1 1 Developing Ecosystem Services Science for Policy Needs in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, USA: A Place-Based Study Linking Human Well-Being with Ecosystem Services ACES Meeting – Naples, FL 09 Dec 2008 Dixon H. Landers, Robert McKane, Jana Compton Rene Brooks, Paul Rygiewicz, John Bolte and Connie Burdick. USEPA, Western Ecology Division Corvallis, OR USA

2 2 The EPA Challenge: Change the economic and human well-being foundation for environmental decision-making Current Investment: 200 Scientists ~$62 million dollars supporting research

3 3 Ecological Services Research Program Goals:  Long-Term Goal 1: National policy makers will have the tools and technologies to develop scientifically-defensible assessments of the state of our nation’s ecosystems and the effectiveness of existing national programs and policies  Long-Term Goal2: States and tribes apply improved tools and methods to protect and restore their valued ecological resources  Long-Term Goal 3: Decision-makers understand the importance of ecosystem services and make informed, proactive management decisions that consider a range of alternative outcomes

4 4 Uses  Setting policies and guidelines: EPA often seeks to promote its mission through a variety of policy instruments that do not have the legal force of national rules..  Quantifying benefits for national rule-making: The Office of Management and Budget establishes data requirements needed to assess the benefits and costs associated with these rules.  Developing environmental GDP accounts or other environmental indicators: In recent years, there have been numerous calls for establishing environmental accounts within our national Gross Domestic Product accounts.  Acting as a catalyst for market innovations: In some cases, EPA seeks to engage the private sector directly in its efforts to improve environmental conditions.

5 5 EPA Ecological Services Research Program - Place-Based Studies Southwest

6 6 Why Place-Based Research?  Work with actual, interested end-point users of research tools to assist with design and implementation  Confront contextual social and economic forces, challenges and solutions  Test models with appropriate data types and coverages  Develop a manageable approach to scaling  Enlist “local” experts with knowledge tailored to the question and issues  Compare like and contrast different approaches to similar issues among PBPs  Synthesize knowledge derived from the above activities to determine what level of information is ADEQUATE for decision makers to project ES at a national scale.

7 7 Willamette Basin: A Place Based Study

8 8 Willamette Ecosystem Service District Willamette Ecosystem Service District  65% Forest  20% Ag; 11% Urban  4% Riparian Wetland  Not all forests are equal High elevation (N sensitive or N retentive?) Broadleaf vs. Conifer Portland, OR Landcover

9 9 Why the Willamette?  Willamette “Ecosystem Service District” provides a broad range of Land- Use/Land-Cover, stressors, gradients, and diverse, linked settings  WED Alternative Futures research experience (mid 1990’s) = rich data sets, experienced researchers, potential collaborators (NRCS, USACE, USDA- FS, USGS, OWOW, etc.)  Well Connected Research and Regulatory Entities now Working toward future Ecosystem Service trading (Region X)  Multiple related Star Grant recipients (OSU, OU, PSU)  Willamette Partnership (State Non-Profit); OWEB  Trading Scenario for Temperature (riparian wetland ecosystem service) rapidly developing – EPA Funding with Region X oversight  ORD Multi-Year Plan – Ecosystem Research Program: provides explicit context CLIMATE OF OPPORTUNITY

10 Overall Goal: The W-ESP seeks to provide a scientifically based decision support system for valuing and projecting ecological services resulting from alternative management decisions Objectives: Quantify ecosystem services, including their distribution and status. Provide models to predict responses of ecosystem services to probable future conditions. Identify critical knowledge gaps in our understanding of how ecosystem services are provided. Evaluate net benefits of bundled ecosystem services and tradeoffs among management actions that affect these services.

