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

Transcription

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

2 National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services (FRMES) OVERVIEW OF FRMES Lydia Olander

3 History of 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

4 FRMES Coordinating Team Duke University & NESP Consultant Resources for the Future The Nature Conservancy Lydia Olander, Dean Urban, Tim Profeta, Emily Schieffer Sally Collins Jim Boyd Lynn Scarlett

5 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

6 Community of practice BLM DOI EPA FWS NOAA OEM USACE USFS USGS Non-governmental organizations Academics and Outside Experts 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

7 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

8 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

9 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

10 Ecosystem Services Assessment FRMES Feds Moore$ Guidebook Assessment methods and metrics NESP/ACES & PCAST NCEAS General NSF$ Eco-soc SESYNC General NSF$ Soc-eco ES Methods & Metrics Published papers Technical Working Groups 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.

11 Institutions involved so far 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 Funding and support Moore Foundation NCEAS SESYNC Multiple agencies (seed funding and in kind effort) Agency partners FS BLM FWS USGS DOI EPA NOAA USACE Agency observers Universities Clark University Colorado State University Duke University University of Maryland University of Ohio University of Wisconsin CEQ/OMB/OSTP USDA/OEM Vanderbilt University NGO Consultants Parametrix SIG-GIS Compass Defenders of Wildlife Desert Research Institute Institute for Natural Resources NatureServe World Resources Institute

12 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: Informal FRMES website with working documents:

13 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?

14 National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services (FRMES) GUIDEBOOK INTRODUCTION Jim Boyd And Emily Schieffer

15 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 umblr.com

16 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 /scnfs/learning/naturescience/

17 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

18 New Capability Why Are ES Relevant to Federal Agencies? The science and the data natural + social science working together New Strategy Emphasis on human goals, wellbeing Big Bend NP Jennette Jurado v/bibe/planyourvisi t/day_hikes.htm

19 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

20 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.

21 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

22 National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services (FRMES) LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Dinah Bear, Lynn Scarlett, and Tim Profeta

23 Legal Authorities Coordinated by FRMES Lynn Scarlett and Tim Profeta Writers (so far) Dinah Bear, formerly CEQ Others expected 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..)

24 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

25 Legal Authority - NEPA 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

26 Legal Authority - NEPA 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

27 Legal Authority - NEPA 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)

28 Legal Authority - NEPA 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

29 Legal Authority - NEPA 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 (b).

30 Legal Authority - NEPA 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

31 Legal Authority Planning Statutes Questions and Issues

32 National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services (FRMES) CASE EXAMPLES Sally Collins, Lynn Scarlett, Ariana Sutton Grier, Rob Winthrop, and Ted Maillett

33 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 Puget Sound, Galveston Bay, Ecosystem services trade-offs in coastal and marine systems Chesapeake Bay Draft complete

34

35 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

36 Photo Credit: Carina Rosterolla, Crescent RD

37 Stakeholder Engagement Decision Impact / Relevance Capacity Issues Recurring Challenges / Opportunities

38 National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services (FRMES) ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSESSMENT METHODS AND METRICS Dean Urban, Lydia Olander, Lisa Wainger, and David Saah

39 Ecosystem Services Assessment FRMES Feds Moore$ Guidebook Assessment methods and metrics NESP/ACES & PCAST NCEAS General NSF$ Eco-soc SESYNC General NSF$ Soc-eco ES Methods & Metrics Published papers Technical Working Groups 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.

40 Technical Working Group Members Rebecca Moore Sarah Howell Rob Johnston David Theobald Sara Vickerman Lynn Maguire Dean Urban John Fay Lydia Olander Michael Papenfus Annie Neale Paul Ringold Samantha Sifleet Ted Maillett Jimmy Kagan BLM BLM Clark University Cons. Science Partners Defenders of Wildlife Duke University Duke University Duke University Duke University EPA EPA EPA EPA FWS Institute for Natural Res. Pat Comer Peter Wiley Mark Plummer Howard Townsend Micah Effron Geoff Buckley Kevin Halsey Jim Boyd David Saah Lisa Wainger Morgan Robertson Janet Cushing Trista Patterson Bob Deal Ben Sherrouse Frank Casey Ken Bagstad NatureServe NOAA NOAA NOAA NOAA Ohio University Parametrix Resources for the Future Spatial Informatics Group University of Maryland University of Wisconsin USACE US Forest Service US Forest Service USGS USGS USGS

41 Technical Working Groups NCEAS Feb 2013 NCEAS August 2013 Joint meeting TBD SESYNC March 2013 SESYNC TBD

42 FEDERAL DECISION MAKING PROCESSES

43 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK F. Monitoring & Review Ecosystem Services

44 ASSESSMENTS ACROSS SCALES National Status/Trends Nationalscale data Aggregation Regional Status/Trends Translate/generalize metrics Planning Unit Prioritize sites, management actions Project Localscale data Aggregation Site

45 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

46 A. Scoping 1. Beneficiary identification and stakeholder engagement B. Evaluating Management Alternatives C. Organizing into Ecosystem Services 2. National data - ES delivery areas and hot spots of demand relative to supply for regional prioritization, coordination, and spatial planning D1. Translating metrics into units of value D2. Aggregating value and making trade-offs E. Deciding F. Monitoring

47 A. Scoping 1) Organize objectives into ES 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 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 ) F. Monitoring

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

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

50 Example MEANS-ENDS MODEL: mapping management to ES outcomes

51 What are we measuring? Changes in the delivery of Services to people What to measure and why? To evaluate management alternatives To monitor performance/outcomes To track status and trends Not the number of deer, but the number of days people went hunting How to measure? Good indicators Based on available data Consistent across uses and geography (transferable) Scalable (for reporting)

52 Example measures and models for monitoring and predicting change in the provision of services Ecosystem services Measure (Examples) Model for predicting change Biodiversity and wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic) Existence (Biodiversity) Recreation (Watching wildlife, Photography, Hunting, Fishing) Climate Regulation Existence (climate) Data/information used Function of habitat type and quality, connectivity, species richness, rare species, etc Priorities for NGOs like TNC, Defenders, Sierra Club Recreational survey data Function of annual change in carbon stocks (trees, soils, etc..) and any other major source or sinks of nitrous oxide or methane (like wetlands) Unit Biodiversity score Population Viability Analysis (and extensions) # people days; Not known net GHG equivalents per year Variety of models for forest GHG, grassland GHG, and agricultural GHGs.

53 EcoINFORMA Implementation

54 A. Scoping B. Evaluating Management Alternatives C. Organizing into Ecosystem Services D1. Translating metrics into units of value 1. Monetary Valuation (market and non-market valuation) links to BLM, EPA and other guidance D2. Aggregating value and making trade-offs E. Deciding 2. Multi-criteria decision methods for ecosystem services (incorporating non-monetary values) F. Monitoring

55 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)

56 Pilot testing Case Examples Possible Pilot Test Sites US Forest Service Yes Big Marsh Restoration in Deschutes National Forest, Oregon Sierra, Inyo, Sequoia National Forests, Yes Sequoia, Kings Canyon National Parks ~ Francis Marion Forest, SC Bureau of Land Management San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area; Coronado Yes National Forest Fish & Wildlife Service North Atlantic LCC, - Exploring opportunities to work with FWS Yes refuges and other sites within the LCC

57 National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services (FRMES) NEXT STEPS FOR FRMES Lydia Olander, Sally Collins, Jim Boyd, and Lynn Scarlett

58 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

59 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.