the national ecosystem services partnership is … national ecosystem services partnership is housed...

The National Ecosystem Services Partnership is housed at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute

OVERVIEW OF FRMES Lydia Olander

National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP)

Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services (FRMES)

• NESP + ACES (May 2012) – Hosted forum for federal decision-makers

– Identified need for guidance on how to integrate ecosystem services into planning and management

• NESP + Moore Foundation (Start January 2013) – 2-year grant for shared learning process resulting in a guidebook for

agencies

– Technical working groups funded by NCEAS and SESYNC working on methods and metrics

– Project is called Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services (FRMES)

– Partners include federal resource agencies (policy and practitioners), academic scientists, NGOs

History of FRMES

FRMES Coordinating Team

Duke University & NESP Lydia Olander, Dean Urban, Tim Profeta, Emily Schieffer

Consultant Sally Collins

Resources for the Future Jim Boyd

The Nature Conservancy Lynn Scarlett

Components of FRMES

FRMES has two primary objectives

1. Develop a guidebook that:

– Provides resource managers context for deciding when and how to conduct an ecosystem services assessment

– Provides a common framework for ecosystem services methods and metrics that are transferable across geographies, scales and decision contexts.

2. Foster a cross-agency community of practice to:

– Provide input and feedback on the guidebook

– Allow an opportunity for cross-agency learning and methods development

Community of practice

• FRMES meetings in DC

• Webinars – April Introduction to FRMES,

and technical working groups – August Guidebook

introduction and NEPA analysis

– September Case Examples – Fall FRMES and Agency (BLM,

Corps) methods and metrics

• BLM • DOI • EPA • FWS • NOAA • OEM • USACE • USFS • USGS • Non-governmental

organizations • Academics and Outside Experts

Guidebook outline

1. Introduction – What are ES and why can they be useful

2. Agency context – How ecosystem services approaches fit into various agency

resource management and planning contexts

3. Legal authorities – NEPA and agency specific planning authorities

4. Applying ecosystem services assessment – Methods and metrics

Agency context

• By agency – USFS, BLM, FWS, NOAA, Corps – Management history – Decision contexts – Case Examples

• Federal infrastructure for ES (PCAST response) – EcoInforma, EnviroAtlas, etc…

(USGS & EPA)

Agency partners Rob Winthrop, Rebecca Moore, and many others at BLM

Ted Maillett and others at FWS

Nikola Smith, Tim Foley, Chris Miller, Bob Deal, Pedro Rios and others at USFS

Ariana Sutton-Grier, Micah Effron, Mark Plummer and others at NOAA

Janet Cushing at the Corps

Anne Neal and others at EPA

Frank Casey, Carl Shaprio, Ken Bagstad, and others at USGS

Legal Authorities

White papers

1. Ecosystem Services under NEPA

2. Ecosystem Services under other planning authorities (FLPMA, Taylor Grazing Act, Minerals Leasing Act, Etc..)

Coordinated by FRMES Lynn Scarlett and Tim Profeta

Writers

Dinah Bear, formerly CEQ

Others, TBD

Ecosystem Services Assessment How ecosystem services can be incorporated into existing decision processes

How to use ecosystem services as a basis for comparing alternative management actions or projects

How to incorporate ecosystem services into stakeholder engagement

What methods can be used for monetary and non-monetary valuation of ecosystem services

How to develop ecosystem services measures for monitoring and quantification and how to make these measures consistent across geographies and scales.

How to build a data and modeling infrastructure to support consistent, transferable and scalable measures and models.

NESP/ACES & PCAST

NCEAS General

NSF$ Eco-soc

SESYNC General

NSF$ Soc-eco

FRMES Feds

Moore$

Guidebook Assessment methods and metrics

ES Methods & Metrics

Published papers

Technical Working Groups

Institutions involved so far…

Funding and support

• Moore Foundation

• NCEAS

• SESYNC

• Multiple agencies (seed funding and in kind effort)

Universities

• Clark University

• Colorado State University

• Duke University

• University of Maryland

• University of Ohio

• University of Wisconsin

• Vanderbilt University

NGO

• Compass

• Defenders of Wildlife

• Desert Research Institute

• Institute for Natural Resources

• NatureServe

• World Resources Institute

Lead People & Institutions • Nicholas Institute at Duke University

and NESP (Lydia Olander, Dean Urban, Tim Profeta)

• Sally Collins • The Nature Conservancy, Lynn Scarlett • Resources for the Future, Jim Boyd • Dinah Bear

Consultants

• Parametrix

• SIG-GIS

Agency partners • FS • BLM • FWS • USGS • DOI • EPA • NOAA • USACE

Agency observers

• CEQ/OMB/OSTP

• USDA/OEM

Usefulness of FRMES

• Provide common methods.

