&EPA
EPA/600/R-17/189 | June 2017 | wvvw.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National and Regional
FEGS Metrics and Indicators
2016 Workshop Report
Office of Research and Development
Western Ecology Division
-------
EPA/600/R-17/189
June 2017
National and Regional
FEGS Metrics and Indicators
2016 Workshop Report
by
Kim Meyer Hall
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Oak Ridge, TN
Project Officer: Paul Ringold
Western Ecology Division
Corvallis, OR, and 97330
-------
Notice/Disclaimer Statement
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Abstract
Final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) are the features of ecosystems directly valued by people.
Metrics and indicators that describe the state of FEGS to non-experts and beneficiaries with salience and
meaning facilitate effective communication and social analysis. This report covers work conducted at a
National and Regional FEGS Metrics and Indicators Workshop conducted in Portland, OR on July 16th
-18th, 2016. The purpose of the 2016 FEGS workshop was to: 1) define biophysical metrics and
indicators that are more directly relevant to human welfare and experience (i.e. FEGS); 2) identify the
gaps preventing scientists from defining welfare-relevant biophysical measures; and 3) review and refine
a proposed methodology to support the development of welfare relevant metrics and indicators. The
proceedings of the workshop have been distilled in this report.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) within the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) conducts systems-based, effects research needed to achieve
sustainable health and wellbeing. Research encompasses both human and ecosystem health, in that they
are inextricably linked.
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) are the features of ecosystems valued by people. Metrics
and indicators of National and regional scale FEGS could be utilized in a variety of applications. These
applications fall into three main categories: 1) Social Analysis, for example trade-off analysis including,
cost effectiveness analysis etc.; Green GDP accounting; non-market valuation studies; informing
ecological production functions and monitoring programs 2) Communication, for example reports to
congress, status and trends reports; and communication with the pubic and policy makers. 3) Defining
management objectives and predictive modeling, for example in model identification for decision
analysis. 4) Setting the requirements for ecological modeling and monitoring. This document distills
proceeding of a workshop that refined a methodology for scientists to use in the identification and
reporting of FEGS metrics and indicators.
iv
-------
Table of Contents
Notice/Disclaimer Statement ii
Table of Contents v
Acknowledgments viii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Background 2
2.1 Overarching Goals for National and Regional FEGS Metrics and Indicators 3
2.2 Proposed Methodology 3
3.0 Workshop Results 4
3.1 Boundary Issues 4
3.1.1 Human vs. Natural Capital 4
3.1.2 Human health: pathogens and contaminants 6
3.2 Aesthetics and Site Appeal 7
3.3 Data 7
3.4 Beneficiaries 8
3.4.1 How do beneficiaries relate to population level analysis? 8
3.4.2 At what level of detail should beneficiaries and ecosystem attributes be
defined? 9
3.4.3 How do we address translational differences that result from differing
intended metric uses, beneficiary types and ecosystem services provided? 10
3.4.4 How do we address non-use beneficiaries? 11
3.5 Component vs. aggregate metrics 12
4.0 Next Steps and Progress Since Workshop 13
5.0 Conclusion 15
References 16
V
-------
Table of Contents (continued...)
Appendix A: US EPA FEGS Task Summary Sheet 17
Appendix B: Workshop Agenda 19
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides 22
Appendix D: Workshop Beneficiary Summary Table 77
Appendix E: Workshop Notes 82
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides 121
Appendix G: Metric Development Since Workshop 139
Table of Figures
Figure 2.1. Outline of proposed methodology for FEGS metric and indicator identification.
4
Table of Tables
Table 1.1. Workshop Participants 2
Table 4.1. Ten candidate beneficiaries 13
Table 4.2. Ecosystem champion progress on indicator development 14
vi
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AED
Atlantic Ecology Division
FEGS
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
EPA
US Environmental Protection Agency
EPHD
Environmental Public Health Division
FEGS-CS
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System
GED
Gulf Ecology Division
GWERD
Ground Water & Ecosystems Restoration Division
IBI
Index of Biotic Integrity
MED
Mid-Continent Ecology Division
NARS
National Aquatic Resource Survey
NERL
National Exposure Research Laboratory
NGO
Non-Governmental Organizations
NHEERL
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
NRMRL
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ORISE
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
OW
Office of Water
RTI
Research Triangle Institute
RFF
Resources for the Future
USD A
United State Department of Agriculture
WED
Western Ecology Division
WQI
Water Quality Index
vii
-------
Acknowledgments
The author extends thanks to Arik Tashie, Kirsten Winters and Amanda Nahlik for contributing their
notes from the workshop for this report, and to the steering committee members who provided helpful
feedback to earlier drafts of this report. Thanks also to reviewers Ted DeWitt and Matthew Harwell for
their assistance in improving the quality of this report, and to Paul Ringold for his help in addressing
reviewer comments
viii
-------
1.0 Introduction
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) have been embraced as a means to identify
biophysical features that best link ecosystem changes to human well-being (Boyd et al. 2016).
Metrics and indicators that describe the state of FEGS to non-experts and beneficiaries with
salience and meaning facilitate effective communication and social analysis. Definition of these
metrics requires the integration of expertise from researchers familiar with particular ecosystems
and the diverse ways in which people directly interact with, and benefit from, these ecosystems.
A methodology that strives to achieve this result through the development of beneficiary specific
metrics and indicators, was first initiated during similar workshops in 2009 and 2010 (Ringold et
al. 2009, Ringold et al. 2011). Subsequent work, spearheaded by the Western Ecology Division
of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)1, has built upon this methodology and
was most recently reviewed and refined during a FEGS workshop conducted in Portland, OR on
July 16th -18th, 2016. This document distills the proceedings of the 2016 FEGS workshop.
The purpose of the 2016 FEGS workshop was to: 1) define biophysical metrics and indicators
that are more directly relevant to human welfare and experience (i.e. FEGS); 2) identify the gaps
preventing scientists from defining welfare-relevant biophysical measures; and 3) review and
refine a proposed methodology to support the development of welfare relevant metrics and
indicators. Twenty-two natural and social scientists were in attendance (see Table 1.1 for a list
of attendees). Within this group, a subset of seven natural scientists, called 'ecosystem
champions', were charged with developing metrics and indicators of ecosystem services for
specific ecosystems. The ecosystems represented by champions were wetlands, estuaries,
forests, agro-ecosystems, lakes, and streams. Another subset of the group consisted of seven
Steering Committee members - a group of scientists providing expertise on metric and indicator
development from both social science and natural science perspectives. The remaining
participants contributed expertise, support, or were otherwise interested in workshop outcomes.
The agenda for the three-day workshop is included in Appendix B. The first day began with
presentations and discussions that introduced the rationale for FEGS metrics and indicators, and
the history leading up to the current workshop, laying out workshop goals (see presentations 2
and 3 in Appendix C); and presenting a proposed methodology for the identification of national
and regional FEGS metrics and indicators (see presentation 4 in Appendix C). A presentation
and discussion of initial methodological issues followed (presentation 5 in Appendix C). The
day ended with presentations on other subtasks conducted under the EPA FEGS Task, including
the development of a tool to identify FEGS for communities; a revision of the FEGS
Categorization System (FEGS-CS) (Landers and Nahlik 2013); and the evaluation of the
EnviroAtlas and its inclusion of FEGS (Presentation 6-8 in Appendix C)1. During the second
day, ecosystem champions presented on the progress each had made in the initial development of
two beneficiary specific metrics or indicators for their representative ecosystem (presentations 9-
14 in Appendix C, and summary table in Appendix D). A valuable outcome of these
1 See Appendix A for a brief overview of the FEGS task at the US EPA
1
-------
presentations was the identification of questions and knowledge gaps relevant to the
development of these metrics and indicators. The third day was dedicated to planning next steps
for both steering committee members and ecosystem champions. Detailed Workshop notes are
included in Appendix E.
The following sections describe in more detail the workshop outcomes. Section 2 summarizes
background information presented during the pre-conference webinars and during the first day of
the workshop. Section 3 reports on the primary results, questions raised, and main themes of the
workshop. Section 4 lays out the next steps planned at the workshop, and the progress made
since the workshop. A summary and concluding remarks are included in Section 5.
Table 1.1. Workshop Participants
Name
Branch
Role
Ted Angradi
US EPA NHEERL MED
Lake Ecosystems Champion
Mary Barber
RTI
Participant
Walter Berry
US EPA NHEERL AED
Estuary Ecosystems Champion
James Boyd
RFF
Steering Committee Member
Tim Canfield
US EPA NRMRL GWERD
Agroecosystem Champion
Andrew Gray
USDA Forest Service
Forest Ecosystems Champion
Kim Hall
US EPA NHEERL WED ORISE
Ecosystem Champion Coordinator
Julie Hewitt
US EPA OW
Steering Committee Member
Robert Johnston
Clark University
Steering Committee Member
Jeff Kline
USDA Forest Service
Steering Committee Member
Dixon Landers
US EPA NHEERL WED
Participant
Jim Markwiese
US EPA NHEERL WED
QA Manager
Amanda Nahlik
US EPA NHEERL WED
Wetland Ecosystems Champion
Joan Nassauer
University of Michigan
Steering Committee Member
David Peck
US EPA NHEERL WED
Steam Ecosystem Champion
Charles Rhodes
US EPA OW ORISE
Participant
Jennifer Richkus
RTI
Participant
Paul Ringold
US EPA NHEERL WED
Steering Committee Member
Mark Russell
US EPA NHEERL GED
Participant
Arik Tashie
ORISE US EPA NERL
Participant
Tim Wade
EPA ORD NHEERL EPHD
Steering Committee Member
Kirsten Winters
US EPA NHEERL WED ORISE
Participant
2.0 Background
Prior to the workshop, a series of webinars familiarized the ecosystem champions and steering
committee members with the FEGS concept and proposed methodology for identification of
beneficiary specific metrics and indicators. This set of briefings also included a presentation
from one of the steering committee members on how to evaluate metrics and indicators of FEGS
for use in economic analysis (See Appendix F for presentation slides). Some of the information
2
-------
from these webinars was revisited on the first day of the workshop, and is summarized in this
section.
2.1 Overarching Goals for National and Regional FEGS Metrics and Indicators
FEGS metrics and indicators could potentially be utilized in a variety of applications. These
applications fall into three main categories:
1) Social Analysis, including cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis; ecosystem
accounts, visual impact assessments, non-market valuation studies and ecological
production function research and monitoring programs to support such analysis.
2) Communication, including reports to Congress, status and trends reports, and
communication with the pubic and policy makers.
3) Defining management objectives and predictive modeling, including in model
identification for decision analysis.
Many questions relating to the specifics of metric and indicator development came up over the
course of the workshop. These questions are presented and discussed in the Section III of this
report. Workshop discussion revealed that many of the answers to these questions might depend
on the intended application of the metrics and indicators - whether for social analysis,
communication or defining management objectives. These differing uses may also lead to
different representations of data particularly for indices. For the workshop, the decision was
made to assume for discussion purposes that the FEGS metrics and indicators in development
were to be used for communication purposes in status and trends reports. This application,
which has value for EPA and the Office of Water (OW), will serve as a starting point before
moving on to fine tune metrics and indicators for use in other settings and applications. Limiting
the application to this one settings allows the group to make decisions on boundary issues (i.e.
issues pertaining to scope) as well. After progress is made in this setting, the methodology will
be reviewed for its applicability in other settings.
2.2 Proposed Methodology
Development of a process to identify metrics of FEGS for each ecosystem class first began in
prior workshops centered on FEGS (Ringold et al. 2009, Ringold et al. 2011). A refined
methodology was proposed to ecosystem champions during the pre-conference webinars leading
up to the 2016 FEGS Workshop (see Appendix F). Champions then sought to develop a set of
FEGS indicators, using a case study of two particular beneficiary groups (i.e. two ways in which
people benefit from ecosystems).
The process involves a series of steps (Figure 2.1), starting with beneficiary identification, and
followed by identification of ecosystem attributes that are relevant to the specific beneficiary.
After these attributes have been selected, the ideal (desired) data to quantify this metric needs to
be identified. If these data do not exist, then available data that most closely resembles the
desired metrics must be used. Next these data need to be translated so that they are meaningful
to non-scientists. For the purposes of communication in a status and trends report, this involves
3
-------
classifying data and creating a report. Finally, ecosystem champions are asked to report on the
barriers that limited their ability to report on the FEGS metric for the selected beneficiary.
1. Identify
Beneficiaries
2. Identify
Attributes
3. Identify
Desired
Metrics
4. Identify
Available
Metrics
5. Translation
• Classification
• Reporting
6. Identify
Barriers
Figure 2.1. Outline of proposed methodology for FEGS metric and indicator identification.
3.0 Workshop Results
The general goals defined at the outset of the workshop were: to define ecological outcomes that
more directly matter to human welfare and experience; to identify the knowledge gaps
preventing scientists from defining welfare relevant metrics and indicators; and to review and
refine a proposed methodology to support metric and indicator development. Ecosystem
champions presented on progress made towards defining these ecological outcomes (Appendices
3 and 4), and a number of questions and issues were raised over the course of the workshop. In
some cases, the questions raised were addressed during workshop discussions. In other cases,
partial guidance was given, but in most cases, the issues raised will require follow up. Both
progress and the need for more investigation are documented in this section, organized by
themes.
3.1 Boundary Issues
3.1.1 Human vs. Natural Capital
Issue: While FEGS are meant to capture "final ecological" outcomes the boundary between
what is "ecological" and "not ecological" can be murky. The issue tends to arise in two areas: (1)
FEGS related to human health, and (2) ecological features that can be considered artificially
engineered.
In theory, FEGS are at the interface between humans and ecosystems, but because all ecosystems
are affected to varying degrees by humans, the location of the interface is not always entirely
clear. For example, should a good measure of FEGS distinguish between wild fish and long-
lived hatchery fish, (e.g. salmon), which were originally placed in the ecosystem by humans, but
live naturally in the ecosystem for years and provide benefits to anglers and others? This is an
issue because hatchery fish include both ecological and economic (human) inputs. Additionally,
is there a perceived difference for anglers between catching a wild fish compared to a stocked
fish? With stocked tree stands, another example, do we treat those planted trees in the same way
4
-------
as we would corn, a planted crop because they both require economic inputs? Or would this
approach lead to a misrepresentation of the ecosystem services of planted forests?
Access to FEGS is another example of this type of boundary issue. Access (via roads or other
infrastructure) can determine whether FEGS are utilized by humans and also affect the costs
associated with extraction or experiencing. Prior to the workshop, there was not full consensus
on how to incorporate access into FEGS metrics and indicators.
Discussion: For cases where the boundary is not clearly defined by the FEGS concept, a decision
ultimately has to be made about where to draw the boundary so that it can be consistently
applied. In many cases pragmatism may drive the ultimate decision. For example, if there is no
practical consistent way to track stocked vs. wild fish, then there is no way to differentiate the
difference in ecosystem service. Drawing the line at self-sustaining populations was one rule of
thumb proposed at the workshop. This policy would mean that planted forests and stocked fish
would be considered FEGS, but corn crops would potentially not. For economic analysis, the
decision on where to draw the boundary may not ultimately matter as long as all human and
ecological inputs and outputs are accounted for. This information would allow the analyst to
correct for the economic inputs of management.
To address the forestry boundary issue, using the site productivity index as a proxy for the timber
FEGS is a potential approach proposed at the workshop. This index is well established in
forestry to measure the soil productivity of a given site with respect to producing timber. This
index is attractive because it removes the economic inputs of management from the
measurement, but has drawbacks in that it may not completely reflect the FEGS, timber in
particular, of a forest. It is also not responsive to alternative policy change, which limits its
usefulness for social analysis.
Two strongly held views were expressed on the inclusion of access in the characterization of
FEGS. The difference in view is whether FEGS need to actually be consumed, appreciated or
enjoyed to be counted as FEGS. If they do, then accounting for access should be included in the
quantification of FEGS. The discussion on the issue of access resulted in a decision not to
include access in FEGS metrics and indicators or in the quantification of FEGS. That view is
consistent with the notion that FEGS exist even where there is no access - they are the
biophysical features that nature provides. While data on access (or more directly the number of
people consuming appreciating or enjoying the resource) is important for subsequent social
analysis, this data is not directly related to biophysical provision of FEGS. Therefore, while data
on access is complementary to the biophysical FEGS metrics, the guidance provided to
champions leaving the workshop was to exclude access in the quantification of FEGS.
Conclusion/Next steps: The separation between analysis that falls in the domain of ecologists
and social analysts was a common theme during the workshop, and one that came up frequently
while discussing these boundary issues in particular. Sometimes the issues were resolved by
recognizing the differentiation between ecological and social analysis, as it was with the issue of
access. Identifying FEGS metrics and indicators that include only biophysical information
encourages consistency in the definition of the metrics. However, in some instances metrics that
5
-------
serve as a proxy for the FEGS metrics may include social information. For example, some
champions may find that the best estimate they are able to provide for fish abundance (a
biophysical metric) is catch per unit effort (a proxy for fish abundance that incorporates human
activity technology and skill). This boundary definition is important in helping champions bound
the data that they need to seek and in helping social analysts understand an important boundary
in the data.
3.1.2 Human health: pathogens and contaminants
Issue: Pathogens and contaminants in ecosystems impact humans but there is some confusion about how
to represent them as FEGS. Ultimately, pathogens and contaminants affect human health, leading some
to wonder if human health outcomes should be considered FEGS. If FEGS metrics by definition measure
ecosystem features, then considering a human health outcomes approach as FEGS would imply that
humans are a part of the ecosystem. Alternatively, concentrations of pathogens and contaminants could
instead be used as the FEGS metrics, however pathogens are generally not perceptible to humans, and
concentration are usually not a meaningful measurement to non-scientists. One of the guiding principles
in FEGS metric selection is to select metrics and indicators that best reflect ecosystem components that
are relevant, and directly matter to people. On the other hand, there is evidence that residential property
prices do respond to pathogen levels (Bin & Czajkowksi 2013, Leggett and Bockstael 2000, Papenfus in
review).
Discussion: In discussing the first issue about human health outcomes as FEGS, remembering that FEGS
are defined as the final handoff between humans and the ecosystem helped shed light on the issue. With
this definition in mind, it makes sense that FEGS metrics should differentiate between humans and the
ecosystem, meaning that the metrics should separate humans from the ecosystem.
This conclusion raises the issue of how exactly to represent FEGS with respect to pathogens and
contaminants. For example, despite the fact that humans are not able to perceive pathogens, or interpret
the impact of pathogen concentrations on their welfare, there is evidence that residential property prices
respond to pathogen levels. Workshop participants posited that people are most likely responding to
beach closures as a proxy for pathogen concentration.
In the case of pathogens, and contaminant concentrations, an additional translation is required in order for
humans to evaluate the impact on their well-being. Some workshop participants drew parallels between
air pollution, and associated measures of mortality/morbidity. Dose-dependent risk calculations are
common in the environmental health field and could be applied in this context to better communicate the
effect of pathogen and contaminant concentrations to humans. This translation is likely to be beneficiary
specific because of the different ways in which beneficiaries interact and benefit from ecosystems.
Conclusion/Next steps: Workshop participants drew a boundary between humans and ecosystems, based
on the definition of FEGS and decided to use risk of illness as a FEGS metric instead of using human
health outcomes. Because these pathogen and contaminant concentrations are not perceptible, workshop
participants concluded that the FEGS should be some translation of concentrations that reflect risk of
illness to humans. These types of translations are common in the public health arena, and drawing from
this expertise would be beneficial in FEGS metric and indicator development for pathogen and
contaminant concentrations.
6
-------
3.2 Aesthetics and Site Appeal
Issue: Issues relating to aesthetics (or site appeal) were among the most recurrent themes
throughout the workshop, with issues including the exact definition of aesthetics, how aesthetics
relate to site appeal and sensory experience, and the best way to measure aesthetics. Aesthetics
are important to many ecosystem beneficiaries. Reliably measuring aesthetics is therefore
necessary in order to examine these FEGS, but current data sets on aesthetics are few, and issues
relating to how to measure and define aesthetics persist.
Discussion: To measure the enjoyment of place, one champion relied on 'site appeal', a
subjective measurement taken by field crews during National Aquatic Resource Survey (NARS)
data collection. This site appeal measurement consists of a 5-point scale, ranging from "1:
Enjoyment nearly impossible" to "5: Beautiful". One steering committee member pointed out
that there is a body of literature in aesthetics that can be used to improve on this metric. The
aesthetics measurement should be based on the objective characteristics of a place, and visible
characteristics are typically the focus, although there is increasing research measuring effects of
sound on aesthetic experience of landscapes as well. The landscape aesthetics literature has
converged on a limited number of attributes that factor into enjoyment of place. These attributes
include contrast in relief, open/running water, varied height in cover types, seasonal change in
color, and long panoramic views. Tying the site appeal metric to physical characteristics like
these would make it more reliable and less susceptible to subjective bias.
Conclusion/Next Steps: A request will be made to RTI to further investigate the literature on
attributes and metrics for aesthetics.
3.3 Data
Issue: Issues relating to data were another common theme of the workshop. The champion's
presentations in particular revealed many issues relating to data quality, availability, scale, space
and time that will need to be addressed in order to develop national and regional FEGS metrics
and indicators. At the most basic level, champions found that data sets were often not available
to directly measure the FEGS attributes of interest. When data do exist for a particular metric,
there is often great variability in data quality, sample frame size, and extent. Sometimes the data
are not publicly available or difficult to obtain. Location data can be fuzzy, for example with
USDA data, and locations are also difficult to trace with probability sampled datasets, such as
those created by USEPA. In most cases in which secondary data are being used, metric
development is likely not the intended use of the data.
Discussion-. Data on fish population attributes serves as an illustration of these types of issues.
While there are no national scale fish surveys for lakes or estuaries, in some cases fish
population surveys are available for limited areas, but particular demographic information (size
distributions, species compositions, etc.) are not always available. These surveys are often
performed by state agencies or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's)'s and are not always
consistent in the data collected across surveys. For example, some surveys collect species
composition data, while others only measure presence or absence of a subset of fish taxa. Fish
7
-------
landings could serve as a proxy for data on fish populations, but this measure is not ideal because
it is highly dependent on economic inputs and fishing regulations in a given area, therefore it
may not accurately reflect information on the actual fish population in an area. As the data
currently stands on fish populations, conducting national or regional scale analysis is likely
infeasible, although analysis could potentially be performed at smaller scales.
Beyond the sampling issues already mentioned, other significant spatial and temporal issues
exist, particularly in relation to scale and ecosystem boundaries. For example, how do we
address FEGS that are created in one ecosystem but whose benefits accrue in a different location
or ecosystem? Clean water is a good example of this type of FEGS; it might flow from one
ecosystem to another. In some cases, this question can be resolved by differentiating between
FEGS and intermediary goods. For example, water absorbed in a forest that flows to a stream
would be considered an intermediate ecosystem service in the forest, but a FEGS in the stream
from the perspective of a beneficiary who consumes stream water. Another related challenge is
to accurately address overlapping environmental classes, for example a stream ecosystem in a
forest or agroecosystem, that ensures the FEGS or captured but not double counted.
Additionally, some FEGS are too ephemeral to measure, or vary greatly over time, or with
season. These types of FEGS may require different types of measurements, for example
examining the maximum or minimum measurement over a period of time, as in peak flow for
rivers at is relates to flood risk, or moving window analysis.
Conclusion/Next Steps: These data issues brought up the questions: Who determines what
agency data is gathered and why? Should we be collecting more data to address FEGS or should
we attempt to use what we have? What would a national scale FEGS assessment look like?
While most of these questions remain unanswered, the EPA context was discussed, and the ways
in which the National Aquatic Resource Survey (NARS) data collection was related to the Clean
Water Act. In some cases, minor changes to the sampling protocol for NARS could yield better
metrics for national and regional FEGS, and could potentially be incorporated into upcoming
NARS surveys2. In other cases, significant changes would need to be made to incorporate the
ideal FEGS metrics into the surveys; changes that would be infeasible in the short term.
3.4 Beneficiaries
Beneficiary identification is the first step in metric identification methodology proposed in this
research (see Section 2.2 above), therefore correctly identifying beneficiaries is critical to metric
development. A number of issues pertaining to the identification of beneficiaries arose during
the workshop, the level of resolution required, how to address non-use beneficiaries, and how
metric and indicator translation might change with beneficiary type and with the kind of
ecosystem service provided.
3.4.1 How do beneficiaries relate to population level analysis?
Issue: In this research, a beneficiary is defined such that a person can be a beneficiary for
multiple different FEGS. There has been some confusion about how beneficiaries extrapolate
2 One of the workshop participants is involved in NARS sampling protocol development
8
-------
out to population level analysis in a way that avoids double counting. A related issue is that
beneficiaries are frequently bundled, which could confound attribute identification. For example,
a property owner who cares about their property aesthetics, might be bundled with a recreational
viewer also interested in aesthetics, which might be cause for concern when selecting the
appropriate attributes for aesthetics3.
Discussion: Populations are composed of individuals, and individuals are composed of multiple
beneficiary classes. Each beneficiary class cares about a specific bundle of attributes. In theory
every individual could be decomposed into multiple beneficiaries, however weighting these
beneficiaries requires additional information, as does extrapolating beneficiary classes to
population level analysis. This additional information is generally in the domain of the social
analyst, and is not required at this stage of FEGS metrics and indicator development.
As long as beneficiaries are defined at the appropriately fine level of detail, the problem of
defining the appropriate metrics for coupled beneficiaries may be overcome. For example, in the
case of aesthetics for the coupled beneficiaries of property owner and recreational viewer, the
two beneficiaries will likely have different preferences and relevant attributes for aesthetics in
each case. This would lead to the individual caring about multiple attributes for aesthetics, each
relating to a different beneficiary type.
Conclusion/Next Steps: This discussion revealed one of the strengths of the beneficiary
approach, which is that it prevents analysts from omitting relevant ecosystem metrics from their
analysis. Defining ecosystem beneficiaries at the appropriate level of detail, and then identifying
ecosystem attributes that are important to these beneficiaries, allows for a more complete social
analysis of ecosystem services than would an ecologically centered approach. In the examples
presented here, the metrics for the aesthetics attribute of an ecosystem would differ by
beneficiary. Without acknowledging the multiple ecosystem beneficiaries, relevant metrics for
aesthetics could be omitted or mis-specified. This omission could lead to a misrepresentation of
the FEGS leading to a poor understanding of the ways people are benefitting from the ecosystem.
3.4.2 At what level of detail should beneficiaries and ecosystem attributes be
defined?4
Issue: Prior analysis has shown that a high level of beneficiary specificity is required to correctly
identify relevant ecosystem attributes (Ringold et al. 2009, Ringold et al. 2011). Conducting a
full accounting requires a high level of detail, but too much detail may lead to intractable and
expensive data collection requirements. For example, a catch and consume angler may care
directly about the contaminants in a fish, but a catch and release angler likely will not. Given that
measuring biologically relevant levels of contaminants is expensive, getting this specification
3 Consistent with this example, we know that the same individuals in different situational contexts may have
different aesthetic preferences. We also know that knowledge affects perception. So, the same person may have
different aesthetic perceptions as their knowledge of a place or ecosystem type changes.
4 This issue also relates to the ideal level of detail for beneficiaries outlined in FEGS-CS.
9
-------
right is important. On the other hand, care must be taken not to define beneficiaries too broadly,
leading to the omission of relevant ecosystem attributes.
Discussion: It was posited that social analysis at larger scales would likely require more broadly
applicable beneficiaries - beneficiaries that are found everywhere and that are sufficiently
specified to allow for metric and indicator development. This beneficiary group might include,
for example, catch and release anglers, who are common across the landscape, but would
exclude huckleberry pickers and ice skaters, who are found only in a few specific geographic
areas. Smaller-scale analysis would allow for more finely detailed categorization of
beneficiaries, and consequently of the metrics and indicators of ecosystem attributes that matter
directly to those beneficiaries. Another proposition is that the level of beneficiary specificity
could be the same in both small- and large-scale applications but the choice of attributes included
in the analysis would differ depending on the scale, with more broadly applicable attributes for
larger scales, and the inclusion of more finely detailed attributes at smaller scales.
Conclusion/Next Steps: Workshop participants proposed striving for the level of detail that
would be most useful to the metric and indicator application, and agreed that the ideal level
would most likely be context specific and depend on the scale of analysis. More investigation
into the most useful metric and indicator requirements, and the needs of decision makers, is
warranted. It was also agreed that because an increased level of detail would increase the
potential number of beneficiaries, the number of beneficiary categories needs to be limited to a
manageable number.
3.4.3 How do we address translational differences that result from differing
intended metric uses, beneficiary types and ecosystem services
provided?
Issue: One of the steps called for in the proposed methodology is translation of available metrics
into something meaningful to beneficiaries (see Figure 1). Some metrics require little or no
translation, for example water clarity, however others will require some translation, for example
pathogen or contaminant concentrations. It became evident during the workshop that this
translation might be affected by the beneficiary type, expectations and intended usage.