11 Translating services into quantifiable spatial metrics

12 Avoiding Unintended Consequences

13 Willamette Conceptual Model: ALL LAND USES $ $ $ $ $ Non-Economic Value Stakeholder Prioritization Sediment Regulation Water Quantity Water Quality Carbon Sequestration Ag & Forest Products Fire Regulation Fish & Wildlife Extractive Energy, Minerals, Rx Recreation Sense of Place Air Quality Biodiversity GHG Regulation STRUCTURE Species, Food Webs, Spatial Organization, Soils Terrestrial Ecosystem Aquatic Ecosystem FUNCTION Carbon, Nutrient & Water Cycling; Soil Formation & Degradation, Competition, Reproduction, Mortality, etc STRUCTURE Species, Food Webs, Spatial Organization, Benthic & Water Column FUNCTION Carbon, Nutrient & Water Cycling; Sediment Dynamics, Groundwater Interactions Competition, Reproduction, Mortality, etc Agricultural Land Use Forest Land Use Riparian Land Use Water Quality & Quantity GCC Mitigation Fish & Wildlife Energy & Minerals Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Global Change Chemicals Land, Air, Water Water Use Land Cover Environmental Stressors / Drivers Anthropogenic Stressors / Drivers Land Use Climate Soils & Hydro- geomorphology Fire Hunting & Fishing Other Extractive Pests & invasives Δ Stressors / Drivers Δ Ecosystem (Quantitative ERFs)* Δ Ecosystem Services (Quantitative EPFs)** Δ Value Δ Value (of ES Bundle)*** (of ES Bundle)*** Adaptive Management Δ Human Well-being*** Decisions Policy, Regulatory, Economic, Political…

14 Inventory of Current Ecosystem Services: Approach and Knowledge Gaps 1.Identify key ecosystem services (ES) Willamette Ecosystem Services District 2.Determine appropriate units for ES 3.Develop an approach to inventory, “scale” and map ES 4.Identify knowledge gaps in assessing ES

15 Effects Cross Place Based Coordination on ES Models Wildlife Populations Plant Communities Biogeochemistry Hydrology Stressors Stressors  Land Use Forest Agriculture Riparian Urban  Global Change Climate CO 2 N deposition  Chemicals Fertilizers Pesticides Terrestrial Services  Ag products  Forest products  C sequestration  Nutrient regulation  GHG regulation  Habitat quality  Wildlife populations Aquatic Services  Water quality  Water quantity  Fish & waterfowl Nutrient Cycling Productivity Biodiversity Water Quantity Water Quality Carbon Storage Sense of Place ?? Social Scientist ?? Willamette ESRP-Wide “Common” Services

16  Forcing Variables (Stressors)  Natural and anthropogenic factors affecting quantifiable changes in the status (e.g. amounts & fluxes) of ecosystem processes  ERF: Ecological Response Function  The response of an ecosystem service to a particular forcing variable  ETF: Ecological Trade-off Function  The relationships between two (or more) ecosystem services in response to the same forcing variable (…and, eventually, multiple forcing variables) Definition of Terms Used to Determine Future Responses of Ecosystem Services to Multiple Response Variables

17 Socioeconomics Valuation & Trading of Ecosystem Services ERF Y-axis: Ecosystem Services Food/fiber Yield Carbon Sequestration Water Quality Water Quantity GHG regulation (N 2 O, NO x, CH 4 …) ERF X-axis: Forcing Variables Soils & Geology Climate (Temp, Precip, Light, CO 2 ) Fertilization Practices Tillage Practices Cover Type (Species, Riparian Buffers…) Many others… ERF 1 + ERF 2 Tradeoff = ETF N Fertilization N Export Yield N Export Crop Yield N Fertilization Crop Yield ERF 1 Ecosystem Service vs. Forcing Variable = ERF N Fertilization N Export ERF 2 Conceptual Framework

18 Fertilization Tillage Drought Index Stream Nitrate Drought Index Climate Crop Yield Soil Carbon WaterQualityCarbonSequestrationFoodProduction Stream Nitrate N Fertilization Crop Yield Stream Nitrate Tillage N Fertilization Soil Carbon Tillage Crop Yield Tillage Some Agricultural ERFs & ETFs Read vertically to compare responses (ERFs) for a given service to 3 different stressorsRead vertically to compare responses (ERFs) for a given service to 3 different stressors Read horizontally to assess trade-offs (ETFs) among 3 services at any given stressor levelRead horizontally to assess trade-offs (ETFs) among 3 services at any given stressor level