• Explore policy context and legal authority.

• Create positive pressure from outside.

• Enable agencies to do more and coordinate across agencies.

• Written policy drives unified action.

More information National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) website: http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/initiatives/national-ecosystem-services-partnership

Informal FRMES website with working documents: https://sites.nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/nesp-frmes/

http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/initiatives/national-ecosystem-services-partnership








https://sites.nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/nesp-frmes/



Today’s meeting

Overview of FRMES

Guidebook introduction

Legal Authorities

Break

Case Examples

Methods & Metrics

Next Steps

Lunch

1. How can we assure relevance and utility? – Anything missing?

– Most significant challenges addressed?

– Other groups that need to be engaged?

2. Are there additional tools and methods developed by agencies?

3. Would you be willing to help guide, support, write, and/or review draft documents to enhance the relevance and utility of the guidebook?

GUIDEBOOK INTRODUCTION Jim Boyd And Emily Schieffer



Guidebook Introduction

• Serves dual duty

– Introduction to Guidebook

– Compact, standalone primer for uninitiated, even skeptical audiences

• What are ES and why is their analysis useful and important?

San Pedro NRCA Bob Wick http://mypubliclands.tumblr.com

http://mypubliclands.tumblr.com/



What Are ES?

• Unpack different definitions of the term “ES” – Functions, features, activities, economic benefits, etc.

• Describe the roles played by natural scientists, social scientists, and decisionmakers – All three communities essential

Rough Green Snake Mark Danaher Francis Marion NF www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/scnfs/learning/nature-science/

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/scnfs/learning/nature-science/





What Are ES?

• A general term representing a suite of tangible, intuitive aspects of nature and our wellbeing

– Species, beauty, water quality, productive soils, flood mitigation, etc.

• Utilitarian values and intrinsic values

• Economic, but also broader social outcomes

Why Are ES Relevant to Federal Agencies?

• New Capability

– The science and the data

natural + social science working together

• New Strategy

– Emphasis on human goals, wellbeing

Big Bend NP Jennette Jurado http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/day_hikes.htm

http://www.nps.gov/bibe/planyourvisit/day_hikes.htm





Why Are ES Relevant to Federal Agencies?

• New Opportunities – Education and Communication

• Engagement with stakeholders

• New ways to express value of federally managed resources

– Decision-making • Transparent analysis of benefits, costs, and tradeoffs

• Landscape scale and multi-media, multiple-use resource management analysis

• Examples of specific applications: planning & targeting, banking & markets, innovative financing

Questions for the COP

• Does this explanation of why ES are relevant work for you? What seems true? What is missing? Are there constraints or concerns about adopting ES approaches that should be discussed?

• Will this explanation make sense, be relevant to others in your agency?

• Are there other examples that we could include to help illustrate “new opportunities.”

Some Initial Feedback

• Underscore semantics as a barrier

• Importance of emphasis on both utilitarian and intrinsic values

• Emphasize conceptual roots in – and complementarity to – analysis of conventional economic system

• Be careful what you call “new”

importance of history

• Non-monetary evaluation approaches

• Importance to tradeoffs mindset Pine Barrens Tree Frog Mark Danaher Francis Marion NF

LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Dinah Bear, Lynn Scarlett, and Tim Profeta



Legal Authorities

White papers

1. Exploration of NEPA authority for inclusion of ecosystem services

2. Exploration of agency planning authorities and how they affect agency incorporation of ecosystem services and NEPA implementation (FLPMA, Taylor Grazing Act, Etc..)

Coordinated by FRMES Lynn Scarlett and Tim Profeta

Writers (so far) Dinah Bear, formerly CEQ Others expected

Legal Authority - NEPA

“The real wealth of the country is the environment. . . We must reject any approach which inflates the values of today’s satisfaction and heavily discounts tomorrow’s resources.”

– Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, 1968


“A public policy for the environment basically is not a public policy for those things out there. It is a policy for people.”

– Senator Henry Jackson, 1969


“Congress . . . . directs that . . . all agencies of the Federal Government shall. . . include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment…”

– Section 102(2)(C), National Environmental Policy Act


“A review of NEPA’s language casts some doubt upon the contention that the environment does not include human beings…”

– Monarch Chemical Works, Inc. v. Exon, 451 F. Supp. 493 (D. Neb. 1978)


When an EIS is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the EIS will discuss all of these effects on the human environment.