Discussion: Translation of ecosystem metrics, for example translating taxa into something more
meaningful, requires some level of knowledge both on the part of ecologists and the part of
social analysts. Categorization into classes such as good, fair and poor, are one way to make this
type of translation, and can be useful when using indicators and metrics to communicate
ecosystem status. However, this type of categorization may be problematic for economic
analysis, particularly if the classes are not tied to specific, measurable ecological change
(Johnston et al. 2012); as can be the case with multi-metric indices. Additionally, diversity in
regional ecosystem characteristics may lead to beneficiaries having different expectations with
respect to the state of an ecosystem. For example, pristine lakes in one area of the country may
have much lower water clarity than lake in another region of the country, therefore the lack of
water clarity may signal a poor level of FEGS quality in one region, but not in the other. In both
10
-------
cases, water clarity is an attribute that beneficiaries care about, but their interpretation of the
quality differs.
Conclusion/next steps: Understanding what ecosystem attributes matter to people is imperative
in order to define FEGS metrics and indicators. As long as measures are cardinal and well
defined, differences in regional expectations can be accounted for during social analysis. This is
not to say that natural and social sciences shouldn't be in close communication during metric
identification, rather it is preferable to leave the social interpretation and of those metrics to the
social sciences. The same is true for attempting to address differences in attribute type. Some
ecosystem attributes are amenities (for example, scenic vistas), while others are dis-amenities
(for example flood risk). Again, it is not necessary to distinguish between amenities and dis-
amenities at the metric and indicator development stage, this analysis is in the domain of the
social analyst.
3.4.4 How do we address non-use beneficiaries5?
Issue: Beneficiaries can be separated into two broad categories: use beneficiaries - those whose
FEGS values are tied to a specific use associated with the ecosystem, for example anglers and
recreational viewers; and non-use beneficiaries - those whose FEGS values cannot be tied to a
specific behavioral trait, for example beneficiaries with existence and bequest values. Because
of the observable behavior associated with use values, use values are easier identify and to
measure than non-use values. Non-use values, however, have potentially large policy
implications because of the large values associated with them (Freeman, Herriges and Kling
2014; Boyd et al. 2016), implying the importance of developing robust metrics for these values.
However, most biophysical scientists at the workshop were unsure about what ecosystem
components metrics for non-use values should reflect.
Discussion: A first step in identifying metrics and indicators for non-use beneficiaries is to
identify a finite list of variables to measure. More investigation is required in order to outline
this list, but insights into some characteristics were discussed during the workshop. First, it was
posited that the indicators for non-use values are expected to be more general than those for use-
beneficiaries, who have specific needs from the ecosystem. Second, the measures of the different
types up non-use values (existence, bequest etc.) are likely to be fairly similar in many cases.
And lastly, identifying a reference condition to use as a comparison for the current ecosystem
condition is necessary in some cases. One example of a potential non-use FEGS indicator is one
based on the index of biotic integrity (IBI), an index currently generated from the NARS dataset
by the US EPA. The IBI incorporates a comparison between the current ecosystem state and a
selected ecosystem that represents the least disturbed state of all ecosystems in the ecoregion.
This reference condition could potentially be redefined depending on the beneficiary
expectations in order to develop a non-use beneficiary index similar to the current index of biotic
integrity. This approach brings up other issues that vary by ecosystem, for example, with a
dynamic ecosystem like forests, would old-growth be the correct reference condition, or would
5 For more on non-use beneficiaries, see Boyd et al. (2016)
11
-------
one related to forest health be better? Should the metric be ecologically driven or a changeable
product of human intervention?
Conclusion/Next Steps: Further guidance from steering committee members or other experts on
non-use values is needed to identify a finite list of metrics that reflect non-use values. These
metrics will require input from biophysical scientists as well because many will likely require
knowledge of justifiable reference conditions.
3.5 Component vs. aggregate metrics
Issue: Whether to represent FEGS as aggregate indicators as opposed to individual metrics is
another unresolved issue coming out of the workshop. Previous workshops found that aggregate
indicators are useful in providing a snapshot to beneficiaries of FEGS. However, aggregate
indicators can obscure the effect of component metrics on the resulting aggregate metric and can
make it difficult to know which component metric is driving good or poor aggregate metric
scores. For example, the water quality index (WQI) that the US EPA uses for policy analysis is a
composite of nine water quality parameters. Some policy changes may increase the water clarity
parameter, but decrease the dissolved oxygen parameter resulting in no change in the WQI,
despite a potentially dramatic change in water chemistry. In the extreme, low water clarity may
lead to a low WQI, but without more information, it is not possible to know why the WQI is low.
Water clarity may not matter to some beneficiaries, but dissolved oxygen may not matter to
others; implying that if either of these parameters is driving a low WQI, this low WQI value may
not be relevant, depending on the beneficiary.
Discussion'. One of the economists at the workshop noted anecdotally that in their research
aggregate metrics perform better than individual component metrics in some cases, particularly
in non-use contexts where people are most interested in general ecosystem well-being.
However, one drawback of aggregate metrics is that effects of ecosystem disturbance could be
obscured within the metric -indicating no change in the overall FEGS- when in fact big changes
in FEGS provision have occurred. Examples of aggregate metrics that were discussed include
fishing quality indices, which combine information about the site appeal and fish population
demographics; and a site productivity index, which is a calculation based on observed tree
growth to summarize information about free growing conditions in a given site.
Conclusion/Next Steps: Workshop participants concluded that the intended purpose of the
metrics and indicators should determine whether a multi-metric index, or individual component
metric is used. For example, for communication purposes, multi-metric indices may be
preferable, but in some social analysis, individual component metrics may be preferred.
12
-------
4.0 Next Steps and Progress Since
Workshop
The final day of the workshop was dedicated to planning follow-up work to address some of the
issues raised at the workshop and to continue to make progress on metric indicator and
development. Workshop participants agreed on list of ten beneficiaries (Table 4.1) for which all
ecosystem champions would develop metrics and indicators. This list was chosen to reflect a
broad spectrum of beneficiary types. A list of issues for the steering committee members to
address was also compiled. The need for a glossary of terms was established.
Table 4.1. Ten candidate beneficiaries. Numbers in parentheses correspond to FEGS-CS codes. ?
Indicates a possible connection between ecosystem and beneficiary.
Beneficiaries Streams Lakes Wetlands Forests Estuaries Ag
Non-Use (0901)
V
V
V
V
V
V
Residential Property Owners (0303)
V
V
V
V
V
V
Recreational Extractor (0603, 0604)
V
V
V
V
V
V
Recreational Viewing (~subset of
0601)
V
V
V
V
V
V
Irrigators (0101)
V
V
V
V
Water Contact Risk (Many)
V
V
V
V
Municipal Water Intake (0301)
V
V
V
?
Thermoelectric Cooling (0205x)
V
V
V
Commercial Extractors (Many)
V
V
V
V
V
V
Spiritual
V
V
V
V
V
V
Since the workshop was conducted, individual meetings with ecosystem champions have been
conducted to begin identifying metrics and indicators for each of the beneficiaries on the agreed
upon list (Table 4.1), one by one. So far each champion has started with recreational extractor
beneficiaries. Metric development since the workshop for recreational extractors in summarized
in Table 4.2 and examples demonstrated in Appendix G.
13
-------
Table 4.2. Ecosystem champion progress on indicator development for 10 candidate beneficiaries since workshop (to June 2017). AT = attribute
selection, DM = desired metrics identified, AM = available metrics identified, DR = data represented
Non-Use (0901)
Residential
Property Owners
(0303)
Recreational
Extractor (0603,
0604)
Recreational
Viewing ("subset
of 0601)
Irrigators (0101)
Water Contact
Risk (Many)
Municipal Water
Intake (0301)
Thermoelectric
Cooling (0205x)
Commercial
Extractors (Many)
Spiritual
Streams
Lakes
Wetlands
Forests
Estuaries
Ag
(gen 2)
AT DM AM DR
AT DM AM DR
AT DM AM DR
AT DM AM DR
AT DM AM DR
AT DM AM DR
V
V V V V
V
V V
V V
V V V V
V V V V
V V
V
V V
V V V V
14
-------
5.0 Conclusion
While much progress was made on the refinement of the methodology proposed to develop FEGS
metrics and indicators, many questions were raised, and many remain unresolved. Defining the
boundary between humans and ecosystems, and the domain of analysis social scientists resolved a
number of issues. Cases where issues were resolved by differentiating between issues related to social
analysis and issues pertaining to the identification of metrics and indicators include using risk measures
to reflect imperceptible pathogen and contaminant concentrations, and the exclusion of access data from
FEGS metrics and indicators. In other cases, more investigation was warranted, particularly with
aesthetics and non-use metrics. Resolutions for many of the remaining issues will be dependent on the
intended application of the metrics and indicators, and will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Overall, ecosystem champions left the workshop better equipped to continue their work on FEGS metric
and indicator development, which will continue to be improved upon as more progress is made on the
current unresolved issues. Ultimately, a complete set of beneficiary relevant metrics will help improve
social analysis by ensuring a broad group of benefit classes is covered, which will facilitate
communication of ecosystem changes in a way that is meaningful and salient to beneficiaries and
decision makers.
-------
References
Bin, O. and Czajkowski, J., 2013. The impact of technical and non-technical measures of water quality
on coastal waterfront property values in South Florida. Marine Resource Economics, 25(1),
pp.43-63.
Boyd J., P. Ringold, A. Krupnick, R.J. Johnston, M.A. Weber and K. Hall. 2016. Ecosystem Services
Indicators: Improving the Linkage Between Biophysical and Economic Analyses. International
Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 8: 359-443.
Freeman, A.M., J. A. Herriges, and C.L. Kling. 2014. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource
Values: Theory and Methods, Third Edition. Washington, D.C.: RFF Press.
Johnston, R. J., Schultz, E. T., Segerson, K., Besedin, E. Y., and Ramachandran, M. 2012. Enhancing
the content validity of stated preference valuation: the structure and function of ecological
indicators. Land Economics, 88(1), 102-120.
Leggett, C.G. and Bockstael, N.E. 2000. Evidence of the effects of water quality on residential land
prices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39(2), pp. 121-144.
Landers, D.H. and Nahlik, A.M., 2013. Final ecosystem goods and services classification system
(FEGS-CS). United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA.
Papenfus, Michael. (2016). "Do Housing Prices Reflect Water Quality Impairments? Evidence form the
Puget Sound" In Review.
Ringold PL, Boyd JW, Landers DH, and Weber MA. 2009. Report from the Workshop on Indicators of
Final Ecosystem Services for Streams. Corvallis, OR: US EPA. EPA/600/R-09/137.
https://archive.epa.eov/nheerl/arm/web/pdf/indicatorsfinalworkshopreportepa600r09137.pdf
Viewed 18 January 2017.
Ringold PL, Boyd JW, Nahlik A, and Bernard D. 2011. Report from the Workshop on Indicators of
Final Ecosystem Services for Wetlands and Estuaries. Corvallis, OR: US EPA. EPA/600/X-
11/014.
https://archive.epa.eov/nheerl/arm/web/pdf/indicatorsfinalworkshopreportepa600r09137.pdf
Viewed 18 January 2017.
-------
Appendix A: EPA FEGS Task Summary Sheet
Final Ecosystem Goods and Service Task Summary Sheet
Issue
People depend and benefit from ecosystems in numerous ways. Environmental policy analysis and
decision making can be aided by an understanding of how changes in environmental stressors affect
human well-being. Quantifying these changes in human well-being requires the integration of ecological
systems and social systems analysis. Final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS), the ecosystem features
directly valued by people, are at the interface between ecological and social systems and facilitate their
integration. The FEGS task seeks to create a consistent architecture to identify, measure, and catalog
FEGS in ways that are directly relevant to people at national, regional and community scales. A key step
in accomplishing this goal is to recognize that people perceive ecosystems in diverse ways that that we
must develop of FEGS metrics and indicators with respect to this diversity in human perception. These
metrics and indicators will facilitate the social analysis of changes in ecological conditions, allowing for
improved policy analysis and communication, more informed decision making, and a better
understanding of the ways in which changes in ecosystems impact human well-being.
Overview
The FEGS task has three primary components:
1) DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL AND NATIONAL SCALE FEGS METRICS AND INDICATORS
Metrics and indicators of FEGS are biophysical entities that facilitate social interpretation of ecological
conditions and change. They are defined as environmental features that relate to those things that
directly affect people's welfare. By definition, FEGS are relatively easily understood by lay audiences and
minimize the need for lay audiences and social scientists to speculate as they try to relate ecological
outcomes to changes in social welfare. FEGS are used to facilitate communication of ecosystem
characteristics to lay audiences, provide more accurate ecosystem valuations, and improve the
interpretation of ecosystem valuation studies by decision makers.
We have developed an approach to identify and quantify metrics and indicators of FEGS. The approach
starts with the specification of a list of beneficiaries or specific ways in which people benefit from
specific ecosystems. We then strive to identify metrics and ultimately indicators for each beneficiary for
an initial set of seven ecosystems (streams, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, agroecosystems, forests and coral
reefs).
Two major groups of scientists are involved in this effort. The first group is made up of biophysical
scientists at 5 ORD Divisions and at the USDA Forest Service. These scientists, with expertise in one of
the seven ecosystems in the initial set, work with regional and national datasets to represent FEGS for
their ecosystems. The second group is a steering committee comprised of 5 economists, an
epidemiologist and a landscape architect. Members of the steering committee work to ensure the
quality of the work, the consistency of the assumptions embedded in it and the usefulness of the work
for economic valuation and social analysis.
2) IDENTIFY METRICS AND INDICATORS OF FEGS FOR INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES
In contrast to the National and Regional Scale work which takes a top down approach, the specficiation
of FEGS for individual communities is designed to take a bottom up approach. A FEGS Community
Scoping Tool is being developed to help assist decision-makers in the scoping stages of a particular
decision or decision context to identify relevant and meaningful environmental attributes that can be
-------
Appendix A: US EPA FEGS Task Summary Sheet
used to evaluate decision alternatives. This tool helps users work through a transparent, repeatable, and
defendable process for identifying and prioritizing relevant stakeholder groups, translating these
stakeholder groups into their appropriate beneficiary categories, and developing a prioritized list of
environmental attributes. Once complete, the FEGS metrics developed under the first FEGS task
component will then be incorporated into this tool so the final tool output is a prioritized list of
environmental attributes with recommended metrics associated with each. This tool is being developed
by ORD scientists associated with SHC Tasks 2.61 and 1.61 and iterations of the tool are being tested by
regional EPA staff using a variety of use cases.
3) FEGS ARCHITECTURE: FEGS-CS AND ENVIROATLAS
The FEGS Classification system (FEGS -CS) is an architecture designed to guide people in ensuring that
they have a complete list of beneficiaries and environmental attributes. EnviroAtlas is a web-based
collection of tools, data, and resources centered around the concept of ecosystem services. We have
crosswalked data layers developed by EnviroAtlas with the FEGS-CS framework. Because most of these
data layers do not directly indicate FEGS, we applied a system of conceptual models to link each
ecosystem (or economic) service indicated in EnviroAtlas to the FEGS it most directly affects or is
dependent upon. By this methodology, we identified over 14,000 unique linkages to potential FEGS and
catalogued them into a readily searchable database. We have used this database both for FEGS metric
development and to assess the ability of the EnviroAtlas mapping applications to aggregate beneficiary
sub-categories and environmental sub-classes in a given study area for the development of geospatially
explicit FEGS profiles. All work has progressed in close partnership with the EnviroAtlas project and task
leads.
Value and Impact
National and regional scale FEGS metrics and indicators could be utilized in a variety of applications.
These applications fall into three main categories: 1) Social Analysis, for example trade-off analysis
including, cost effectiveness analysis etc.; Green GDP accounting; non-market valuation studies;
informing ecological production functions and monitoring programs 2) Communication, for example
reports to congress, status and trends reports; and communication with the pubic and policy makers. 3)
Defining management objectives and predictive modeling, for example in model identification for
decision analysis. 4) Setting the requirements for ecological modeling and monitoring
We have also shown that it is possible to crosswalk FEGS with diverse data sets developed without
reference to the FEGS approach. The option to plug extant government data into the FEGS framework
allows the opportunity to assimilate available ecosystems services data into an internally consistent,
readily searchable database. As the ecosystem services community - and the data available to them -
continues to grow, the ability to search for and identify data relevant to one's needs should prove
valuable.
Contact
Paul L. Ringold, Ph.D.
Leader, Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Task (SHC 2.61.2), Community-Based Ecosystem Goods and
Services Project (SHC 2.61), Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
541-754-4565 ringold.paul@epa.gov
-------
Appendix B: Workshop Agenda
July 2016 Workshop Agenda
Location: EPA Regional Office, 805 SW Broadway #500 (5th Floor), Portland, OR 97205
Monday July 18
Dinner1 reservations made at Stanford's Restaurant and Bar (913 Lloyd Center, near the Double Tree
Hotel) for those arriving before 6pm.
Tuesday July 19
8:45 AM Coffee available in EPA Conference Room
9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions [Kirsten]
10:00 AM Rationale and Goals Part 1 [Jim]
10:45 AM Break
11:00 AM Rationale and Goals Part 2 [Paul]
12:00 PM Out for lunch2
1:00 PM FEGS Metrics and Indicators Presentation and Discussion [Kim]
2:00 PM Initial List of Hard Issues Presentation and Discussion [Paul]
3:30 PM Break
3:45 PM Other SHC Activities: FEGS-CS, Community FEGS, EnviroAtlas [Dixon, Kirsten, Arik]
5:00 PM Adjourn
5:30 PM Dinner at Ringside Fish House (838 SW Park Ave)
1 Arrangements will be made for the location of some meals so that we can eat together. People will need to make
arrangements with their own organizations for reimbursement.
2 Nearby lunch eateries: Flying Elephants (812 SW Park Ave);
Pieology Pizzeria (732 SW Yamhill)
Elephants in the Park (located in Directors Park, across Park Ave)
Food carts (located on blocks between 9th and 10th Ave, and SW Washington and SW
Alder St. Note: lines can be long)
-------
Appendix B: Workshop Agenda
Wednesday July 20
8:30 AM
Coffee available in EPA Conference Room
8:45AM
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Wetlands Champion [Amanda Nahlik]
9:30 AM
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Forests Champion [Andy Gray]
10:15 AM
Break
10:30 AM
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Lakes Champions [Ted Angradi]
11:15 AM
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Agro-ecosystems Champion [Tim Canfield]
12:00 PM
Out for lunch3
1:00 PM
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Streams Champion [Dave Peck]
1:45 PM
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Estuaries Champions [Walter Berry]
2:30 PM
Break
2:45 PM
General Discussion of Champion Results
3:45 PM
Identification of Issues Based on Champion Presentations [Paul]
4:30 PM
Key Questions for Steering Committee members to ponder [Jim]
5:00 PM
Adjourn
6:30 PM
Dinner at Henry's Tavern, 10 NW 12th Ave. Portland, OR 97209
A 15-20 minute walk from conference location. Powell's Books (1005 W
Burnside St) is on the way.
3 Nearby lunch eateries: Flying Elephants (812 SW Park Ave);
Pieology Pizzeria (732 SW Yamhill)
Elephants in the Park (located in Directors Park, across Park Ave)
Food carts (located on blocks between 9th and 10th Ave, and SW Washington and SW
Alder St. Note: lines can be long)
-------
Appendix B: Workshop Agenda
Thursday July 21
8:30 AM Coffee available in EPA Conference Room
8:45 AM Organizing Session 1: Task Champions for work over the next two years [Paul]
10:15 AM Break
10:30 AM Organizing Session 2: Charge for Steering Committee members for the next two years
[Jim]
12:00 PM Out for lunch4
PARALLEL SESSION A [Champions]
1:30 PM Discuss key points to make and process for developing SHC 2.61.2 Milestone 7: Initial
Reports on Metrics and Indicators for Selected Ecosystems at National or Regional
Scales-Q3 FY 17 [Kim]
2:30 PM QAPP Development. Revise the existing QAPP to support activities for the next two
years [Jim Markwiese and Kim]
PARALLEL SESSION B [Steering Committee Members]
1:30 PM Organizing Session for Steering Committee Members [Jim Boyd and Paul]
3:30 PM Closing Comments and Conclusions
4 PM Adjourn
4 Nearby lunch eateries: Flying Elephants (812 SW Park Ave);
Pieology Pizzeria (732 SW Yamhill)
Elephants in the Park (located in Directors Park, across Park Ave)
Food carts (located on blocks between 9th and 10th Ave, and SW Washington and SW
Alder St. Note: lines can be long)
-------
Appendix
C: Workshop Presentation
Slides
Presentation 1: Kirsten Winters
Tuesday
8:45 AM Coffee available in EPA Conference Room
9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions
10:00 AM Rationale and Goals Part 1
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
Break
Rationale and Goals Part 2
12:00 PM Out for lunch
1:00 PM FEGS Metrics and Indicators Presentation and Discussion
2:00 PM Hard Issues Presentation and Discussion [Paul]
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
Break
Other SHC Activities: FEGS-CS, Community FEGS, EnviroAtlas
5:00 PM
5:30 PM
Adjourn
Dinner at Ringside Fish House (838 SW Park Ave)
to PORTLAND
Wednesday
8:30 AM Coffee available in EPA Conference Room
8:45AM Wetlands [Amanda Nahlik]
9:30 AM Forests [Andy Gray]
10:15 AM Break
10:30 AM Lakes [Ted Angradi]
11:15 AM Agro-ecosystems [Tim Canfield]
sew
1:00 PM Streams [Dave Peck]
1:45 PM Estuaries [Walter Berry]
2:30 PM Break
2:45 PM General Discussion of Results
3:45 PM Identification of Issues Based on Champion Presentations
4:30 PM Key Questions for Steering Committee members to ponder
5:00 PM Adjourn
6:30 PM Dinner at Henry's Tavern, 10 NW 12th Ave. Portland, OR 97209
Thursday
8:30 AM Coffee available in EPA Conference Room
8:45 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
12:00 PM
1:30
3:30 PM
4 PM
Organizing Session 1: Task Champions for work over the next two years [Paul]
Break
Organizing Session 2: Charge for Steering Committee members for the next two years [Jim]
Out for lunch
PARALLEL SESSIONS
SESSION A [Champions & Others]
Discuss key points to make and process for developing Reports on Metrics and Indicators for
Selected Ecosystems at National or Regional Scales - Q3 FY 17; QAPP Development.
SESSION B [SteeringCommittee Members]
Closing Comments and Conclusions
Adjourn
22
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 2: Jim Boyd
Rationale & Goals 1
Jim Boyd
An Abbreviated History
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
The prosperity of our people depends directly
on the energy and intelligence with which our
natural resources are used.... it is ominously
evident that these resources are in the course of
rapid exhaustion....we have thoughtlessly, and to
a large degree unnecessarily diminished the
resources upon which not only our prosperity
but the prosperity of our children and our
children's children must always depend.
Rationale
• Economics and Ecology
- Together
• Necessary to enlightened social discourse, public policy,
resource management
• A powerful marriage
- Apart
• Fail to inform, guide, convince
both broadly defined
"The Marriage"
Conservation and Social Welfare
I
Ecology and Economics
I
Ecosystem Services
I
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
The prosperity of our people depends directly
on the energy and intelligence with which our
natural resources are used.... it is ominously
evident that these resources are in the course of
rapid exhaustion....we have thoughtlessly and to
a large degree unnecessarily, diminished the
resources upon which not only our prosperity
but the prosperity of our children and our
children's children must always depend.
23
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
The prosperity of our people depends directly
on the energy and intelligence with which our
natural resources are used.... it is ominously
evident that these resources are in the course of
rapid exhaustion....we have thoughtlessly and to
a large degree unnecessarily, diminished the
resources upon which not only our prosperity
but the prosperity of our children and our
children's children must always depend.
Teddy Roosevelt, Conference of the Governors,
"Resources for the Future"
Created in 1952
To explore the status, future, and importance of
our national resources
The 70s Policy Revolution
• New laws, regulations, agencies
• Nature, environmental quality matters to
social and economic wellbeing
Ecologists
How Much Are Nature's Services Worth:
Measuring the Social Benefits of Ecosystem
Functioning is Both Controversial and
Illuminating
- Walter Westman, Science 1977
Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on
Natural Systems
- Gretchen Daily ed., 1997
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Now the Hard Part
Working together
- As scientists
- As informers of policy
- As communicators
What is needed?
What is Needed?
One Answer
1. Units of measure
- Things we measure, model, predict
- Often, not much overlap
1. Conceptual frameworks
- How do units inter-relate within & across ecology
and economics?
- Can we agree on a framework?
Units That Work in Both Reaims
Terminological interlude...
- Linking indicators
- Ecological endpoints
All refer to "ecological outcomes that as
directly as possible matter to human welfare
and experience"
If linked social and natural science is a
relay race, endpoints are the baton
Economists aren't authorized
to define endpoints and then turn
around and demand that natural
science cough them up. Rather, the
natural and social sciences should
collectively debate and define
these endpoints.
The relative success of EPA efforts to
translate air quality problems into
human health-related social effects is
due in large part to the presence of
health endpoints...
AJb&luci;
The U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) recently promulgated regulations
to reduce air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles. This article reports the estimated health
benefits of reductions in nmbicni particulate matter (PM ) concentrations associated with those
regulations basodoiTtnH)««4^in^!c methods of benefits analysis. The results suggest that
when heavy-duty vehicle emission reductions fronT!Tlc-r«gulancn arc fully realized in 2030. they
will result in substantial, broad scale reductions in ambient particulate matter. This will reduce
the incidence of premature mortality by 8,300, chronic bronchitis by 5,500. and respiratory and
cardiovascular hospital admissions by 7,500, In addition, over 175.000 asthma attacks and
millions of respiratory symptoms will be avoided in 2030. The economic value of these health
benefits is estimated at overt Sa5 bflibn, ]
25
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Natural Science Indicators
• Biotic integrity measures
• Benthic disturbance
• Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification
• Habitat suitability rankings
• Tissue burdens (toxics)
• Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphorus
concentrations
• Duck energy days
• Rotifer productivity
Natural Science Indicators
• Biotic integrity measures Difficult t0 interPret
, , , socially
• Benthic disturbance
• Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification
• Habitat suitability rankings
• Tissue burdens (toxics)
• Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphorus
concentrations
• Duck energy days
• Rotifer productivity
Our Core, Collective Challenge
• What ecological outcomes more directly
matter to human welfare and experience?
- Do we measure them already?
- If not, what are the key gaps?
- Can we do anything about the gaps?
2. A Mutually Legitimate Framework
• How do endpoints/FEGS/linking indicators
relate to all the other things that are important
to our science and understanding?
• Isn't that the "ecosystem services framework"?
Terminology Warning!
"Ecosystem Services"
- Means different things to different people
Beneficial ecological processes
Beneficial ecological outcomes
Monetary benefits
A Confused "Framework"
• Supporting
- A mix of processes and outcomes
• Regulating
- Processes
• Provisioning
- A mix of "things" and qualities
• Cultural
- A mix of contexts, activities, values
26
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
ttosrsTtw stHVices
Supwilim)
O.rluiil
A Critique and Response
Of the influential MEA "classification"
Of sloppy practices within environmental
economics
mm ——
*:;:'sdenceDimct
What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units*
fames Boyd* ". Sjxtkw Banzhaj'
Did 3 Things
Linked ecological endpoints to
Ecological and economic production theory
Economic accounting (think GDP)
Production Theory
Economics
- Inputs are combined via production functions into
outputs
Ecology
- Biophysical features, quantities, qualities
combined via ecological processes into changed
conditions
Production Theory
Economics
- Inputs are combined via production functions into
outputs
Ecology
- Biophysical features, quantities, qualities
combined via ecological processes into changed
conditions
For both, all elements of production are important
Economic Accounting
Key concept "Directly Matters"
- Final versus intermediate goods
Final goods are "close to the consumer"
- What we buy, what we desire
Intermediate goods are necessary to final
goods
- And therefore valuable
Final goods embody the value of intermediate
goods
27
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Value This:
Value This:
Examples
1 Input
Biophysical Process FEGS 1
Surface water pH
Habitat and toxicity
effects
Species presence or
abundance
Acres of habitat
Forage, reproduction,
migration
Species presence or
abundance
Wetland acres
Hydrologic processes
Probability of flood
conditions
Urban forest acres
Shading and
sequestration
Air quality and
temperature
Vegetated riparian
| border
Erosion processes
Sediment in
reservoirs |
Commodities that require
little subsequent biophysical translation
Are the biophysical quantity and quality
outcomes
- Produced by the ecological system
That (to an economist) directly enter the
economic production system
They are "ecological outcomes that as directly
as possible matter to human welfare and
experience"
Applications
Goals
Communication with communities, the media,
decision-makers
- By design, understandable and meaningful to lay
audiences
Policy analysis
- CBA, budget reviews, resource management
strategy
Environmental accounting
- Green GDP
Kick the tires
- What makes sense
- What is doable
- What is worth doing?