19 Models: Statistical and Process-Based Synthesize & Scale Up Data  Plots to Region, Days to Centuries Plots, StandsHillslopes, Catchments Basin, Region snobear.colorado.edu/IntroHydro/hydro.gif Scaling Up Ecosystem Services – Using Biophyical Models N Fertilization Crop Yield Plot-Scale ERFs Buffer Width N Export Hillslope-Scale ERFs Ag:Forest Area Ratio N Export Basin-Scale ERFs More Buffers Deep flowpaths Shallow flowpaths Low % sand Less Buffers ? ? High % sand ? Using nitrogen addition & export as an example…

20 Issues of Scale 1. Spatial Extrapolation Known 2. Decision Making and the Adequacy of Scientific Understanding e.g. Region to Tax Lot e.g. Region to Tax Lot Unknown

21 Inventory and mapping the location and value of Ecosystem Services is an essential activity of W-ESP W-ESP (Chan et al. 2006) Develop an approach to inventory and map ES Develop an approach to inventory and map ES

22 Modified from John Bolte, Oregon State University Quantification and Valuation of Ecosystem Services: apply indicators reflecting quantity Landscape: Spatial domain in which land use changes and other stressors are depicted Natural Change Processes: Models of non-human change Actions Policies: Constraints and actions defining land use management decisionmaking Policy Selection Clients: making multiple decisions by selecting policies responsive to their objectives Landscape Feedback Decision Support System – General Structure

23 Hypothetical ecosystem service values: Bundled by land use in the Willamette ESD *Relative value could be a rate, say kg/ha/yr, or represent economic or social value. Relative value* 0 Forest Native Grassland Headwater Wetland Riparian forest Vegetated buffer Rip Rap slope Row crop Grass seed Urban Nutrient removal Temperature regulation Carbon Sequestration Habitat Flood protection Food & Goods Ecosystem Services + -

24 Limitations Regarding Implementation Disciplinary Needs: Sociologist – Human Health and Well Being; Mediated Modeling Economist – Market and Non-Market Valuation Modelers – System Approaches and Scaling

25

26

27 End Product Scaling and Aggregation Under Alternative Management Scenarios Vegetated buffer strip Forest Row crop Livestock SAV Mangrove Wetland Headwater wetland Rip Rap slope Urban Net Value of Services Relative Ecosystem Services Within an Ecosystem District Management Option X AB C Options

28 Futures & Trading Analyses Natural & Anthro- pogenic Stressors Past, Present & Future Riparian wetland ES C-Sequestration N-control Critical habitat Societal Response & EPA Policy Actions Place-Based Societal Issues & Values Tradable Ecosystem Service Units Predicted climate change Air pollution Land use management Population growth Forcing Variables:Desired Outcomes: Clean rivers Fish & Wildlife Flood control Timber& Crops Wetlands Mapped Ecosystem Services Projected and Quantified Bundles of Ecosystem Services Ecosystem Structure & Functioning Production Pools Decomposition Flows Ag-/De-gradation Land-Water Interactions Cost Optimization Market Forces Valuation Water provisioning Water Quality ERFs ETFs Future Projections Research Targeted to Develop Ecological Response Functions (ERF) and Ecological Trade-off Functions (ETF) W-ESP Decision Support System

29  Changes in land use  Pollution  Climate change  Invasive species  Overexploitation  Other Direct drivers (forcing variables) of ecosystem change World Resources Institute

30 Collaborators and Stakeholders

31 Drought Index Stream Nitrate Drought Index ERFs, ETFs Have Many Dimensions Example 1:soil texture modifies the effects of the 3 stressors at left Example 1: soil texture modifies the effects of the 3 stressors at leftFertilization Tillage WaterQuality CarbonSequestration FoodProduction Stream Nitrate Tillage Crop Yield Soil Carbon Low Sand% High Sand% ? Low Sand% ? ? High Sand% Low Sand% Climate Stream Nitrate N Fertilization Crop Yield N Fertilization Soil Carbon Crop Yield Low Sand% High Sand% ? Low Sand% High Sand% ? Low Sand% High Sand% ? Low Sand% ? High Sand% ? Low Sand% High Sand% ? Toggle with previous slide