– 40 C.F.R. § 1508.14


Effects under NEPA include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.

– 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b).


“Valuation of ecosystem services is exactly the kind of assessment NEPA envisions, providing a means to inform the public and decision-makers about what we stand to gain or lose in several alternative scenarios.”

– Fischman, Robert, The EPA’s NEPA Duties and Ecosystem Services, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 20: 497, 501

Legal Authority – Planning Statutes

• Questions and Issues

CASE EXAMPLES Sally Collins, Lynn Scarlett, Ariana Sutton Grier, Rob Winthrop, and Ted Maillett



CASE EXAMPLE LOCATION STATUS

U.S. Forest Service

USFS Land Management Plan Revision Nationwide Draft complete

Marsh Restoration in Deschutes National Forest Oregon Draft complete

Ecosystem Services in USFS Programs and Operations Nationwide Draft complete

Cool Soda project in Willamette National Forest Oregon Draft complete

USFS Region 5 Strategy (Sierra, Inyo, Sequoia NF) California Draft complete

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Virginia and North Carolina Draft complete

San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge California Draft complete

North Atlantic LCC Undetermined Draft anticipated December 2013

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Upper Green River Conservation Exchange Wyoming Draft complete

Watershed Management Plan at San Pedro Riparian National

Conservation Area Arizona Draft anticipated October 2013

Solar PEIS Mitigation Planning Southwestern U.S. and California Draft anticipated October 2013

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Coastal Blue Carbon and Habitat Conservation Nationwide (and global) Draft complete

Ecosystem services trade-offs in coastal and marine systems

Puget Sound, Galveston Bay,

Chesapeake Bay Draft complete

1. Motivation 2. Decision Context 3. Location and Scale 4. Key Players

- within the agency, across agencies , other land managers or stakeholders

5. Existing Resources - can include tools, research, funding, and technical support, etc.

6. Organizational Capacity - can include the design of your organization, the support of leadership, your ability to work across agencies, the knowledge/ skills/ abilities of staff, etc.

7. Options Considered 8. Analysis 9. Trade-Offs 10. Implications

- for planning, management, or policy decisions

Photo Credit: Carina Rosterolla, Crescent RD

• Stakeholder Engagement

• Decision Impact / Relevance

• Capacity Issues

• Recurring Challenges / Opportunities

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSESSMENT METHODS AND METRICS Dean Urban, Lydia Olander, Lisa Wainger, and David Saah



Ecosystem Services Assessment

NESP/ACES & PCAST

NCEAS General

NSF$ Eco-soc

SESYNC General

NSF$ Soc-eco

FRMES Feds

Moore$

Guidebook Assessment methods and metrics

ES Methods & Metrics

Published papers


How ecosystem services can be incorporated into existing decision processes

How to use ecosystem services as a basis for comparing alternative management actions or projects

How to incorporate ecosystem services into stakeholder engagement

What methods can be used for monetary and non-monetary valuation of ecosystem services

How to develop ecosystem services measures for monitoring and quantification and how to make these measures consistent across geographies and scales.

How to build a data and modeling infrastructure to support consistent, transferable and scalable measures and models.

Technical Working Group Members

Rebecca Moore BLM Sarah Howell BLM Rob Johnston Clark University David Theobald Cons. Science Partners Sara Vickerman Defenders of Wildlife Lynn Maguire Duke University Dean Urban Duke University John Fay Duke University Lydia Olander Duke University Michael Papenfus EPA Annie Neale EPA Paul Ringold EPA Samantha Sifleet EPA Ted Maillett FWS Jimmy Kagan Institute for Natural Res.

Pat Comer NatureServe Peter Wiley NOAA Mark Plummer NOAA Howard Townsend NOAA Micah Effron NOAA Geoff Buckley Ohio University Kevin Halsey Parametrix Jim Boyd Resources for the Future David Saah Spatial Informatics Group Lisa Wainger University of Maryland Morgan Robertson University of Wisconsin Janet Cushing USACE Trista Patterson US Forest Service Bob Deal US Forest Service Ben Sherrouse USGS Frank Casey USGS Ken Bagstad USGS


NCEAS Feb

2013

SESYNC March 2013

NCEAS August 2013

SESYNC TBD

Joint meeting

TBD

FEDERAL DECISION MAKING PROCESSES

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

FR

AM

EW

OR

K

F. Monitoring & Review Ecosystem Services

ASSESSMENTS ACROSS SCALES

National Status/Trends

Regional Status/Trends

National- scale data

Aggregation

Project

Site

Local- scale data

Aggregation

Prioritize sites, management actions

Translate/generalize metrics

Planning Unit

A. Scoping

B. Evaluating Management Alternatives

C. Organizing into Ecosystem Services

D1. Translating metrics into units of value

D2. Aggregating value and making trade-offs

E. Deciding

F. Monitoring

1. Beneficiary identification and stakeholder engagement 2. National data - ES delivery areas and hot spots of demand relative to supply for regional prioritization, coordination, and spatial planning

A. Scoping





E. Deciding

F. Monitoring

A. Scoping





E. Deciding

F. Monitoring

1) Organize objectives into ES

2) Map objectives (ES) to management options

3) Map management alternatives (means) to management outcomes (ends)

4) Identify relevant ES measures

5) Model outcomes of alternative scenarios and measure in terms of changes in ES delivered (incorporates human infrastructure, access, etc…)

Example of organizing management needs into ecosystem services by habitat for the Marsh Project, Deschutes National Forest

Example of mapping resource needs or priority benefits (ecosystem services) to possible management options.

Example MEANS-ENDS MODEL: mapping management to ES outcomes

What to measure and why? • To evaluate management alternatives • To monitor performance/outcomes • To track status and trends How to measure? • Good indicators • Based on available data • Consistent across uses and geography (transferable) • Scalable (for reporting)

What are we measuring? Changes in the delivery of Services to people

Not the number of deer, but the number of days people went hunting

Ecosystem services Measure (Examples) Model for predicting change

Data/information used Unit Biodiversity and wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic)

Existence (Biodiversity) Function of habitat type and quality, connectivity, species richness, rare species, etc… Priorities for NGOs like TNC, Defenders, Sierra Club

Biodiversity score

Population Viability Analysis (and extensions)

Recreation (Watching wildlife, Photography, Hunting, Fishing)

Recreational survey data # people days; Not known

Climate Regulation Existence (climate) Function of annual change in carbon

stocks (trees, soils, etc..) and any other major source or sinks of nitrous oxide or methane (like wetlands)

net GHG equivalents per year

Variety of models for forest GHG, grassland GHG, and agricultural GHGs.

Example measures and models for monitoring and predicting change in the provision of services

EcoINFORMA Implementation

A. Scoping





E. Deciding

F. Monitoring

1. Monetary Valuation (market and non-market valuation) links to BLM, EPA and other guidance

2. Multi-criteria decision methods for ecosystem services (incorporating non-monetary values)

Draft sections • Ecosystem services applied in engaging stakeholders

and eliciting preferences (outline) • Mapping the means -management actions - to the

ends - ecosystem services and other resource objectives.

• Developing consistent measures and models • Scaling down data and scaling up ecosystem service

measures • Choosing among alternatives using ecosystem services

assessment – Monetary Valuation (market and non-market valuation)

links to BLM, EPA and other guidance – Multi-criteria decision methods for ecosystem services

(incorporating non-monetary values)

Case Examples Possible Pilot Test Sites

US Forest Service

Yes Big Marsh Restoration in Deschutes National Forest, Oregon

Yes

Sierra, Inyo, Sequoia National Forests,

Sequoia, Kings Canyon National Parks

~ Francis Marion Forest, SC

Bureau of Land Management

Yes

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area; Coronado

National Forest

Fish & Wildlife Service

Yes

North Atlantic LCC, - Exploring opportunities to work with FWS

refuges and other sites within the LCC

Pilot testing

NEXT STEPS FOR FRMES Lydia Olander, Sally Collins, Jim Boyd, and Lynn Scarlett



Planned Next Steps

1. Agency context (history, decisions, case synthesis) – Additional cases and revisions

2. Revise NEPA, add other legal authorities

3. Revise and complete methods & metrics framework – With working groups, managers at pilot sites and other agency

experts

4. Online guidebook – Drafts available now


– Final released at ACES December 2014





Questions for you

• How can we further assure relevance and utility? – Are there other aspects or issues that we should include? – What do you perceive as the most significant challenges to applying an

ecosystem services approach to agency planning and decisions?

• How can we best incorporate tools and methods agencies are developing for ecosystem services?

• Agency review of the draft documents will enhance their relevance. Many agencies are participating in our efforts. – Are there other agencies or other Department offices that we should

include in this process?

• Our case examples are beginning to identify some administrative and cultural challenges with implementing an ecosystem services approach. We would like to hear ideas you might have for meeting these challenges.

the national ecosystem services partnership is … national ecosystem services partnership is housed...

Documents