New applications and impact
New friends and intellectual partners
- Steering committee as resource
28
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 3: Paul Ringold
FEGS Workshop for National
and Regional Metrics and
Indicators - Why are we Here?
What are we Going to
Accomplish?
Paul Ringold,
US EPA, ODD, Western Ecology Division
oEFA
Why are we Here
SHC Deliverables
Where Have We Been?
Where are We Going?
-How are We Going to Get There?
Applied Ecology
A
Ecosystems
A Stressor
¦SEIffl
Millenium
Ecosystem
Assessment:
Ecosystem
Services:
The benefits
people obtain
from
ecosystems
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Provisioning
Supporting
Regulating
®S0l
What are the
indicators of
ecosystem
services?
Tony Olsen Steve Paulsen
Well all of them including these 269
29
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Tony Olsen:
Talk to an
economist
'j4dfjLJ
iM'
MM
Jirr 3oyd
LUIrtjt Ecological Prntlwctlon Theory
to Define aiul 5eltci EovfrtniiMiital
LflmimuliUt* foe Norimarket
9V'jlujtion
Wtua m MMyiafm Hnkn/ Tib* n
oEFA
Make Applied Ecology More Powerful
If We Connect Ecosystems to People
A Stressor
A
Ecosystems
A Human
Well-Being
Linked Systems of Production
ittuafiw* awMrp-.
(KHh
_
Adoption of "FEGS" during ESRP
and SHC
Report from the Workshop on Report from the Workshop on
Indicators of Final Ecosystem Indicators of Final Ecosystem
Services for Streams Goods and Services for
D"t: w" " u-*m Wetlands and Estuaries
Meeting Date: June 7 to 10, 2010
Phttps: //archive .e[
6 .gov/nh eerl/arm/web/html/i ndex-2 .html
H
Workshops of about two dozen people half natural and half
social scientists
• Pragmatic boundaries
• Beneficiary perspective
• Biophysical features that matter to each beneficiary
• Attributes and Metric
Sample Beneficiaries (from Streams
Workshop)
1 Agriculture
a)
Irrigated Crops
b)
Livestock
(CAFO)
c)
Aquacuiture
d)
Processing
e)
Grazing
II Industry
a)
Cooling Water
b)
Processing
c)
Hydroelectric
VI Cultural
a) Spiritual
b) Ceremonial
c) Subsistence
VII Commercial
Transportation
a) Goods
b) People
VIII Education and
Research
a) Education and
Research
Fish
Abundance of Recreational
Fish
Abundance of Large Trout
Presence of Invasive Fish
Presence of Endangered
Fish
Chemicals
Salinity
Langlier Saturation Index
Dissolved Oxygen
Example Attributes
Example Metrics
30
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Adoption of "FEGS" during SHC
flNU fCCKISTlM moos
AND SERVICES CtASSlf ICATION
IISIEM |f(GS-C5)
Formalize and standardize
a list of beneficiaries.
Provides an architecture to
house metrics and
indicators
https ://www.epa .g ov/eco-research/fi nal-
ecosystem-good s-an d-services-
cl assifi cati on-system
oEFA
Adoption of "FEGS" during SHC
WhM ,tin >1* l Iwlwmii
UtMpb* *J mmh AwKv
Illustration of FEGS
metric and indicator
development.
FEGS rationale arid
analysis of some
difficult questions in
specifying FEGS
metrics and
indicators
•m
Look at EMAP-W metrics again
Abundance of alien benthic Presence of recreational
invertivore individuals
Abundance of native
catostomids and native
ictaiurids
Alien invertivore/piscivore
species richness
Metrics Available
And Important for
Ecological Analysis
fish
Abundance of recreational
fish
Number of fish larger than
8 inches
Pounds of fish
Metrics Not Available But
Useful for Linking
Ecosystems to People
SEFft
National Aquatic Resource Surveys
"The National Aquatic Resource Surveys (MARS)
are collaborative programs between EPA, states,
and tribes designed to assess the quality of the
nation's coastal waters, lakes and reservoirs,
rivers and streams, and wetlands using a
statistical survey design. The NARS
provide critical, groundbreaking, and nationally-
consistent data on the nation's waters."
• . https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-survevs
Focus is on a few biotic indicators.
Current
State of
Reporting
Ecosystems
—-y .L,
Current
f What does \
State of
, biological condition >
Reporting (
mean to: an \
'M.M
angler, an irrigator, x
* '•(
a home owner, a \ y
A
municipality ?
From NLA2007 vSl
31
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Why NARS?
National report with many partners -> great exposure
National report with many metrics
Long and continuing history of WED involvement in
design
Tools and datasets developed to complement NARS
Extrapolate the sample -> Map
-Standardized analytical tools
¦ftERft,
^Sowing Infrastructure -> Additional
ways to report results
Ecosystems
-vy inji-
fr I
v&* -
By Eric Fox
iVIethods to examine change
(Mrfimis
|hh * •"
~—
f1 **
B-
— ¦§ ¦
1-
|BU
n
Er **
¦
i-
}"
• pH.
From NLA 2007
SER*
'—-IVIethods to examine change
iMtfimw * rj |i mi in
A Stressor
a *
Ecosystems
[JT**
Mil
——¦-
*«•
1
¦ ¦ ¦*- [¦
*
-
P
From NLA 2007
Foundation for empirical ecological
production functions
Bam fflnoakl el31 2flH
SEFA
Foundation for empirical ecological
production functions
A
Ecosystems
A Stressor
it—
From Rinnoirl pt dl ?011
32
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
SffA
Our Goal: Make Applied Ecology More
Powerful If We Connect Ecosystems
to People
A Stressor
A
Ecosystems
A Human
Well-Being
oEFA
Our Goal: Make Applied Ecology More
Powerful If We Connect Ecosystems
to People
A Stressor
Get these
units right!
N
A Human
U
Well-Being
Where are we going
• Two SHC Deliverables
-FY17 Q3 - Initial Report(s)
-FY20 Q2 Final Report(s)
• Identification of FEGS metrics and indicators
• Quantification of FEGS metrics and indicators
• Improved Capacities to
-Communicate
-Link ecosystems to social analysis
oEFA
Bureaucracy - EPA/ORD/SHC
Deliverables
• FY17 Q3- Initial Report(s) on Metrics and Indicators
for Selected Ecosystems at National and Regional
Scales
• FY20 Q2 Final Report(s) on Metrics and Indicators for
Selected Ecosystems at National and Regional Scales
How Do We Get There? Who
• Steering Committee
-Individual members provide input
-Help refine and operationalize concepts
• RTI
-Access to Three Steering Committee Members
-Access to Beneficiary Expertise as Needed
• Champions
-Developing metrics and indicators
-Identify datasets and barriers
•All
-Communicate with clients
I -Facilitate other FEGS tasks
oEFA
How Do We Get There? How
• This workshop
-Identify hard issues
• Begin to develop pragmatic operational solutions
-Identify data sets
-Which beneficiaries
-Identify additional candidate champions
• Coral reefs, urban....
-Identify steps
33
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 4: Paul Ringold/Kim Hall
FEGS METRICS AND
INDICATORS:
Methodology
PAUL RINGOLD1
KIM HALL2
1 USEPA,ORD, CORVALLIS, OR
2 OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION,
CORVALLIS, OR
Proposed Process
Stream Ecosystems
Anglers
Recreational Catch and Release
(A subset of 11.0604)
1 Recreational Catch arid Consume
(A subset of 11.0604)
1 Subsistence (A subset of
11.0502)
Commercial for Consumption (A
subset of 11.0201)
1 Commercial Not for
Consumption (A subset of
11.0201)
Irrigator (11.0101)
Municipal Water
Treatment Plant (a subset of
11.0301)
Cooling plants (11.0205)
Non-use beneficiaries
(11.09)
Property Owners (11.0303)
m
J*. ^
Catch and
Release
V
Angler
f
•—1
P
Sources of Beneficiary
Perceptions
Common Sense
Literature
Primary Research
• Especially qualitative research, e.g. Weber, M. A., and P. L.
Ringold. 2015. Priority river metrics for residents of an
urbanized arid watershed. Landscape and urban planning
133:37-52.
Sources of Beneficiary
Perceptions
Expert Consultation
• Workshop Reports
• Ringold, P. L., et al. (2009). "Report from the workshop on indicators
of final ecosystem services for streams." US Environmental
Protection Agency. Corvallis. OR. USA.
• Ringold, P. L., et al. (2011). "Report from the Workshop on Indicators
of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services for Wetlands and Estuaries."
US Environmental Protection Agency: 73.
https://archive.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/web/html/index-2.html
34
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Catch and Release Angler:
Beneficiary Perceptions
Hunt, L. M. 2005. Recreational Fishing Site Choice Models:
Insights and Future Opportunities. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 10:153-172.
1. Fish
° Size, abundance, taxa, biomass
2. Aesthetics
Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
Catch and Release Angler
1. Fish
Size, abundance, taxa, biomass
2. Aesthetics
° Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
Catch and Release Angler
1. Fish
Desired: Size, abundance, taxa, biomass
Available: EMAP-West Dataset: Abundance of recreational fish
weighted by desirability
2. Aesthetics
Desired: ???
Available: NARS Dataset: Direct report from field crew
Catch and Release Angler: Fish
(SALMONPIND+
CENTPIND)*
VERTNIND
i-
I-
Catch and Release Angler: Place
iiili
5. Beautiful,...
4. Very minor aesthetic problems....
3. Enjoyment impaired.
2. Level of enjoyment substantially
reduced.
1. Enjoyment nearly impossible.
Gaps
Measuring the right things?
Pathogens, risks of water contact
Measuring the right way?
° Add size/bio mass, suitability for consumption, stocked status
° Field crew measure of aesthetics?
Time and Space
Lot of questions
Translation
Here's where the problems lie
35
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
- • A
- ;•••' • - ~,
¦w-ii* * . i l M'.i. • .#•. -.[j
J?
Residential Property Owners
1 Water Clarity
2 Site Appeal
3. Flood Risk
4 Others?
t Identify
n
2. Identify
¦¦ 3. Identify iM
r 1 Desired H '1
Metrics. BHI
4. Identify
Available
Maries
n
^ r.
n
6. Identify
Beneficiaries
u
Attributes
H
Translation
M
Barriers
Residential Property Owners
1. Water Clarity
Desired Metrics: Secchi Disk Depth
Available Metrics: Estimated Secchi Disk Depth
2. Aesthetics
Desired:
Available: Site Appeal
3. Flood Risk
Desired Metric: Probability of flooding
Available: Not in EMAP-West
Residential Property Owners:
Water Clarity
MTCCHI D*PT*
¦MM AESTHKTiC
Heiskary SA, Walker Jr WW. 1988.
Developing phosphorus criteria for
Minnesota lakes. Lake and Reservoir
* Management 4: 1-9.
Residential Property Owners:
Water Clarity
\
Y
\ A
i \ / \
P
1
\
\
\ Ocod
V
SMKMOvdi W9
Residential Property Owners:
Aesthetics
5. Beautiful,...
4. Very minor aesthetic
problems....
3. Enjoyment impaired.
2. Level of enjoyment
substantially reduced.
1. Enjoyment nearly impossible.
1. Identify 2. Identify
Beneficiaries Attributes
36
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Barriers
Measuring the right things?
Lack of clarity about the right things (Pathogens?)
Measuring the right way?
Time and Space
Measurements are at a point in time
Translation
Measure to meaning?
How do we combine ecosystem components?
1. Identify
Pf
2. Identify
n
3. Identify
n
;4. Identify
Available
Metrics
n
5. Identify
Beneficiaries
H
Attributes
M
Metrics
M
u
Barriers
Discussion
Catch and Release Angler
fnmntt Ouiftty Gusa
«ccrc2$tc*i.sl Nsh Abundifwx Llaii
law Mtifliiffi i1 ¦ 11*
.is
* S3
l|W» (I I* it
JUddlmm (i ttt 4>
MJqh
MMiyfrt
Catch and Release Angler
I
a
E
1
*
Una
P| Goal
nSn&fcrahtarCMa)
Residential Property Owners
|j Vtalu Clarity Valu* CUii. |
Poor
fUr
Good
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 5: Paul Ringold
JU3M
PIJ J
Hard
Questions for FEGS
Metrics and Indicators
Paul Ringold,
US EPA, ORD, Western Ecology Division
Office of Research and Development
isearch Laboratory, Western Ecoloogy Division, Coivallis, OR.
July 2016
«EFA
With Help from:
Jim Boyd, RFF
Alan Krupnick, RFF
Rob Johnston, Clark University
Matt Weber
Kim Hall, ORISE
Kirsten Winters, ORISE
Marc Russell, SHC
FEGS Champions
-1
Importance of these questions
• We'll likely be addressing them as we develop metrics
and indicators.
• Members of the steering committee were selected to
help us with these.
• In many cases we'll make operational or practical
decisions
• Spawn longer term research?
oEFA
Sources of the questions
• Synthesis of:
-Workshop reports
¦ Ringold, P. L., J. Boyd, D. Landers, and M. Weber. 2009. Reportfrom the workshop on indicators of final ecosystem
seivices for streams. US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, USA.
¦ Ri ngold, P. L., A. M. N ahlik, J. Boyd, and D. Bernard. 2011. Report from the Workshop on I ndi cators of Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services for Wetlands and Estuaries. US Environmental Protection Agency:73.
-FEGS Metric and indicator development
¦ Ri ngold, P. L., J. Boyd, D. Landers, and M. Weber. 2013. What data should we collect? A fram ework for identifying
indicators of ecosystem contributions to human well-being. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:98-105.
¦ Fulford et al. (in review) Lessons Learned from Case Studies
¦ Landers, D. H, and A. M. Nahlik. 2013. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS).
US Environmental Protection Agency, western Ecoiog/ Division, Coivallis, OR.
-Observations during preparations for this workshop
-Review of ecological indicators principles literature
-Preparations with champions
-Extend and refine during this workshop
Some Hard Questions
1. Boundary issues.
2. Proxies
3. Beneficiaries - how many, which ones, how specific
4. Scale
5. Do indicators that aggregate over multiple categories (e.g. a fishing
quality index) perform better than metrics that focus on specific
ecological components (e.g. fish and site appeal)?
6. More aggregate descriptions (e.g., fish) vs. less aggregate descriptions
(e.g., trout)?
7. How do we know if metrics "work"?
8. Do linking indicators "work" better than indicators of I EG S?
9. How do we evaluate alternative metrics?
10. Metrics for existence values
11. What are the temporal and spatial dimensions of indicators that matter to
people?
oEFA
Considerable attention to some of
the questions:
• Boyd, J., P. Ringold, A. Krupnick, R. J. Johnston, M. A. Weber, and K. Hall. 2016. Ecosystem
Seivices Indicators: Improving the Linkage between Biophysical and Economic Analyses.
International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 8:359-443.
• Boyd, J. W., P. L. Ringold, A. J. Krupnick, R. J. Johnston, M. Weber, and K. Hall. 2015.
Ecosystem Services Indicators: Improving the Linkage between BiQDb>'gieg' ?nd Economic
Analyses. RFF DP 15-40;_Re,spi!rcfl-« ^
. fturvtew liulVcaiw*
Sctttyxtw" • b«tvrt!*n
tll(|,rtMuR < E omjc Aunlyt"*
1 -------
38
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
What's the boundary between
human and natural capital?
Our goal is to track nature's
wealth
6B*
" Boundary Question 1: Human
activity vs Ecosystem Activity
Stocked fish - Returning hatchery fish - Native Fish
X/
'wS
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
~ Many places are appealing even
with lots of developmeqt.
Aesthetics
'
See Appeal (1 a IcnvnaJ}
oEFA
Boundary Question 2: Human
Health
Which is the metric of the FEGS?
Pathogens, contaminants....
-Human Health
»B¥i
Boundary Question 2: Human
Health
"Estimates [of changes in sale prices for single family
residential properties] for a 100 count per 100 ml_
increase in E. coli during the dry season are -2.81% for
properties within 1/4 mile of Johnson Creek, -0.86%
(1/2 mile), -1,19% (one mile), and -0.71% (greater than
one mile)."
Netusil, N.. M. Kincaid, and H. Chang. 2014. Valuing water quality in urban watersheds: a
comparative analysis of Johnson Creek Oregon and Burnt Bridge Creek, Washington. Water
Resources Research 50:4254 - 4268.
SEFft
Boundary Question 2: Human
Health
"Estimates [of changes in sale prices for single family
residential properties] for a 100 count per 100 ml_
increase in E. coli during the dry season are -2.81% for
properties within lAteiije of Johnson Creek, -0.86%
(1/2 mile), -1,19% (onex^^a^"1 "T-lr" than
one mile)." How do people
"know" this!?
Netusil, N., M. Kincaid, and H. Chang. 2014. Vaiuind
comparative analysis of Johnson Creek Oregon and\
Resources Research 50:4254 - 4268.
ABA
"Proxies — What do we do if we don't
have information on the desired
attributes?
Look elsewhere in the production system?
Habitat
40
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
SffA
Habitat is necessary but not
sufficient
From: Cade, B. S., J. W.
Terrell, and R. L. Schroeder.
1999. Estimating Effects of
Limiting Factors with
Regression Quantiles. Ecology
80:311-323.
oEFA
History of Marine Fisheries:
Landings and Abundance
Start 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
--Landings ^—Effort ^—Abundance ••• Fish Size
-Beneficiaries - Is there
heterogeneity in the way people
perceive ecosystems?
• Agriculture (7 Subdivisions)
• Commercial Industrial (8)
• Government, Municipal and Residential (4)
• Commercial/Military Transportation (2)
• Subsistence^)
• Recreational (6)
• Inspirational (2)
• Learning (2)
• Non-Use (2) From Landers
• Humanity (1) and Nahlik 2013
oEFA
How Specific Do We Need to Be?
Good Stnd Traut
EMAP-W Data
40 60
ftgm
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Components
(I
e
Sfce Appeal
Aggregate
U»
O
oEFA
Fishing Quality Index: Integrates
Fish and Appeal
Example from Economics
"The Conference Board Leading Economic Index®
(LEI) for the U.S. declined 0.2 percent in May to 123.7
(2010 = 100), following a 0.6 percent increase in April,
and a 0.1 percent increase in March.
The US LEI declined in May, primarily due to a sharp
increase in initial-elaicns for unemployment insurance.'
Conference Board Press Release June 23, 2016
A component
metric
Some Hard Questions
1. Boundary issues.
2. Proxies
3. Beneficiaries - how many, which ones, how specific
4. Scale
5. Do indicators that aggregate over multiple categories (e.g. a fishing
quality index) perform better than metrics that focus on specific
ecological components (e.g. fish and site appeal)?
6. More aggregate descriptions (e.g., fish) vs. less aggregate descriptions
(e.g., trout)?
7. How do we know if metrics "work"?
8. Do linking indicators "work" better than indicators of I EG S?
9. How do we evaluate alternative metrics?
10. Metrics for existence values
11. What are the temporal and spatial dimensions of indicators that matter to
people?
So...
Identify more of these that serve as barriers to metric
and indicator specification
Work out practical approach to address them
-Champions
-Steering Committee Members
42
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 6: Kirsten Winters
¦ *'"*W• * •'
-tjjf 1(0/4rr v;'* ' V4
How do communities identify and
apply final ecosystem goods and
services in management decisions?
Kirsten M. Winters
ORISE Postdoc
Western Ecology Division
Funding: USEPa
community preferences
vulnerability
DATA
BART: SURVEYING
AND SCOPING
Social scientists
Economists
Cognitive scientists
Psychologists
Landscape/Aquatic ecologists
Landscape architects
Biogeochemists
Modelers
CURRENT AVAILABLE TOOLS
DEVELOPING THE BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
AND REPORTING TOOL
tltyffVft he eet] , M) 4
Benefits Assessment and Reporting Tool
(BART)
1 What are the ways people benefit from local ecosystems?
2 What are the ecosystem attributes relevant to each
beneficiary?
3 What is the level of satisfaction for each beneficiary?
• •
t t
-------
What are the ways people benefit from iocal ecosystems?
V Attributes
V Ratings
V Report
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Nisqually Watershed Project (in progress)
Can long-rotation forestry improve summer low flow conditions that
limit salmon migration & spawning in the Nisqually watershed?
Partners: Washington DNR, Nisqually Tribe
Decision context 4
local landscape
(McKane et al., 2015)
QUANTITY/QUALITY FOR
MUNICIPAL WATER,
HYDROPOWER, AESTHETICS
CLEAN AIR FOR PEOPLE
11«l of attributes that effect each beiteflclaiy'a rating of the
ca-la
larity
onduct, tvlty
actlie
SOIL FOR PLANTING, OPEN
LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT,
RECREATION, TIMBER
PRODUCTION
OPEN LAND AND SOIL
FOR GROWING TREES
CHARISMATIC SPECIES,
AESTHETICS, EXISTENCE VALUE,
SPIRITUAL, & FUTURE OPTION
FOR RECREATION, INTERESTED
PEOPLE, TRIBAL/LOCAL USE
44
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Tlhi® w
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Linking IEGS to Potential FEGS
IEGS
pollinator habitat
Ex.1 near pollinator i
dependent crops
(National)
vegetative cover
Ex 2 stream buffers (
(National and
Community)
Environmental
Subclass
Beneficiaries
agroecosystems ^ farmers (0106)
(22)
streams and
rivers (11)
irrigators (0101)
¦ water subsisters (0501)
hnatprs fflfifldl
Potential
FEGS
11.0101
11.0501
11.0604
Potential
FEGS
11.0101
12.0101
31.0106 <
22.0106
etc.
Linking HGS to Potential FEGS
Environmental
Subclass
streams and rivers (11)
wetlands (12)
atmosphere (31) ^
agroecosystem (22)
Beneficiaries
irrigators (0101)
farmers (0106)
atmosphere (31) t all humans (1001)
HGS
fruit crop yields Ex.1
(National)
acute respiratory
symptoms
avoided due to
particulate matter
removed by tree
cover
(Community)
Ex.2
Current Goals:
Mapping EnviroAfesTgnto FEGS-CS
IEGS —~ Potential FEGS
Potential FEGS -4— HGS
Future Goalsfi
Identify beneficiaries well served by EnviroAtlas using FEGS
Identify beneficiary gaps in EnviroAtlas using FEGS metrics/
indicators and champions' reports
www.epa.gov/enviroatlas
Questions about
EnviroAtlas?
Contact us at;
enviroatlas@epa.gov
The presentation ends here.
Hereafter are bonus slides from
previous presentation by Jessica
at EnviroAtlas
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
HARVARD
SUSGS
NMW **¦*'
USDA
B
ixtujisin
- VhRMONT
NM
STA7T
Ml [>K ,\\
COLLEGE
< .) \\ |s< o.NSIN
Your school?
LandScope
America
Duke
i ¦ 111111
46
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
National Data
-S 5 m&g
Community
Data
EnviroAtlas Communities
Salt IM* City. UT
J
Fresno, GA.
~ x*.. V
* Phoe-:i« AZ
Portlajjid, ME
. Green Bay, W» . ...
x New Bedford. MA
MW>neapote'Sl Paul, MN _ *
,._1. .. ... i ..QP^hI O" - NewHaven.C
Woodbtne. ia Mitooujbe, WTJT Patersoo, NJ
* * * Jlr New Yort., NY
Des Motnes, tA Pin5burgn^
Access
the
Data
1 Explore them Via the Interactive Map.
1 Access via published web services: use our data in another
application without downloading.
1 Download and run.
We provide a lot of help, including:
• use cases to help with getting started
• demonstration videos
• fact sheets for each data layer
47
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Health Jmpaci Assessment (MA)
& EnvifoAtlas
Building a Groenway
Using EnvriroABw In
Om Classroom
cam yaw
Portland, OR
Land cover is an important input
ScenatotV
Of, toUtt spgdfle yt
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
EriviroAtlas is organized
arouno. the bKelfewe,
receive from nature,
known as ecosystem
goods and services.
49
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 8: Dixon Landers
Programmatic FEGS Goal
A Classification System for Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services
Dixon H. Landers and Amanda M. Nahiik
Identify, measure, and quantify
in a scientific, rigorous, and
systematic way that can be
aggregated from local to regional
and national scales.
US EPA OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
WESTERN ECOLOGY DIVISION, CORVALLIS, OREGON
How do you identify FEGS?
"components of nature, directly
enjoyed, con^dmed, or used to yield
human well-bfe-ing" (Boyd&Banzhat200T,
Environmental Class + Beneficiary -» FEGS
Three Key Steps:
1. Clearly define the Environmental Class
2. Identify Categories of Beneficiaries
3. For any Beneficiary and Environmental Class,
hypothesize FEGS received
FEGS
"components of nature, directly
enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield
human VVCil-being" (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007)
Environmental Class + Beneficiary -» FEGS
i well-being" 0
ital Class + Benef
m
Estuaries and Near Shore
Marine
Recreational Food Pickers
and Gatherers
V
Flora and fauna, s
mussels, seaweed, c
identifying FEGS
Our Classification Scheme
While using guiding questions to identify FEGS, we
also followed a distinct set of principles and rules
1. Intermediate goods an d services, often structural comp onents,
functions, and processes, are not FEGS
2. FEGS are components of the natural, not the built environment
3. Policy end points do not create FEGS
4. Human-made infrastructure, buildings, or goods and services with a
large input of labor and/or capital are not FEGS
5. Incidental non-marketed by-products of intensively produced goods
and services may be considered FEGS
6. Increased value or sense of happiness are not FEGS
7. The environment itself can be a FEGS
FEGS Classification Structure 1
Environment Beneficiary
21
.0604
J
1 I
Recreational 1
Mi Hantm
50
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Environmental Classes
1. AQUATIC
11. Rivers and Streams
12. Wetlands
13. Lakes and Ponds--
14. Estuaries and Near Coastal and Marine
15. Open Oceans and Seas
16. Groundwater—
2. TERRESTRIAL ...
21. Forests——
22. Agroecosystems
23. Created Greenspace--^^^^
24. Grasslands
25. Scrubland / Shrubland
26. Barren / Rock and Sand ^
27. Tundra
28. Ice and Snow
3. ATMOSPHERIC
31. Atmosphere
...include (but are not limited to)
*• saline lakes
• reservoirs
• quarries
...include (but are not limited to)
• rechargeable aquifers
• geysers
• water in caves
...include (but are not limited to)
¦ uncut and wilderness area forests
• rainforests
• wood lots
...include (but are not limited to)
^• parks, parkways, trees
• cemeteries and airfields
• lawns and golf courses
...include (but are not limited to)
• abandoned (dry) quarries
• dry desert
• beaches, unvegetated dunes
Environmental Classes
"components of nature, directly
enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield
human well-being'
(Boyd & Banzhaf 2007)
• 15 Environmental Sub-
Environmental Class
Classes
• Facilitate classification
of any area in the world
• Boundaries can be
identified and mapped
using satellite (mostly)
8
HI
Beneficiary Categories
"components of nature, directly
enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield
human well-being"
Beneficiary Categories
Beneficiaries are the
interests of an individual
Synonymous with uses,
households, or firms
People are made up of
multiple beneficiaries
Identified 37 Beneficiary
Sub-Categories
Beneficiary
00.01. AGRICULTURAL ~
00.02. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
00.03. GOVERNMENT. MUIMICIPLE. AND RESIDENTIAL
00.04. COMMERCIAL / MILITARY TRANSPORTATION
00.05. SUBSISTENCE ~ ...including,
• 00.0501 Water Subsisters
00.06. RECREATIONAL . nn ncn, rik_ Cll,
+ ...including,
• 00.0103 Livestock Grazers
• 00.0106 Farmers
INSPIRATIONAL \
LEARNING
NON-USE 1
HUMANITY
~ ...including,
• 00.0501 Water Subsisters
• 00.0503 Timber, Fiber, Fur / Hide Subsisters
~ ...including,
• 00.0701 Spiritual and Ceremonial Participants
• 00.0702 Artists
including,
00.0901 People Who Care (Existence)
00.0902 People Who Care (Option / Bequest)
Under the 10 Beneficiary Categories, there are a total
of 37 Beneficiary Sub-Categories
Categories of FEGS Identified in FEGS-CS
We identified 21 Categories of FEGS
Identifying FEGS
01 water
02 flora
03 presence of the environment
04 fauna
05 fiber
06 natural materials
07 open space
08 viewscapes
09 sounds and scents
10 fish
11 soil
12 pollinators
13 depredators and (pest) predators
14 timber
15 fungi
16 substrate
17 land
18 air
19 weather
20 wind
21 atmospheric phenomena
Note that these FEGS are categorical, not actual
FEGS, because they are not connected to an
environment or beneficiary
By using the FEGS approach, an infinite list of ecosystem services was
pared down to 338 FEGS
FEGS-CS is an operational framework that
standardizes identificationofecosystem
services at multiple spatial scales
Published EPA Report
— Available othttp://gispub4.epa.gov/FEGS
— EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914
Interactive FEGS-CS website (LIVE!)
http://gispub4.epa.gov/FEGS
— Create and download custom checklists of
potential FEGS
— Link with EnviroAtlas, mapping and
models
— Provide comments to the authors
— Participate in forum discussions
f INU f COSY5TEM &0005
AND XKVHTE5 CUWStf (CATION
B
WEB
51
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Classifying FEGS
Identified 338 sets of FEGS
- Each associated with a Beneficiary Sub-Category and
Environmental Sub-Class
- Potential for more, as FEGS-CS is a "living-document"
Each set of FEGS can be identified by a unique,
binomial, identification number
11. RIVERS AND STREAMS
What is next for the FEGS-CS?
