Draft Report on Improving Environmental Benefits Analysis.
Alexandria, VA; Institute for Water Resources, 2003.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN B-5
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of
Conservation Programs; The Case of the CRP. Washington, DC; Economic Research Service (ERS), 1999,
Agricultural Economics Report No. 778. Available from; http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer778/.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Part 610 Conservation Planning; National Resource Economics
Handbook. Washington, DC; Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), April 2002. Available from;
http://www.economics.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/econhandbook/index.html.
USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Valuation of Ecological Resources. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, for USDOE, April 1995, PNL-10533.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Washington, DC; Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, December 1983, Publication Number—EPA-230-
84-003.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington, DC;
Risk Assessment Forum, April 1998, Publication Number—EPA/630/R-95/002F. Available from;
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ecorsk.htm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). The Economics of Improved Estuarine Water Quality; An
NEP Manual for Measuring Benefits. Washington, DC; Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection and Office
of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, September 1990a, Publication Number—EPA 503/5-90-001.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Ecosystem Services and Their Valuation. Draft Final Report.
Prepared by RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc., for the Office of Policy Analysis. February 7, 1990b.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection. Washington, DC; Science Advisory Board, 1990c.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Washington, DC; Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, December 1991, Publication Number—EPA-230-
84-003. 1983 Guidelines reprinted with Appendices in March 1991.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington,
DC; Office of the Administrator, September 2000a, Publication Number—EPA 240-R-00-003. Available from;
http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-making.
Washington, DC; Science Advisory Board, August 2000b, Publication Number—EPA-SAB-EC-00-11. Available
from; http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ecirp011 .pdf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Understanding Public Values and Attitudes Related to
Ecological Risk Management. Washington, DC; Science Advisory Board, September 2001, Publication
Number—EPA-SAB-EC-WKSP-01-001. Available from; http://www.epa.gov/sciencel/fiscal01.htm (under
"Reports," then "Fiscal Year 2001").
B-6 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). A Framework for the Economic Assessment of Ecological
Benefits. Washington, DC; Office of Science Policy, Social Sciences Discussion Workgroup, February 2002,
Available from; http://epa.gov/osa/spc/eaeb.htm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment and Economic
Analysis in Watersheds: A Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies. Cincinnati, OH; Office of Research
and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2003a, Publication Number—EPA/600/R-
03/140R. Available from; http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm7deid=56868.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). EPA Environmental Economic Research Strategy, SAB Review
Draft, May 29, 2003b. Available from; http;//es.epa.gov/ncer/events/news/2003/06_23_03a.html.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Human Use and Economic Evaluation (HUEE). Washington, DC;
U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS Division of Ecological Services, 1985. 104 ESM.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). A Manual for Conducting Natural Resource Damage Assessment:
The Role of Economics. Washington, DC; U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS, Division of Economics,
1995. Available from; http://policy.fws.gov/NRDAIndex.html.
USOMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). Guidelines to Standardize Measures of Costs and Benefits
and the Format of Accounting Statements. Washington, DC; OMB Memorandum M-00-08, March 22, 2000.
USOMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). Informing Regulatory Decisions: 2003 Report to Congress
on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities.
Washington, DC, 2003. Available from; http;//www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003_cost-ben_final_rpt.pdf.
ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC PLAN B-7
-------
-------
f-r
------- |