32 Drought Index Stream Nitrate Drought Index ERFs, ETFs Have Many Dimensions Example 2: the 3 stressors at left have interactive effects WaterQualityCarbonSequestration FoodProduction Stream Nitrate N Fertilization Low Tillage High Tillage ? N Fertilization Crop Yield Low Tillage High Tillage ? ? Crop Yield Low Drought Index ? Crop Yield Tillage High Drought Index ? High N Fert Low N Fert ? Soil Carbon High N Fert Low N Fert Stream Nitrate ? Tillage Low Drought Index High Drought Index Soil Carbon ? Tillage Low Drought Index High Drought Index N Fertilization Soil Carbon High Tillage Low Tillage ? Fertilization Tillage High N Fert Low N Fert Climate

33 By 2013 ERP will complete site-specific demonstration projects that illustrate how regional and local managers can use alternative future scenarios to proactively conserve and enhance ecosystem goods and services in order to benefit human well-being and to secure the integrity and productivity of ecological systems. Ecosystem Research Program LTG 5

34

35 Place Based Sites Tampa Bay – warm humid, 5 or so small watersheds, rapid urbanization, unique estuarine habitat, and high recreational use. Midwest – temperate, multi-state, bread basket, biofuel production and processing pressures, many unique habitats. Pacific Northwest – cool moist, strong policy and planning element for sustainable economic growth, focus on riparian forest. Coastal Carolinas – warm humid, wetlands loss and sea level rise, impacts to sensitive habitats and protected species.

36 Provides opportunities to:  Test similar methods in different locations  Look at urban to rural gradient  Evaluate variety of stressors  Research ways to upscale results  Develop coupled ecological/economic modeling/tools  Reach out to larger audience Working Across Multiple Locations

37 Land Value Recreation Aesthetics Potable Water Human Health Energy Food/Fiber Cultural Existence Value Flood Control Climate Mitigation Contribution to Well Being Nutrient Cycling ProductivityBiodiversity Water Quantity Water Quality Carbon Storage Sense of Place What are the common functions and services across places? What are the likely contributions to human well being?

38 Table 1. Common Ecosystem Services for Place Based Study Sites Biogeochemical Cycling Carbon pool storages standing biomass soil organic content Carbon sequestration net primary production nitrification Grams nitrogen / unit area / unit time Denitrification (in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands) microbial abundance; oxidation rate, (see Wolheim and others for proxies) Habitat / refugia Terrestrial nature, location, quantity & arrangement Fresh water nature, location, quantity & arrangement Estuarine Near-coastal, marine nature, location, quantity & arrangement Biodiversity Species counts Air quality regulation due to vegetation** Removal of pollutants Micro-climate regulation due to vegetation Changes in diurnal temperature ranges from background

39 Disturbance & Natural Hazard Regulation Erosion Control kg/ha/year reduced Flood Control Change in flood peaks (2- yr., 10-yr., 50-yr. recurrence interval) Fire Control Fuel load Biological Regulation Pollination Increased production due to pollinators Pest Control Diversity/distance from ideal/fragmentation Disease Control Host vector habitat Food/Fiber Production Plant crops (grains, fruits, et Bushel /ha/year Animal protein Terrestrial (livestock) lbs/ha, animals/ha Wild aquatic (commercial fish) “yearling” estimates, catch, change in catch, change in fish advisories Grazing Forage Production Grazing Forage Production Livestock supported/ hay bale/ha Fuels Net energy production

40 Water provisioning Quality EMAP condition indicators Surface water storages usable volume/capacity Groundwater --maps of regional and alluvial aquifers -- recharge rates per unit area -- est’d. change in aquifer storage, or piezometric head., ft. above reference Timing: Maintenance of base flow Statistical measures of baseflow characteristics, and change in same Hydrologic regime Statistical measures of flow regime, and change in same Recreational Hunting & Fishing Licenses/take Ecotourism/Nature Viewing/ trekking/ camping Visits /year Boating Rentals/docking fees Recreational Sports Rentals Sense of place Spatially explicit visualization of change in landscape for selected service endpoints Spiritual value Spatially explicit estimates of change in indigenous non- consumptive use service endpoints Existence value / behest value Spatially explicit visualization of change in landscape for selected service endpoints, including non- consumptive use endpoints