• Up-date Website in 2017-user feedback
• Link with EnviroAtias
• Coordinate with the UN-SEEA and CICES
• Aide in SHC coordinated case studies
demonstrations
• Look broadly for improvements
Where it all started...
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) sparked the
Humans Define and Classify Items of Importance
in Order to Communicate
I
"Ecosystem services are the benefits peof
ecosystems." (MEA2005)
52
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
What is the problem?
• Many definitions and disparate "lists," "frameworks," and
"perceptions" of ecosystem services
• Miscommunication and discord among disciplines
• Disconnect between environment and human well-being
• Lack of consistency, rigor and a systematic approach; need
typology and classification for "framework"
What do people care about?
soil microbes clean water
;. A" ' - V
habitat
fauna
jjsSB
PI
1 * v11
mm
What ecosystem services do scientists measure
from this seemingly endless list?
Nahlik AM, Kentula ME, Fennessy MS, Landers DH. 2012. Where is the consensus? A proposed
foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecological Economics 77:27-35.
The services quantified by ecologists are not
necessarily those directly valued by the public.
SOCIAL SCIENTIST |
Connecting ecosystem services to beneficiaries
requires interdisciplinary approaches.
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS)
How do we connect
ecosystem services to human
well-being?
"components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or
used to yield human well-being" (Boyd &Banzhaf 2007)
A focused definition
— Centers on the ecosystems
— Tied to measures of biophysical features
— Counts only direct interactions, critical for economic valuation
— Relates clearly to human beneficiaries and human well-being
53
What are ecosystem services?
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
The Importance of Beneficiary Linkages
Water is often considered an
ecosystem service or "Benefit."
- '
. water quality?
To quantify ecosystem services on the
faa, ground, ecologists have to know what to
wat<35jfcity? measure.
**511
subsists
"¦00F- What to measure depends on the
beneficiary and what they directly utilize,
irrigjis^v' consume, or enjoy from the environment.
~
FEGS
Generic
Production Function
Human
Well-Being
Environment
Example 1: Recreational Fishing
Ecological Economic
Production Ptodiiction
Function
Function
Processes/
Functions
Intermediate
Goods and Services
Human
Weil-Being
Environment
Ecological
Production
Function
Economic
Production
Function
Example 2: Carrot Farming
Environment
a
Ecological
Economic
Production
Product] Dn
Function
Function
m Input of
Labor &
Capital
Total
Economic
Value
Intermediate
Goods and Services
FEGS
Beneficiary I
Distinguishing
FEGS from Non-
FEGS
We used rigid
boundaries for FEGS,
and made our
boundary decisions
explicit in FEGS-CS
y a
54
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Metrics and Indicators for FEGS
• Metrics and indicators will be added as available to
the FEGS-CS
• All will be initially marked "Provisional"
•With time and successful usage, some metric and
indicators will be considered "Accepted" and will be
marked so in the FEGS-CS
•User participation is essential for success
BENEFICIARYSCAPE
Beneficiaries (utility functions) lead to Valuation
1° Primary
Beneficiaries
2° Secondary
Beneficiaries
3° Tertiary
Beneficiaries
Incorporation of FEGS to EPA Decision Making
Key component of ORDs Sustainable and Healthy
Community national research program: demonstration
and proof of concept applications
Adopt some NARS (probability based - National Aquatic
Resources Survey) metrics and indicators (low hanging
fruit); augment NARS with some additional metrics and
indicators for FEGS
Collaboration on developing NESCS with Office of
Water and Office of Air and Radiation to incorporate
FEGS into Benefit/Cost Analyses
FEGS could well function as the currency of the
Ecosystem component of sustainability.
Sustainability
(adequate performance
for human needs)
Accounting/
Models/Status
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
(Measurement, verification and future state)
Ecosystem
Understanding -
Science j
Resilience
(Production functions - response
of ecosystems to drivers and stressors)
In the 1930s Boxcars moving from Chicago to NYC were counted
as one of the first metrics for Gross Domestic Product (80 years ago)
55
Economic Supply-side NAICS
Economic Demand-
Economic
Economic Good
Services / Prodi.
NESCS (linking FEGS with Economic Benefit and Cost Analysis)
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Next Steps
~ Begin populating the FEGS-CS with PROVISIONAL metrics and
indicators
~ Field test the FEGS-CS by applying, integrating and testing it as the
ecological currency in specific and diverse place-based
demonstration studies (proof of concept) and SHC wide in other
capacities.
~ Update and maintain the web site as need and based on user
feedback (new or additional FEGS; beneficiaries, environmental
sub-classes...)
~ Collaborate with other researchers interested in the FEGS approach
(SHC, ORD, UN SEEA and CICES, Canada, USA Federal Community
(PCAST))
Guiding Questions to Determine FEGS
~ For a specific Environmental Sub-Class, which Beneficiary Sub-
Categories are present?
— Q: Do Recreational Food Pickers and Gatherers utilize Estuaries and Near
Shore Marine environments? A: Yes.
~ For a specific Beneficiary Sub-Category interested in a specific
Environmental Sub-Class, what are the FEGS? Or, what does the
beneficiary utilize or care about that is directly provided by the
environment?
— Q: What do Recreational Food Pickers and Gatherers utilize from
Estuaries that result in a benefit? A: Flora and fauna, such as seaweed,
kelp, mussels, crabs, etc.
~ What is the importance of this FEGS to the beneficiary?
— Q: Why do Recreational Food Pickers and Gatherers in Estuaries care
about flora and fauna? A: These are edible organisms that can be
collected for personal use.
ORIGINAL ES CLASSIFICATION GOAL
Identify, measure, and quantify
ecosystem services in a scientific,
rigorous, and systematic way that
can be aggregated to regional and
national scales.
The Future of FEGS-CS
Widespread-release of the FEGS-CS report has generated
interest
— Safe and Healthy Communities Research Program (SHCRP)
— Office of Water & Office of Air and Radiation
— Other go vernm ent agencies (e. g., USGS)
— Private Firms (e.g., Earth Economics)
Continued development of FEGS measures and indicators
— Collaborating with NARS groups and other government agencies (NOAA...)
— Common list of metrics and indicators will facilitate on-the-ground
collaborative research and site-to-program comparisons
The Future of FEGS-CS - CONTINUED...
Contact Information
Field (Real World) Place-based Testing
Defining and weighting the Beneficiary-scape
FEGS are the intersect between the environment and people,
and as such, they could be used as:
— a common linkage AND language among EPA Programs and their
larger SUSTAINABILITY mission
— the environmental currency for policy analysis and future sustainability
projections
Use the EPA.gov search engine to search for:
¦ Publication Number EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914
- FEGS.CS@epa.gov
- landers.dixon@epa.gov
- nahiik.amanda@epa.gov
56
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 9: Amanda Nahlik
Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services Metrics Development:
Wetlands
Amanda M, Nahlik1'2
Champions' Objective: Develop metrics
for two beneficiaries (one consumptive
and one non-consumptive) and Sink the
proposed metrics to existing datasets
1 KENYON COLLEGE, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, GAMBIER. OHIO
• US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT. NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEARCH
LABORATORY. WESTERN ECOLOGY DIVISION, CORVALLIS, OREGON
Wetland Datasets
~ There are not many publically-available wetland datasets.
t> Wetlands tend to be studied at local and watershed scales.
> A few states have conducted state-wide wetland surveys (e.g. Ohio,
Minnesota).
What is NARS?
~ Until 2011, national-scale wetland datasets were limited to
mapping efforts to report on extent.
t> US Fish & Wildlife Service leads these efforts (e.g.. National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) and Status and Trends (S&T)).
> The EPA conducted the first national-scale wetland survey in 2011
as part of the National Aquatic Resource Survey (NARS) program.
® Series of surveys implemented by EPA and our state and tribal partners
addressing four waterbody types
~ Assess all surface waters within the 48 conterminous states every five years
Cost effective, nationally consistent, regionally relevant means of tracking status
and trends
«?> Builds from almost 20 years of research and pilots
National Wetland Condition Assessment
The NWCA is the only national wetland survey to collect myriad field data using
a probabilistic survey design and standard field and lab protocols.
<$> NWCA was conducted in 2011, and crews are currently sampling in the field for
the 2016 survey.
> Like all NARS data, the NWCA database is publically-available.
The objectives of the NWCA are to:
> Produce a report describing the ecological condition of the Nation's wetlands and stressors
commonly associated with poor condition;
> Collaborate with states and tribes In developing complementary monitoring tools,
analytical approaches, and data management technology to aid wetland protection and
restoration; and
!> Advance the science of wetland monitoring and assessment to support management
needs.
Although ecosystem services are not explicitly measured as part of NWCA,
reporting on ecosystem services remains a goal.
Should we focus on FEGS for which data
already exist to develop metrics and
indicators?
Should we focus on developing metrics
and indicators (and identifying data
gaps) for FEGS that we think are most
important to people?
57
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Using FEGS-CS to Identify the FEGS
Exercise 1:
\lfjt | Consumptive
-X 12. Wetlands
~ Beneficiary Category
> 12,05 Subsistence
~ Beneficiary Subcategory
> 12.0505 Traditional Medicine Subsisters
FEGS Categories
> 02 Flora
> 04 Fauna
FEGS
Category
Attributes
Desired Metrics
Available Metrics
Dataset
Species Composition
Species Composition
2011 NWCA
Medicinal Flora
Species Richness
Species Richness
2011 NWCA
Mean Relative Cover
Mean Relative Cover (%)
2011 NWCA
02 Flora
Chemicals
Plant Tissue Trace Element
Concentration
Soil Trace Element
Concentration (mg/kg)
2011 NWCA
Pathogens &
Parasites*
Plant Tissue Pathogen (e.g.,
Clostridium botulinum, Escherichia
coli. Salmonella, Shingella, Listeria
monocytogenes) Concentrations
Microcystin
Concentration (pg/L)
2011 NWCA
Presence of Parasites (e.g.,
Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora) on or
in Plant Tissue
N/A
* Listed as microbial hazards associated with fresh produce by FDA
(http:// ww w.fda. gov/ Food/Food Science Resea rch /Safe Practi cesfor FoodProcesses/ucm091265.htm)
9 12.0505 Traditional Medicine Subsisters jHIV
Species Composition
Medicinal Fauna Fauna Species Richness
Mean Relative Abundance
Animal Pathogen (e.g., Clostridium
botulinum, Campylobacter jejuni,
Escherichia coli, Salmonella,
Shingella, Listeria monocytogenes,
Vibrio cholera) Concentrations
Presence of Parasites (e.g.,
Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora) on or
in Animal Tissue
* Listed as microbial hazards associated with raw meats by FDA
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM 252435. pdf)
12.0505 Traditional Medicine Subsisters
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exercise 2:
Non-
Consumptive
Beneficiary
Using FEGS-CS to Identify the FEGS
~ Environmental Class
> 12, Wetlands
<$> Beneficiary Category
t> 12.06 Recreational
~ Beneficiary Subcategory
> 12.0601 Hikers and Viewers
~ FEGS Categories
E> 02 Flora
t> 03 Presence of the Environment
E> 04 Fauna
> 08 Viewscapes
> 09 Sounds and Scents
http://gispub4.epa.gov/FEGS
58
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
FEGS
Category
Attributes
Desired Metrics
Available Metrics
Dataset
Species Composition
Species Composition
2011 NWCA
02 Flora
Desirable Flora
Species Richness
Species Richness
2011 NWCA
Mean Relative Cover
Mean Relative Cover (%)
2011 NWCA
Species Composition
¦
N/A
04 Fauna
Desirable Fauna
Species Richness
N/A
Mean Relative Abundance
¦
N/A
<®> How do we determine which species are "desirable"?
> This seems like an individual preference and also one that would be influenced by
the specific location of the wetland.
13 12.0601 Recreational Experiences and Viewers flERU
Demonstration of how potential FEGS
provision to Traditional Medicine Subsisters
could be estimated
FEGS
Category
Attributes
Desired Metrics Available Metrics
Dataset
Size
Area Area (ha)
2011 NWCA
¦ 03 Presence
1 ofthe
Extent
Tota 1 Area Tota 1 Area (h a)
2011 NWCA
v^\
Condition
Condition Class (good.
Condition Class , . . '
fair, poor)
2011 NWCA
I
Complexity None
N/A
08
Aesthetics
Texture None
N/A
H Viewscapes
Attractiveness None
N/A
Color Intensity None
N/A
1
Sound Pressure Level (decibels) None
N/A
Sound
Naturalness (%) None
N/A
¦ 09 Sounds
¦ and Scents
Attractiveness None
N/A
Odor Concentration None
(pervasiveness)
N/A
¦mm
Naturalness [%) None
N/A
1
Attractiveness None
N/A
¦
HI
L_
12.0601 Recreational Experiences and Viewers
59
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 10: Andrew Gray
Andrew Gray
I AT -f* . I
PNW Research Station, Rft
Regular mowing/no natural succession
Patch of trees too small
What's NOT a forest ecosystem?
Notenoughtreecover
Woody plants too short
Natural succession generally unimpeded
fAO/I IA definition based on land use:
Currently >=10% cover or previous+re cove ring Of species that reach 5 m height
In a patch >=0.4 ha in size
Forests include riparian areas
• Amenity values often overlap multiple ecosystem types
• Resource extractors often have aesthetic considerations too:
- Fish catchers and forest
- Berry pickers and meadows
Beneficiary: Timber harvester (21,0202)
• What is the final ecosystem service in this case?
• FEGS is land & timber is manufactured (i.e., corn).
Attributes = productivity, manageability
• FEGS is the timber itself
Attributes = value of timber
• Continuum of management intensity/control varies by
region, owner, & vegetation type
MA DauMart
Desired metrics
Available metrics
1.
Net Land Value
- Site productivity,
potential tree taxa,
management ease
Site productivity weighted
site steepness*
2.
Net Timber Value
- Timber volume, taxa, size
distribution, ease of
extraction
Tree volume, weighted by
species type and site
steepness
60
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Timber functions
Land value
Timbervalue
* W
f _
Net board-foot volume per
acre of growing-stock trees
~f(DIA, HT, SPP, Damages)
X
[Species-specific wood value?]
X
X
¦ - —-
! -
t -
o
Timber value
Land productivity value
Standing timbervalue
Beneficiary: Recreational experiencer
(21.0601)
• FEGS listed for this include
• flora
• presence of the environment
• fauna
• viewscapes
• sounds and scents
• fungi
Desired metrics
• Variety of vegetation
• Species diversity
• Structural diversity
(forest and non-forest)
• Abundance of wildlife
• Plants with flowers
• Sight lines through the
forest
• Sight lines of
surrounding landscape
• Sample plot is the
wrong scale?
n
Available metrics
• Number of tree species/plot
• Number of understory plant
species/plot
• Abundance of large trees
• Potential habitat for
charismatic fauna
• Abundance of plants with
showy flowers
• Cover of tall shrubs and
small trees
• Shrub and tree cover,
combination of land types
and water on a plot
• Need moving window
analysis of plots, or modeled
veg data (e.g., GNN)
Simpler example: NTFPs
Atea cuveieii by yelEtlrd WAitale
5WC+-
v saoco:- mo l«xc
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 11: Ted Angradi
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Initial Metrics and FEGS for Environmental Class 13.
Lakes and Ponds
Ted Angradi
US EPA Mid-Continent Ecology Division
Duluth, MN
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
• EClass 13 includes natural lakes/ponds, reservoirs, tanks, Great Lakes
• My examples have natural inland lakes in the midwest in mind, and may not apply elsewhere
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Re evant beneficiaries?
pona-QtpeQP
HERA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
"Considerations for buying a lake home"
Get Specific Information About The Lake
Attributes
=> *"*•'»
M • « to-jri yud Ml« ta «r *w Mai1 Alt *w akwm) to
xS-EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Example 1: 13.0201 Commercial Food Extractors
FEGS category: Fish
Attributes: Abundance of harvestable species
Desired metrics: Fish stock
Available metrics: Commercial landings
Data source: State DNRs
Potential issue: availability of data uncertain, minor beneficiary in some regions
MN Inland Commercial Fishery Landings
July 1, 2014-June30, 2015
62
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Example 2: 13.0303 Residential Property Owners
FEGS category: Water
Attributes: Optical water quality
Desired metrics: Water clarity and color
Available metric: Secchi depth (SECMEAN)
Turbidity (TURBCOND)
Data source: National Lakes Assessment
Potential issue: temporal variation in metric values
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Example 3: 13.0605 Waders, Swimmers, and Divers
FEGS category: Composite (POE)
Attributes: Swi mm ability factors
Desired metrics: substrate, health risk, water clarity
Available metrics: % hard substrate (BSFSAND, BSFGRAVEL)
HABS (MCYST_COND, CYAN_COND, etc.)
Enterococci
Data source: National Lakes Assessment
Potential issue: how to combine metrics into indicator,
interactions among metrics
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Example 4: 13.0604XXxx (Pregnant, Harvest) Anglers
FEGS category: Fish
Attributes: Contaminant load
Desired metrics: Safe consumption level
Available metrics: P/A of a consumption advisory
[Hg, PCB, Dioxin] in tissue
Data source: National Lake Fish Tissue Study
State DNR, 305b Reports
Potential issue: incomplete data
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
xS-EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
MN DNR Consumption Advisories by Lake
Pregnant Women, Women who may become pregnant and Children under age 15
LAKE NAME
County, DOW1D
Species
Meal Advice
Contaminants
Unrestricted
1 meal/week
1 meal/month
FISH LAKE
FLOW AGE, St. Louis
County, MN
iluegill Sunfish
Alls
zes
PFOS
Crappie
Alls
zes
Mercury PFOS
Largemouth Bass
All s
zes
PFOS
Northern Pike
Alls
zes
Mercury PFOS
shorter than 18"
18" or longer
Mercury PFOS
All sizes
Mercury
General Population
LAKE NAME
County, DOWID
Species
Meal Advice
Contaminants
Unrestricted
1 meal/week
1 meal/month
FISH LAKE
FLOW AGE, St. Louis
County, MN
Bluegill Sunfish
Alls
zes
PFOS
Crappie
Alls
zes
PFOS
Largemouth Bass
All s
zes
PFOS
Northern Pike
All s
zes
PFOS
All s
zes
Mercury PFOS
All s
zes
Mercury
&ERA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
General Issues related to national application?
How to prioritize beneficiaries across/within environmental classes
Regional and Inter-regional variability in relevant beneficiaries
What about catchment scale indicators?
Variation in data quality and sample frames across e-classes
Are there multi-eclass indicators?
• lakes, lacustrine wetlands, large rivers, low salinity estuaries
63
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
64
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 12: Tim Canfield
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Agro Ecosystems
Example Metrics and FEGS for Environmental Class 22.
Agro Ecosystems
Tim Canfield
US EPA-ORD-NRMRL
Groundwater and Ecosystem Restoration Division (GWERD)
Ada, OK
Agro Ecosystems are a broadly diverse sub-class encompassing
activities in both the terrestrial and aquatic environment.
Per the FEGS-CS classification there are 12 currently identified
FEGS in this sub-class
Of the 2.3 billion acres of land in the US, 51% (1.16 billion acres)
is agricultural lands (USDA2007)
• Cropland - 408 million acres
• Pasture and Rangeland - 614 million acres
• Grazed Forest Land - 127 million acres
• Farm steads and Farm Roads - 12 million acres
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
«EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Some Considerations that make a
desirable farm?
• Sufficient amount of land to conduct desired operation
• Land of a condition to support desired purpose
• Adequate water supplies to support operation
• Ease of access to all parts of farm
• Proximity to markets
Example 1 - 22.0106 Farmers
FEGS Category: 01 Water
Attributes: Abundant water
Desired metrics: 1: Volume of water (total gallons)
2: Proximity to farm
Available metrics: 1: Stream flow(gpm), groundwater (Total Gallons)
2: Measured distance to farm (miles)
Data source: 1: State water surveys, USGS water estimates
2: State Water Atlas Maps, USGS Groundwater Maps
Sufficient volume of water to conduct desired farming Low, Medium, High
(Water volume)
Distance and thus cost to get water to farm
Barriers: Accessing data may be an issue. Is data current?
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
«EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
ixample 2 - 22.0106 Farmers
FEGS Category: 01 Water
Attributes: Acceptable Quality
Desired metrics: 1: Low salinity
2: Low suspended solids
Available metrics: 1: Salinity measurements
2: Turbidity NTU measurements
Data source: 1: State or university surveys
2: State or university surveys
ixample 3 - 22.0106 Farmers
FEGS Category: 11 Soil
Attributes: Carbon content
Desired metric: High carbon content
Available metrics: % Carbon content in soil
Data source: USDA soil condition reports
Low salt content to m inimize plant toxicity
Low, Medium, High
Low water particulates-minimize clogging, leaf shading Low, Medium, High
Barriers: Accessing data may be an issue. Is data current? Does data exist?
Quantity of carbon in soil sufficient for plant growth Low, Medium, High
Barriers: Is data current? Does data exist? If not what is cost to produce data?
65
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Example 4 - 22.0601 Experience and Viewing
Example 5 - 22.0601 Experience and Viewing
FEGS Category: 01 Water
FEGS Category: 02 Flora
Attributes: Water Temperature
Desired metric: Colder water compared to non covered stream stretch
Available metrics: Temperature measurements
Data source: State water quality surveys
Attributes: Riparian Cover
Desired metric: % total coverage of stream length
Available metrics: GIS data maps
Data source: State GIS Agencies, USFWS
Lower water temperature to support fish populations Low, Medium, High
Sufficient canopy cover to shade stream sufficiently Low, Medium, High
Barriers: Does data exist? If not what is cost to produce data?
Barriers: Does data exist? If not what is cost to produce data?
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Example 6 - 22.0601 Experience and Viewing
Agro Ecosystems
FEGS Category: 12 Pollinators
Attributes: 1: Bees present
2: Butterflies present
Desired metric: 1: Abundance of bees visiting plants
2: Abundance of butterflies visiting plants
Available metrics: ?????
Data source: USFWS? Bee keepers?, ????
Sufficient number of bees to pollinate plants Low, Medium, High
Sufficient number of host plants to attract butterflies Low, Medium, High
Agro Ecosystems are a broadly diverse sub-class encompassing
activities in both the terrestrial and aquatic environment.
Per the FEGS-CS classification there are 12 currently identified
FEGS in this sub-class
Of the 2.3 billion acres of land in the US, 51% (1.16 billion acres)
is agricultural lands (USDA2007)
• Cropland - 408 million acres
• Pasture and Rangeland - 614 million acres
• Grazed Forest Land - 127 million acres
• Farm steads and Farm Roads - 12 million acres
Barriers: Does data exist? What is cost to produce data Does anybody even care?
SUSTA NABLE and HEALTHY COMMUN T ES RESEARCH PROGRAM
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Potential Challenges going forward
Defining what our ultimate goal is that resonates
positively with theAg community
Getting access to USDA data on things that are Ag-FEGS
Determining how to divide out Ag areas where accounting
of FEGS makes sense (One size does not fit all)
How to balance the challenges of scale (National/Regional
vs. State/local/community)
"Generally right, but potentially specifically wrong" is OK
as a first milestone, but for long term adoption it
can't be the end.
66
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
SUSTA NABLE and HEALTHY CQMMUN T ES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Questions
and/or
Comments???
67
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 13: David Peck
FEGS 11: RIVERS AND
STREAMS
Initial Metrics and
Examples from NRSA
David V. Peck and Paul L. Ringold
Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR
Sp*
—
oEFA
FEGS 11: Rivers and Streams
• Paul Ringold has done a lot of initial thinking about potential
stream metrics that might address different FEGS categories and
beneficiaries (2013: EMAP-West)
• My focus today:
-Mainly biological-related metrics (principallyfish)
• Example: Modified Fishing Quality Index
• Possible modifications to proposed metrics relating to
various angling-related beneficiaries
• Some ideas related to Non-Use beneficiaries
-Focusing on biological metrics and indicators
-Brainstorms (or brain farts...)
-Potential application to National Rivers and Streams
Assessment (NRSA)
I will be down in the "natural science weeds"
-Need help with trying to make sure FEG is identified correctly,
and to make metrics more "economist-friendly"
I 1/18/2017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NRSA Background
Part of NARS: Partnership
between EPA Office of Water
and States, Tribes, others
• Probability-based survey
design
~ NSWS EMAP NARS
Over 2,100 sites sampled
• Repeated every 5 years
• Capability to make inferences
from sampled sites to a much
larger target population
• Not intended to assess
individual sites
H 1118/2017 U. S. Environ mental Protecti on Agen cy
2008-09 NRSA sites
SEFft
FEGS-CS 11.0604: Recreational
Anglers
FEGS:
-Fish
Attribute: abundance of "catchable" fish (various
types) in "nice" places
-Desirable metrics:
Fish abundance
Measures of Aesthetics
Fishing Quality
Recreational Anglers: Potential metrics/indicators
• Fishing Quality Index (Ringold)
• Developed using EMAP-West data
• Based on number of salmonid and centrarchid (sunfish and bass) individuals
• Function of Fish and Place
t
Water Body Character
5 Beautiful, ..
4.. Very minor aesthetic
problems....
3. Enjoyment impaired.
2. Level of enjoyment
substantially reduced.
1. Enjoyment nearly
impossible.
Place
Fishing Quality Class
Recreational Fish Abundance Class
Low Medium High
_
Low (1 or 2)
Low
Low
Low
Medium (3 or 4)
Low
Medium
Medium
High (5)
Medium
High
High
Fishing Quality index (Modified)
Using 2013-2014 NRSA data (but don't tell anyone!)
Fish counted and tallied by 6-inch length increments
- Potential Alternative: length categories of
Gabelhouse (1984), based on % of world record
length
Stock
Quality
Trophy
Preferred
Memorable
Gabelhouse, D. W„ Jr. 1984. A Length-Categorization System to Assess Fish Stocks. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:273-285.
68
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Fishing Quality Index (Modified)
Four metrics using important cold and warm/cool water
groups:
-No. salmonid individuals (SALMNIND)
-No. "large" salmonid individuals
(SALM_GT 12_N IN D)
-No. Micropterus (bass) individuals (BASSNIND)
-No. "large" Micropterus (bass) individuals
(BASS_GT 12_N IN D)
Fishing Quality Indices (FQI): Each metric with Water
body character (APPEALING) condition
~SALMNIND_FQI, SALM_GT 12_FQI
¦ BASSNIND FQI, BASS GT12 FQI
Fishing Quality Index (Modified)
Condition Classes for each
metric:
GOOD: > 75th percentile
(national)
POOR: < 25th percentile
(national)
FAIR: between 25th and 75th
percentiles
NOT COLLECTED= no
salmonids or basses collected
FQI
Condition
Classes
• Condition Classes for
APPEALING:
• GOOD: APPEALING = 5 (most
appealing)
. FAIR: APPEALING = 3 and 4
• POOR: APPEALING = 1 and 2
• NO DATA: missing
METRIC
CONDITION
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
POOR
POOR
POOR
POOR
FAIR
POOR
FAIR
FAIR
GOOD
FAIR
GOOD
GOOD
Thresholds for metrics
• Low numbers of individuals collected (especially
for "large" individuals)
SALMNIND 510 1
3
12
37
533
SALM_GT 12_N IND 510 0
0
0
2
57
BASSNIND 991 1
3
10
27
228
BASS GT12 NIND 991 0
0
0
2
116
Original FQI thresholds® 33rd and 66th percentiles
&FRA
IP— TOP SECRET!!
Population Estimates (Salmonids)
!"' !
V
C
i-h
i- 1
*
H40- I
\:¦
V
Ml
^ A
S
in mrijtmci
!ui icuiun_rai
Assessed Length=355,936 miles (n=391)
Target-Sampled Length= 1,502,852 miles (n=1,851)
Hi
HP— TOP SECRET!!
Population Estimates ("Large" Salmonids)
t
t, ™ .
A
a -
9. IB© -
. I iU
/ /
a*. a.imt.iK'.c
r ¦/" ,}
&
salm ottj fa
Assessed Length=355,936 miles (n=391)
Target-Sampled Length= 1,502,852 miles (n=1,851)
oEFA
TOP SECRET!!
Population Estimates (Bass)
I-
1.
- IM
* * JM
I
Ai 3D
- ¦
f
/
10 -
S
~ ~ f -f
¦f
UAKKMHJ I U
Assessed Length=510,653 miles (n=822)
Target-Sampled Length= 1,502,852 miles (n=1,851)
69
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
ABA
TOP SECRET!!
Population Estimates ("Large" Bass)
ICO -
_ £
e
r™.
-I tJ
¦
I **"
r j »
" j- ,
¦
/ •'
¦KU UTU«C
~
ItUS.tirU.MKlJ u
Assessed Length=510,653 miles (n=822)
Target-Sampled Length= 1,502,852 miles (n=1,851)
«EFA
Relative Extent, Relative Risk, and Attributable
Risk
Relative Risk Attributable Risk
LMC hwUr Mttm m Irt WW
e r i
« H a a tl w
' 1 « I U U U U M 14
Kr litre Rnt Faifra Ovetnr of /'em
' ——— -- ——
• Relative Extent- How prevalent is a
stressor?
• Relative Risk: Probability of poor
indicator condition when stressor
condition is poor
• Attributable Risk: proportion of poor
indicator conditions that could be reduced
if high levels of a particular stressor were
eliminated.
• Length in poor indicator condition that
could be improved (i.e., moved from poor
into either the good or fair)
NRSA FQIs: Challenges
Electrofishing does not collect many "large" individuals
- Some differences from EMAP-West
Thresholds based on percentiles
- Likely not appropriate for "large" FQIs
- Ask the beneficiary??!!!
• Avoids circularity, too
Individual metrics vs. aggregate index
- Do aesthetics matter if there are no fish?
• Modified FQIs: "NOT COLLECTED"
• Modified FQIs are not continuous
How to deal with permit restrictions?
- May indicate presence of game species (esp. salmon in
western U.S.)
SER*
NRSA FQIs: Challenges
• APPEALING/Aestethics
- "APPEALING" may not be as applicable to bass
• Prefer more productive systems that might be
less aesthetic
• Instream habitat (i.e., do anglers care about what
might be important to fish vs. how appealing a
place is?
-Fish cover types (including depth)
• Maybe some habitat metrics give better estimate
of "appealing"?
• Is access a component of "aesthetics"?
-Again- ask the beneficiary!!
NRSA FQIs: Tweaks
• Deal with "game fish", "panfish" groups?
- Game fish: add in striped bass, pike/muskie,
walleye/sauger, e.g.
- Pan fish: some sunfish, crappie, e.g.
- Gabelhouse categories might work better with more
species included in metric
• Small individuals may count, too (sustaining
populations)
• Use max. length to identify largest size class of a
species collected instead of size classes
- Better link to previous surveys (NRSA 2008-09,
EMAP, MAHA/MAIA)
oEFA
NRSA FQIs: Tweaks (cont.)
• Can also look at angling pressure and fish stocking as
observed by field crews (visual assessment)
• May get better (and more) data for some metrics
during site evaluations
- Access information (Rob)
• Other data sets besides NRSA?
• National Fisheries Survey (Judy 1984)
- Might have some ideas and approaches that are
relevant to FEGS
- Likely not practical to try to re-do (OMB clearance)
• Maybe sociologist could make it happen?
70
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
SffA
Four More Angler Beneficiaries And
Available Metrics (Ringold)
1. Recreational Catch and Consume (A subset of
11.0604)
2. Subsistence (A subset of 11.0502)
3 Commercial for Consumption (A subset of 11.0201
4. Commercial Not for Consumption (A subset of 11.0201)
• For categories 1 to 3, add a measure of "consumability"
- Desired metrics: measures of potential health impact
from consumption
- Abundance of fish of desired size to eat
- Available metrics:
oEFA
"Consumability" metrics
Fish tissue contaminants (aka Mercury) in NRSA
- Fish plugs: collected at all sites where target species
are collected
-Whole fish:
• Collected from -450 sites (5th order and higher)
where samples were collected in NRSA 2008-09)
• Analyzed as fillets
Microcystin in water
Enterococci in water
Substitute a measure offish biomass for 4 - TOTLNIND
- Size classes in NRSA 2013-14 may help here
Fishing Quality Output (EMAP-West)
Type of Fishing
AEFA
Other thoughts re: "Consumability"
• Tissue data from NRSA might be too sparse
• Fish consumption advisories: potential metric related
to consumability?
-Maybe we can determine how many NRSA sites are
"associated" with advisories
Stopping Point 1: Go to wrap-up??
oEFA
FEGS-CS 11.0601: Recreational:
Experiencers and Viewers
• FEGS:
-Attribute: Presence of the environment
-Viewscapes
-Flora and fauna
-Sounds and scents
71
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Experiencers and Viewers: Potential
Metrics
Visual Assessment Form
Similar to Lakes
• "Pleasantness"- APPEALING or PRISTINE
-Same or different issues we had with FQI?
Can we develop more robust criteria for assigning a
value?
Probably something for a sociologist instead of an
ecologist
oEFA
TOP SECRET!!
Population Estimate: APPEALING
u
H
1
F _
¦
I
WW I Ml fW* HSGWPA
Target-Sampled Length= 1,584,502 miles
Visual Assessment Form
SEFft
FEGS 11.0601: Recreational:
Experiencers and Viewers
• Recreational
-Hiking trails
-Parks, Campgrounds (incl. primitive)
-Negatives (from visual assessment form):
• Films and Odors
• Algae
-Other negatives
• Enterococci
• Microcystin
• Physical Habitat (e.g., Fine sediment, riparian quality
and disturbance)
• Landscape attributes related to enjoumnet (Joan)
Stopping Point 2: Go to wrap-up??
SEFA
FEGS-CS 11.0901: Non-Use: People
Who Care (Existence) (& Ecologists!)
FEGS
-"presence of the environment"
-Value to beneficiary-'Knowing that it exists"
72
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
SffA
Non-Use: People Who Care: potential metrics
• Ecological Integrity
-Multimetric Indices (fish, benthic invertebrates)
-Taxa Loss (Predictive models)
• Available for benthos, less common for fish (but see
Meador and Carlisle 2009)
• Combine fish and invert taxa—do big O/E vs. combine
individual O/E values?
• Non-native Species (fish, invertebrates, or plants)
-Stoddard et al. (2006): Non-native fish present in 47% of
sampled stream length in MAIA (most extensive stressor)
-Stoddard et al. (2005): Non-native verts (mostly fish)
common (>10%) in 34% of sampled stream length in
_ EMAP-W (2nd most extensive stressor)
oEFA
Other Potential or Non-Use Metrics
• Diversity
-Species Richness metrics
• Benthos: EPT metrics
• Fish (and benthos?): difference from expected richness
based on least-disturbed sites?
• Dominance: % of most abundant taxa (1, 3, 5, etc.)
-Evenness metrics?
Intolerant (or tolerant) Species
-General or stressor-specific
-Quantitative-based values now possible (e.g., Meador and
Carlisle 2007, Whittier et al. 2007, Whittier and Van Sickle
2010)
• May also be applicable to Property Owners (?)
-Presence of intolerant (esp. listed) can influence what can or
cannot be done
c'tions of the /American Fisheries Society 138:725-740. 9 P 9
NRSA Non-Use Metrics: Tweaks &
Challenges
• Least-disturbed site quality varies regionally
- Both MMIs and predictive models are based on
least-disturbed condition
• Native-nonnative status not a certainty
- Map-based vs. field-based assignments
- Invertebrate collection methods may not be
effective for nonnative mollusks
- Nonnative plants optional in 2013-14
- Again, may get more consistent information during
site evaluation
oEFA
FEGS 11.0605:
Swimmers
Recreational:
• Water clarity and quality (turbidity)
• Enterococci
• Microcystin
• Negatives (from visual assessment form):
-Films and Odors
-Algae
• Physical habitat metrics??
Wrap-up
• Potential to modify angling-relating FEGS
• Consumability may be constrained
• Several potential metrics related to Non Use-related FEGS
¦ Other metric of other beneficiaries have not been
investigated
¦ Need to prioritize beneficiaries and metrics based on
suitability for handing off to economists, available expertise
¦ Questions regarding "reference" or thresholds
-Spatial variability in "quality", thresholds based on
something other than percentiles
¦ Individual attributes/metrics versus aggregated index
¦ "Place"- how to get important attributes (ecologist vs.
beneficiary?)
^ How do we assess "performance"?
SER*
Final Thoughts
•Next NRSA is 2018-2019
-Proposals for FEGS-related metrics due late 2016-
early 2017
• Site evaluation or field measurements or
observations
• ORD indicator evaluation guidelines— applicable to
FEGS-related metrics and/or indicators?
-Add in "communication" and "potential for
subsequent analyses"
• NHD and StreamCat
73
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
THE END
oEFA
Salmonid FQIs vs. Angling Pressure
Angling Pressure (visual assessment)
High
Moderate
Low
Not
Observed
TOTAL
SALMNINDFQI (n=510)
GOOD
12
16
28
71 |
127
FAIR
12
37
78
123
250
POOR
1
16
(34)
76
127
NO DATA
1
0
2
3
6
SALMGT12NIND FQI (n=510)
GOOD
19
35
35
32
121
FAIR
1
9
26
35
71
POOR
5
29
0-)
203
312
NO DATA
1
0
2
3I
6
Bass FQIs vs. Angling Pressure
| Angling Pressure (visual assessment)
High
Moderate
Low
Not
Observed
TOTAL
BASSNINDFQI (n=991)
GOOD
14
63
67
67
211
FAIR
14
80
139
237
470
POOR
5
34
163
194
296
NO DATA
0
1
4
9
14
BASS GT12NIND FQI (n=991)
GOOD
14
77
90
83
264
FAIR
7
32
60
155
POOR
12
68
123
355
558
NO DATA
0
II
4
9
14
oEFA
Salmonid FQIs vs. Fish Stocking
| Fish Stocking (visual assessment) |
High
Moderate
Low
Not
Observed
TOTAL
SALMNIND FQI (n=510)
GOOD
6
16
16
CO
CO
127
FAIR
7
29
52
162
250
POOR
2
12
24
CO
CO
127
NO DATA
0
0
0
6
6
SALM GT12NIND FQI (n=510)
GOOD
12
28
21
60
121
FAIR
0
5
13
53
71
POOR
3
24
58
227
312
NO DATA
°ll
oil
0
'1
6
Bass FQIs vs. Fish Stocking
| Fish Stocking (visual assessment)
High
Moderate
Low
Not
Observed
TOTAL
BASSNIND FQI (n=991)
GOOD
8
25
36
142
211
FAIR
5
32
72
360
470
POOR
2
15
30
249
296
NO DATA
0
0
3
11
14
BASS GT12NIND FQI (n=991)
GOOD
6
26
51
181
264
FAIR
4
12
109
155
POOR
5
34
58
461
558
NO DATA
0
oil
3
11
14
oEFA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
74
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
Presentation 14: Walter Berry
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Initial Metrics and FEGS for Environmental Class 14:
Estuaries
Walter Berry, Jim Latimer, John Kiddon
US EPA Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, Rl
• EClass 14 includes estuaries and near coastal and marine
• My examples have estuaries in the Northeast in mind, and should apply elsewhere
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Example 1: Subsistence Fishermen
FEGS category: Fish
Attributes: Desirable Fauna
Desired metrics: Abundance of harvestable species,
Fish safety
Available metrics: Recreational landings
Fish tissue data
Data source: State DNRs, NOAA,
NCCA2010
Potential issues: Availability of data uncertain at appropriate scale
Availability of indicators uncertain
NOAA Fisheries Statistics Queries
f NCAA OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Example 2: Beach Goers
FEGS category: Water
Attributes: Water quality, Safeness, Pleasantness, Rec Opportunities
Desired metrics: Water clarity, Health Risk, Swimmability
Avai I ab I e m etri c: Li g ht Tran sm i ssivity
Water Quality Index,
Beach Closures
Data source: NCCA, State DNRs
Potential issues: temporal variation and scale in metric values
Availability of data uncertain at appropriate scale
Availability of appropriate indicators uncertain (WQI
contains other variables)
Fewer data than for lakes (e.g. for Pleasantness)
O r»m II< ¦Hi'i WfeNIM
?=
75
-------
Appendix C: Workshop Presentation Slides
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
Note: Where "data" = no known data are available, in contrast to that
Available for lakes and ponds.
&EPA
SUSTAINABLE and HEALTHY COMMUNITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM
General Issues related to national application?
How to prioritize beneficiaries acrossAwithin environmental classes
Regional and Inter-regional variability in relevant beneficiaries
Regional and Inter-regional variability in relevant FEGs
What scale should we use for indicators?
Data availability at scale appropriate for intended uses of FEGS
76
-------
Appendix D: Workshop Beneficiary Summary Table
Environmental Class
Beneficiary
FEGS Category
Attributes
Desired Metric
Available Metric
Data Source
Wetlands
Traditional Medicine
Subsisters
Flora
Medicinal Flora
Species Composition
Species composition
2011 NWCA
Species Richness
Species Richness
2011 NWCA
Mean Relative Cover
Mean Relative Cover
2011 NWCA
Chemicals
Plant Tissue Trace Element
Concentration
Soil Trace element
Concentration
2011 NWCA
Pathogens and
Parasites
Plant Tissue Pathogen
Concentrations
Surface water
Microcystinconcentration
2011 NWCA
Presence of Parasites
none
Fauna
Medicinal Fauna
Species Composition
none
Fauna Species Richness
none
Mean Relative Abundance
none
Chemicals
Animal Tissue Trace Element
Concentration
none
Pathogens and
Parasites
Animal Pathogen Concentrations
none
Presence of Parasites
none
77
-------
Appendix D: Workshop Beneficiary Summary Table
Environmental Class
Beneficiary
FEGS Category
Attributes
Desired Metric
Available Metric
Data Source
Wetlands
Recerational Experiencers
and Viewers
Flora
Desirable Flora
Species composition
Species composition
2011 NWCA
Species Richness
Species Richness
2011 NWCA
Mean Relative Cover
Mean Relative Cover
2011 NWCA
Fauna
Desirable Fauna
Species Composition
none
Species Richness
none
Mean Relative Abundance
none
Presence of the
Environment
Size
Extent
Condition
Agro Ecosystems
Farmers
Water
Abundant Water
Volume of water (total gallons)
Stream flow (gpm),
Groundwater (total gallons)
State Water Surveys,
USGS Water
Estimates
Proximity to farm
Measured Distance to Farm
State Water Atlas
Maps, USGS
Groundwater Maps
Acceptable Quality
Low Salinity
Salinity measurements
State or University
surveys
Low Suspended solids
Turbidity NTU measurements
State or University
surveys
78
-------
Appendix D: Workshop Beneficiary Summary Table
Environmental Class
Beneficiary
FEGS Category
Attributes
Desired Metric
Available Metric
Data Source
Agro Ecosystems
Farmers
Soil
Carbon Content
High Carbon Content
% Carbon content in soil
USDA soil condition
reports
Experiencers and Viewers
Water
Water Temperature
Colder water compared to non-
covered stream stretch
Temperature measurements
State water quality
surveys
Flora
Riparian cover
% total coverage of stream
length
GIS data maps
State GIS Agencies,
USFWS
Pollinators
Bees present
Abundance of bees visiting plants
none?
Beekeepers?
Butterflies present
Abundance of butterflies visiting
plants
none?
USFWS?
Streams
Recreational Anglers
Fish
Fish Abundance
Abundance offish by species
and size (large fish)
NRSA
Nice Place
Measure of Aesthetics
Appealing
Forests
Timber Harvester
Productive land
Productivity
Net land value
site productivity weighted by
site steepness
FIA
Net timber value
tree volume weighted by
species type and site steepness
FIA
79
-------
Appendix D: Workshop Beneficiary Summary Table
Environmental Class
Beneficiary
FEGS Category
Attributes
Desired Metric
Available Metric
Data Source
Forests
Recreational experiencer
Flora
Flora
variety of vegetation (species
diversity and structural diversity)
number of tree species/plot
presence of the
environment
presence of the
environment
number of understory plant
species/plot
fauna
fauna
adundance of wildlife
abundance of large trees
viewscapes
viewscapes
potential habitat for
charismatic fauna
sounds and scents
sounds and scents
abundance of plants with
showy flowers
fungi
fungi
cover of tall shrubs and small
trees
shrub and tree cover,
combination of land types and
water on plot
Lakes
Commercial Food
Extractors
Fish
Abundance of
harvestable species
Fish Stock
Commerical landings
State DNRs
Residential Property
Owners
Water
Optical water quality
water clarity and color
Secchi desk depth
NLA
turbidity
NLA
Waders, Swimmers and
Divers
Composite
Swimmability Factors
substrate, health risk, water
clarity
% hard substrate
NLA
HABS
NLA
Enterococci
NLA
80
-------
Appendix D: Workshop Beneficiary Summary Table
Environmental Class
Beneficiary
FEGS Category
Attributes
Desired Metric
Available Metric
Data Source
Lakes
(Pregnant, Harvest)
Anglers
fish
contaminant load
safe consumption level
P/A consucmption advisory
National lake fish
tissue study, state
DNR, 305b reports
[Hg, PCB, Dioxin] in tissue
Estuaries
Subsistence fisherman
fish
desireable fauna
abundance of harvestable
species
Recreational landings
state DNRs, NOAA,
NCCA 2010
fish safety
fish tissue data
beach goers
water
water quality
water clarity
light transmissivity
NCCA
safeness
health risk
water quality index
state DNRs
pleansantness
swimmability
beach closures
rec opportunities
Table 3. Beneficiary specific metric and Indicator development presented by ecosystem champions at workshop.
81
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Portland FEGS Workshop July 16-18 2017
Meeting Notes
Day 1
Rationale and Goals 1 [Jim Boydl
{Portland 2016 History.pptx}
Thinking about economics and ecology together is necessary for enlightened discourse
History of FEGS Concept:
-1908 Teddy Roosevelt and Conference of Governors
-linking human prosperity to natural resources
Need one unit of measure, and one framework
Discussion on importance of naming conventions vs. need for explicit definitions for consistency
among disciplines
Need to focus on operational and practical considerations, rather than broad
philosophical attitudes [Johnston]
Things need to have names and people need to agree on them. [Rhodes]
Precision in accounting and naming can be important for analysis, but here we are
interested in what's resonant with lay audiences [Boyd]
Difficulty in defining 'ecological endpoints'
Many indicators used in natural science are difficult to translate usefully for non-natural
scientists
Is biophysical output same as ecological output? [Angradi]
Are we artificially separating humans outside of ecology (what's the system?); what
system are we talking about? [Russell]
Moving away from language of endpoints (public health outcomes speak more to
endpoints; appeal to public health domain; "decadal" attempt to translate health
outcomes into something that's helpful to ecologists.)
PROGRAMMATIC MEASUREMENT; what are the key gaps, etc.
What about our framework? Can we agree on something?
Ecosystem Service = is it a PROCESS? An ecological OUTCOME? A monetary BENEFIT?
What is it?
Avoid the term ecosystem services—it's too vague or multi-definitional.
82
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
What should we measure? How can we fit this into a framework?
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment has been useful for some, but not in other cases, for
example regulation.
The growth of a conceptual model—when things are adopted, what happens to purist
concepts and terms? [Winters]
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: how it works conceptually, is good; but how it is applied doesn't
necessarily work; as advocacy tool, it works; but for analysis, it does not. New forest
management policies using MEA categorization. [Kline]
MES framework is familiar, useful 0 why change what MEA put out and what people are
used to? [Richkus]
If smart people hadn't come up with it, it wouldn't have taken root. [Hewitt]
We can have our cake and eat it, too—a way to engage people and to get ecologists
involved in thinking about these topics. This is useful for certain types of questions.
[Ringold]
This isn't new, but others have picked up on it because of this frame of thinking.
(CONTRIVED SYSTEM). It helps people ID benefits by taking into account that's
recognizable (fuller classification of what's of value). [Canfield]
We already use this for communication, considering values, & how to integrate from the
policy point of view; but how to integrate from the analysis point of view? [Barber]
Misconception of economics as focused on growth and GDP, when in fact much broader
Production theory: inputs combined via production functions into outputs, similar to
ecological production functions
Where are we now?
All elements of production are important (science stays)
Don't want double-counting (what's intermediate/what's final?)
Group Discussion on valuing bread vs. yeast, bridges
What level of detail is required?
Final goods close to the consumer in econ? How does that concept account for
marketing? Does this include marketing? How does the metaphor stretch? Does it
stretch? [Nassauer]
83
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Distinguishing between quantities and prices; lumping categories broadly and taking
average price of loaves, etc., WTP is lumped in there (why accounting is flawed). How
much detail do we want to get into?
In the first slide the concept "experience" was used; and the word "close" was used,
question: for the concept, to what degree does it matter what everybody's immediate
impressions are versus educated impression are to perceive the world differently?
[Nassauer]
How to talk about value; but for whom? And how to calculate? Biophysical processes
have value—but how do we measure them? [Johnston]
What enters directly into economic production system?
Rationale and Goals 2 [Paul Ringold]
{Why are we here and what are we going to accomplish FEGS workshop 2016.pptx}
Asking attendees to discuss issues and problems with actually implementing FEGS
Where do the humans fit in the picture? [Rhodes]
Ecology typically not concerned with humans and human well being. [Ringold]
There are so many metrics in the EMAP dataset—so how do we deal with the DATA problem?
[Ringold]
Terminology: Ecosystem benefit versus something else? Are FEGS the same as a benefits?
[Angradi]
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEGS AND FGS (What's the input?)
What is the benefit? How do we determine the types of benefits? [Russell]
DEFINITION OF BENEFITS: IS CHANGE IN WELFARE [JOHNSTON]
What is capital? What are the types of capital?
How do we rectify the framework? Economists have a definition of a benefit...
Wayne is putting labels on other parts of the process. They're here, but they're not shown on
this model. Biologically 'relevant' (?) [Ringold]
Where are humans in the system: THE FEGS, THAT'S WHERE HUMAN PRODUCERS INTERACT
WITH THE FEG, WHERE THEY DO something to it. The final good or service, that's where it
interfaces with consumers. Humans interact as producers and consumers—there are many
complications....fisher person....use/catch/etc....what's the chain of production. Producers cut
out of the chain, such as in household production. [Johnston]
84
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
If you're talking to natural scientists, you don't have to go all the way to the end, the social
scientists can do that; here's the stopping point. [Boyd]
The place that I struggle: this is an example of where it affects human welfare...sometimes the
effect is directly on human health. Some of this we need to rethink when we're dealing with,
say, morbidity or mortality. [Ringold]
What do you do when humans don't recognize the ecosystem's contribution to their health and
well being? Is human perception completely necessary? Do people have to perceive something
to know it's valuable to them? [Kline]
Should we be using services (versus only "goods")? I always thought we could drop the
services.... [Russell] NO! Don't do it. [Rhodes]
Are the EMAP metrics important because they're response variables to human stressors?
[Russell]
Are they cost effective? Or why are they chosen? [Johnston]
The process is translating taxa into metrics...these can be translated into FEGS, but they
have yet to be translated. (So you don't have to explain to people) [Ringold]
Explanation of data/metric/response variable [Gray]
Are these biophysical indicators used because we've found it important in the body of
ecological research that's been done? For making the link—we don't have hard models
to help us get through translating...quantitatively, etc. [Hewitt]
It doesn't occur to ecologists; therefore the translation is a big deal. [Ringold]
Are ecologists able to make status and trends reports? [Russell]
There are 268 candidate metrics in EMAP, but they're not all necessarily responsive to
specific stressors; they are used to come up with an index of biotic integrity. The
historical way of doing it is to come up with metrics that are responsive to nutrients
versus sedimentation. We've simplified process by taking stressor variables...to come up
with least disturbed sites...classify sites...to see which metrics are the most responsive
variables...overall disturbance versus specific metric. The reason all 268 are all still in
there, is that we're looking at things regionally and nationally. On the local level, it may
or may not work. [Peck]
This notion of good and bad is a human construct [Ringold]
CWA defines structural and functional indicators [Angradi]
85
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
We could use these metrics, but get to another place. [Peck]
Wit field crews, we don't always have the data to answer to get these metrics. [Nahlik]
Fishable/swimmable...how did we build our datasets? [Canfield]
Is this useful to economists (stressors and relative risk to biological condition) [Rhodes]
Additional step is needed; however, the fishing quality habitat seems useful to economic
analysis [Johnston]
Attributable risk is one additional stress (reduction to risk) [Peck]
Passive use and nonuse values—we use some of these things to measure existence
value. That's where broader indices are valuable. [Johnston]
DISCUSSION OF DATASETS
NARS biotic integrity is reference condition; this has been selected by ecologists; this is
the difficulty—but could we redefine reference condition based on users? [Russell]
As we think about different beneficiaries, etc., some require some anchoring in order to
do the translations. THE ECOLOGISTS' DEFINITIONS MAKE SENSE FOR NONUSE
BENEFICIARIES [Ringold]
For example: angler versus existence value (emergent processes, etc.)
Blended approach, etc [Russell].
If this [blended approach] came out of this workshop, this message would resonate with
others. [Hewitt]
We don't handpick reference sites, but they're defined by variables and data. [Nahlik]
FEGS Metrics and Indicators Presentation and Discussion [Paul Ringold]
{kmh FEGS METRICS AND INDICATORS workshop presentation 7_18.pptx}
Talk is focused on metrics more than indicators, you could use several metrics to develop an
indicator.
Focus on beneficiaries and think about what matters to each beneficiary.
What do we mean by metrics? What are ecological indicators? What are attributes?
Issue is "how do Beneficiaries perceive the environment?"
"Attributes" What does an angler need to know in order to choose a place to fish?
[Johnston]
86
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Perception-don't mean that they don't necessarily perceive differently than it is.
[Hewitt]
Are all those attributes "state" variables? [Russell]
Ecologists tend to measure "goods", though sometimes states and services [Ringold]
Flow in a river-good or service? [Johnston]
Farmers care about x, y, z -these are attributes. But there are times when it gets hard,
this is not cookbook stuff, when we get into things like aesthetics. For some groups you
can look at behavior and get a sense of it. But in other cases its harder to tell. [Boyd]
Attributes means characteristics to me -what a human perceives. We're looking to find
the best indicator that can link for analysis [Rhodes]
Where are FEGS identified in process? [Nahlik]
Estimated secchi depth is a metric of a FEGS; site appeal is a metric of the FEGS.
Translation could be "good, fair, or poor." Or describe in feet vs. meters, etc. [Ringold]
Is there rudimentary translation?
Should we turn into an index?
Among the people who buy in, how much indexing and bundling should we do? [Boyd]
Inherent difficulty in developing metrics for aesthetics
Aesthetics piece: 'desired' and available metrics', agree and appreciate that aesthetics
are overall pleasure people get from a place. It can overwhelm all the other metrics, but
I worry, that the available 5-point scale is not only not reliable, but also an illogical
circle. Beauty is aesthetics, aesthetics satisfaction is a FEGS, but it would have to be
connected to particular attributes of a place, characteristics of a place that we can all
point to. If we use site appeal, we're stuck in subjectivity. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, but we can be far more objective. [Nassauer]
There are things we can measure [Johnston]
In the NARS data, there are probably 400+ physical habitat metrics that are
reproducable, etc. that might address what you're trying to get to, etc. [Peck]
For example, % canopy can proxy for other things that people like about a site.
[Johnston]
It seems like there are two camps: One is, let's look at the units; the second says let's
use people as sensors. So what we have here is using people as sensors. There are
advantages and disadvantages to both. If we're dealing with people, they are sensitive
to more than what we can see, so it seems like this is a really important research area.
Am I right? [Ringold]
I'm not sure I would characterize them as camps. What's true of the scholarship in this
area....from philosophy of aesthetics to empirical research—that it's the interaction
between the human being and the place that leads to aesthetics...that leads to
87
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
characteristics of place that we can point to. That could include associations that have
to do with smell, sound, and cultural connotations as well. [Nassauer]
With an angler, you could take two streams that are exactly the same in all the fish
characteristics, but one is aesthetically pleasing, another is not. The difference is pristine
versus degraded, but the aesthetics are very different. Naturalness used to be what
drives the desired aesthetics . Makes you think about what is different about these two
places. [Hewitt]
No matter how we measure it, if we skip aesthetics, we miss a lot. [Ringold]
What about a proxy for aesthetics? [Hewitt]
Thinking of aesthetics broadly: defining aesthetics is not super special [Nassauer]
Does it include the imagination of place? (i.e., beneficiary scape...if we're starting in a
park, a stream....) [Rhodes]
Similar to extended market in economics, not a new concept, but a difficult one.
[Johnston]
One way that this might relate is that early on in the empirical work, there were some
studies that used photos from around the world, asking whether those places are
beautiful. When what you really want to know is how much pleasure are people get
from living in Iowa? You want to ask about RELATIVE VALUE OF LOCAL LANDSCAPES.
Doesn't suggest that far off places are not valuable. [Nassauer]
Odd that we're separating aesthetics from the size and abundance of taxa of fish,
lumping all categories of aesthetics, that it's everything else. We should very specifically
define what is meant by aesthetics. [Russell]
By simply labeling 'it' as aesthetics, we miss the point. We should be measuring specific
things about it. There's a huge literature that we can learn from. The nice thing about
measuring certain things is that things that can be valued for aesthetics can also be used
with other characteristics of place. They like to go there, which can be measured, and is
easier to measure. [Johnston]
Aesthetics causes issues and confusion, should we use the term "other attributes"?
[Russell]
One reason to keep it separate is that there are attributes of a place that would
never get valued if we leave it out. Those characteristics are things we can point
to. [Nassauer]
88
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Sensory experience for wetlands includes visual appearance, etc. [Nahlik],
Property owner value water clarity versus aesthetics, a health thing. An angler and
contaminants. If you ask what the metric is...the human doesn't experience the
contaminant, it's the sickness, the probability of getting sick, so human is the sensor.
[Russell]
Translation has to happen [Ringold]
The label is the problem. This is an example where the delineation doesn't work. The
jargon muddies the water rather than clarifying it. [Johnston]
Did USDA put out "how pretty is where you live?" 0 an exercise we can do is to do
better than the USDA example [Boyd]....(ask Boyd about this resource by USDA)
Initial List of Hard Issues [Paul Ringold]
{Hard Questions for FEGS Workshop July 2016.pptx}
The difference between human and natural capital. What are we measuring?
Example: Fish reared by humans but growing to adulthood in the wild (stocked fish)
From an angler's perspective: if you catch a native fish, you gotta put it back. [Peck]
Related to the forestry issue. Nothing in here that tells us whether these are stocked or
not stocked. [Ringold]
Currently we don't track stocked fish
An entire river system might be managed. Physical characteristics are manmade. [Gray]
My knee jerk reaction is to think about the effect of management. Are we saying that a
tree stand doesn't if it's planted by humans? One way to look at is to see it as a result
of management. In the fishery example: what is the influence of management activity?
It increases fish population. [Kline]
We're trying to define what a FEG is versus a metric or indicator of a FEG. These are
boundary condition issues: some are easy, some are not easy. We need to be pragmatic,
there is ultimately no right answer, but where are we going to draw the line? Our job is
to make a decision. [Landers]
Do we need to draw a line here? We can account for the relative role of fish stocking vs
89
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
ecosystems naturally generating fish. [Russell]
It might be that people value catching natural fish versus stocked fish. It might be that
all are different (recreational demand). Why we are stocking fish is also important to the
determination of whether to treat something as a FEGS. Is it possible to partition out?
[Hewitt]
If we have too narrow focus on FEGS, we're going to run into problems with restoration
efforts. [Canfield]
We could suggest that there might be a perceived difference between natural and
stocked. [Russell]
It's also worth mentioning, what is affecting the DECISION? [Johnston]
Related to the forestry example -with a field of corn, what is the ecosystem service
there? [Gray]
It comes to pragmatics, what the boundary in practice might be. [Boyd]
Is the difference in the time scale? [Angradi]
Referring to flowchart from FEGS CS, we draw the line at whether the biota is self-
sustaining in the environment. [Nahlik]
This boundary issue could use aesthetics. Aesthetics matter a lot for this forest planting.
Context is important. [Nassauer]
Some might think that the orderliness and lack of groundcover in the stocked stand is
ugly, others may like it or not care. [Ringold and others]
The FEGS of a stocked stand will likely be valued less inherently than a natural stand
because it simply does not produce as much [Kline]
Nature has everything to do with this....what are you trying to parse it out from.
[Russell]
I worry about casting. Ecologists tend to be normative in these things. The stocked stand
does provide ecosystem services. We can't throw this (the tree stand) out. [Kline]
"What really matters?" (what comes out of what's put into nature). As long as you
account for every input and output once, then none of this really matters [Johnston]
Another issue is to ask how FEGS take account locational aspects. [Nassauer]
90
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Continued discussion: how we represent the beauty or the appeal of the location is important.
Development doesn't necessarily detract from aesthetics.
Economists don't necessarily care about beauty, care about the functional attributes. It gets
much harder labeling what makes something more beautiful. We are interested in modeling
behavior to infer tradeoffs, it's much harder if we start to say things are more or less beautiful.
[Johnston]
Boundary question #2: HUMAN HEALTH: what's the metric of the FEGS? Translation or
pathogens or contaminants? Are morbidiy/mortality (or the risk of) measures of FEGS?
For this construct, I think we can suspend the reality that peoples are part of the system.
We are trying to separate...humans, crabs on plate...increase/decrease in health
(falsifiable?)...with well-being as an endpoint. [Russell]
Distal versus proximate question. [Ringold]
GREEN SPACE AS DECREASING MORTALITY: where to go with this? [Wade]
If there's more, my capability is enhanced. The FEGS we are discussing are potential.
This is true also with the potential to get sick from pathogens and contaminants.
FOCUSING on RISK with regards to health. Whether or not it's realized (through inputs)
matters? BENEFICIARY-dependent. [Landers]
Good point by Tim wade. This is not a big deal on some levels. Quantifying the benefits
in monetary terms in the atmosphere is easier than water due to the effects on health,
but this is not problem, there are lots of ways to do this already. With ECOSYSTEM
services..."I'm not worried about this question because my job is not like everyone
else's..." If I need to value human health improvements, the instruments are already
there is the science there? [Hewitt]
Hedonic estimates in general are hard to specify -multi-collinearity everywhere so what
conclusions can we draw from this? Are these correlation or causation? [Johnston]
There are no national scale fish data. What do we do? Proxies?
Where it is difficult to measure of experience species' abundance, sometimes we can
use habitat as a proxy.
Should we report component metrics or aggregate metrics?
The fishing Quality Index may more readily appeal to people who may then be
compelled to look at the component metric. [Ringold]
91
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Perhaps the aggregate indicator is not really necessary [some others]
Other SHC Activities: FEGS-CS [Landers]
{FEGS-CS M&l Workshop 19Jull6.pptx}
The MEA was a guide to ecosystem services, but not a taxonomy
Chose to follow path of Boyd and Banzhaf
Identify the beneficiary, then the environmental class to find the FEGS
FEGS would include aesthetics of agriculture, but would not include a peregrine falcon nest in
the nook of a building.
Many Enviro-classes seen from satellite
FESG is classified where it is experienced, not produced
Eventually we want to find the actual beneficiary
The potential for alteration or updates is there, this is a first step
Discussion: Is it possible to "chop up' a person into component beneficiaries?
Beneficiary classes are useful to identify FEGS, but can get rid of
Catching a fish is not necessary to be an angler
The # of sets of FEGS should be set to the the # of beneficiaries [Ringold]
Important to identify environ classes, simplify discussion [Landers]
According to econ theory, it is impossible to separate non-use value, although it is possible to
disaggregate some values [Johnson]
It helps to include environ classes in order to begin to measure and quantify [Landers]
How high of a resolution does it need to be to be useful?
Getting user feedback -currently being used in several hundred places. Coordinating with US-
SEEA and other agencies.
Other SHC Activities: Community FEGS [Winters]
{BART Presentation2.pptx}
Interested in ground trothing metrics
EPA is national, but environment effects at local level
Developing a tool: Benefits Assesment and Reporting Tool (Bart)
92
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Relies on expert knowledge: a bundle of attributes determined by a group of experts for use by
lay people, relies on expert's ability to impartially represent the opinions/desires of a
representative group
Ecospot: garners attribute data by crowd sourcing
Uses phone gps, asks what you are doing (to ID beneficiary), asks what you are enjoying
about the location, gather enough points to interpolate and generate hotspots
This would not work for building a value, but would be extremely helpful in determining what is
important, eg in focus groups [Johnston]
Paperwork reduction act makes it difficult to implement. Using sliders gets around that. OMB
opens up for citizen science [Ringold]
The list of attributes should not mix IEGS with FEGS [Landers]
It can and will be changed, lists are a placeholder [Winters]
Day 2
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Wetlands Champion [Amanda Nahlik]
{2016 FEGS Metrics and Indicators Workshop - Nahlik Wetlands.pptx}
Developing metrics for two beneficiaries, 1 consumptive and 1 non-consumptive
Not many publicly available wetlands datasets. Until 2011, datasets limited in extent
Status and trends: National scale wetland survey (NARS)
National wetland condition assessment only national survey, done every 5 years
Ecosystem services not explicitly measured for NARS
What about using existing data for FEGS? You've got the data, combine it/transform it into a
FEG; once you've developed that transformation—just do it? Low cost. Then focus on a few to
collect data on. [Johnston]
THE GOAL OF THIS is to move the ball, not for perfection
As an outsider, can you help us understand how fixed the list of measure is, how hard it is to
change on a practical level? Who determines what data is gathered and how? [Boyd]
These are one day surveys. Want to keep all old types of data for continuity and
longitudinal analysis. Already in a time crunch for gathering data, so it is difficult to
gather data without adding man hours [Nahlik]
They are already gathering data related to aesthetics [Ringold]
93
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Proposal: if we come up with metrics to help move this along, the NARS SURVEY is already
happening; we could perhaps hire one more person to do....services for the day. Regional
differences for data collection (vegetation is important). [Nahlik]
Related to aesthetics, timing is important (body of literature—empirical studies over 50 years,
where's there's considerable convergence on what "enjoyment of a place" is defined.) field
work could be informed for this [Nassauer]
Some of this might already be collected (e.g., physical habitat); "I like the approach that
Amanda has taken—identify and work through one at a time." [Ringold]
OW is interested in reporting on services, and probably gathering more data.
Example 1: Traditional Medicine Subsisters
What about site accessibility? Is the data there? [Johnston]
Yes—there's a data layer that looks at accessibility [Nahlik]
Use FEGS versus non-use FEGS; different FEGS exist in different places [Johnston]
Some FEGS exist where they aren't accessible [Canfield]
Access is should be up to economists, not to ecologists. [Ringold]
Commentary on medicinal harvester:
With the desired metric, is the beneficiary in a specific species? What do you mean by
species composition? [Boyd]
The attributes are what the beneficiary wants to see, the desired metric is what
is measured. [Nahlik]
THESE ARE GENERIC METRICS. IT'S HARD FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE TO COME UP
WITH A LIST OF SPECIES. Even HARDER FOR RECREATIONAL beneficiary TO SAY WHAT
species THEY CARE ABOUT...
The "desired metric" is "SPECIFIC MEDICINAL SPECIES", "presence" is what you have.
Attributes are based on beneficiary; but the ecologists...
Should these be relevant to welfare, or easy to communicate? [Johnston]
The USFS wants to say to the public: we produce this much of that plant. The parallel
would be non-timber forest products. Right now the desired metric is off, but what is
really wanted is the specific species e.g., chanterelles [Kline]
Chemical: trace element concentration is not relevant. What's relevant is "is this going
to make me sick." [Boyd]
94
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
A translation is needed? [Nahlik]
When specified to beneficiary, a specific attribute is needed [Hewitt]
Indicator of how good the indicator is for a study—we went into the measurement after
the fact and found out what was really important to beneficiaries is to pull out of the
data what was important (backing out). [Johnston]
Translation versus direct measure (probability...translating functionally). [Boyd]
Maybe we should have two columns for desired metric: what we tell the field crew to measure
and what that translates to.
Can a social scientist use this in analysis? [Johnston]
Example of cannabis: translation may occur depending on the user of the information.
[Canfield]
May look at presence of surface sewage? [Wade}
Struggling with FEGS category. Why? Could we get rid of flora? All you need are attributes and
desired metrics, etc. [Russell]
It is part of the attribute specification; let's you get progressively add knowledge,
naming of things. Helps specify metrics in the first place, but can be used in accounting
[Ringold]
If you try to put "flora" and every possible attribute it becomes unwieldy. Generality =
scalability. [Canfield]
Big picture: ultimately, it seems to me, the goal is to wind up with available metrics of things we
could measure. How do we do this as part of already collected data? We can judge and evaluate
which metrics actually work, track their utility. We also might want to track whether there are
other metrics that can be generated via remote sensing, etc. [Hewitt]
Confused on cost benefit side -what are you asking data collectors to collect? [Rhodes]
Example 2:
Species richness = some element; the monoculture that the salt marsh-ness represents gets to
the idea of view scape. The process will require winnowing-^ fewer number of things that
somehow capture the services. [Barber]
How to determine between what people care about? [Hewitt]
PROBLEM OF SCALE: DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO DO EVERY TINY, LITTLE DETAIL?
95
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
If you think about it from the literature, you could look at it from the s.s. point of view, come up
with short list of most important things on average across wetlands, and there you go.
[Johnston]
I'm asking what the overall goal is this? Is it national accounting; this is the kind of stuff that
depends on what do we want to do with these metrics; SCALE AND ULTIMATE USE REALLY
MATTERS. At USFS, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NATIONAL FOREST PLANNING, WE DON'T DO
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION, BUT PICK A FEW THINGS. [Kline]
United Nations our goal was to describe things in enough detail to enable folks to do tradeoff
analysis...question context matters...what's the goal? [Rhodes]
The steering committee can give guidance I think about this from a site specific analysis and
cost benefit (not accounting); I think my sense if that you'd want to capture not just the
features (the fauna), you'd want to capture aesthetics). [Boyd]
Question about thresholds: arbitrary? How do we decide on these-^ where are these going to
come from?
What is reference condition? (ecologically driven)? [Boyd]
Scaling -> it strikes me how much potentially useful information isn't here. How does an index
account for things like disturbance? Are we collecting and reporting on the "right" information?
[Nassauer]
How do we translate taxa under something that's meaningful: the naive representation (first) is
to treat all things the same...sophistication in translation is important. [Ringold]
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Forests Champion [Andy Gray]
{FEGS_Forest.pptx}
Arbitrary: what is manmade or not?
Example beneficiary 1: Timber harvester
What are the important/desired attibutes? Not net land value but the actual metrics
being measured and the productivity.
Is timber a FEGS or is it the productivity of the land?
If the FEGS is the land; the timber is the manufactured item. What is of interest is
productivity and manageability; value changes due to access OR the value is the
timber itself?
PROXY is site index, which gets at soil and water - integrates all this information;
(question about fertilization; productivity is height and growth curve).
96
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Desired metric listed, net land, net timber [Ringold]
To the economist, semantic point, go down to specific. The desired metric is the
element of the productivity index/ or index itself. "Think of yourself being a
private timber harvester...what would they use to figure out the productivity?"
THE INDEX
Might be tripping over the term "value". Remove 'value' from "land
productivity value" (in presentation)[Boyd]
IS THE SAMPLE PLOT REALLY THE RIGHT SCALE? (Gray's question)
Example beneficiary 2: Recreational experiencer
Landscape variety is important to recreations....'moving window' analysis? Modeled
vegetation data; remote sensing? What?
Fungi are too ephemeral to measure and use.
You're getting at the problem with multi-attributes. With recreation: Availability of
land? Aesthetics? What to do? WHAT ARE YOU USING THE METRICS FOR? Is the
important question. For broader level, like a report to congress, you don't get into this
much detail. [Kline]
Is there a list of common things that always come up with aesthetics? [Russell]
A lot of this research was done in response to NEPA. Convergence on simple things like
relief; open water/running water; mix of heights of cover types. Another thing, related
to the challenges of the sample points, if there were just a little more information for
each of the sample points on CONTEXT; "how far can you see from here?" panorama;
naturalness: how much of what I see is occupied by what kinds of buildings?
Powerlines? USGS refers Aldo Leopold, published in 1969; is circular, where he attempts
to quantify aesthetics of streams, litter is to count, tidiness. [Nassauer]
REFERENCE CONDITIONS: old growth...etc.
Productivity index is so old and trusted that "normal" people are relying on it—interesting
example that plays into Paul's idea of what the index might be able to do: elements, how
collected
Essentially, this research (centuries old) assumes trees are coming in from scratch. If you
look at the height at different ages of the stand, that's a predictor of productivity of the
stand...stands have to be old enough to have resolution...height, increment core...
[Gray]
Not measuring soil and water [Boyd]
Can this be modeled?
97
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
People have done this with success. Young soils are easier; topography can help
in the east.
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Lakes Champions [Ted Angradil
{Lakes_Angradi_v2.pptx}
Many water body classes.
Different beneficiaries for different types of lakes.
Example beneficiary 1: Commercial Food Extractor
Plant food subsister (?)
Flora (wild rice) minor beneficiary in most regions but big in MN
DNR designates ricing lakes for wild rice
What is subsistence, what is recreation? (Is this a substantial part of their diet
and nutrition)? Native Americans in a lower income and it's more important to
them for their annual food budget. [Rhodes]
What's the probability that it is not identifiied as having rice, but actually has
rice? [Ringold]
SULFATE QUESTION [Landers]
Example beneficiary 2: Property Owner
Example Beneficiary 3: Waders/Swimmers/divers
Example beneficiary 4: pregnant harvest anglers
Found data (regional/not necessarily national datasets)
Nothing about fish, but about fish tissue; consumption advisory [Ringold]
How finely should we resolve beneficiaries?
Hierarchically (with regards to pregnant harvest anglers...) [Russell]
305b updating every 2 years... (up to states for updating data)
EXPENSIVE PROCESS....
Key questions:
How to prioritize beneficiaries across/within environmental classes
Regional and Inter-regional variability in relevant beneficiaries
98
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
What about catchment scale indicators?
Variation in data quality and sample frames across e-classes
Are there multi-eclass indicators?
lakes, lacustrine wetlands, large rivers, low salinity estuaries
WHAT DOES A NATIONAL FEGS ASSESSMENT look like?
fold into current assessment or create new one?
Lakes versus reservoirs
Should reservoirs and natural lakes be treated differently? Are they similar enough FEGS
wise? [Landers]
Regional potentials are related to expectations with regards to what is expected in the region
(e.g., lake tahoe); regional variation. [Canfield]
Think about what the goal is. If this is national scale, it should be easy to come up with metrics
that are more or less applicable across areas. Resolution = every place is a little different. If it's
clarity that people care about—as long as we have that, we can account for different
expectations, it's more of a social issue, we can accommodate that once we have that
information. [Johnston]
Usually based on national scale, always compared across...national map is nonsensical.
[Canfield]
One of the risks is inadvertent misuse of data -we have to be careful that we analyze
properly. [Johnston]
All of these translations are beneficiary specific. Clarity is important but it may be
misleading, not just the representation of the metrics, but also with regards to how the
beneficiary perceives it. [Ringold]
What is the difference between a metric and indicator?
Hard to answer. Metric: single attribute. Indicators: single or multi-attribute
Where to use a multi vs single metric indicators is situation dependent, with a general
preference for single attribute where applicable
Figure out the best indicator by talking to talk to the public?
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER DA Y: ALL THE CHAMPIONS ARE COMING UP WITH
METRICS/NEEDING TRANSLATIONS WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL MOVING FOWARD would
99
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
be having a framework with rows and columns to make sure we have defined things, that
we're on the same focus/direction. [Nahlik]
Rosetta stone crosswalk...
DEFINITIONS QUESTIONS: nothing that exists...etc.
Would Wayne Munz's lexicon be helpful? (Probably not?)
Definitions are field/domain specific:
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Agro-ecosystems Champion [Tim Canfieldl
{Ag FEGS_Canfield_vl.pptx}
Data is an issue for Agriculture.
USDA gives fuzzy location for ag data
USGS has surface and ground water estimates
Example beneficiary 1: Farmers
Could we break things down into a few steps? Farmers care about volume of water;
proximity of farm is a demand side? [Russell]
USDA is working on this, too. Bring in USDA folks for help. [Johnston]
Water rights might also be an issue, too-^ cu/ft2
Water comes from a few places; for each piece of land that's farmed, what's the
quantity of water over time and space? Provision? Predictability/ [Ringold]
How do they deal with water rights/ measurement? [Kline]
Hierarchy plays out, depending on the farmer. [Russell]
Problem with water: the water is provided by the surrounding lands [Kline]
This is a boundary issue. If irrigation is happening, then the water is coming from a
certain ecosystem. [Nahlik]
WHERE THINGS ORIGINATE underlies everything. Spatial issues. Definition should be:
what's the biophysical quantity of water that's available at this place. [Ringold]
We need to be specific about connectivity; etc.; connectivity networks. [Russell]
(Need to include Bagstad on supply/demand)
Data problem: how current is the data?
100
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Water availability (how accessible is the water) [Landers]
Example beneficiary 2: Experience and viewing
Agroecosystems are really hard to deal with for so many reasons. What is the line between
human and natural systems? [Johnston]
Defining the agricultural ecosystem is challenging...we probably need more experts in the room
to talk about this.
How do we deal with this if we don't break up the landscape into environmental classes. (LAND
COVER/LAND USE-^ blends the two). How do we separate agroecosystems from the proximate
landscape? What approach do we take?
Crop land with boundaries on field, versus the general area? maybe proximity to water?
[Nahlik]
What are included/what are we including within the classes—so when we're
overlapping, we know we're overlapping, same problem with estuaries, etc. [Ringold]
URBAN ECOSYSTEMS NEED TO BE ADDED....
At some point we need to broach where to draw boundaries. With a lot of the stuff off
of ag lands, it's hard to distinguish EcologicalPF versus economic production
function...costs are involved—we should be bold with putting up boundaries, and tweak
them a little bit—need to define the spectrum along economic versus ecological
production functions. Refer back to forest management discussion with regards to
human vs ecosystem [Kline]
Cover has value for aesthetic purpose (trees are important); FEGS for aesthetic
experience. [Johnston]
NRCS and NRI (natural resource inventory) does field sampling in ag/private lands. Data
aren't available...species composition. [Gray]
Know people with plot level data. [Kline]
Challenges: hard to engage ag community in Midwest (resistance and mistrust of EPA due to
Waters of the US ruling); punt to USDA?
History: set up workshops via telephone to discuss FEGS, etc. no reception. Insisting that
ecosystem services are crops. Culture as a part of having a barrier to the ES thinking.
[Landers]
Goals are mixed; committed to increasing productivity, etc., maximum production of
commodities, etc. [Rhodes]
"lack of trust" etc. with ag community
101
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
USDA in would be people at ERS (constrained by funding). Dan Hellerstien does water
quality benefits; etc., also other people in the agency that are interested. [Kline]
Working on discussions with practices by USDA activities (ERS) [Johnston]
Would ag people be interested in the efforts of FEGS, since most ag work would seem to
reduce them.
Where do riparian zones fall?
Traditionally, these were wetlands, however there is no consensus on where to
include them in the FEGS-CS.
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Estuaries Champions [Walter Berry]
{Estuaries_Berry.pptx}
Focus on estuaries in the NE
Example beneficiary 1: Subsistence Fishermen
Data from state DNR, NOAA and NCCA
Where the fish is caught is not as important
NOAA recreational fisheries statistics queries
One concern about data is "what will fegs be used for? "
About fish landings data -please describe dataset [Jim]
Fisherman are interviewed for NOAA. While landings are commercial.
Lots of data and work on recreational data. Issues related to where NOAA
collects data and state waters. Wealth of data: MURFS(?): ports, NOAA; state
DNR, etc., are collecting this data (says this is replicable and annual, designed to
be statistically replicable, etc.) [Johnston]
They're sampling people...so...done some work with this data. GET EXPERT ON
THIS
How similar to NARS are these? How consistent are they?
Similar to NARS but reliant on surveys
This is where the other states and territories outside of coterminous US might be
included (AK, HI, etc) [Barber]
102
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Additional issues—these are fish landings—we should get stock assessments...that
would be good data, but might not be available..."to be clear, the issue we're talking
about is fish in the water versus fish landings;" etc. [Ringold]
Another thing you could do is catch per unit effort (CPUE). Stocks and management is
really great—data-wise and analysis wise. In the estuary regions, that's more state
managed. Is CPUE a better indicator? [Johnston]
On this one, what do we do with fish regulations/fisheries change. [Russell]
What are the taxa that are of interest to different anglers? Should we include fish of
every size and taxa? Fisheries track a huge number of fish, though not everything.
[Ringold]
We're looking for the handoff: if the fishery folks hand off the biophysical data...stock
assessment, etc., then hand those off to the fisheries economists...and overall
regulations, etc., can talk about policy change then, but on the biophysical side...focused
on stocks. [Johnston]
What's the stock assessment? For every fish? Versus subset assessed on
economic/policy side that determines what fish are used for..etc.
Embarrassment of riches, so many are tracked, we're probably good for data.[Johnston]
It will be way better for recreational/etc. than for subsistence. [Berry]
Example Beneficiary 2: Beach goers (swimming, surfing, fishing?)
Beach closures as a proxy for water quality.
Problem with regionality and variation in perception within individual
We can account that expectations are different in different areas. THIS IS A SOCIAL
SCIENCE PROBLEM. The national estuary programs puts out a status and trends
report—in many cases the NEPS are measuring same things every year, etc., is there
something that everyone is measuring? [Johnston]
Where are people on the beach in estuaries? Etc. sand is a "unique feature" in FEGS CS
[Landers]
Pleasantness attribute? How is that translated into a desired metric (e.g., appeal of
place, texture/color of sand, etc.). How do you define a beach in the first place?
[Ringold]
There are way fewer data for "pleasantness" etc. One of the things that would be nice is
what's the discrepancy between desired and available? The identification of barriers and
103
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
gaps are worth taking note as we go through this. SALT water environments pose a
problem. [Berry]
Presentation of Initial Metrics and FEGS: Streams Champion [Dave Peck]
{Peck_Ringold_Streams_FEGS_20160720.PPTX}
NARS is all about the network (not about the site).
Example index: modified fishing quality index
First time estimating the length of fish caught
electro-fishing data
Discussion of the possibility of using NRSA data to estimate the increase in fish population due
to changes in pollutants
NARS is interesting to use because the infrastructure is there, but if you could come up
with metrics and indicators...
If the sampled streams include small and ag streams, etc. and these are streams running
through cities and farm fields then terrifically interesting with regards to ecosystems
and with regards to...." [Nassauer]
About sampling and interpretations—can be broken down to basin—don't have to predicting
subpopulations of interest, but you have to make sure that you get enough sites to have good
margin of confidence. With enough sites, one can evaluate at certain level of precision/scale
[Boyd]
You need about 50 data points for that type of calculation
How location specific is this? Hard to intersect with other data, because it's be hard to trace
to location.
Problem with data collection reliability: big fish can get away easily (under reporting or under
estimating). Also permit restrictions on many lengths of stream for measurement purposes
due to endangered species and game species. [Peck]
Should there be separate categories for big game fish (trout, bass etc.) vs fish like sunfish, brim
etc.?
Before surverys are done they are screened for accessibility, the actual presence of water etc.
This could be tweaked to get at some of the questions regarding aesthetics.
Apart from sampling fish for contaminants, how could we estimate the safety of fish for
consumption?
104
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
The crews keep a visual assessment book containing anytime anything is captured about the
site itself. Not systematic information; not used for reporting, but could maybe be mined for
data to inform aesthetics FEGS.
The visual assessment form scale has 3 categories (low, med, high) while for wetlands
there are two (presence/absence), how good is this data collection? Reproducibility is a
problem
1-5 scale most to least appealing
Appealing compared with...how enjoyable is this place? Bias sample by who's
collecting data. [Nassauer]
If this hasn't been quantified and put in assessment—not an endorsement of
data...[Angradi]
An experience viewer—how do they relate to negatives enterococci etc? [Russell]
Is it the enterococci or the probability of getting sick? [Johnston]
Next NRSA goes out in two years, so if there are any alterations needed, they would need to be
made within the next year.
General Discussion of Champion Results [Ringold and Boyd]
Issues for Tim Wade: one of the categories of things that came up in terms of connections to
human health is various pathogens and contaminants level. What's the capacity of translating
into probability for risk? How do we engage in finding the answer for that? [Ringold]
Enterococci, for example, is a good indicator with dose response relationships. How
good are they? For some of the others, like microcystin, that's not as well identified.
WHO is reasonable, also OW—update with ambient criteria, not sure of details. [Wade]
What's a good way to navigate the answer to those questions/ [Ringold]
You can't "see" it, and I don't know any indicator. I think could help navigate in terms of
quantifying the cost that people pay as a result of an episode, time missed from
activities, etc. [Wade]
I'm keeping a running list of 15 things that the steering committee might talk about. We're
doing really well -we're getting along, we're communicating. Steering committee's role:
helping champions?. **prohibited by law to give black and white advice...teeing up questions
and provisional input and judgment. [Boyd]
HIGH-LEVEL thing: talk about what the vision of what the "win" will be four years from
now-^clarity please. [Boyd]
105
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Are we doing this for status and trends at a national scale? Or are we doing this to empower
policy-specific CBA? Different things—place-based? Requires more detail. [Boyd]
Would like to have produced for final report: each of the champions to have developed
and to the extent practical illustrated metrics and appropriate indicators of FEGS for the
system they're working with for 10 beneficiaries. Let's ask champions for ideas on what
beneficiaries they'd like to look at on their own, but also some that we might look at as
a group. The advantage is that there's a lot of cross-fertilization...and it's cost-effective
to bring in experts.
(1) The first one that's important is NON_USE beneficiaries (hardest one). Passive use
benefits are important...
(2) property owners—because it brings in aesthetics and robust economic
literature...etc.
(3) primary extractors from systems (e.g., streams and lakes...anglers, etc.)
AND THEN A couple more in common.
I'd like to be relatively diverse across categories of use. We won't get into all the fegs cs
coarse categories, but we should try to get at consumptive, non-consumptive, etc.
Because in doing that we would (1) exercise data to its limit (2) we would identify
barriers and gaps in information. Some of those would be in information that's
collected, but also in the capacity to translate things that are socially meaningful...etc.
The potential to affect national and regional data is something that would come out of
that analysis.
We are adding to the set of questions that people ask. Champions are interacting with
teams of people. Getting used to idea that we're asking ecological questions, but that
there are others that might provide added value to the kinds of data sets that we're
already collecting in some cases.
If you take NARS as a focus, we can communicate status and trends now, but we have
capacity to build empirical things like this? (bar graphs of extent of stressor.) We want
empirical production functions for system as whole, or variable-by-variable (delta
diagram).
The issue is that some of the datasets aren't nationally available so it's useful to
illustrate metrics and indicators at the scale. [Ringold]
The 10 beneficiaries are a means to an end, the end being (??)...there are two things we could
do. 1) What can we do with the data we already have? 2) What new data do we need? E.g.,
change sampling protocols.
106
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Important calendar issues lead ti sequencing question: if we want to hit the deadline for adding
data collection tasks to NARS dataset, how do we allocate resources? [Boyd]
Lakes might be too late.
As surveys transition to Office of Water, the added data will be more socially meaningful.
[Ringold]
Once you get the data points (sites?)—you could go back afterwards and have someone else do
FEGS asked evaluation at a later time. [Peck]
ES reporting: office of water, people are not adopting. Presumably, if we're adding things into
survey, OW is going to pay and they are risk averse in terms of adding new things to the survey.
They need a reason to add it in and we will have to make a strong case. It's easier when it's
found data, rather than adding something to the survey. [Nahlik]
Maybe we can focus more (couch language) on collecting new data that is more
understandable to the public at large, instead of as FEGS collections With emap and
nars...you're already measuring ecological condition, seeing how it changes, now also could
focus on measuring things that are more understandable and important. That's more a
communications marriage than real economics. What prize are we really focused on? [Boyd]
When you categorize things...into good fair poor, you're still leaving economists with a
problem. We want more absolute things and changes in absolute things as a communication of
what's happening, but it's serving a different audience and purpose. As economists, we're more
focused on policy choices, and decision making, cause and effect. It needs to be more absolute
and quantified. It tends to not be a national scale thing. There's no bright line. Two audiences
and purposes, different type of advice. [Boyd]
Please clarify distinction between those two. (continuous variable underlying...etc.)
[Ringold]
Is the second question more about operationalizing the approach that you're
describing? [Russell]
We view ES as an improvement of CBA, as applied to choices and decisions. This is
different from the status and trends approach. [Boyd]
We want every champion to go through the process of developing metrics and
indicators for 10 beneficiaries for national status and trends. That's the start. If you can
do that, you can do a whole bunch of other things. [Ringold]
In the end, if they do overlap and if we were doing this every 5 years we could have info
on status and trends [Boyd]
Don't do something that's not compatible with current datasets [Hewitt]
107
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Status and trends as the core application, but not too far from how it might work eventually,
when we move beyond status and trends.
How does that work with the CEQ memo? Is the status and trends thing useful in that? [Russell]
More about other agencies than EPA. It's not uninteresting question, but it's not central
to what we're doing here. [Hewitt]
What about coordinated case study? Do we want to use FEGS in that activity? (TIMEFRAME?)
[Landers]
Are these two deliverables—doable? [Ringold]
BOYD's IMPORTANT TRIAGE LIST:
Who's the audience, how will we please them, and what's the impact? (1) What do we want to
measure that are more nationally resonant and important? Can we think about what's doable
versus what's really important: who's our audience? Political appointees in congress? Etc. (2)
there's stuff we can measure that won't change: productivity index responsive to policy and
stressors? If not, we should not be focusing on it. WE should focus on policy/climate change/
etc. that is changing in the world. (3) architectures that are already out here—it's really
beneficial to work within an existing architecture, so how far out do we need to move outside
of those current datasets. (4) WHAT ARE OTHER PEOPLE DOING?! We ought to be aware of that
somehow.
USDA, e.g., not at same level of resolution. [Hewitt]
USDA is far from getting there. [Johnston]
NOAA we should connect with. [Ringold]
Let's come up with guidance on how to share and communicate. Connecting the dots-^we're
not there yet. (do the folks in office of water know what es are? Focusing on what's
important—recreational is not really that interesting or novel...need to extend capabilities...but
not too far). Adoption is slow—and challenging—edict comes down, but doesn't fit within
specific fed tasks, (e.g., check the box for Nitrogen)...social cost of carbon example... [Nahlik]
Day 3
Organizing Session 1: Task Champions for work over the next two years
Goal—pick a set of 10 beneficiaries as the focus.
{10 Candidate Beneficiaries.pptx}
Paul Ringold proposes following list:
Non-use
108
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Residential Property Owners (0303)
Recreational Extractor (0603, 0604)
Recreational Viewing (~subset of 0601)
Irrigators (0101)
Water Contact Risk (Many)
Municipal Water Intake (0301)
Thermoelectric Cooling (0205x)
Commercial Extractors (Many)
Spiritual?
Non-use is the hardest one, and can be harder for some folks to buy in [Johnston]
Especially for ecologists, no idea what to measure for that (check out the literature...),
hardest one to project as ecologists, require the most input from steering committee,
and a lot of support to get [Nahlik]
Non-use IS among the most difficult and should be pursued for that reason,, also
because non-use values have huge policy implications eg ANWR, T&E species. [Ringold]
List doesn't include beneficiaries that have come up often in the last day and a half
(recreational viewers); if you put in recreational viewers, you're going to capture many
experiences that capture the public at large [Nassauer]
This gets to the point that those could be different or same people. We should combine
non-consumptive recreationalists with recreational extractors since from an economist's
perspective, it is difficult/impossible to parse them out. At the end of day, it's one
person engaging in one behavior (revealed preference side) when doing economics
empirical work. [Johnston]
There is value in focusing on viewers, that's the one that's going to be the thorny one
(recreational—non-consumptive) [Hewitt]
The other issue with the biophysical perspective, it's easy to construct a case that we
want to separate these things...because metrics and indicators are different between
these. Policy is interested in them[Ringold]
Is a beneficiary a type or an individual? Conceptually it's more consistent to think of
them as types. A farmer might say: "the landscape is beautiful if...I don't have to
farm...." [Nassauer]
109
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Agreed, as long as we remember that individuals are composites of multiple beneficiary
classes. [Johnston]
Does the EPA have a comparative effort to other efforts around nation? SCORP survey;
etc. Where does the EPA want to hang its hat—relative to other things EPA has dealt
with? Don't think EPA has competitive advantage in leading research on recreational
beneficiaries, so maybe don't focus on this initially. [Kline}
Framework needs to apply across agencies. [Hewitt]
What do you mean by "having the same approach"? Same "code" or similar "concepts"?
It's difficult for me to see that every application is going to use the exact same levels of
detail, and are we going to create an overarching theory of Ecosystem Services? Seems
like the goal, but don't think that can realistically be applied to all ES for all people from
national to local levels. [Kline]
Economists skeptical of tool (derived through this process and EPA)? Not for full
assessment.
Approach definition; description of FEGS and concepts; describes available metrics;
describes potential use cases-> reflects back on approach. Focus on definitions and a
common methodology as leading to data sharing, makes analysis easier. It is possible
and is the goal. [Rhodes]
If we can make progress here, the architecture is advanced. [Ringold]
Subdividing beneficiaries makes it easier to determine the biophysical feedbacks that are
important to the beneficiaries but does complicate in other ways, for example overlooking
some beneficiaries. Drilling down to specific types working across landscape [Hewitt]
Exhaustive? In categories? [Russell]
HOW MUCH TO SUBDIVIDE?
Umbrella category? (Johnston)
On non-use—big policy decisions; hard, but should be tackled; any progress made on it is
useful. [Ringold]
Once we figure out what the beneficiary roles are, is there a need to figure out population size
etc. [Gray]
(economists' problem, not ecologists).
These lists are just starting points. Some level of aggregation will be necessary; so we need to
pick one that seems reasonable. [Boyd]
110
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Discussion reflecting on usefulness—defined as used by decision makers—what is it? How do
potential decisions determine our outcomes?
Definition -Non-use: values that can't be linked to any behavioral trail (bequest, existence); if
you can link the value to behavior, it's a use value;
CHAMPION TASK: to make sure disaggregation of users makes sense.
Can we include the beneficiaries described in NECSC? [Rhodes]
NECSCCode Where What Why Who
XXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
How does the FEGS framework deal with beneficiaries that are polluters? [Nassauer]
We are focused on the beneficiaries, but the disamenities would be negatives in the cost
benefit analysis [Hewitt]
property owners as beneficiary, if nearby farms are polluting the water, the connection
would arise there. Looking for indicators relative to property owners that are stressed
by industry operators. The natural scientist will gather the data, the social scientist will
parse out the beneficiaries [Boyd]
With BCA, we're trying analyze the impacts associated with program or regulation.
HERE, we're only focusing on benefit side [Hewitt]
Measuring everyone against the same baseline...biophysical folks only care about how
many....not focused on up or down etc. ID anyone who cares...what are the right metrics
to figure out what matters to them? [Kline]
Municipal water: think about causal direction...characteristics of systems that "directly
affect" municipal water. [Johnston]
Capturing pollution-^ ecological production function.
Question that keeps coming up: TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD THE ECOLOGISTS THINK ABOUT THE
SOCIAL SCIENCE SIDE OF THINGS?^
The sooner we can throw out criteria for establishing bounds on beneficiary classes and FEGS,
the better. Disamenity examples are case and point. [Kline]
What's the difference between status and trends, versus decision making alternatives? When
are production functions essential? [Canfield]
Indicator specification is central here. One of the payoffs is in status and trends but
getting to ecological production functions is important to, status and trends is a
stepping stone. [Ringold]
111
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Should wetlands have a commercial extractor beneficiary?
Consensus is that rice or cranberries might be included
Is there a finite number of variables we can measure to get at non-use values? [Nahlik]
Yes, and we would want a limited number of variables and expand/focus the criteria
where we build community level benefits [Hewitt]
Need a system to limit beneficiary categories. Does doing so highlight a metric that applies to
different beneficiaries?
Champions are going to say, "when I read x, here's how I'm going to interpret it based
on their ecosystem" -> use comparable use of language, process, level of detail
We should begin using templates (format/framework] to help standardize our work as
we go forward [Canfield]
Landscape level species etc., need to be dealt at the local level—can be more
abstract/coarse at the national/regional level.
Is there any beneficiary that is important enough to add to the list,that is cross-cutting, make a
policy difference, have tractability. [Ringold]
What about cultural/inspirational category? [Nahlik]
We need to unpack spiritual benefits and broaden it beyond native people. Should we
even be dealing with it? [Boyd]
Other issues: [Ringold]
1) Beneficiary specification; what's our framework (what does it mean to develop
these things?~> take same one and generalize)
2) Define Framework
3) Definitions; creating a mechanisms by which we provide...feedback form champions
for restructuring of the FEGS cs-^ e.g., in order to feel comfy with biophysical
metrics...wanted to specify beneficiary that's more highly refined (for example)
4) Restructuring FEGS-CS; what constitutes the fegs and what's the usefulness of
having the environmental classes...what's are advantages, etc.,-^ what's the
feedback for the fegs cs?
5) How do we work with steering committee?
Organizing Session 2: Charge for Steering Committee members for the next two years
What does property owners include? [Ringold]
Bundle of attributes when buying property. [Hewitt]
112
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Recreational viewers are coupled with many beneficiairies, for example viewers vs
property owners. Viewer is a part of property owner? Property owner is directly related
to risk of flood, etc. If we get into finer detail regarding the beneficiary list it would be
very intuitive to determine what the desired metric should be. {Discssion on social
scientists vs natural scientists} Think we should have social scientists deine the desired
metric and for natural scientist to focus on transferring that to available metrics [Nahlik]
What makes that group unique? Important (risk of flooding; view out of kitchen
window; does have conceptual overlap with hikers, etc., but is different). [Hewitt]
First, the empirical investigations suggest that the same person who enjoys view from
property, will enjoy different things from what someone enjoys when taking a hike,
which leads to question: when you characterize someone as a beneficiary: when
someone is doing "viewing" what do they care about...when someone decides he will
"farm" what will he care about? How do we measure this? [Nassauer]
Which beneficiary to start with?
Do not want to start with commercial extractor because it is a broad category with a
variety of subclasses [Nahlik]
Recreational viewer is a subset of recreational viewer and experiencers
For recreational viewers, the scale (national or local) has a large impact on metric choice
[Kline]
"Recreational" may not be ideal for the definition. For example viewing the landscape
from your car is not technically recreational. [Nassauer]
Whether the viewer is actively seeking to experience the landscape or it's a tangential
experience has a major impact on what metrics are ideal. The social scientists are
reiterating the desirability of having them dig through standardized data from the
natural scientists in order to determine value [Ringold]
Contextually, a viewer would include viewing in the landscape and of the
landscape [Nassauer]
At what level are we doing this? What's constant? Recreation is location specific, HOW
SPECIFIC does it need to be? (is it useful?) high-level things, what are they? What are
we measuring across all places? What's the one-size fits all cookbook? [Johnston]
In terms of gathering data, it is sample based, so specific flora/fauna will be counted
then aggregated. So we will have both types of data -intentional and specific, and
incidental and broad. [Gray]
Is it reasonable to split existence , bequest and option values? [Nahlik]
113
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Existence and bequests are closer than option, but the metrics would be similar
anyway. [Hewitt]
CLARIFICATION OF CHAMPIONS' ROLE: task is to ask about literature; to be clear about
something specific to measure; to seek clarity; to be advocate for certain measurement and
modeling...etc. steering committee leads champions to literature and assumptions for
assumptions. Champions need to begin thinking about framework.
FEGS needs to be obvious and DRIVEN BY BENEFICIARY
Non-use could be driven by steering committee/ economists, etc. / starting with
something that's consistent across groups...then sync.
Process/dialogue/important
Residential property owners—useful construct (what's actually practical?)
Separability of different attributes...can we do this? Assuming that we could take components.
[Kline]
WHAT LEVEL OF DETAIL DO WE NEED TO DO DECISION MAKING?
Do we want to measure EVERYTHING?
Broad scale—canopy cover?
Social science side - need to know more about people, and what matters to them. (Index of
aesthetics-^ can use index to derive metrics?)
GDP analogy, we don't report level of granularity/ (number of cars versus number of TYPES of
cars). [Kline]
Consumptive goods—all details are available. Should we looking at this from a landscape
(ambient viewing) perspective? Should we be looking at this from a locational/intentional view?
Active/passive recreation? Concern: needs to include "landscape perspective" otherwise the
real societal goods and services will not be represented. [Ringold]
Pragmatics and constraints aside, policy application would help direct the narrowing. Both will
be a useful exercise. [Boyd]
Model of how we should work together (discussion)
RINGOLD/NAHLIK TEMPLATE
Add desired metrics from the point of view of the social science and the
layperson's point of view. (Scale/resolution are a part of the desired metrics).
Keep track of gaps, barriers.
114
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
How do we determine which proposed metrics are acceptable? [Landers]
The champions convince themselves, then each other, then the steering
committee [Ringold]
1) Is it understandable to normal people? 2) Is it important? [Boyd]
3) Does the metric exist in the literature? [Johnston]
QAPP Development
QA plan notes: signed off on in March;
Some QA managers wanted to add more detail but since we are not collecting or generating
data, the initial broad overview was seen as okay.
Hoping to add more detail, but they agreed we should use current plan for workshop, then to
revise at workshop. The QA plan is sufficient, until we start generating or getting secondary
data, then there are requirements for verifying quality.
High-level requirements for existing data most of EPAs QAs are related to superfund, etc., not
applicable to what we're trying to do at workshop....social sciences in general/confluence of
ecology and economics.
Making sure agency is covered. E.g.:
—what existing data we're going to do
—criteria for studies in and studies out
—publishing, did we follow QAPP
—paper trail (documenting work); transparency and documentation;
—why is this research important; manuscript intro and methods; one-year revisit-^
changes documentation and updates; extent and detail?
—criteria that would be "meaningful sources" -> traceability from what we have with
EPA. Guidance on existing data: check it out
—Include expert opinion and credentials...
****"lf the goal is to flesh out what is needed-^ more details on what's going to be
involved with existing data; what specifically required in electronic notebook...etc."
—goals, confidence in approaching goals, sound data, when do you know when you're
done
Jim will take the lead and communicate with other QA managers in other departments
115
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Major assessment factors: no new data, no new surveys; NARS data; or data things like NARS;
found data from states.
Project quality assurance manager
Pauls' questions: T
The translation area of the process is range of methods and translators. How do we
document translator?
Just say, "we're going to use standard EPA criteria"
How do we capture this range and document each?
Have several groups work on same (triangulate) for quality assurance. If this is
used in regulatory setting, it would be a much more involved effort. REVIEW
BOARD? Valid numbers, processes or metrics are documented—is clear about
how and why we did it, etc.
This is still operative...what does it look like when task leader providing oversight
(does that mean...task lead will review every number? All data for validity? So
does this then get translated into a "trust" me from expert?
Data repository? The data is vetted somehow? Has met some minimum requirement?
This will be new data because of the new info and metrics....the results are going to have to go
somewhere. [Peck]
Document steps, Put in repository? [Ringold]
Transparency and reproducibility
If there's a difference between QA managers at different offices, what to do?
Question about distribution list?
Comes down to PI: what are you working on?
Structure: flexible (high-level QAPP: here's how we're going to work at a high level with
specifics in sub task or task level).
Problem Jim anticipates: if someone (champion) is going a different direction and tries to
publish, research needs to be covered in order to produce anything involved. Put activity QAPP
in an appendix for specific champions, (potential - as suggested)
QAPP is written every 4 or 5 years, but documented updating annually.
116
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Would be happier if we could agree on one structure for starts (Paul says: there's a division
option //something more detailed is needed). Current one needs more detail with criteria that
satisfies QA across the board. If more specifics is needed, add to appendix. [Berry]
NEXT STEP: first thing is to send comments on the current plan—the things that need to be
changed, at minimum. Paul wants something generic, broad, flexible. Ideally, there'd be one
that would cover everything. Add a section that covers both NARS and other found data? And
related requirements/ criteria, (data integrity)
ISSUE: data archiving; ONE NOTE will be the data directory.
Comments due in two weeks.
Status of comments on old plan?
Organizing Session for Steering Committee Members
Bigger picture topic: considering particular audience (the office of water, for example), discuss
how NRS—if nothing changed—what would be useful; how could it be improved; etc. [Boyd]
Status and trends mindset. This has value to OW; in what way (if amended and improved); If we
were to do that across fed programs—would it also be the case?
Briefly touched on report on the environment; who might interact with that?
Big burden is being put on representatives to speak for OW, for example, who else should be
brought into bring back feedback? Use as model for other program offices in agency.
Provisionally: a good idea.
How can steering committee help?
More contact early on, etc.
Perhaps way to do this is to consider process and discuss how steering committee can
benefit.
Everyone was heard, but steering committee hasn't necessarily "resolved" things
that were raised.
Steering committee is going to look in on report. Feedback from champions ~ how to
support them sooner, more often, etc.?
Question about role of steering committee in community case studies?
You could if you wanted, or you could if director wanted you to and had
resources. Different task; contract is written to cover those activities right now.
[Ringold]
Lets look at NECSC to compare and get new ideas [Boyd]
117
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
Reticent to mine NECSC. Amanda has a foot in each world and could be a translator.
Recommends having the steering committee come up with a list of desired indicators
[Ringold]
Useful for champions to not have to deal with choices; the steering committee
can refine list of beneficiaries, looking through necs and fegs cs to hand off to
champions.
Recommend having the Steering committee come up with list of criteria that makes up a
"good" metrics. Easy, not too difficult questions to help folks iron out options, etc.
(should be relatively easy thing to come up with). [Johnston]
What's the interaction platform? (work plan—conference call per quarter).
Groups need to be engaging on beneficiaries 1) Refine beneficiary list 2) a cheat sheet of
criteria for good indicators 3) what are attributes of an ideal FEGS? (SEE NEXT STEPS
DOCUMENT) [Barber]
We also need to work on a glossary [Boyd]
By 4pm ,we need to decide what the steering committee and champions will do for the next 6
months [Ringold]
Nahlik presents template for a run through
Team selects subset of 0601 (experiencers and viewers), changes to viewers.
This is a person viewing a landscape for any reason [Barber]
Views the environment as a part of veryday life, or a special experience? Possible
metrics: relief, heterogeneity of plant height [Nassauer]
Relief can't be changed, and we want to measure things that matter [Kline]
Do we want to include metrics we can't change? [Johnston]
Yes, because they might influence other benefits or policies pertaining to them
[Hewitt]
More metrics: presence of open water; running water; seasonal change in color;
how people expect to see human structures in their location; long panoramic
views [Nassauer]
How have people quantified these things in the past? [group]
People also like curves, bends and meanders. So the absence of straight
lines or perfect circles [Nassauer]
Birds and animals are important, but they must be viewable [Johnston]
118
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
We will pass on our notes and in about a month we'll get minutes and a report [Ringold]
We should schedule a conference call, but realistically won't happen until after August [Barber]
Would champions present differently after this week's conversation? [Boyd]
Would change some terminology and use Amanda's table.
It would be useful to have a broad overview of the week's presentations. We will have a doodle
poll to discuss beneficiaries with the steering committee in the next month. Paul will work on a
list of terminology. [Ringold]
Recommend using terminology 'stocks and flows' [Rhodes]
Champions need to work on QA revision. Also, what datasets are we going to need and what
can we get a hold of. Stay in touch with Arik for useful info from EnviroAtlas [Ringold]
Champions come up with a list of questions for the steering committee [Boyd]
Do we need to come up with categories for every metric? [Nahlik]
No, for the short term, maybe over the next few years [Ringold]
Many metrics are already understandable by the general public, so not everything needs to be
translated [Johnston]
Don't want steering committee to come u pwith desired metrics [Boyd]
Using Kim's presentation as a reference next month will be a good start. [Ringold]
Next Steps
1) Steering Committee will look at Champion presentations and provide general
comments. (ST will send comments to RTI. Comments will be bundled and sent to
Champions.)
2) RTI will set up a conference call of the ST to
A) more exactly define the beneficiaries to be used by the Champion
B) and suggest some desired attributes
3) Kim will develop workshop report/minutes (one month) and send to ST and Champions
for comments. RTI will collate ST comments and submit to EPA.
4) Paul will begin the glossary of terms and share with the rest of the group for additional
suggestions. Kim will orchestrate how the glossary is shared.
119
-------
Appendix E: Workshop Notes
5) Champions will revise the QAP.
6) Champions will continue to seek out data sets.
7) Arik will distribute a "user friendly" list of data sets/layers in EnviroAtlas (2 weeks). He
will also begin to identify other GIS data sets that may be of use to the project.
8) Champions will provide feedback on FEGS-CS.
9) Champions will develop questions for the ST.
10) ST will develop a check list for a "good" FEGS indicator. This will not be detailed, but
rather offer a few points for guidance (i.e. "would my neighbor understand?", is the
indicator policy relevant, can the measure be taken at an appropriate temporal and
spatial scale?).
11) Champions will provide a "mock up" of a set of beneficiaries and attributes using the
agreed upon matrix, for the ST to comment upon.
Generally in 6 months expect:
o QAP
o List of beneficiaries
o Desired metrics
120
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
March 10, 2016 Webinar
Biophysical Goods
and Services that
Contribute Directly
to Human
FNl
Wellbeing
Paul Ringold EPAORD and Jim Boyd
Resources for the Future
For FEGS Champions
March 10, 2016
Big Picture
- Final ecosystem goods and services
- What are they and why focus on them?
Ecological systems
and analysis
Social systems and
economic analysis
3
Motivations
• We want ecology to matter more
- To policy and decisions
• We want to improve ecological
communication
- Outside the science community
• We want to link ecology and economics
- From the ground up, not after the fact
Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services
• Measurable biophysical
- Features
- Qualities
- Expected changes
• The point of handoff between ecology and
policy
- Linking indicators
Why Connect Ecosystems
to Human Wellbeing?
• Science made more powerful
- Communication
- Link to social assessment {ecosystem goods and
services)
• Benefits analysis
• Effectiveness analysis
• Support for Green GDP
Policy-relevant ecology
Steps
>March 10 Briefing - FEGS Rationale, Uses and
Concepts
• April 14 - FEGS Metrics and Indicators
• May 12 - FEGS Evaluation Methods
• June 9 - Discussion
• July 18 to 21 Workshop in Portland
121
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Applied Ecology
Addresses This Issue:
A Stressor
a Ecological
Feature
We can do more if we
address this issue:
a Stressor
a Ecological
a Human
Features
Well-Being
Final Good & Services Indicators
What biophysical features, quantities and
qualities require little further translation to
make clear their relevance to human well-
being?
Natural Science Indicators
Biotic integrity measures
Benthic disturbance
Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification
Habitat suitability rankings
Tissue burdens (toxics)
Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphorus
concentrations
Natural Science Indicators
. . . Are these
Biotic integrity measures . t t , , ,
interpretable by
Benthic disturbance non-scientists?
Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification
Habitat suitability rankings
Tissue burdens (toxics)
Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphorus
concentrations
Natural Science Indicators
Biotic integrity measures
Benthic disturbance
Hydrogeomorphic wetland classification
Habitat suitability rankings
Tissue burdens (toxics)
Dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphorus
concentrations
Science needs to do
the translation
122
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Thought Experiment
How would you explain the social value of improved
"surface water pH"?
- Why does pH matter?
• It signals water and habitat degradation
- Why does water and habitat degradation matter?
» Changes in abundance of specific species
Your next door neighbor understands and cares
about this
Who Decides What These
Endpoints Are?
• All of us do
- Ask people what they care about
• Voters
Psychologists
Elected representatives
Marketing professionals
Social scientists
Not natural
science so
much
Key Terms
Evaluate from the perspective of
a specific direct beneficiary
Beneficiary -- Crabber
Firvai Good « Servoo
(FGS>
liilemwJiata EeoiyGmxK and Se*v>ce*
I IEGS)
Different Beneficiary Different
FEGS Metrics and Indicators
Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services (FEGS)
Beneficiary — Swimmer
Key Terms and Issues
:GS
¦ Ecosystem things most directly valued by people
¦ Units of ecosystem sustainability
I* F 'ib'a&l M
ICCEl
FH fifiOd GfSwTCN
- Manage, monitor, model and map to understand and
manage FEGS
- Value derived from value of FEGS
FGS
- Goods and services created by people
- Not ecosystem goods and services
123
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Key Terms and Issues
FEGS
- Ecosystem things most directly valued by people
- Units of ecosystem sustainability
EGS
- Manage, monitor, model and map to understand and
manage FEGS
- Value derived from value of FEGS
Often abundant
data on these
- Goods and services created by people
- Not ecosystem goods and services
FGS Data
Key Terms and Issues
FEGS vs FGS
- Ecosystem things most directly valued by people
- Units of ecosystem sustainability
IEGS
- Manage, monitor, model and map to understand and
manage FEGS
-Value derived from value of FEGS I often abundant
r-/—r I data on these
hbb
- Goods and services created by people
- Not ecosystem goods and services
Crabs in the Water vs. Crab Landings
Native or Naturalized Fish vs Stocked Fish*
Drinking Water at Municipal Intake vs Water
at My Tap
Primary forest timber vs Plantation timber?
Soil Condition vs Corn Harvest
VS
Seagrass vs. Crabs in the Water
Watershed Integrity vs. Native or Naturalized
Fish
Wetland Acreage vs. Drinking Water at
Municipal Intake
124
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
A little more context
M V>w ¦
Biophysical features that
constantly interact
ty. Jpli f |« '
2. Goods we "consume"
The system's FEGS
Br '• $8F
>•: "-tepl i t ¦
i;7 ¦ TO I
*• *i | | }•¦ fei
< : ¦?*: V
Are Only FEGS Valuable?
- Everything in nature is valuable
- Because everything is connected
BUT!
- The value of final goods embodies the value of the
things it depends on
Z2Gm&*m
Value This
Value This
29
30
125
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Title IV CAA 2005 Analysis
totiaMB
Qsne
VHbllty
Rshfeig
Adirondack
Goats
Health
20 40 60 80 100 120
Annual Benefits and Costs
BHIkms of Dollm (US - 2D0Q
Focus on Things People Care About
tannines
Ozone
VbttEty
Human Health
FfcHng
Adirondack
Ecosystems
Coats
1
20 40 60 80 100 120
Annual Benefits and Costs
MomofDoaBndlS—am
Think about "Users"
• The social science mindset
• A way to identify quantities or qualities that
are directly used, enjoyed
- "final goods and services"
• Helps organize the natural system into a
system of production
Final Goods and Service: Market vs. Ecological
Goods
Not obvious
Steps
>March 10 Briefing - FEGS Rationale, Uses and
Concepts
• April 14 - FEGS Metrics and Indicators
• May 12 - FEGS Evaluation Methods
• June 9 - Discussion
• July 18 to 21 Workshop in Portland
126
-------
Appendix F:
Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
April 14, 2017 Webinar
Metrics of Final Ecosystem
Goods and Service
Paul Ringold
April 14, 2016
Steps
~ March 10 Briefing - FECS Rationale, Uses and
Concepts
~ April 1 4 FECS Metrics
~ May 12 - Discussion?
~ June 9 - FECS Evaluation Methods
~ July 1 8 to 2 I Workshop in Portland
Day 1 Review
Day 2 Discuss metrics developed by each champion
for at least two beneficiaries.
Here's What We're Going to
Discuss
~ Beneficiaries (6 to ii)
~ Background and Dual Coals (12-23)
> Method Outlined and Illustrated for Two
Beneficiaries (24-51)
> How would you proceed?
How would you proceed?
~ What data set?
~ Beneficiaries
~ Attributes
~ Desired and available metrics
~ OR - An alternative approach
WoTkshops to fclentify Metrics
~ ~ Two Dozen Experts at Each
Half natural and half social scientists
Streams, wetlands and estuaries
'% JK *
•VMM. *•
f vr • •
iij vn.
%
US'
. JS3M ^
Key Workshop Findings
~ Start with beneficiaries
~ Beneficiaries vary in the features that matter
to them directly
Angler vs irrigator vs municipal water uptake...
~ Beneficiaries often interact with multiple
features from multiple ecosystems
127
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Beneficiaries
~ Consumptive Use
~ Non-consumptive Use
~ Existence
Consumptive Use for Streams:
Fresh Water Withdrawals
I Thermoelectric Power
I Irrigation
I Public Supply
I Industrial
I Aquaculture
I Mining
g Livestock
I Domestic
FEGS-CS Standardized List of
Beneficiaries
~ http://gispub4.epa.gov/FEGS
SEFftS. ™
FINAL ECOSYSTEM GOODS
AND SERVICES CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM (FEGS-CS)
Even Simple Consumer ^
Goods Have Multiple
Attributes
Gender
Co or
Manufacturer
Materia!
Style
Condition
Logo
Existence Value
128
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Market vs. "Non-Market" Goods
Obvious units
Intentionally produced
Units not obvious and not
intentionally produced
Workshop Reports Identified
Attributes for each Beneficiary
~ Beneficiaries and Ecosystem Attributes of
Direct Importance to Each
Attributes are coarse categories, e.g.
• I. Site Characteristics
• II. Water Quality
• III. Flora & Fauna
• e.g. Fish, Wildlife, Plants, Pathogens...
• IV. Sensory Experience
• e.g. Visual appeal, Auditory appeal...
• (and subdivisions of each)
For each attribute
Data —Translation-* Metric
Data -Translation-* Metric fl Index —~ Indicator
Data -Translation-
Metric
-Increased Meaning?-
Initial Focus
Data —Tran*la*io«>* Metric
Data —TdinslaiioM
Mevre
Data
—T rarr5*aUQn~*
Melnc
H
~
Index
Indicator
-Increased Meaning?-
Translation
~ Most of what I have are biophysically based
translations
~ Our challenge is to develop translations
meaningful to beneficiaries
Metrics with Fidelity to Beneficiary
Wants, Needs, Perceptions...
Literature
Common Sense
Primary Research
Expert Consultation —- RTI Contract offers a
route to this.Gr
Workshop Reports
https://archive.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/web/html/index-2.html
129
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Metrics (for each beneficiary)
1.
m
2. Desired
n
3. Available
Attributes
U
Metrics
u
Metrics
The world is not yet perfect
Metrics (for each beneficiary)
1.
m
2. Desired
m
3, Available
Attributes
U
Metrics
U
Metrics
Constructing Metrics Imposes
Many Requirements -> Dual Coals
Change questions
people ask
Change data collection
Change model outputs
Change capacity to link
changes in ecosystems
to changes in human
well begin
SIIC FY1 7 Milestone:
Initial Report on Metrics
and Indicators for
Selected Ecosystems at
National and Regional
Scales
SIIC FY20 Product: Final
Reports on Metrics and
Indicators for Selected
Ecosystems at National
and Regional Scales
1. Timely Coal
2, Timeless Goal
Constructing Metrics Imposes
Many Requirements -> Dual Coals
Develop Metrics and Keep track of barriers
Indicators ~ Pursue questions
posed
1. Timely Goal I 2. Timeless Goal
Examples for Three
Beneficiaries(FEcs-cs code)
~ Anglers
Recreational Catch and Release (A subset of 11.0604)
~ Cooling plants a 1.0205)
~ Non-use beneficiaries a 1.09)
Source of Available Metrics
Timeline
implementation
strategy
From Hughes and
Management
objectives
130
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Catch and
Release
Angler
p '1
1.
* 3
2. Desired
Attributes
Metrics
Fish and Place 1 -Abundance of
recreational fish
weighted by
desirability
2.Location
appeal to anglers
Translated to 269 metrics
3. Available Metrics - Fish
Biophysical vs social translators
Abundance of alien
benthic invertivore
individuals
Abundance of native
catostomids and native
ictal u rids
> Alien
invertivore/piscivore
species richness
Presence of
recreational fish
Abundance of
recreational fish
Number of fish larger
than 8 inches
Pounds of fish
Biophysical translation
for metrics available
Metrics not available
Fish —
(SALMON_PIND+
CENT_PIND)*
VERT-NINO
131
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
3. Available Metric - Fish
250-
Hecreaikml FiriT
r
¦g 150
1 ion
3
z
50
L 0 T TO TOO 1000
| "neoBiUlmal Fish' - Gentrarchld arid Salmonid
(Number of IndMdiBfcft
3. Available Metric -- Place
~ Water Body Character
~ 5. Beautiful, ...
~ 4. Very minor aesthetic problems....
~ 3. Enjoyment impaired.
~ 2. Level of enjoyment substantially
reduced.
1. Enjoyment nearly impossible
Thermal
cooling
3. Available Metric - Place
Place —
APPEALNC
Barriers for Anglers
~ Measuring the right things?
Risk of water contact and consuming fish
• Pathogens and contaminants
~ Measuring the right way?
Add size/biomass, suitability for consumption,
stocked status
Field crew measure of aesthetics?
~ Time and Space
One time sample is representative of index period?
Is it representative of fishing period?
~ Translation
Taxa and size to fishing quality
1. Attributes
1 .Water Quantity
2.Chemistry
3.Fouling
4.Temperature
132
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
1. Attributes
2. Desired I
Metrics 1
1 .Water Quantity
• Minimum monthly flow and annual
probability of flooding
2.Chemistry
• Magnitude of scaling and corrosion
3.Fouling
• Potential for fouling
4.Temperature
j • Monthly stream and air temperature
Data —Seventy Year Record One
Location
L
3. Available Metric - Water Quantity
Mean Annual Flow
Corrosion and Scaling and
Temperature
EMAPVtatfopiirtftDn Eflfrnrtas
=pH-pHs
pHs = f(TDS, Ca2 + , J 1A
alkalinity,
Temperature)
-2-10 1
Lander Saturation Moc
Created Metric - Corrosion and
Scaling
EMAP Wtot Puputatfon Estfevubes
LSI developed in
1936 to quantify
calcium carbonate
stability of water,
i.e. its potential to
scale and corrode
pipes
=pH-pHs
pHs = fCTDS, Ca2+,
alkalinity,
Temperature)
Data = Metric for fouling potential
r'-lPF
Corbieula fluminea,
Asian Clam, fouls
water intake pipes,
and increases
sedimentation which
results in higher
maintenance costs.
(McMahon 1 999).
Cost of Corbicut a
probably far exceeds
$ 1 billion annually in
US nuclear power
plants. (Isom 1 986)
Present on 2.4% of
EMAP-W stream length
133
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Barriers for Cooling Water
~ Measuring the right things?
Flooding and Monthly Flow Probabilities
Potential for Fouling
Stream Temperature
~ Measuring the right way?
o ?
~ Time and Space
Lot of questions
~ Translation
Value of individual and collective attributes
Existence benefits are important
"Many natural environments are thought to have
substantial existence values; individuals do not
make use of these environments but nevertheless
wish to see them preserved 'in their own right'
(Heal et al. 2004).
"Nonuse values may be the largest, most
important social values in some policy contexts.."
. (Mendelsohn and Olmstead 2009)
~ the appropriate quantification of these values
remains the subject of "some discussion"
(Atkinson et al. 201 2).
Attributes
~ Chemistry
~ Stream structure
~ Biota
Existence Value
What do non-use beneficiaries
value?
~ "...the way things are supposed to be.."
(Weber and Ringold)
~ "...departures from an undisturbed referent
condition. .." (Johnston et al.)
Desired Metrics -> Available
Metrics
~ Chemistry as it should be
Nitrogen similar to least disturbed condition
~ Stream structure as it should be
Stream bed stability similar to least disturbed
condition
~ Animals that are supposed to be present
Macroinvertebrate (ecological) multimetric index
similar to least disturbed condition
~ Invasive organisms
Select riparian invasive plants similar to least
disturbed condition
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
"As it should be" or "as compared
to undisturbed referent"
~ Stoddard et al 2006 provides four definitions
of "reference condition"
Minimally disturbed
Historical
Best attainable
Least disturbed
Barriers for Non-Use Beneficiary
~ Measuring the right things?
What attributes?
~ Measuring the right way?
What's the right benchmark?
• Least disturbed, Minimally disturbed, Desired,
Idealized, Historic....
~ Time and Space
Not so many questions
~ Translation
How do we combine ecosystem components?
Metrics for Existence Beneficiary
How would you proceed?
~ What data set
~ Beneficiaries
~ Attributes
~ Desired and Available Metrics
~ OR - An alternative approach
-------
June 9, 2016 Webinar
WHAT EVIDENCE
DO WE HAVE TO
IDENTIFY METRICS
AND INDICATORS
THAT DIRECTLY
MATTER TO
PEOPLE?
Paul Ringold1, Kim Hall2,
1 USEPA,ORD, Corvallis, OR
2 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education,
Corvallis, OR
"Directly Matter to People"
Biophysical indicators that best facilitate social
interpretation of ecological conditions and
change. These are defined as indicators that
measure those things that directly affect
people's welfare.
Boyd, J. W., P. L Ringold, A. J. Krupnick, R. J. Johnston, M. Weber, and K. Hall. 2015. Ecosystem Services Indicators:
Improving the Linkage between Biophysical and Economic Analyses. RFFDP 15-40, Resources for the Future,
Washington DC.
Collaboration between natural and social
scientists and methods in design and
evaluation
General Approach to Development
and Evaluation
Beneficiary ^
Perceptions
¦ Metrics of |
I FEGS - Initial
Evaluation
Ecological
Practice
Economic
[Theory (FEGS)J
Metrics of
FEGS -
Revised
Hypothesis
Economic Theory: System of
Production
Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services (FEGS) for a crabber
Final Good or Service
(FGS)
Intermediate Ecosystem Goods and Services
(IEGS)
Adapted from: Boyd, J. W., and A.J. Krupnick. 2013. Using Ecological Production
Theory tbDefine and Select Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation.
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 42:1-32.
Specific Approach Tailored to
Beneficiary
Metrics of
FEGS -
Revised
Hypothesis
Metrics of
FEGS - Initial
Hypothesis
Evaluation
Ecological
Practice
Economic
.Theory (FEGS).
136
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Sources of Beneficiary Perceptions
• Common Sense
• Literature
• Primary Research
— Especially qualitative research, e.g. Weber, m. a., and p. l. Ringoid. 2015.
Priority river metrics for residents of an urbanized arid watershed. Landscape and urban
planning 133:37-52.
• Expert Consultation
— Workshop Reports
- Ringoid, P. L., et al. (2009). "Report from the workshop on indicators of final ecosystem
services for streams." US Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis. OR. USA.
- Ringoid, P. L., et al. (2011). "Report from the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services for Wetlands and Estuaries." US Environmental Protection Agency:
73.
https://archive.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/web/html/index-2.html
7
Process (for each beneficiary)
Our Ultimate Task
6. Report
Indicator
Condition
2. Desired
Metrics
Translate
Metrics to
Classes
Translate
Classes to
Condition
Available
Metrics
Attributes
Ecological Practice
Process (for each beneficiary)
Our Proximate Task
5,
Translate
Classes to
Condition
6. Report
Indicator
Condition
Ecological Practice
9
Beneficiary
Perceptions
Hunt, L. M. 2005. Recreational
Fishing Site Choice Models:
Insights and Future
Opportunities, Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 10:153-
172..
1. Fish
- Size, abundance, taxa,
biomass
2. Aesthetics
- Terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems
Beneficiarv Perceptions
Hunt, L. M. 2005. Recreational
Fishing Site Choice Models:
Insights and Future
Opportunities. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 10:153-
172..
1. Fish
M Wf
- Size, abundance, taxa,
Attributes
biomass
2. Aesthetics
- Terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems
137
-------
Appendix F: Pre-Conference Webinar Slides
Beneficiary Perceptions
Hunt, L, M. 2005. Recreational
Fishing Site Choice Models:
Insights and Future
Opportunities. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 10:153-
172.
- Size, abundance, taxa,
biomass
Ecological Practice
1. Fish
- Abundance of recreational
fish weighted by
desirability
2. Aesthetics ^
- Terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems
Direct report from field
Beneficiary Perceptions
Hunt, L. M. 2005. Recreational
Fishing Site Choice Models:
Insights and Future
Opportun Human
Dimensions kUife
172.
Ecological Practice
1. Fish,
V !
Negotiation and
Translation Between
Desired Metrics and
Available Metrics
Terre and a uatic
ecos ems
2. Direct report from field
Available Metrics Classified
"Recreational Fish" Abundance Classes
Abundant
"fieoedtionol Fish* - Cemrarchid and Saimonid
(Log 10 {Number of Individuals))
5. Beautiful,...
4. Very minor aesthetic
problems....
3. Enjoyment impaired.
2. Level of enjoyment
substantially reduced.
1. Enjoyment nearly impossible.
Aesthetics
Report Indicator Condition
(Fishing Quality Index)
138
-------
Appendix G
Metric
Development Since Workshop
12. WETLANDS
FEGS-CS
Social Scientists + Ecologists
Ecologists
Beneficiary Categories and Sub-
Categories
General Beneficiary Description
FEGS Category
Attribute
Desired Metric
Ideal Biophysical
Data
Available Data (and
Unit)
Translation of
ecological Data from to
Social Science metric
(i.e., what does this
data tell us?)
Dataset
Description of Barriers
Given Dataset
12.05 Subsistance
12.0505
Traditional Medicine Subsisters
This beneficiary collects items
from the ecosystem that are used
directly for drugs, medicines,
pharmaceuticals, or supplements.
This is not the same as a
commercial Pharmaceutical and
Food Supplement Supplier
beneficiary.
02 Flora
Flora
Abundance of medicinal plants
plant species composition
plant species composition (genus,
species names)
Plant species composition allows
us to determine which plant species
present are medicinal
2011 NWCA
None
plant species richness
plant species richness (#)
Plant species richness allows us to
quanitfy how many medicinal plant
species are present
2011 NWCA
None
plant mean relative cover
plant mean relative cover (%)
Mean relative cover allows us to
quantify the abundance of
medicinal plants at a site
2011 NWCA
None
Chemicals
Abundance of contaminants
plant tissue contaminant
concentrations
soil trace element concentration
(mg/kg)
Soil trace element concentrations
(e.g., mercury) may be used to
estimate risk of illness if plant is
injested
2011 NWCA
Do not analyze plant tissues
Pathogens & Parasites
Abundance of pathogens and
parasites
plant tissue pathogen
concentration (e.g., Clostridium
botulinum, Escherichia coli,
Salmonella, Shingella, Listeria
monocytogenes )
surface water Microcystin
concentration (|jg/L)
Microcystin may be used to
estimate risk of illness if plant is
injested (especially if it is in contact
with surface water)
2011 NWCA
Do not collect pathogen data
associated with plants - Microcystin
is an algal cytotoxin
parasite concentration in or on
plant tissue ((e.g.,
Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora )
None
Parasite concentrations in or on
plant tissue may be used to
estimate risk of illness if plant is
injested
N/A
No known data available
04 Fauna
Fauna
Abundance of medicinal animals
animal species composition
None
N/A
N/A
No known data available
animal species richness
None
N/A
N/A
No known data available
animal mean relative cover
None
N/A
N/A
No known data available
Chemicals
Abundance of contaminants
animal tissue trace contaminant
concentrations
None
N/A
N/A
No known data available
Pathogens & Parasites
Abundance of pathogens and
parasites
animal tissue pathogen
concentration (e.g., Clostridium
botulinum, Campylobacter
jejuni, Escherichia coli,
Salmonella, Shingella, Listeria
monocytogenes, Vibrh cholera )
None
N/A
N/A
No known data available
parasite concentration in animal
tissue (e.g., Cryptosporidium,
Cyclospora )
None
N/A
N/A
No known data available
* Assumption: the listed Attributes represent those which are most important, with the acknowledgement that others may also exist for some individuals
139
-------
Appendix G: Metric Development Since Workshop
12. WETLANDS
FEGS-CS
Social Scientists + Ecologists
Ecologists
Beneficiary Categories and Sub-
Categories
General Beneficiary Description
FEGS Category
Attribute
Desired Metric
Ideal Biophysical
Data
Available Data (and
Unit)
Translation of
ecological Data from to
Social Science metric
(i.e., what does this
data tell us?)
Dataset
Description of Barriers
Given Dataset
12.06 Recreational
12.0602
Recreational Edible Plant Pickers
and Gatherers
This beneficiary recreationally
picks or gathers edible plants from
the natural abundance of flora.
Furthermore, this beneficiary
occurs jointly with "Recreational
Experiencers and Viewers", and
given that this beneficiary has
potential contact with water, it also
may be innately coupled with
"Recreational Waders".
01 Water
Chemicals
Abundance of contaminants
surface water contaminant
concentrations
None
Parasite concentrations in surface
water may be used to estimate risk
of illness if beneficiary has contact
with water
N/A
No known data available
Pathogens & Parasites
Abundance of pathogens and
parasites
surface water pathogen
concentrations
surface water Microcystin
concentration (|jg/L)
Microcystin may be used to
estimate risk of illness if
beneficiary has contact with water
2011 NWCA
This is the only pathogen measured
in NWCA and there are many
pathogens that could cause illness
surface water parasite
concentrations
None
Parasite concentrations in surface
water may be used to estimate risk
of illness if beneficiary has contact
with water
N/A
No known data available
02 Flora
Taxa
Abundance of edible plants
plant species composition
plant species composition (genus,
species names)
Plant species com position
allows us to determine which plant
species present are edible
2011 NWCA
None
plant species richness
plant species richness (#)
Plant species richness allows us to
quanitfy how many edible plant
species are present
2011 NWCA
None
plant mean relative cover
plant mean relative cover (%)
Mean relative cover allows us to
quantify the abundance of edible
plants at a site
2011 NWCA
None
Chemicals
Abundance of contaminants
plant tissue contaminant
concentrations
soil trace element concentration
(mg/kg)
Soil trace element concentrations
(e.g., mercury) may be used to
estimate risk of illness if plant is
consumed
2011 NWCA
Do not analyze plant tissues
Pathogens & Parasites
Abundance of pathogens and
parasites
plant tissue pathogen
concentrations (e.g., Clostridium
bctulinum, Escherichia coli,
Salmonella, Shingella, Listeria
monocytogenes )
surface water Microcystin
concentration (|jg/L)
Microcystin may be used to
estimate risk of illness if plant is
consumed (especially if it is in
contact with surface water)
2011 NWCA
Do not collect pathogen data
associated with plants -
Microcystin is an algal cytotoxin
parasite concentrations in or on
plant tissue (e.g.,
Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora )
None
Parasite concentrations in or on
plant tissue may be used to
estimate risk of illness if plant is
consumed
N/A
No known data available
22 Environmental
Aesthetics
???
???
???
???
???
???
???
* Assumption: the listed Attributes represent those which are most important, with the acknowledgement that others may also exist for some individuals
140
-------
Appendix G: Metric Development Since Workshop
12. WETLANDS
FEGS-CS
Social Scientists + Ecologists
Ecologists
Beneficiary Categories and Sub-
Categories
General Beneficiary Description
FEGS Category
Attribute
Desired Metric
Ideal Biophysical
Data
Available Data (and
Unit)
Translation of
ecological Data from to
Social Science metric
(i.e., what does this
data tell us?)
Dataset
Description of Barriers
Given Dataset
12.06 Recreational
Chemicals
Abundance of contaminants
surface water contaminant
concentrations
None
Parasite concentrations in surface
water may be used to estimate risk
of illness if beneficiary has contact
with water
N/A
No known data available
01 Water
Pathogens & Parasites
Abundance of pathogens and
surface water pathogen
concentrations
surface water Microcystin
concentration (|jg/L)
Microcystin may be used to
estimate risk of illness if
beneficiary has contact with water
2011 NWCA
This is the only pathogen measured
in NWCA and there are many
pathogens that could cause illness
This beneficiary is primarily
interested in hunting ducks
recreationaiiy (i.e., not for
survival). Furthermore, this
parasites
surface water parasite
concentrations
None
Parasite concentrations in surface
water may be used to estimate risk
of illness if beneficiary has contact
with water
N/A
No known data available
Taxa
Anatidae (duck 1amily) species
composition
None
Duck species composition allows
us to determine which duck species
of interest are present
N/A
None
12.0603
Recreational Duck Hunters
beneficiary occurs jointly with
"Recreational Experiences and
Viewers", and given that this
beneficiary has potential contact
with water, it also may be innately
coupled with "Recreational
Waders".
Anatidae (duck 1am ily) relative
presence
None
Relative presence allows us to
estimate how likely it is that a
species of duck will be present
N/A
None
04 Fauna
Chemicals
Abundance of contaminants
Anatidae (duck family) tissue
contaminant concentrations
None
Trace element concentrations (e.g.,
mercury, lead) in tissue may be
used to estimate risk of illness if
duckmeat is consumed
N/A
No known data available
Pathogens & Parasites
Abundance of pathogens
Anatidae (duck 1am ily) tissue
pathogen concentrations (e.g.,
Clostridium botulinum,
Escherichia coli, Salmonella,
Shingella, Listeria
monocytogenes )
None
Pathogen concentrations in tissue
may be used to estimate risk of
illness if duckmeat is consumed
N/A
No known data available
Abundance of parasites
Anatidae (duck family) parasite
concentrations (e.g.,
Cryptosporidium,
Cyclospora )
None
Parasite concentrations in tissue
may be used to estimate risk of
illness if duckmeat is consumed
N/A
No known data available
22 Environmental
Aesthetics
???
???
77?
???
???
???
???
* Assumption: the listed Attributes represent those which are most important, with the acknowledgement that others may also exist for some individuals
141
FEGS Metrics Identification
-------
Appendix G: Metric Development Since Workshop
13. Lakes
FEGS-CS
Social Scientists + Ecologists
Ecologists
Beneficiary Categories and
Sub-Categories
General Beneficiary
Description
FEGS Category
Attribute
Desired Metric
Ideal Biophysical
Data
Available Data (and
Unit)
Translation of
ecological Data
from to Social
Science metric (i.e.,
what does this data
tell us?)
Dataset
Description of
Barriers Given
Dataset
13.06 Recreational
Fish Species Present
Taxa presence/absence
Species Presence
Species Presence
Presence in non-trace
abundance in sruveys
=FEGS present
State Surveys
State surveys not compiled.
Surveys are of public waters
13.0604
Anglers
Catch and consume anglers
(a subset of beneficiary
class "anglers").
Anglers fish recreationally
(i.e., not for survival) and
include catch-and-release or
catch-and-consume
activities. Stocked fish are
not a FEGS, as they are
considered a human input.
This beneficiary has
potential contact with water.
10 Fish
Fish abundance
Stock Size
Relative Abundance
Relative Abundance
State Surveys
Setting Definesible FEGS class
boundaries probably requires social
science research because NARS
reference condition is anchored at
biotic integrity rather than
beneficiary expectations (in this
case angler satisfaction) which is
very complex because anglers
i nte g rate m a ny facto rs.
Size
Size Distribution
Fish Habitat?
Habitat of Regional target
Species =FEGS present
NLA 2007
(FCFPaquatic, PERM_WATER)
Habitat metric is proxy
indicator. We should add resource
survey data to NARS data products
(like we add landscape data)
03 Environment
Site Appeal
Site appeal
142
-------
Appendix G: Metric Development Since Workshop
21. FORESTS
FEGS-CS
Social Scientists + Ecologists
Ecologists
Beneficiary Categories and Sub-
Categories
General Beneficiary Description
FEGS Category
Attribute
Desired Metric
Ideal Biophysical
Data
Available Data (and
Unit)
Translation of
ecological Data from to
Social Science metric
(i.e., what does this
data tell us?)
Dataset
Description of Barriers
Given Dataset
21.06 Recreational
21.0602
Recreational Huckleberry
Gatherers
This beneficiary recreationally
picks or gathers huckleberries
from the natural abundance of
flora. Furthermore, this
beneficiary occurs jointly with
"Recreational Experiences and
Viewers".
02 Flora
Taxa
Abundance of huckleberry fruit
(kg/ha)
Huckleberry fruit productivity
Huckleberry species composition
Huckleberry species composition
allows us to determine which
Huckleberry species are present
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
National Program
Only available for Western US
Huckleberry mean relative cover
Mean relative cover allows us to
quantify the abundance of
Huckleberry plants at a site
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
National Program
Only available for Western US
04 Fauna
Taxa
Abundance of bears
bear species relative presence
None
Bear abundance may be used to
estimate risk of being attacked
N/A
No known data available
22 Environmental
Aesthetics
???
???
???
???
???
???
???
21.0602
Recreational Mushroom Hunters
This beneficiary recreationally
hunts mushrooms (and other
edible fungi) from the natural
abundance of fungi.
Furthermore, this beneficiary
occurs jointly with "Recreational
Experiencers and Viewers"
15 Fungi
Taxa
Abundance of edible mushrooms
mushroom species composition
None
Mushroom species composition
allows us to determine which
mushroom species present are
edible
N/A
No known data available
mushroom species richness
None
Mushroom species richness allows
us to quanitfy how many edible
mushroom species are present
N/A
No known data available
mushroom mean relative cover
None
Mean relative cover allows us to
quantify the abundance of edible
mushrooms at a site
N/A
No known data available
04 Fauna
Taxa
Abundance of bears
bear species relative presence
None
Bear abundance may be used to
estimate risk of being attacked
N/A
No known data available
22 Environmental
Aesthetics
???
???
???
???
???
???
???
143
-------
Appendix G: Metric Development Since Workshop
21. FORESTS
FEGS-CS
Social Scientists + Ecologists
Ecologists
Beneficiary Categories and Sub-
Categories
General Beneficiary Description
FEGS Category
Attribute
Desired Metric
Ideal Biophysical
Data
Available Data (and
Unit)
Translation of
ecological Data from to
Social Science metric
(i.e., what does this
data tell us?)
Dataset
Description of Barriers
Given Dataset
21.02 Commercial / Industrial
21.0202
Commercial Timber Extractors
Timber extractors rely on the
environment for timber used or
sold commercially.
Only non-cultivated, renewable
material (i.e., NOT plantation
wood) are considered FEGS.
?
Per hectare amount of
timber by tree species
Volume of timber/hectare by
species
Volume of timber/hectare by
species
Volume of timber/hectare by
species
Tells us the amount of timber of
different species that can be
extracted from a unit area of land
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
National Program
Timber quality
Taper, ring tightness,etc?
Taper, ring tightness, presence
of knots etc?
Taper, ring tightness,etc?
Tells us about the potential uses for
the timber
?
Forest Land Owners
03 Environment
Quality
Productixity of the land
Site productivity class
Site productivity class
Site productivity class allows us to
estimate the quality of the land
(depending on tree species of
interest)
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
National Program
Only available for Western US
144
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |