ACES and Ecosystem Markets 2012 - University of Florida · 2013-12-19 · ACES/EM/ESP 2012will...

ACES and Ecosystem Markets 2012

A Community on Ecosystem Services Linking

Science, Practice and Decision Making

December 10-14, 20128 Fort Lauderdale, Florida

www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aces

December 10-14, 2012 Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA

i

Welcome to the ACES/EM/ESP Conference of 2012 On behalf of A Community on Ecosystem Services, Ecosystem Markets, and the Ecosystem Services Partnership, we want to welcome you to the ACES/EM/ESP 2012 Conference. This conference initiates a unique partnership between three diverse, yet inter-related, efforts to provide an integrated and expanded dialogue in the ecosystem services community, including the role of ecosystem service payments or markets for maintaining sustainable communities. The conference represents more than a name change. It reflects the growth and maturity of the ecosystem services community and represents real progress in bringing together diverse methods, practices, and ways of applying scientific information. These perspectives will be highlighted over the next four days in workshops, plenary sessions, panel discussions, expanded lunch sessions, world cafes, town hall meetings, posters and presentations. As a reflection of this unique partnership, the format now includes eight concurrent sessions over three full days, representing the research, resource management, conservation, entrepreneur, policy and Native American communities in government, non-profits, and in the private sector. The conference reflects the growing work and application of the concept of ecosystem services. ACES/EM/ESP 2012will highlight the interaction between research on and applications of ecosystem services, ecosystem service markets and payments, national and international policy and the need to integrate ecological, geographic, socio-economic, and institutional factors in developing an ecosystem services approach to natural resource management and decision making. This conference will once again provide a venue for synthesizing the research, methods, and tools, policies, and cultural values needed to more routinely and effectively incorporate ecosystem services into resource management, conservation, restoration, and development decisions. Discussions and presentations on ecosystem services will identify and address successes, opportunities, and challenges to incorporating ecosystem services more effectively into resource management on public, private and Native American lands, in a national and international policy context. We wish to specifically thank the conference partners, and the conference Planning and Steering Committee members for their efforts to make the ACES/EM/ESP 2012 Conference a success. Their insights and support are greatly appreciated. In particular, we are grateful for the outstanding efforts of Angelica Williams, Jhanna Gilbert and the staff of the University of Florida, IFAS Office of Conferences and Institutes in organizing the logistics and making this conference possible. We hope you also take the opportunity to thank them all. We look forward to an informative and productive conference that sets the stage for continuing dialogue, and sharing information and progress in the ecosystem services community. We encourage you to attend sessions that are outside of your field, network, meet old friends, and establish new interdisciplinary relationships. Thank you attending ACES/EM/ESP 2012! Frank Casey, Ph.D. Dianna M. Hogan, Ph.D. Mary Snieckus Conference Planning Committee Chair Co-Chair Program Committee Co-Chair Program Committee Ecosystem Services Theme Lead Research Physical Scientist Conservation Incentives Manager Science and Decisions Center Eastern Geographic Science Center American Forest Foundation U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey

ACES and Ecosystem Markets 2012: A Community on Ecosystem Services Linking Science, Practice and Decision Making

ii


iii

Table of Contents

Welcome Letter .......................................................................... i

Planning Committee .................................................................. v

Steering Committee .................................................................. v

Sponsor Recognition ............................................................... vii

Detailed Program Agenda ...................................................... viii

Poster Directory ................................................................... xxix

Abstracts .................................................................................. 1

Author Index ......................................................................... 365

Additional Unindexed Abstracts ............................................ 373


iv


v

Planning Committee

Greg Arthaud, Ph.D. USDA Forest Service

Frank Casey, Ph.D. Committee Chairperson U.S. Geological Survey

Robert Costanza, Ph.D. Portland State University

Todd Gartner, M.F. World Resources Institute

Barry Gold The Moore Foundation

Rudolf S. de Groot, Ph.D. Wageningen University

Dianna M. Hogan, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey

Shonte Jenkins Committee Coordinator U.S. Geological Survey

Dixon H. Landers, Ph.D. U.S. EPA

Carl D. Shapiro, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey

Mary Snieckus, M.S. American Forest Foundation

Heather Wright Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Steering Committee

Nancy Arazan Environmental Protection Agency

James Caudill U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Patrick Coady Coady-Diemar Associates

Craig Duxbury Disney Corporation

Chris Farley U.S. Forest Service

Monique Fordham U.S. Geological Survey

Judy Gunderson The Dow Chemical Company

Carl Lucero U.S. Department of Agriculture

Joseph Nicolette ENVIRON International Corp.

Lydia Olander Duke University

Rosalita Whitehair National Congress of American Indians


vi


vii

A Special Thank You to our Conference Partners

American Forest Foundation

Cardno ENTRIX

Cascadia Ecosystem Services Partnership

Defenders of Wildlife

ENVIRON International Corporation

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Incentives, LLC

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Industrial Economics, Incorporated

Marstel-Day, LLC

RTI International

University of Florida, IFAS

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Environmental Markets

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Geological Survey

World Resources Institute


viii

Detailed Program Agenda

Sunday4:00pm-7:00pm

Monday7:30am-5:00pm

7:30am-8:30am

Location Grand Salons A-B Grand Salons C-D Grand Salons G-HOrganizer Joseph Nicolette, ENVIRON

International Corp. Carrie Sanneman,

Willamette PartnershipGregg Verutes, Stanford

University8:30am-10:00am Evolution And Valuation Of

Ecosystem Services: Practical Case Applications

Markets 101: What Are We Talking About?

Demonstration Of InVEST: A Decision-Support Tool For

Valuing Nature10:00am-10:30am10:30am-12:00pm Morning Workshop

ContinuedMorning Workshop

ContinuedMorning Workshop

Continued12:00pm-1:00pm

Location Grand Salons A-B Grand Salons C-D Grand Salons G-H Grand Salons J-KOrganizer Doug MacNair, Cardno

ENTRIXJeremy Sokulsky,

Environmental IncentivesGregg Verutes, Stanford

UniversityJohn Marshall, Arthur R

Marshall Foundation 1:00pm-2:30pm The Use Of Ecosystem

Service Valuation In Decision Making: Case

Studies From The Public And Private Sector

Program Development From The Ground Up: How Do You

Build It?

continued… Demonstration Of InVEST: A Decision-

Support Tool For Valuing Nature

Valuing Ecosystems Services: Why The

Controversy? Everglades Case Studies!

2:30pm-3:00pm3:00pm-4:30pm Afternoon Workshop

ContinuedAfternoon Workshop



Continued4:30pm4:45pm-5:45pm

ACES and Ecosystem Markets 2012 A Community on Ecosystem Services Linking Science, Practice and Decision Making

Program Agenda

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Monday, December 10, 2012Conference Registration Open - Grand Ballroom Foyer

Ad Hoc Space Available - Tampa, Sarasota RoomsMorning Refreshments and Exhibit/Poster Set-Up - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Town Hall Meeting - Eco Investment Game - Grand Salon J-KEvening on Own

Pre-Conference Registration Opens, Early Exhibit/Poster Set-Up - Grand Ballroom Foyer

AM Break - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Workshop Boxed Lunch - Grand Ballroom Salons E-FAfternoon Pre-Conference Workshops

Workshops Conclude

PM Break - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Morning Pre-Conference Workshops


ix

Tuesday7:00am-5:00pm

7:00am-8:00am8:15am-10:00am8:15am-8:30am8:30am-10:00am

10:00am-10:30am10:30am-12:00pm

12:00pm-1:30pm

12:15pm-1:20pm The Relationship Of Ecosystem Services To

Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDA)

Ecosystem Services and Sustainability

We Live By The River Integrating The Value Of Nature Into Business

Decision-Making

Location Grand A-B Grand C-D Grand G-H Grand J-K Moderator Mark Rockel Carl Shapiro Jon Waterhouse Jennifer Molnar12:15pm-12:20pm Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview12:20pm-12:40pm Tom Campbell

Evolution Of NRDA And Ecosystem Service Valuation

Ione L. TaylorSustainability. Energy And Mineral Resources And Environmental Health

Sheila Walsh Valuing Green And Grey Infrastructure: Coastal Protection Analysis

12:40pm-1:00pm Joseph NicoletteThe importance Of Understanding Baseline Ecosystem Services In NRDA, By Example In The Gulf Of Mexico

Marina MosesEcosystem Services And Sustainability Linkages: Perspectives From The National Research Council

Timm KroegerReforestation As A Corporate Compliance Measure For Air Pollution Mitigation: The Case Of Ground-Level Ozone

1:00pm-1:20pm Brian IsraelCurrent Views On Ecosystem Services

Barry GoldConservation, Ecosystem Services And Sustainability: An Emerging Perspective

Johnathan DiMuro Incorporating Nature's Value Into Business Decisions At The Dow Chemical Company

Boxed Lunch - Grand Ballroom Salons E-FTuesday Special Lunch Sessions

Movie: We Live By The River'We Live by The River' is an internationally acclaimed, award winning film highlighting the environmental threats and realities of rural, traditional life on the Yukon River. With 70 sovereign Tribes and First Nations, the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council works toward the shared vision of "to be able to drink directly from the Yukon River".

Tuesday, December 11, 2012Conference Registration Open - Grand Ballroom Foyer

Ad Hoc Space Available - Tampa, Sarasota, Miami Rooms

Morning Refreshments and Poster Set-Up - Grand Ballroom Salons E-FOpening Plenary Session - Ocean Ballroom

Welcome - Frank Casey, U.S. Geological Survey, ACES & EM 2012 Planning Committee ChairpersonPlenary Session I

Applying an Ecosystem Services Framework to Natural Resource Management: Accomplishments, Challenges and Opportunities

Moderated By: Olivia Ferriter, Deputy Director, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of Interior

Panel Members Barry Gold, Program Director, Marine Conservation Initiative, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Craig Hansen, Director, People and Ecosystems Program, World Resources Institute Paula Harrison, Senior Researcher in Biodiversity, Oxford University

Marina Moses, Director, Science and Technology for Sustainability, The National Academies Charles Perrings, Professor of Environmental Economics, Arizona State University

AM Break - Ocean Ballroom Foyer and LawnPlenary Session - Ocean Ballroom

Plenary Session IILinking Science, Practice and Decision Making to Incorporate Ecosystem Services in Natural Resource Management

Moderated By: Molly Macauley, Vice President for Research and Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future

Panel Members Ricardo Bayon, Partner and co-Founder, EKO Asset Management Partners

Rudolf de Groot, Professor in Integrated Resource Assessment, Wageningen University Tom Martin, President and CEO, American Forest Foundation

Lynn Scarlett, Co-Director, Center for the Management of Environmental Wealth, Resources for the Future Ione Taylor, Associate Director of the Energy, Minerals, and Environmental Health Mission Areas, U.S. Geological

Survey


x

Tuesday

Session 1A Session 1B Session 1C Session 1D1:30pm-3:15pm Ecosystem Services: So,

What's Next?What Socio-Economic Values Of Coastal And

Marine Ecosystem Services Are Needed For Effective

Decision-Making?

Social And CulturalPart 1

Quantifying Ecosystem Service Production

Location Ocean Ballroom1st Floor

Key West/ Palm Beach2nd Floor

Clearwater/ Orlando2nd Floor

Jacksonville/ Tallahassee 2nd Floor

Moderator Rebecca Rubin Cristina Carollo & David Yoskowitz

Gretchen Greene Paul Krause

1:30pm-1:35pm Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview

1:35pm-1:55pm Sally Collins21st Century Conservation And The Role Of Ecosystem Services

Linwood PendletonWhat Socio-Economic Va lues Of Coasta l And Marine Ecosystem Services Are Needed For Effective Decis ion-Making?

Robert WinthropEconomic And Cul tura l Accounts Of Envi ronmenta l Va lue

Rebecca LogsdonA Quanti tative Approach To Eva luating Ecosystem Services

1:55pm-2:15pm Henri BissonAssess ing The Role Of Ecosystem Services In BLM Grazing Lands And The Ecosystem Services In Reti ring Grazing Rights

Cristina CarolloEcosystem Services Framework: A Step-By-Step Approach On How To Operational i ze Ecosystem Services

Julie Insignares-SantosUsing Stated Preferences To Predict Outcomes In Markets For Ecosystem Services : Accounting For Heterogeneity In Preferences And Sca le

Tingting LiuModel ing The Production Of Multiple Ecosystem Services

2:15pm-2:35pm Wayne WhiteCredit Stacking Not Double Dipping: Can We Unstack And Sel l Separate Layers?

Christopher KelbleA Framework to "Mainstream" Ecosystem Services For Ecosystem-Based Management

Sarah SchomersThe Potentia l Of Civi l Society Ini tiatives To Increase Economic Efficiency And Effectiveness During Payment For Ecosystem Services (PES) Implementation

Derek PelletierThe Effect Of Hydrologic Management On Ecosystem Services In An Impounded Lake

2:35pm-2:55pm Will TravisIncorporating Ecosystem Services Into Publ ic Planning And Private Sector Development In The San Francisco Bay Region

Marc RussellDevelopment And Appl ication Of A Community Susta inabi l i ty Visua l i zation Tool

Mattijs Van MaasakkersDo Ecosystem Services Markets Bui ld Relationships?

David MurphyEstimating The Change In The Provis ion Of Ecosystem Services Due To Natura l Gas Extraction In Pennsylvania

2:55pm-3:15pm David Houghton Real i zing The Potentia l Of The National Wi ldl i fe Refuge System As A Tool For Protecting Ecosystem Services

David YoskowitzAssessment Of Changing Ecosystem Services Provided By Timbal ier Is land Habitats

Jeffrey ThomasThe Puyal lup Triba l Homelands & Eco-Cultura l Concepts : Past, Present And Future

Kate MacFarlandPromote Woody Biomass As An Ecosystem Service

3:15pm-3:45pm

Concurrent Sessions


Tuesday, December 11, 2012


xi

Tuesday

Session 1E Session 1F Session 1G Session 1H1:30pm-3:15pm Federal Policy

Part 1Ecosystem Services And

Land Use PolicyDesigning A PES Program For Water Management

Services On Ranchlands In Florida’s Northern

EvergladesPart 1

Natural Resource Markets

Location Grand A-B3rd Floor

Grand C-D3rd Floor

Grand G-H3rd Floor

Grand J-K3rd Floor

Moderator Richard Wenning Fletcher Beaudoin Sarah Lynch Craig Broadbent


1:35pm-1:55pm Jeffrey KlineApplying Ecosystem Services Concepts To Publ ic Lands Management

Brent DaviesPartners With Nature, Developing Scenarios For Ecosystem Services And Res i l ience In The Greater Portland Region

Hilary SwainThe Complexi ty Of Ecosystem Services Provided By The Northern Everglades

Don CourseyOverview of Natura l Resource Markets

1:55pm-2:15pm Spencer PhillipsEcosystem Services In National Forest Planning

Kevin HalseyIncorporating Ecosystem Services Into Land Use Planning In Washington State

Craig Broadbent Experiments In Testing Real -Time Water Leas ing Markets

2:15pm-2:35pm Chris Miller & Kawa Ng Ecosystem Services Eva luation Framework In National Forest Systems

Paul MansonPubl ic Involvement, Va lues And Participation In Ecosystem Services Va lues

David BrookshireA Real -Time Water Leas ing Market In The Mimbres Bas in, NM

2:35pm-2:55pm Chinling ChenA Review Of 2010 State Forest Action Plans Focused On Ecosystem Services And Markets

Tracy StantonValuing Open Space As An Ecosystem Service In Loca l Or Regional Land-Use Plans

Benita WhalenThe Need, Des ign And Implementation Of The Northern Everglades - Payment For Envi ronmenta l Services Program

Richard Bernknopf Estimating The Costs , Capaci ty And Tradeoffs Of Ecosystem Services In A Net Resource Assessment In The 21st Century

2:55pm-3:15pm Carrie Presnall Ecosystem Services & NEPA: USFS Fami l iari ty And Perceptions

Discussion Discussion Stephen Faulkner Enhanced Carbon Sequestration Scenarios : Eva luating Tradeoffs Among Multiple Ecosystem Services

3:15pm-3:45pm

Leonard ShabmanDes igning A Payment For Envi ronmenta l Services Program On Working Ranches In The Northern Everglades

Concurrent SessionsTuesday, December 11, 2012



xii

TuesdayTuesday Session 2A Session 2B Session 2C Session 2D3:45pm-5:30pm Using An Ecosystem

Services Framework In An Adaptive Management

Decision Process

Coastal Services And Value Social And CulturalPart 2

Ecosystem Service Values And Their Use In

Development Decision Making And Regulatory

Analysis





Moderator James Boyd Todd BenDor Jonathan Winsten Rosalind Bark


3:50pm-4:10pm Byron WilliamsAdaptive Management And Ecosystem Services

Summer MartinIs Fi shing Real ly Worth More Than Biodivers i ty in the Open Ocean?

Rebecca LogsdonAssess ing Farmer Understanding of Agricul tura l Ecosystem Services

Rudolf de GrootUse Of The Ecosystem Services Concept In European Pol icy And Decis ion Making

4:10pm-4:30pm Becky Epanchin-NeillIntegrating Adaptive Management And Ecosystem Services Frameworks To Improve Natura l Resource Management: An Exploration Of Benefi ts And Approach

Lauretta BurkeCoasta l Capi ta l : Standardized Framework For Coasta l Va luation In The Caribbean

Matthew CranfordIncentive Choice And Joint Liabi l i ty In Payments For Ecosystem Services

Rosalind BarkEcosystem Service Va lues And their Use In Development Decis ion-Making And Regulatory Analys is

4:30pm-4:50pm Molly MacauleyChal lenges And Opportunities : An Insti tutional Perspective

Grace JohnsEconomic Indicators For Coasta l And Marine Ecosystem Management

Pu WangPayments For Ecosystem Services As Conservation And Poverty Al leviation Mechanism In China

Rosalind BarkEnvironmenta l Water Recovery In The Murray-Darl ing Bas in: Linking Ecosystem Service Benefi ts And Risk

4:50pm-5:10pm Dianna HoganAdaptive Management, Monitoring, And Ecosystem Services : A Case Study In Clarksburg, MD

Ilona KaminskaEconomic Va luation Of Ba lancing The Effects Of Euthrophication Processes - Regulating Ecosystem Services in Brackish Estuaries (The Southern Ba l tic Sea)

Christopher ReaThe Pol i tics Of Conservation Banking: A Longi tudina l Study Of Conservation Banking (Or Not) In Ca l i fornia , Oregon And Florida

Robert JohnstonEcosystem Service Va luation Within United States Regulatory Rulemaking: Stated Preference Estimation Of Benefi ts Within Section 316(B) Of The Clean Water Act

5:10pm-5:30pm Carl ShapiroSynthes is And Discuss ion

Timothy BoucherA Spatia l Framework For Developing Green And Gray Infrastructure Scenarios In Coasta l Natura l Hazard Mitigation Planning

Discussion Stephen SwallowEcosystem Auctions For Decis ion Support For Invas ive Plants Management In Southern Ca l i fornia

5:45pm-7:45pm

7:30pm-8:30pm

Welcome Reception and Student Fellow Recognition - Ocean Ballroom Patio and Lawn

Town Hall Meeting - Developing Success ful Ecosystem Services Projects to Support Mi l i tary Tra ining - Grand Salons C-D



xiii

TuesdayTuesday Session 2E Session 2F Session 2G Session 2H3:45pm-5:30pm Federal Policy

Part 2Ecosystem Services In An

Urban Environment Designing A PES Program For Water Management

Services On Ranchlands In Florida’s Northern

EvergladesPart 2

Spatial Subsidies From Migration: A Foundation For

Conservation Markets


Grand C-D3rd Floor

Grand G-H3rd Floor

Grand J-K3rd Floor

Moderator Lynne Koontz Susan Wachter Leonard Shabman Darius Semmens


3:50pm-4:10pm Cathy Cullinane ThomasEconomic Impacts Of Federa l Investments In Ecosystem Restoration

L James Lester & Gregory BiddingerTradeoffs Of Ecosystem Services From Wetlands And Streams In The Houston Region

Sanjay ShuklaWater And Nutrient Retention From A PES Program In Florida Ranchlands

Jay DiffendorferSpatia l Subs idies of Monarch Migration: A Ta le of Three Countries

4:10pm-4:30pm Clay OggPol icy Options For Achieving Multiple Species Protection Benefi ts

Scott Bernstein & Steve Wise Perfecting And Capturing The Value Of Green Infrastructure For Community Ecosystem Services

Mark ClarkEvaluating Soi l Phosphorus Retention And Release Potentia l On Lands Receiving Payment For Envi ronmenta l Services

Ruscena Wiederholt Spatia l Ecosystem Services Of Mexican Free-Ta i led Bats

4:30pm-4:50pm Denise ReedUsing Information On Ecosystem Services In Corps Planning: Opportunities And Constra ints

Kathleen WolfUrban Ecosystems And Human Health: Metro Nature As Provider Of Cul tura l Services

Elizabeth BoughtonResearch To Refine The Des ign Of PES Programs In Florida Ranchlands : Shi fts In Vegetative Communities

Wayne Thogmartin Spatia l Transfer Of Va lue By Migrating Bi rds : The Case Study Of The Northern Pinta i l

4:50pm-5:10pm Brian VoigtIncorporating Recreation-Based Ecosystem Services Into A BLM Master Leas ing Plan For The Greater Moab Region, Utah

Eugenie BirchUrban Susta inabi l i ty Indicators And Ecosystem Services

Patrick BohlenShow Me The Service: Scienti fi c Trade-Offs In Documenting The Services In A Payment For Envi ronmenta l Services Program

Joshua Goldstein Economic Approaches And Market Constructs For Cross -Border Migratory Species

5:10pm-5:30pm Discussion Discussion Discussion Panel Discussion Chal lenges And Opportunities For Appl ication - An Open Discuss ion

5:45pm-7:45pm

7:30pm-8:30pm Town Hall Meeting - Developing Success ful Ecosystem Services Projects to Support Mi l i tary Tra ining - Grand Salons C-D


Welcome Reception and Student Fellow Recognition - Ocean Ballroom Patio and Lawn


xiv

Wednesday7:00am-5:00pm

7:00am-8:00am

8:00am-9:45am

9:45am-10:15am

Wednesday Session 3A Session 3B Session 3C Session 3D

10:15am-12:00pm Current Business Engagement With

Ecosystem Services

Approaches For More Comprehensively Assessing

Ecosystem Services

Social And Economic Valuation

Part 1

Restoring Water Quality And Ecosystem Services In

The Chesapeake Bay Watershed





Moderator Sissel Waage Ronald Raunikar William Gascoigne George Van Houtven

10:15am-10:20am Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview

10:20am-10:40am Sarah ConnickChal lenges For Eva luating Ecosystem Services In Projects And Operations

Harry StoneEcoval™ Environmenta l Qual i ty Eva luation System (EES)

Michael PapenfusValuing U.S. Water Qual i ty At Regional And National Sca les

Lisa WaingerEcosystem Service Tradeoffs In The Implementation Of The Bay TMDL

10:40am-11:00am Gregory BiddingerAdapting To An Environmenta l Management Paradigm Based On Protecting The Service Of Nature: Private Sector Chal lenges

Richard Bernknopf Economic Management Of Multiple Ecosystem Services : A Portfol io Approach

Ronald NelsonPlayas In The Southern High Pla ins : A Conceptual Framework For The Valuation Of Ecosystem Services

Ross LoomisAn Economic And Spatia l Analys is Of Nutrient Credi t Trading For The Chesapeake Bay

11:00am-11:20am Ayako KohnoCEV - New Ways To Value Natura l Capi ta l For Bus iness

Ronald RaunikarComprehens ive Analys is Of Regional Ecosystem Services : The Role Of Inherently Aggregative Landscape Sca le Indices

Wilson de Sousa JrValuation Of Ecosystem Service Of Carbon Storage And Sequestration In The Northern Coast Of Sao Paulo

Ann Swanson Chal lenges For Developing A Coordinated Nutrient Trading Strategy For The Chesapeake Bay

11:20am-11:40am Sissel WaageThe Quiet (R)Evolution In Corporate Environmenta l Performance Expectations & Actions

Paul Ringold Gaps Between What We Measure And What We Need To Know To Value Streams

Kawa NgEstimating The Economic Contributions Of Water Originating From Colorado's National Forests

11:40am-12:00pm Craig DuxburyEcosystem Services : A Susta inabi l i ty Metric For Corporations?

Timm Kroeger Applying The Ecologica l Endpoint Approach To Freshwater Ecosystem Services Projects : Notes From The Field

Alisa Coffin Coasta l SoLVES: Adapting A Terrestria l -Based GIS Tool For The Non-Monetary, Spatia l Eva luation Of Ecosystem Services In A Coasta l Envi ronment

Wednesday, December 12, 2012Conference Regis tration Open - Grand Ballroom Foyerd l bl Morning Refreshments - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Plenary Session - Ocean Ballroom

Panel Discussion

Plenary Panel Discussion Native American Views of Ecosystem Services and Markets: Challenges and Opportunities

Moderated By: James Caudill, Chief, Divis ion of Economics , U.S. Fi sh and Wi ldl i fe Service

Panel Members Jeffrey Thomas, Director, Timber and Fish Divis ion, Puyul lap Tribe

Carol Hasburgh, Environmenta l Scientis t, Yukon River Inter-Triba l Watershed Counci l Terry Williams, Commiss ioner of Fisheries and Natura l Resources , Tula l ip Tribes

Jon Waterhouse, Executive Director, Yukon River Inter-Triba l Watershed Counci lSteve Darden, Steven A. Darden Enterprises

AM Break - Grand Ballroom Foyer

Concurrent Sessions


xv

Wednesday7:00am-5:00pm

7:00am-8:00am

8:00am-9:45am

9:45am-10:15am

Wednesday Session 3E Session 3F Session 3G Session 3H World Café Session

10:15am-12:00pm County And State Policy Improving Provision Of Urban Ecosystem Services

Part 1

State Of The Union - Financing And PES

Taking Ecosystem Service Markets To Scale: What

Will It Take?

PES: Making Them Work


Grand C-D3rd Floor

Grand G-H3rd Floor

Grand J-K3rd Floor

Grand E-F3rd Floor

Moderator Mary Snieckus Dixon Landers Carl Palmer Bobby Cochran Claudia Sattler

10:15am-10:20am Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview

10:20am-10:40am Francisco EscobedoEcosystem Services And Value Of Florida 's Forest Stewardship Program Lands

Kate BonaparteEcosystem Services In The Bui l t Envi ronment

Ricardo BayonPayments And Markets For Ecosystem Services Over The Past Decade. Ups And Downs And How Did We Get Here

Bobby CochranGetting Ecosystem Markets To Sca le: Is It Poss ible?

Carl Lucero & Bernhard OsterburgWhat Makes Governmenta l Programs And Intervention Success ful On The Ground?

10:40am-11:00am Amy Lynch Is i t Good To Be Green?: Assess ing County Green Infrastructure Planning In Maryland And Florida

Leesa SoutoGeospatia l Analys is Of Human Nitrogen Inputs And The Potentia l Impact To Ecosystem Services

Patrick CoadyPES - Market Size: What Are Talking About And What Does It Mean?

Todd GartnerDecentra l i zed Pol icy And Impl ications For Sca labi l i ty

Sarah Lynch & Florian Schoene Is Civi l Society Involvement Necessary For Success ful PES?

11:00am-11:20am Heidi Huber-StearnsWhat i s PWS? A Cata log And Typology Of Incentive-Based Watershed Programs In The Western United States

John Zahina-RamosThe Importance Of Loca l Natura l Habitat To Urban Agricul ture

George HowardPES Markets Over Three Decades: A Veteran Speaks

Tracy StantonSca l ing Up: Highl ighting Di fferences And Commonal i ties From Across The Globe

Brian Voigt & Achim SchaeferHow To Use Model ing Tools To Des ign Success ful PES?

11:20am-11:40am Natalie SniderChal lenges Of Incorporating Ecosystem Services Into A Decis ion-Making Process

Karis TennesonLinking Yard Care To Property Characteris tics And Homeowner Values

Nancy NatoliThe Department Of Defense Manages 29 Mill ion Acres. Implications For Ecosystem Services

David Primozich Access To Capita l And Us ing Loca l Capaci ties At Sca le

Jonathan Winsten & Bettina MatzdorfDes ign Success ful Performance-Based PES Programs

11:40am-12:00pm Art GoodtimesA Payment For Ecosystem Services Pi lot Project Surveying For Rare Plants On Private Lands

Discussion Panel & Audience Discussion

Discussion Discussion

Plenary Panel Discussion Native American Views of Ecosystem Services and Markets: Challenges and Opportunities

Moderated By: James Caudill, Chief, Divis ion of Economics , U.S. Fi sh and Wi ldl i fe Service

Panel Members Jeffrey Thomas, Director, Timber and Fish Divis ion, Puyul lap Tribe

Carol Hasburgh, Environmenta l Scientis t, Yukon River Inter-Triba l Watershed Counci l Terry Williams, Commiss ioner of Fisheries and Natura l Resources , Tula l ip Tribes

Jon Waterhouse, Executive Director, Yukon River Inter-Triba l Watershed Counci lSteve Darden, Steven A. Darden Enterprises

Plenary Session - Ocean Ballroom

Morning Refreshments - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Wednesday, December 12, 2012Conference Regis tration Open - Grand Ballroom Foyerd l bl

AM Break - Grand Ballroom Foyer

Concurrent Sessions


xvi

Wednesday12:00pm-1:30pm

12:15pm-1:20pm

Location

Moderator

12:15pm-12:20pm

12:20pm-12:40pm

12:40pm-1:00pm

1:00pm-1:20pm


1:30pm-3:15pm Communicating Ecosystem Services

Part 1

Agricultural Ecosystem Service Policy And Programs


Part 2

How Ecosystem Services Can Help To Stem The

Nitrogen Cascade





Moderator Rob Fiegener Heather Wright Malka Pattison Anne Rea


1:35pm-1:55pm Morgan RobertsonEcosystem Services Advocacy: Getting Out Of The Bubble

Tim GiesekeSymbiotic Demand: An Anti thes is To The "Tragedy Of The Commons"

Nana Yaw AmponsahAccounting For Ecosystem Services Us ing Emergy Analys is : Florida Energy Crops (Sugarcane)

Jana ComptonWhere The Rubber Meets The Road: What Is Needed To Susta inably Manage Reactive Nitrogen In The U.S?

1:55pm-2:15pm Becca MadsenExamples Of Corporate Communication Of Ecosystem Services

Carl von EndePayment For Agricul tura l Ecosystem Services In Northern I l l inois

Jan LewandrowskiAssess ing The CO2 Incentive Levels That Would Make Farmer Adoption of GHG Mitigating Practices And Technologies Break-Even Investments

Jason LynchUsing Ecosystem Services To Improve Air Pol icy For Ni trogen And Sul fur Depos i tion

2:15pm-2:35pm Kyle Copas(Re)Counting Nature's Benefi ts

Goretty DiasThe Norfolk County Al ternative Land Use Services (ALUS) Program As A Community-Based Model For Ecosystem Services Implementation

Jay DiffendorferWil l ingness To Pay For Monarch Butterfl ies

Michelle McCrackin Future Riverine Nitrogen Export to US Coasta l Regions : Prospects For Improving Water Qual i ty Amid Population Growth

2:35pm-2:55pm Jessica FoxEcosystem Services And The Electric Power Industry

Jonathan WinstenCalculating Supply Curves For Greenhouse Gas Offset And Water Qual i ty Credi ts From Agricul tura l Management Practices In The Upper Miss iss ippi River Bas in

Madhu VermaUse Of Indicators To Reduce Uncerta inties In Model ing And Valuation Of Regulating Services

Marc RibaudoNutrient Markets Related To Agricul ture And Water Pol icy

2:55pm-3:15pm Discussion Michal FidlerLand Use Trade-Offs Between Fuel , Food, And Ecosystem Services

Discussion Stephen JordanA Vis ion Of Success : How Nutrient Management Wi l l Enhance And Susta in Ecosystem Services

Brett Brownscombe Oregon's Evolving Pol icy Innovations To Protect Ecosystem Services

Kenneth Bagstad Incorporating Ecosystem Services In Decis ion Making Across Federa l Agencies

Michael Ellison Developing Ecosystem Services For Compensatory Mitigation In North Carol ina

Lisa Grice Corporate Susta inabi l i ty And Commercia l Risk Drive Li fecycle Focus On Resource Dependency

Marianne GengenbachChal lenges In Trans lation: The Rocky Path From Science To Practice On Publ ic Lands

Daniel Gerding & Emily TaylorDes igning Innovative Corporate Water Risk Management Strategies From An Ecosystem Services Perspective

Lydia Olander Judy Gunderson

Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview

Wednesday, December 12, 2012Boxed Lunch - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Wednesday Special Lunch Sessions

State Government Perceptions On Using Ecosystem Services In Management Decisions

Resource Dependency Risk Management And Corporate Sustainability

Grand A-B

Grand C-D

Concurrent Sessions


xvii


12:15pm-1:20pm

Location

Moderator

12:15pm-12:20pm

12:20pm-12:40pm

12:40pm-1:00pm

1:00pm-1:20pm

Wednesday Session 4E Session 4F Session 4G Session 4H World Café Session

1:30pm-3:15pm International Government Perspectives On The Use Of

Ecosystem Services In Management Decisions

Improving Provision Of Urban Ecosystem Services

Part 2

Looking Beyond The Fog Of War

Integrating Federal Efforts To Support Environmental

Markets – An Interactive Dialogue

Getting The Ecosystem Services You Pay For: Tools

And Technology


Grand C-D3rd Floor

Grand G-H3rd Floor

Grand J-K3rd Floor

Grand E-F3rd Floor

Moderator Lydia Olander Greg Arthaud Patrick Coady Carl Lucero Bobby Cochran

1:30pm-1:35pm Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview Introduction & Overview

1:35pm-1:55pm Helen DunnRecent UK Developments In The Appl ication Of Ecosystem Services In Pol icy

James YooThe Capita l i zed Value Of Lake Water Qual i ty In Res identia l Properties In Yavapai County

James LevittLandscape Scale Conservation As An Organizing Principle - Key Role For Ecosystem Markets

David BrookshireSteve Marshall Speaker Statements - Integrating Federa l Efforts To Support Envi ronmenta l Markets

Brent DaviesForest Ecosystem Services : Management Scenario Planning

1:55pm-2:15pm Christo Marais Generating Support For Natura l Capi ta l Interventions And Broadening The Funding Base By Unlocking Investments In Ecosystem Services Through Land User Incentives In South Africa

Zachary ChristinValuing Heal th Benefi ts And Stewardship In Urban Parks

Reed HuppmanGoing Global - The International Finance Corporation Performance Standards On Environmental And Social Responsibil ity

Carrie SannemanEcosystem Crediting Platform: Automating Ecosystem Service Market Operation

2:15pm-2:35pm Ouyang Zhiyun Ecosystem Services In Decis ion And Pol icy Appl ications In China

Gerry GrayOpportunities For Urban Forestry Projects As Carbon Offsets In Ca l i fornia

Jeremy SokulskyBack In The USA - Bringing Private Money To Ecosystem Services. Where Do We Stand? Discussion Of Various Business Models

Alex JohnsonGetting The Ecosystem Services You Pay For

2:35pm-2:55pm Valerie SextonValuation Of Ecosystem Services In Support Of Regulation (In Canada)

Shafi Noor IslamUrban Ecosystem Services Under Threat In Dhaka Mega Ci ty In Bangladesh

Peter SteinClean Up Hitter - The Financing Horizon From 30,000 Feet

Nicole Robinson ManessVeri fying Ecosystem Services Beyond Carbon

2:55pm-3:15pm Antonio Tafuri TEEB Brazi l Ini tiative

Discussion Panel & Audience Discussion

Discussion

James RemuzziDel ivering The Product: Pipel ine Development For The Conservation Investment Note Program

Christopher Hartley USDA: Helping Market-Based Approaches Engage Landowners In Conservation

Patrick CoadyFeas ibi l i ty Resul ts For The Conservation Investment Note Program

Carl ShapiroUSGS: Applying Science And Monitoring In Support Of Ecosystem Services

Logan YonavjakConservation Investment Note Program - Structure, Benefi ts , Goals

Robert Rose EPA: Resources , Tools , And Other Opportunities For Col laboration

Peter Stein Carl Lucero


Wednesday, December 12, 2012Boxed Lunch - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Wednesday Special Lunch Sessions

Unlocking Private Capital For Land Conservation And Rural Economic Development In The U.S.A.

Investing In Market Design - A Government's Perspective On Quantifying Environmental Performance

Grand G-H

Grand J-K

Concurrent Sessions

Panel DiscussionIntegrating Federa l Efforts To Support Envi ronmenta l Markets


xviii



3:45pm-5:30pm Communicating Ecosystem Services

Part 2

International Case Studies Social And Economic Valuation

Part 3

Forests And Water





Moderator Becca Madsen Helen Dunn Simone Maynard Rudolf de Groot


3:50pm-4:10pm Brendan McLaughlinEcosystem Services Messaging Cons iderations

Surabhi JoshiFramework For Va luing Degradation Of Forest Due To Coal Mining

Jarrod LoerzelSocia l Va luation Of Ecosystem Services In Urban And Rura l Contexts

Mary SnieckusTesting Innovative Conservation Finance: A Ta le Of Two Watersheds

4:10pm-4:30pm Rita GomesEcosystem Services Conservation as a Va luable Asset to Loca l Communities Susta inabi l i ty

Ben SherrouseEvaluating The Performance Of A GIS Tool In Assess ing The Socia l Va lues Of Ecosystem Services

Todd GartnerGreen Versus Gray Infrastructure Cost-Benefi t Analys is : Lessons From Maine's Crooked River Watershed

4:30pm-4:50pm Maya Kocian Mining And Ecosystem Services – Hard Trade-Offs In Ecuador

Stefan SchmidtComparabi l i ty Of Monetary Va lued Ecosystem Services And The Influence Of Spatia l ly Varying Socio-Ecologica l Conditions

Shannon Rogers Evaluating Watershed Ecosystem Services In New Hampshire

4:50pm-5:10pm Ederson ZanettiCl imate Change And Management Of Carbon And Other Ecosystem Services Within A Green Economy Context – Study Case Green Farm Co2free, Itaquira í, Ms , Brazi l

Sasathorn TapaneeyakulSpatia l Appra isa l And Valuation Of Envi ronment And Ecosystems (SAVEE)

Damian AdamsHow Programmic Features Influence Wi l l ingness -To-Pay To Protect Water Qual i ty: A Meta Analys is

5:10pm-5:30pm Romina KotoAssessment Of Envi ronment And Economic Ecosystem Services In The Coasta l Lagoon Of Karavasta In Albania

Discussion Silvio Simonit"Stacking" Ecosystem Services In The Panama Canal Watershed

5:45pm-7:45pm

7:30pm-8:30pm

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Poster Session & Reception - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Town Hall Meeting - Response To The Pres ident’s Counci l Of Advisors On Science And Technology (PCAST) Report On Ecosystem Services And Biodivers i ty - Grand Salons C-D


Becca MadsenBrendan McLaughlinRob FiegenerBui lding Bridges : Concurrent Workgroup Sess ions

Becca Madsen and Brendan McLaughlin will solicit communication challenges from participants, break participants into 4-5 working groups, and provide instructions for 'breakout' time. Working groups will 'breakout' to address communication challenges, each small group will have a facilitator. Participants will reconvene to discuss solutions and strategies from working group.

Concurrent Sessions


xix


Wednesday Session 5E Session 5F Session 5G Session 5H

3:45pm-5:30pm Presidents Call For Federal Policy On Ecosystem

Services: Private Sector Insights

Urban Stormwater PESPart 1

Emerging Best Practices To Make Water Quality

Markets Work


Grand C-D3rd Floor

Grand G-H3rd Floor

Grand J-K3rd Floor

Moderator Joseph Nicolette Laila Racevskis Sissel Waage Carl Lucero


3:50pm-4:10pm Dianna Hogan Suburban Landscape Water Qual i ty And Quanti ty Services

Sheila BarryUsing Payments For Ecosystem Services For Habitat Mitigation On Rangelands

Bobby CochranHow To Bui ld And Operate A Water Qual i ty Trading Program - A New National Reference

4:10pm-4:30pm Karla WilsonA Case For Native Soi l Stormwater Management BMPs

Matthew CranfordCredit-Based Payments For Ecosystem Services

Jessica FoxThe Ohio River Bas in Water Qual i ty Trading Project

4:30pm-4:50pm Derek VollmerUrban Dependence On Ecosystem Services : A Spatia l ly Expl ici t Analys is Of A Megaci ty Rivers ide Settlement

Maura TalbotThe Carrot And Stick: Linking Rewards For Ecosystem Services To A Water Cap-And-Trade Scheme In South Africa

Paul MarchettiNutrient Credi t Trading: Pennsylvania ’s Approach To Reducing Chesapeake Bay Compl iance Costs

4:50pm-5:10pm Mary Jo KealyValuing Ecosystem Services Of Green Infrastructure For CSO Control

David Batker Funding Green Infrastructure Via A Watershed Investment Dis trict Framework

Kathy BeniniKey Tools To Create Transparent And Efficient Water Qual i ty Markets In The U.S.A.

5:10pm-5:30pm David FowlerThinking Outs ide The Box Culvert, Hol i s tic Approach To Susta inable Flood Management

Mary SchorseCapturing The Ful l Va lue Of Nature: The Potentia l Of Forest-Based Payment For Ecosystem Services (PES) To Contribute To A Susta inable Future

Panel-Moderated Discussion

5:45pm-7:45pm

7:30pm-8:30pm

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Concurrent Sessions

Poster Session & Reception - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Town Hall Meeting - Response To The Pres ident’s Counci l Of Advisors On Science And Technology (PCAST) Report On Ecosystem Services And Biodivers i ty - Grand Salons C-D

Sarah ConnickJudy GundersonBrian IsraelStephen TruchonTom CampbellPrivate sector representatives from Chevron, Dow Chemical, Arnold & Porter, Shell, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman will discuss their perspectives and insights as to how the development of a Federal policy on ecosystem services may affect private corporations and business. This session will provide a forum for the private sector to respond to the PCAST Report and the Public and International sessions that occur immediately before this session. Each panel member will make a brief (10 minutes) presentation regarding their views of ecosystem services from the “private sector” standpoint. This will be followed by an interactive discussion related to the call for Federal policy regarding ecosystem services.



xx

Thursday7:00am-5:00pm

7:00am-8:00am

Thursday Session 6A Session 6B Session 6C Session 6D

8:00am-9:45am Ecosystem Services And Influence On Civil Works

Water Resources Planning

Development And Practice Of Environmentally

Advanced Basin Model In Asia


Part 4

Restoration Of Ecosystem Services





Moderator Shawn Komlos Kazuo Oki Paul Young Kelli McCune


8:05am-8:25am Richard Cole Ecosystem Services Research and Development Funded By the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Civi l Works Program

Koshi YoshidaImpact Analys is Of Future Cl imate Change On Water Resources In Ci tarum River Bas in, Indones ia

Kelsie LaSharrAss igning Monetary Va lue To Pest Control Provided By Mexican Free-Ta i led Bats Tadarida Brasiliensis

Paul KrauseCarbon Sequestration Potentia l From Coasta l Wetland Restoration Si tes

8:25am-8:45am Leonard Shabman Can Ecosystem Services Va luation Contribute To Water Resource Investment Decis ion-Making?

Koki HommaDevelopment Of SIMRIW-RS (Simulation Model For Rice Weather Relations With Remote Sens ing)

Dana BauerEconomic Consequences Of Pol l inator Decl ines

Leslie RichardsonAssessment Of Ecosystem Services Va lues For The Centra l Everglades

8:45am-9:05am Lisa WaingerApproaches For Incorporating Ecosystem Goods And Services In Corps Planning And Environmenta l Benefi ts Eva luation

Chiharu HONGOEstimation Of Rice Yield From Remotely Sensed Data

Kym CampbellThe Appl ication Of A Net Ecosystem Service Analys is (NESA) Approach To Phosphate-Mined Lands In Florida

Jessica MusengeziLow-Cost Restoration Of Rangelands For Ecosystem Services

9:05am-9:25am Jae ChungImproving Restoration Of Ecosystem Services Of Aquatic Resources By Taking A Landscape And Watershed Approach

Hiroaki ShirakawaEconomic Impacts Of Second Generation Biofuel Development In Indones ia – A Case Study Of Bioethanol Production From Rice Straw In The Ci tarum River Bas in

Bernardo Aguilar-GonzalezEcosystem Service Va luation And Environmenta l Confl ict Resolution: The Controvers ia l Cruci tas Gold Mine Project In Costa Rica

Maura FlightEcosystem Services And Natura l Resource Restoration Projects

9:25am-9:45am Discussion Keigo NodaEvaluation Of Scenarios For Al leviating Farmers ’ Poverty In Indones ia

Gretchen Greene Valuing Ecosystem Services Associated With Used Oi l Recycl ing

Todd BenDorPriori ti zing Wetland Restoration: A Review And Appl ication To The Miss iss ippi Coasta l Improvements Program, U.S.A.

9:45am-10:15am

Thursday, December 13, 2012Conference Regis tration Open - Grand Ballroom Foyerd l bl Morning Refreshments & Poster Removal - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Concurrent Sessions



xxi

Thursday7:00am-5:00pm

7:00am-8:00am

Thursday Session 6E Session 6F Session 6G Session 6H

8:00am-9:45am Practical Use Of Ecosystem Services In Policy And

Decision Making

Integrating Ecosystem Services Into Energy

Development Planning And Mitigation

PESPart 2

California’s Regulatory Carbon Market: Panacea Or

Pandora’s Box For Forest Landowners


Grand C-D3rd Floor

Grand G-H3rd Floor

Grand J-K3rd Floor

Moderator Wayne Munns, Anne Rea & Clifford Duke

Kristiana Hansen & Esther Duke

Michelle Perez Laury Saligman & Charles Kerchner


8:05am-8:25am Joke van WensemIntegration Of Ecosystem Services In Regulatory Frameworks And Decis ion Support Tools

Joseph KieseckerDevelopment By Des ign: Integrating A Landscape Sca le Perspective Into Mitigation Decis ion Making

Eric McClearyA New Approach To Mitigation Banking

Paula SweedenLessons Learned From Two Forest Carbon Projects In The Southern Appalachians

8:25am-8:45am James Boyd Ecosystem Service Va lues : What Are They, Why Are They Controvers ia l , How Do We Measure Them and Should We Even Try?

Robert WinthropImproving Federa l Energy Development Decis ions : The Use Of Ecosystem Service Va luation

Eneida CamposPES in Consortium To Promote Rura l Susta inabi l i ty, Brazi l

Brian ShillinglawAn Investor’s View On Opportunities For Landowners In The Ca l i fornia Carbon Market

8:45am-9:05am Janet Ranganathan Integrating Ecosystem Services Into Publ ic And Private Sector Decis ions

David Wolfe & Kevin HalseyDes ign And Metrics : Energy Development And Habitat Credi t Trading In The Southern Great Pla ins

Dawit MulatuUpstream Resource Managers ' Preferences For Water-Related Ecosystem Services In The Lake Naivasha Bas in, Kenya

Charles Kerchner Cal i fornia ’s Regulatory Forest Carbon Market: Panacea Or Pandora’s Box For U.S.A. Landowners?

9:05am-9:25am Ted Toombs & Jeremy SokulskyEnergy Sector Market Demand For Habitat Credi t Trading In The Western U.S.A.

Tiffany PotterForest Carbon And Nutrient Trading Transactions In The United States

John GunnManomet/Spatia l Informatics Group Forest Carbon Forecaster: A Carbon Pro Forma Tool To Eva luate Carbon Market Opportunities On Private And Publ ic Forestlands

9:25am-9:45am Esther Duke & Kristiana HansenRancher Preferences For PES Program Des ign In Wyoming

Discussion Panel Discussion: Questions From The Landowner's Perspective: Risks , Rewards & Fine Print

9:45am-10:15am

Thursday, December 13, 2012Conference Regis tration Open - Grand Ballroom Foyer

Morning Refreshments & Poster Removal - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Concurrent Sessions

Panel Discussion



xxii

ThursdayThursday Session 7A Session 7B Session 7C Session 7D

10:15am-12:00pm Institutional Framework Ecosystem Services Version 3.0: Valuation To

Governance In Action

Geospatial And Decision Making Tools

Part 1

Biodiversity





Moderator Alisa Coffin Paul Manson Lisa Wainger Leslie Richardson


10:20am-10:40am Dixon LandersA Binary Approach To Define And Class i fy Fina l Ecosystem Goods And Services

Marissa Matsler Perceptions Of Supporting Ecosystem Services At The Loca l Level : A Case Study Of Portland's Green Infrastructure

Ronald RaunikarAppl ied Use Value Of Scienti fi c Information For Management Of Ecosystem Services

Shelly JohnsonModel ing Wi ldl i fe Occurrence To Eva luate Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs : A Study Of Habitat Divers i ty In Longleaf Pine Ecosystems

10:40am-11:00am Simone MaynardA Methodology To Develop A Framework For Ecosystem Service Assessments Across Multiple Geo-Pol i tica l Sca les

Roy WattersLessons From Government-To-Government Consul tation For Identi fying Cul tura l Ecosystem Services

Susan PrestonMaking Sense of Ecosystem Services For Decis ion Makers

Mary SnieckusGopher Tortoise Habitat Credi ts : Bui lding A Voluntary Trading System

11:00am-11:20am Rowan SchmidtEnvis ioning A 21st Century Natura l Capi ta l Uti l i ty

Sarah KiddApplying Ecosystem Services To Triba l Wetland Resource Management

Mark RounsevellOperational i s ing The Ecosystem Service Concept

Kenneth BoykinQuanti fying And Mapping Habitat-Based Biodivers i ty Metrics Within An Ecosystem Services Framework

11:20am-11:40am Pieter BoothEcosystem Services And Natura l Resource Damage Assessment: More Disconnects Than Connections?

Paul MansonPol i tica l Processes And Ecosystem Services On The Ocean

Paula HarrisonA Tool To Bui ld The Capaci ty Of Decis ion-Makers To Adapt To Cross -Sectora l Cl imate Change Impacts On Ecosystem Services

Dean UrbanA Genera l Decis ion Framework And Toolki t For Eva luating Si tes For The Provis ion Of Ecosystem Services

11:40am-12:00pm Ashwin RavikumarCommunity Cohes ion And Property Rights As Drivers Of Community Forest Outcomes In Bol ivia

Jodi SchoenenEcosystem Services : Moving From Strategic To Actionable Impacts

Terry SohlThe Completion Of Four Spatia l ly Expl ici t Land-Use And Land-Cover Scenarios For The Conterminous U.S.A

Discussion

12:00pm-1:30pm Boxed Lunch - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Thursday, December 13, 2012


xxiii

ThursdayThursday Session 7E Session 7F Session 7G Session 7H

10:15am-12:00pm Breaking The Silos To Build Metrics Across The

Boundaries

Military Training, Rural Lands Conservation and

Ecosystem Payments

Payments For Ecosystem Services And Rangelands In

The Western U.S.A.

Katoomba Dialogues: Watershed Payments In

PeruLocation Grand A-B

3rd FloorGrand C-D3rd Floor

Grand G-H3rd Floor

Grand J-K3rd Floor

Moderator Frank Casey Frederick Cubbage Pelayo Alvarez Nathaniel Carroll


10:20am-10:40am Sara Vickerman A Col laborative Approach For Bui lding Biodivers i ty Measures Across Sca les And Jurisdictions

Brian HaysDevelopment Of The Recovery Credi t System: Lessons Learned And Future Opportunities

William GascoigneValuing Ecosystem Service Benefi ts Of Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation

Mark KieserPayments For Watershed Services In The Rimac Watershed Peru: Context And Chal lenges

10:40am-11:00am Nicole Robinson-Mannes Bui lding Effective Measurement Systems For Terrestria l And Aquatic Ecosystems

Todd SnelgroveEastern North Carol ina Market Based Conservation Ini tiative: A Partnership To Protect A Mi l i tary Tra ining Route And Conserve Rura l Working Lands

Max Nielsen-PincusManaging Rangelands For Ecosystem Services : Rancher Atti tudes And Adoption Of “Payment For Ecosystem Services” Opportunities

Todd GartnerEngaging Potentia l Buyers And Stimulating Demand

11:00am-11:20am Jimmy KaganLandscape Planning Tools And Metrics

Shari RodriguezLandowner Preferences For Participating In Conservation Programs In North Carol ina

Jessica Musengezi Payments For Watershed Services On Cal i fornia Rangelands

Bobby Cochran How Do You Know You Get What You Pay For?

11:20am-11:40am Panel Discussion Frederick CubbageEconomic Analys is Of Payments Required To Promote Increased Longleaf Pine Habitat On Private Lands In North Carol ina For Off-Base RCW Mitigation

David JessupThe Colorado Conservation Exchange – A Rancher’s View

Christo Marais Mainstreaming Watershed Services In The South African Water Sector

11:40am-12:00pm Discussion Discussion Terry Fankhauser Ecosystem Services And The Ranch Bottom Line

Panel DiscussionApplying International Lessons

12:00pm-1:30pm Boxed Lunch - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Thursday, December 13, 2012


xxiv

Thursday

12:15pm-1:20pm

Location

Moderator

12:15pm-12:20pm

12:20pm-12:40pm

12:40pm-1:00pm

1:00pm-1:20pm

Carl Shapiro

Genevieve Bennett Payments For Watershed Services : Tracking Performance Around The World

Kelli McCune & Ann HaydenUnlocking Demand In Ca l i fornia Watershed Pi lot Program

David Batker Establ i shing A Watershed Investment Fund For PES

Lydia Olander Guidebook For Federa l Agencies : Ecosystem Services In Natura l Resource Planning, Management And Pol icy

Panel and Moderated DiscussionLydia OlanderJames Boyd Dean UrbanEcosystem Assessment Approaches , Analytica l Approaches And Methods For Use In Natura l Resource Planning Of Federa l Agencies

Thursday, December 13, 2012Thursday Special Lunch Sessions


Ecosystem Service Based Approaches For Catchment/ Watershed Management From The Local To National Levels

NESP Update: Coordinating Ecosystem Services Approaches Across Federal Agencies

Grand C-D Kit Macleod

Grand A-B


xxv

Thursday

12:15pm-1:20pm

Location

Moderator

12:15pm-12:20pm

12:20pm-12:40pm

12:40pm-1:00pm

1:00pm-1:20pm

Laura JacksonIdenti fying Nature’s Benefi ts , Defici ts And Opportunities For Equitable Dis tribution in Populated Places : A High-Resolution Component Of The National Atlas Of Ecosystem Services

Discussion

Open Forum/ DiscussionThis open forum will entail a discussion on the topic of the economic benefits associated with ecosystem restoration projects, specifically in the area of job creation. Approaches and methods for estimating employment benefits and secondary impacts will be covered.

National Atlas Of Ecosystem Services

Grand G-H Anne Neale


Anne NealeThe National Atlas Of Ecosystem Services : A Tour For Influencers , Analyzers And Decis ion Makers

Grand J-K Adam Davis

Thursday, December 13, 2012Thursday Special Lunch Sessions

Harnessing The Power Of The American Restoration Industry: Understanding The Scale Of Job Creation


xxvi

Thursday

Thursday Session 8A Session 8B Session 8C Session 8D

1:30pm-3:15pm Collaborative Approaches To Managing Ecosystem Services

At The Landscape Scale

Where Buyers Are Coming To The Market - Moving Beyond

Pilot Trades

Geospatial And Decision Making Tools

Part 2

Quantifying Ecosystem Service Benefits Of Conservation

Programs





Moderator Nikola Smith Mark Kieser Claudia Sattler David Mushet


1:35pm-1:55pm George Zukovs Phosphorus Credi t Demand In Ontario's Fastest Growing Region

Ali SalehNutrient Tracking Tool - A User-Friendly Tool For Ca lculating Nutrient Losses Under Various Agricul tura l And Forestry Management Practices

Greg McCarty The Mid-Atlantic Wetland Conservation Effects Assessment Project

1:55pm-2:15pm Mark Kieser A Raw Look At Buyer Needs For Nutrient Offsets

Jonathan KochmerSERVES: A Web-Based Ecosystem Service Va lue Exchange Platform

Patrick Hunt A CEAP Study Of Denitri fi cation In Mid-Atlantic Coasta l Pla in Wetlands

2:15pm-2:35pm James KlangConservation Marketplace: Surviving Beyond Pi lots With Voluntary And Vis ionary Market Demand

Michelle PerezNutrient Trading Makes Economic Sense For Reducing Gul f Hypoxia : Resul ts From A Feas ibi l i ty Study Us ing Usda Ceap Data & Model ing

David Mushet Effects Of Conservation Programs On Biodivers i ty And Carbon Stores In The Pra i rie Pothole Region: Model Simulations Us ing InVEST

2:35pm-2:55pm Panel Discussion:George ZukovsMark KieserJames Klang

David McNeilBridging The Interface Between Academia And Bus iness : Methodologica l Approaches For Aiding Decis ion Making In The Context Of The Heal th And Wel lbeing Benefi ts Of The Natura l Envi ronment

Ned Euliss, Jr. Pol l ination Services From The Pra i rie Pothole Region

2:55pm-3:15pm Discussion Panel Discussion:Lynn SmallCredit Buyers Sess ion

Adrian L. VoglOptimizing Investments In Natura l Capi ta l : Rios Tool For Water Funds

Eric ScherffIncorporating Sedimentation And Water Storage Into Ecosystem Service Models

3:15pm-3:45pm

Concurrent SessionsThursday, December 13, 2012

PM Break and Poster Removal - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

PANEL FORMATSara VickermanA Landscape Sca le Approach To Habitat Conservation

Thomas EasonFlorida’s Cooperative Conservation Blueprint

Nikola SmithApplying Ecosystem Services To Col laborative Forest Management In The Paci fic Northwest

Drew BennettPubl ic Uti l i ties And Innovative Payments For Watershed Services Programs

Robert DealEnhancing Ecosystem Services Us ing Riparian Restoration Projects


xxvii

Thursday

Thursday Session 8E Session 8F Session 8G Session 8H

1:30pm-3:15pm Ecosystem Services Go Local Putting A Price Tag On Adaptation: Quantifying The Financial Value Of Ecosystem

Services In Relation To Climate Change Adaption

Capturing Market Interactions Due To Ecosystem Services

Monetization

Harnessing The Power Of The American Restoration Industry:

Expanding Capital Resources For Priority Projects


Grand C-D3rd Floor

Grand G-H3rd Floor

Grand J-K3rd Floor

Moderator John Gunn Doug Parsons Sara Ohrel Adam Davis


1:35pm-1:55pm Katherine HamiltonState Of The Voluntary Carbon Markets 2012: Developing Dimens ion

Doug ParsonsA Primer On Adaptation: Developing A Framework For An Adaptation Reserve Program

Gregory LattaEvaluating Domestic Carbon Markets With Forest Sector Models

Randy WilgisOvercoming Constra ints To Viable Markets

1:55pm-2:15pm Scott ShouseIncenting Respons ible Forest Management Among Smal l Forest Ownerships In Centra l Appalachia Us ing Managed Forest Carbon Offsets

Amielle DeWanAccounting For Adaptation In Payment For Watershed Services Schemes: An Appl ication Of Cl imate Compatible Development

Brent SohngenForest Carbon Emiss ion Abatement And Sequestration In A Global Context

David FestaHow Environmenta l Markets Fi t – The Big Picture Of Land Conservation And Restoration

2:15pm-2:35pm Josh ParrishWorking Woodlands - Promoting Heal thy Ecosystems

Kenneth Bagstad Conceptual i zing Ecosystem Service Supply, Demand and Flows In Support Of Cl imate Change Adaptation

Bruce McCarlEvaluating Cl imate Change And Associated Pol icy Impl ications For Agricul ture

Jeremy SokulskyEnvironmenta l Return On Investment: Us ing Quanti fied Ecosystem Services To Compare Effectiveness Of Al ternative Pol icies And Investment Approaches

2:35pm-2:55pm Joe Short & Ethel WilkersonEngaging The Outdoor Recreation Sector And Water Consumers As Markets For Loca l Carbon Offsets : The Northern Forest Carbon Exchange And The Clear Water Carbon Fund

Michael FlaxmanSpatia l ly-Targeted Payments For Ecosystem Service: A New Mechanism For Cl imate Adaptation

Robert BeachModel ing Economic And Environmenta l Impacts Of Expanded U.S.A. Bioenergy Production

2:55pm-3:15pm Panel Discussion:Katherine HamiltonScott ShouseJosh ParrishJoe ShortEthel WilkersonLaury Saligman

Laila RacevskisSea Level Rise And Coasta l Ecosystem Services : Understanding Publ ic Perceptions And Values

Sara OhrelEPA Appl ications And Future Research Directions

3:15pm-3:45pm

Concurrent SessionsThursday, December 13, 2012

PM Break and Poster Removal - Grand Ballroom Salons E-F

Discussion


xxviii

Thursday3:45pm-5:00pm

Conference Concludes

Plenary Panel DiscussionKey Findings, Lessons Learned and Future Directions: A Conference Synthesis

Moderated By: Anne Kinsinger, Associate Director Ecosystems, U.S. Geological Survey

Panel Members Greg Arthaud, National Leader for Ecosystem Services Research, U.S. Forest Service

Craig Duxbury, Environmental Scientist, Walt Disney Imagineering Research and Development Todd Gartner, Senior Associate, Conservation Incentives and Markets, People and Ecosystems Program,

World Resources Institute Dianna Hogan, Research Physical Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey

Heather Wright, Program Officer, Environmental Conservation, The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Thursday, December 13, 2012Closing Plenary Session: Ocean Ballroom

Friday

7:30am-7:45am

7:45am

5:30pm

Friday, December 14, 2012Post-Conference Tour Participants Assemble, Caribbean Ballroom Foyer

Tour Loads Bus and Departs

Tour Bus Arrives Back at Marriott Harbor Beach


xxix

Poster Directory

Poster #

1 Spatial Dynamics Of Rosary Pea (Abrus Precatorius) Invasive Species In Western Florida -- Julius Adewopo, University of Florida

2 The Role Of Structured Stakeholder Engagement In Developing Ecological Production Functions: Linking Stakeholder Value To Ecosystem Services At A Military Installation -- Pieter Booth, Exponent

3 Survey Protocols In Forest Ecosystem Services Cost Assessment From The Supply Side-European Forest Owner Storylines -- Lambini Cosmas Kombat, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research

4 Assessing And Mapping Potential Loss Of Ecosystem Services From Hurricanes -- Francisco Escobedo, SFRC/IFAS/UF

5 Life Cycle Assessment Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Sugarcane Production In Florida: A Case Study -- Jose-Luis Izursa, Intelligentsia International Inc.

6 The U.S. Geological Survey’s Science And Decisions Center: Advancing Science- Based Decisions -- Shonte Jenkins, U.S. Geological Survey

7 An Analysis Of Stakeholder Needs To Inform Development Of An Invest Model Of Lake Ecosystem Services For The Natural Capital Project -- Kevin Le, University of Michigan

8 Assessing Ecosystem Services From Rangelands Based On Management Practices -- Sapana Lohani, The University of Arizona

9 Hydrological Services Reduce Poverty And Strengthen Social Capital? An Examination Of Household Welfare And Collective Action In A Common Property Regime In Sierra Norte Of Oaxaca, Mexico -- Lindsey Nieratka, Florida International University

10 The Puyallup Tribal Homelands & Eco-Cultural Concepts: Past, Present and Future -- Jeffrey Thomas, Puyallup Tribe of Indians

11 An Ecosystem Services Assessment For Drylands Agroecosystems: Developing Tools For Decision Makers -- Mohamad Traboulsi, University of Florida - Student

12 Lake Ecosystem Services: An InVEST Model For The Natural Capital Project -- Lisa Wan, University of Michigan

13 Protecting Our Life Support Systems: Us Federal Research And Policy On Ecosystem Services -- Andrew Almeter, US EPA Office of Research and Development

14 A County-Level Program To Assess Farming System Ecosystem Services -- John Capece, Intelligentsia International Inc.

15 Integrating Social Science into Ocean and Coastal Management: Interagency Working Group on Ocean Social Science -- Rudy Schuster, United States Geological Survey

16 Measurement Of Forest Ecosystem Services As A Tool To Manage Financial Devolution From Centre To States -- Madhu Verma, Indian Institute Of Forest Management

17 Lost Opportunity Cost As A Form Of Payment For Ecosystem Services -- Theresa Becchetti, University Of California Coop. Ext.


xxx

Poster #

18 Changes In Human Well-Being & Ecosystem Services From Restoration -- Robert Crimian, College of Charleston

19 Bioprospecting Sapwood And Heartwood Of Species Brosimum potabile DUCKE, Brosimum guianensis (AUBL.) HUBER, Brosimum rubescens TAUB. Moraceae Family, In The Upper Alto Rio Solimões – AM, Brasil -- Claudia Eugenio da Silva, INPA/UFAM

20 How Are Human Well-Being And Ecosystem Services Related? -- Annet Forkink, FSU

21 Develop And Document Opportunities For Ecosystem Services On Rangelands -- Stephanie Larson, UC Cooperative Extension

22 Stakeholder Perceptions Of Ecosystems Services: A Pilot Study In BC Canada -- Bessie Schwarz, The Yale School for Forestry and Environmental Studies

23 Cost Effective Nutrient Reductions In Wastewater Treatment Plants – Holistic Strategies For Providing Ecosystem Services -- Heather Simmons-Rigdon, South Central Washington RC&D Council

24 Maryland Farmers & Tree Farmers Attitudes Towards A Payment For Ecosystem Services Program -- Seth Wechsler, University of Maryland College Park

25 Estimating The Supply Of Forest Carbon Offsets: A Comparison Of Best-Worst And Discrete Choice Valuation Methods -- Damian Adams, University of Florida

26 Ecosystems Markets: Perspectives From A Portuguese NGO -- Rita Gomes, Quercus - NANC

27 The Value Of Fixing Carbon And Releasing Oxygen In The Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Region Using GIS -- Li Jing, College of Tourism and Environment

28 Sustainable Water Resources For Frederick County, Virginia -- Lisa LaCivita, George Mason University

29 Gulf Saver® Bag: A Sustainable Approach To Spartina Alterniflora Marsh Restoration -- Lawrence Malizzi, Matrix New World Engineering

30 Ecosystem Services And Aquatic Weeds: Case Study Of A Himalayan Wetland -- Ather Masoodi, Aligarh Muslim University

31 Bioeconomic Potentials Of Biochar Application In Oil Sands Ecosystem Reclamation -- Felix Nwaishi, Wilfrid Laurier University

32 Ecosystem Services And Environmental Restoration In South Florida -- Kayla Ouellette, University of South Florida - Tampa

33 Evaluation Of Changes In Ecosystem Services Due To Adoption Of Bioenergy Crops At Regional Scale -- Shruti Khadka Mishra, U.S. Geological Survey

34 Estimation Of Value Of Stream Gage Information: An Integrated Assessment Approach To Evaluate Improved Ecosystem Services From Water Resources -- Shruti Khadka Mishra, U.S. Geological Survey

35 The Role Of Economic Instruments In A Policy Mix For Conservation -- Paula Bernasconi, UNICAMP

36 Evaluating And Mapping Tradeoffs Between Carbon Storage And Water Yield -- Ronald Cademus, The University of Florida


xxxi

Poster #

37 Mpas Ecosystem Services And Their Effects On Local Development In Western Mediterranean Sea: The Case Of The National Park Of Taza -- Said Chaouki Chakour, Jijel University and IRD

38 Spatial Patterns Of Ecosystem Services Across Landscape Gradients: Application To Florida -- Shelly Johnson, University of Florida

39 Evaluating Water Quality Ecosystem Services Of Wetlands Under Climatic Change -- Sharon Kahara, Humboldt State University - USGS Coop Research Unit

40 Using Invest Model Mapping And Valuing Ecosystem Services In Poyang Lake, China -- Chunping Mei, University of Antwerp

41 Prioritization Of The Purchase Of Agricultural Easements To Promote Floodplain Conservation Strategies Along The Santa Clara River -- Whitney Wilkinson, University of California Santa Barbara

42 A New Estimate For Changbai Mountain Natural Reserve In Ecosystem Supporting Services And Human Well-Being -- Dan Yu, Institute of Applied Ecology

43 Integrating Bioenergy Options Into The Global Forest Products Market For Climate Benefits -- Sijia Zhang, University of California - Berkeley

44 The Yukon River Indigenous Observation Network: Preliminary Results From Baseline Datasets Highlighting Climate Variation Indicators And Future Directions -- Carol Hasburgh, Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council

45 Corporate Sustainability, Transparent Reporting And Ecosystem Services -- Johnathan DiMuro, The Dow Chemical Company

46 Beyond The Riparian Zone: Managing Beaver For Watershed Provisioning Services -- Abby Hook, Hook Knauer LLP

Poster Session and Reception -- Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:45pm–7:45pm (Grand Ballroom Salons E-F)


xxxii


1

Conference Abstracts

Listed alphabetically by presenting author. Presenting author names appear in bold.


2


3

ESTIMATING THE SUPPLY OF FOREST CARBON OFFSETS: A COMPARISON OF BEST-WORST AND DISCRETE CHOICE VALUATION METHODS J R Soto1 and D C Adams2

1Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 2Natural Resource Economics & Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

The use of carbon markets to regulate greenhouse gasses has been promoted as a cost-effective tool to deal with global warming. These markets often encourage forest landowners to capture carbon in exchange for compensation, by using different platforms that vary in terms of contract length, penalties for withdrawal, etc. These differences in available carbon programs send signals to both consumers, and potential producers of carbon credits, which often cause confusion, price variations, and potential barriers to participation. This study uses one of the most comprehensive lists of Florida non-industrial private forest landowners to implement two different conjoint choice tasks (best worst choice* and discrete choice experimentation), which offer multiple options to estimate attitudes of landowners towards different carbon programs, as well as various avenues to estimate willingness to accept. Results indicate that landowners would need between $20 to $30 acre-per-year to be positively affected by revenue, while the inclusion of penalty for early withdrawal increases cost of participation by approximately $4.45 to $10.41 acre-per-year. In addition, this study compares the performance of best worst choice with the traditional discrete choice experimentation method, and finds similar estimates of willingness to accept from both models, but disagreement with overall attribute impact estimates. Contact Information: José R. Soto, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110240, Gainesville, FL 32611-0240, USA, Phone: 520-664-8309, Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


4

HOW PROGRAMMIC FEATURES INFLUENCE WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY: A META ANALYSIS Melissa M. Kreye1, Damian Adams1, Tatiana Borisova2 and Francisco Escobedo1

1School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 2Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Conserved forest ecosystems are effective at protecting water quality by reducing soil erosion, sedimentation, and nutrient loading and pollution. It is generally assumed that willingness to pay (WTP) for forest conservation is solely a function of the ecosystem services provided by these lands and associated economic benefits that accrue to the public. Little attention has been paid to the importance of the context surrounding the program, like program features (e.g., protection via easement), as potential additional drivers of willingness to pay to support forest conservation. To examine the influence of program context on WTP for forest conservation, we conducted a meta-analysis of (n=43) WTP studies from the economics literature that estimate the public’s WTP for water quality protection and related forest-water resource conservation programs that protect “well conserved” rivers, lakes and wetlands. Our econometric model revealed that programmatic features, including the type of conservation tool and scale of the conservation program (e.g., watershed scale), were the strongest predictors of WTP for water quality protection programs. Other significant drivers of WTP in order of magnitude were type of aquatic resource, geographic context, survey method and annual household income. Some contextual factors have a large influence on WTP. For example, when applying this model to a representative watershed in Florida, the average household’s annual WTP was $2.29 for programs that disclosed to the respondent the use of land acquisition or easement strategies, and $43.79 for programs that did not disclose how the program would be implemented. Results suggest that public support and WTP for forest conservation programs is likely not independent of program design, which has implications for WTP estimation and reliance on existing studies to inform policy decisions. Additional research are needed to determine whether this sensitivity in WTP is due to information availability (e.g., in the absence of program details, respondents make assumptions about how the program will affect their utility), measurement error (e.g., important attributes are omitted from the study), attitudes and beliefs about how forests should be used and who should manage them (e.g., a belief that certain policy strategies represent an inappropriate use of public authority), or other important factors. Contact Information: Melissa M. Kreye, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110410, Gainesville, FL 32611, Phone: 352-846-0546, Email: [email protected]


5

SPATIAL DYNAMICS OF ROSARY PEA (ABRUS PRECATORIUS) INVASIVE SPECIES IN WESTERN FLORIDA Julius B. Adewopo

Department of Soil and Water Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA The increasing spread and negative impacts of non-native invasive species in United States forestland has attracted huge ecological and economic costs. Rosary pea (Abrus precatorius) is listed as “category-1” noxious invasive species in Florida, it invades undisturbed pinelands, displaces native plant communities, and produces lethal human poison. The limited understanding of the spatial dynamics of Rosary pea’s (Abrus) distribution has critical implication for cost-effective control of the spread. Using data on incidence of Abrus in West-Florida (972 point locations) obtained from EDDMaps database, this study was conducted to assess 1.) Clustering or randomness in the distribution of Rosary pea at three (3) quadrat-size scales (based on quadrat-count technique), and 2.) The influence of identified potential factors to its spread in West-Florida. The Chi-square and Kolmogorov Smirnov tests showed that the distribution of Abrus is extremely clustered (non-Poissonian) across the 3 quadrat-size scales `(Xcrit(0.05,0.01)<<<Xstat; and Dcrit(0.05,0.01)<<<Dmax, respectively). Zero-inflated and linear models relating the distribution of Abrus to potential underlying factors showed that the “Homeowner”, “Renters”, and “Female” population-classes significantly influence the distribution of Rosary pea (p<0.0001). Diagnostic Vuong test comparing the models showed that Zero-Inflated-Poisson and Zero-Inflated-Binomial regressions had significant improvement over their generalized linear forms (p<0.0001 and p<0.0001, respectively), while Zero-Inflated-Binomial model explained the distribution of Abrus better than the Zero-Inflated Poisson model (p=0.0002). This study provides multi-approach geostatistical evidence which strongly indicate that targeted (focus-group) communication could be a promising approach for controlling and containing the spread of Rosary pea, and to protect Florida’s forested ecosystems from further invasion. Contact Information: Julius B. Adewopo, Soil & Water Science Department, University of Florida, PO Box 110510, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA, Phone: 352-328-7866, Email: [email protected]


6

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION: THE CONTROVERSIAL CRUCITAS GOLD MINE PROJECT IN COSTA RICA Bernardo Aguilar-González1 and Maya Kocian2

1Fundacion Neotropica, San José, Costa Rica 2Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA, USA

This paper presents an evaluation of the damages, in terms of environmental service losses, caused by the controversial Crucitas Gold Mining Project in northern Costa Rica. The study was commissioned by the Costa Rican Ministry of the Environment at the request of the National Attorney's Office. It measures the damages caused and the costs of restoration according to the court verdict that declared null and void all the government actions that authorized the operation of this Project between 2001 and 2008 and condemned Industrias Infinito, a Canadian subsidiary, and the government of Costa Rica to pay for the costs of these damages in order to restore the affected area. This conflict has been one of the most covered by Costa Rican and international media and has brought serious questioning of the country's "green republic" reputation. It is located in an area of high ecological significance and low social development. Given the high levels of complexity and stakes involved in the conflict, the study frames its analysis within the socio-ecological context, proposing a combination of technical and participatory methods. It uses a benefit transfer methodology to value the damage to ecosystem services and recommends embedding it within a social multicriteria analysis that may lead to a mediation of interests to help resolve some of the outstanding issues that still foster a conflictive situation. This innovative strategy has been used by Fundación Neotrópica and Earth Economics recently in other environmental conflicts in Central America involving important wetland protected areas. The study concluded that the value of the environmental damage and restoration costs lies between $673,860 and $11,883,259. A best estimate of $4,466,097 was selected in order to provide orientation in terms of possible methods to narrow the range. The final determination of compensation will be made in this pioneering case by the courts of Costa Rica, which are now using this study as one of the technical inputs to execute the verdict. Contact Information: Bernardo Aguilar-González, Executive Director, Fundacion Neotropica, PO Box 236-1002, Paseo de los Estudiantes, San José, Costa Rica, Phone: (+506) 89206174, Email: [email protected]


7

PROTECTING OUR LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS: US FEDERAL RESEARCH AND POLICY ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Llael M. Cox, Andrew L. Almeter and Kathryn A. Saterson

US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA In the United States, a broad range of federal entities are conducting research related to ecosystem services, and government agencies at all levels are increasingly interested in measuring the outcomes of proposed policy options in terms of ecosystem service benefits. Federal agencies would benefit from increased awareness of each other‘s efforts. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Ecosystem Services Research Program recognized and responded to the need with a web-based inventory of federal ecosystem services research and policy programs. The inventory included programs and projects that were ongoing or completed between April 2010 and May 2012 from the following federal entities that explicitly conduct ecosystem services research: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of the Interior (DOI), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Transportation (DOT), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The analysis of the inventory describes the breadth and focus of ecosystem services programs and projects identified. The data was collected primarily through information publicly available on the internet and follow-up correspondence when possible. We coded each entry according to the type of research or policy (e.g. biophysical, valuation), the ecosystems studied (e.g. wetlands, agriculture), the ecosystem services being assessed (e.g. nutrient cycling, flood protection), the inclusion of market development or payment for ecosystem services, and type of products produced (e.g. journal article, model). The analysis discusses the progress, gaps, and opportunities revealed and will increase awareness of current efforts, enhance opportunities for the public and private sector to collaborate on ecosystem services work, identify high priority research areas, and help avoid duplication. Contact Information: Andrew L. Almeter, US EPA, 109 TW Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA, Phone: 919-541-4063, Email: [email protected]


8

ACCOUNTING FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES USING EMERGY ANALYSIS: FLORIDA ENERGY CROPS (SUGARCANE) Nana Y. Amponsah1, Jose Luis-Izursa1, John C. Capece1 and Edward A. Hanlon2

1Intelligentsia International Inc., Labelle, FL, USA 2University of Florida/IFAS, Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, USA

Ethanol and biodiesel production have been considered as an ecological alternative for petroleum fuel and as one of the solutions to reduce global green house gas emissions. In the US, Florida is a key state in this enterprise because of its potential to supply significant biomass demands for conversion into the liquid fuels. Sugarcane, which is one of the primary feedstocks for ethanol is grown extensively in the state. In 2007-08, Florida contributed an estimated 48% of the cane sugar produced in the United States. With this renewed focus, the possibility for sugarcane farming expansion on both organic and mineral soils in the area is undoubtedly imminent. Although sugarcane is a renewable source of energy, it has a doubtful ecological sustainability. Opponents say the possible increase of the cultivation area in South Florida would create pressure on the ecosystem in the region. The conversion of additional lands to energy crop fields would largely maximize biomass production while a wide range of goods and services provided by ecosystems, called ecosystem services, are depleted. Ecosystem services include fresh water provision, carbon fixation, soil formation, climate regulation, flood control, evapotranspiration, nutrient cycling maintenance, genetic information, aesthetic and cultural values, and many others. Ecosystems of the world are threatened because market prices are used to evaluate these services. As such, money is only paid to people for their production of marketable goods and not to ecosystems.

In this study, Emergy Analysis introduced by Odum in the 1980’s is used. The Emergy methodology allows one to attribute economic value to ecosystem services and rejects the premise that values arise from the preferences of individuals. It measures the real quantity of work within a certain service or storage. Considering that these services were co-products of the global emergy budget (15.83 E24 sej/yr), using the US emergy-to-dollar ratio (2.56E+12 sej/$) for example, some important ecosystem services can be estimated. Preliminary results show that though sugarcane grown for biofuel production on muck soils cost $324 per harvested hectare annually ($810 acre-1yr-1), it costs Em$4525 per hectare per year. Similarly, it costs $424 ha-1yr-1 ($1,061 acre-1yr-1) for a sugarcane mineral soil grower but Em$3308 ha-1yr-1. Thus, for biofuel products there is hope for more sustainable biofuel production on mineral soil. Additionally, focus should be on alternative farming practices as a potential for more sustainable biofuel production. Lastly, the results clearly demonstrate the impact of ‘free’ environmental inputs (evapotranspiration, etc.) often not accounted for by traditional economics. As such, emergy analysis can be an efficient method to place appropriate values on ecosystem services. Future work intends to estimate the ecosystem services driving the production of the various energy crops (energycane, sweetsorghum, sun hemp, etc.) in the South Florida area. Contact Information: John C. Capece, Intelligentsia International Inc., 132 North Lee Street, Labelle, FL 33935 USA, Phone: 239-245-9954 Email: [email protected]


9

CONCEPTUALIZING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND FLOWS IN SUPPORT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION Kenneth J. Bagstad

U.S. Geological Survey, Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, Denver, CO, USA To correctly value ecosystem services both today and when considering future climate change and adaptation strategies, we must properly account for service supply by ecosystems, demand by people, and service flows from ecosystems to people. We are currently testing the use of two spatially explicit approaches to providing this information: a biophysical modeling tool, the Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) system and a survey-based approach to elicit Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). In partnership with several Federal agencies, these modeling and valuation tools can answer questions about climate change and adaptation in diverse contexts: in coastal North Carolina related primarily to sea level rise, in southeast Arizona related to riparian water needs, and in Colorado related to fire impacts and water supply for downstream communities. Although these projects have been conducted with specific agency partners (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and USDA Forest Service), all occur in regions with mixed Federal agency management, including the above agencies plus Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Defense lands. Climate change has the potential to increase demand for ecosystem services while decreasing ecosystems’ capacity to supply services. Even in cases where ecosystem service supply to users can be maintained, this may come at the cost of resource degradation. Conversely, adaptation strategies could reduce ecosystem service demand and stress on ecosystems while lowering the risk of pushing ecosystems toward ecological thresholds or tipping points. When considering the economic value of ecosystem services, climate change has the potential to increase dependence on and values of ecosystem services while also increasing social and ecological vulnerability. By contrast, carefully planned adaptation strategies could reduce resource demand and stress on ecosystems, possibly lowering the value of ecosystem services used by society but likely increasing social and ecological resilience. Contact Information: Kenneth J. Bagstad, U.S. Geological Survey, Geology and Environmental Change Science Center, P.O. Box 25046, DFC, MS-980, Denver, CO, 80225, USA, Phone: 303-202-4136, Email: [email protected]


10

INCORPORATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN DECISION MAKING ACROSS FEDERAL AGENCIES Kenneth J. Bagstad1, Darius Semmens1, Eva DiDonato2, John Dow3 and Rob Winthrop4

1U.S. Geological Survey, Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, Denver, CO, USA 2National Park Service, Ocean and Coastal Resources Branch, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO, USA 3U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National

Grasslands, Colorado Springs, CO, USA 4U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, Washington, DC, USA

As the science of ecosystem services matures, public land management agencies are increasingly asked to account for ecosystem services in decision making, whether as part of NEPA or other agency-specific planning documents. To best support inclusion in the planning process, ecosystem service assessments must be quantifiable, replicable, scenario-based, and not unreasonably resource-intensive. Through a series of pilot studies, the USGS has partnered with the Bureau of Land Mangament, USDA Forest Service, and National Park Service to explore the use of a wide variety of tools that integrate biophysical modeling, social values surveys, and economic valuation of ecosystem services. In this presentation we will discuss the findings for these pilot studies, the strengths and weaknesses of existing tools for systematically valuing ecosystem services from a public land management agency perspective, and the complimentarity between agency planning processes and ecosystem services tools. This work can inform both the developers of existing and future tools to better meet agency needs and managers working to better account for ecosystem services in agency planning processes. Contact Information: Kenneth J. Bagstad, U.S. Geological Survey, Geology and Environmental Change Science Center, P.O. Box 25046, DFC, MS-980, Denver, CO, 80225, USA, Phone: 303-202-4136, Email: [email protected]


11

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA Neville D. Crossman1, Rosalind H. Bark2, Matthew Colloff3, Darla Hatton MacDonald1 and Jodie Pritchard4

1CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Urrbrae, SA, Australia 2CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia 3CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Black Mountain, ACT, Australia 4CSIRO Land and Water, Urrbrae, SA, Australia

The ecosystem services framework could be used to assess the impacts on the environment from a development. However, as far as we are aware, ecosystem services rarely feature explicitly in environmental impact assessments that are usually required in law to support development. This paper summarizes three case studies of where the impact of development (both public and private) is measured in terms of the change to the supply of ecosystem services and the subsequent costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary) to society of those changes. The first case study is complete and the other two are in progress. The first case study is in the Murray-Darling Basin where we calculated a number of ecosystem service benefits from the changes in water allocation and management proposed in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s (MDBA) Basin Plan. The freshwater in Murray-Darling Basin is over-allocated to irrigation and the ecological health of the system is in decline. The MDBA, an Australian Government agency, is using its Basin Plan to guide the recovery of water from irrigation for restoring the ecological health of the river system. We calculated that the benefits of recovering 2800 GL of water annually were worth in the order of $4 billion to $9 billion in improved supply of ecosystem services in addition to the improvements in the health of many ecosystems in the Basin. The second case study is the development of new irrigation in the Gulf country of northern Queensland. The rivers in northern Queensland are relatively undeveloped for irrigated agriculture and the Queensland and Federal Governments are examining the environmental and economic sustainability of making an additional 100GL/yr available for irrigation use. We are estimating the ecosystem service costs and benefits from this irrigation expansion in two river basins in the Gulf country. Our results will be a significant part of the overall environmental, economic and social impact analysis supporting the proposed development. The third case study is the impact on ecosystem services from the disposal of excess water pumped following the expansion of an open cut mining operation in Pilbara region in northern Western Australia. The privately owned mining company will be disposing of approximately 80ML/day and is considering four options: i) disposal down a nearby natural watercourse, changing the river from intermittent to perennial; ii) pumping to a nearby town for urban water supply; iii) recharging a depleted nearby aquifer, and; iv) piping to a nearby cattle station for irrigate feedstock which allows destocking in other parts of the station. We, in partnership with IUCN, are calculating the various ecosystem service costs and benefits of each water disposal option. These values will be considered in the overall benefit-cost analysis supporting the mine expansion development. Contact Information: Rosalind Bark, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Australia, Phone: +61 7 3833 5678, Email: [email protected]


12

ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RECOVERY IN THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN: LINKING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS AND RISK Rosalind H. Bark1, Neville Crossman2, Luk Peeters3 and Carmel Pollino4

1CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia 2CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Urbrrae, SA, Australia 3CSIRO Land and Water, Urbrrae, SA, Australia 4CSIRO Land and Water, Acton, ACT, Australia

The ecosystem service framework is used in the Murray-Darling Basin, southeastern Australia to value the incremental benefits from the changes in water allocation and management proposed in the Basin Plan (CSIRO 2012). The valuation is based on stated preference, revealed preference, and avoided cost methods and original and benefit transfer values. In all cases value estimates are closely coupled with hydrologic metrics, water quality thresholds and modeled ecological responses in each of the 19 basin regions. The ecosystem service framework provides a scorecard of which benefits can be valued with available hydrology models, ecological response models and valuation studies. Of the incremental benefits valued, non-use benefits dominated (AUD$3-8 billion). The ecosystem service framework provides new information for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to: (i) catalogue policy-contingent benefits; (ii) manage environmental water; and (iii) to support regulatory requirements. Given the importance of reporting the benefits of the MDBA Basin Plan, and federal reliance on states in implementation, there is a need to inform decision makers on the likelihood of achieving policy objectives.Two of the benefit outcomes, associated with the Coorong Lower Lakes, at the outlet of the Murray-Darling Basin, are selected to explore the type of uncertainity, such as statistical vs systematic and reducible vs irreducible and the sources of uncertainty, such as hydrologic, ecological, economic, institutional and climatic. The worked examples reveal that both the type and sources of uncertainity differ and that consequently the recommendations to achieve objectives (additional water recovery, investments in science, infrastructure investments, alternative management practices, greater regulation of illegal take and landuse, more adaptive management processes, etc) with greater certainity are case specific. The incorporation of risk assessment into the ecosystem services framework provides further information for decision makers designing, implementing, regulating and evaluating large-scale ecosystem restoration and recovery projects. Reference: CSIRO 2012. Assessment of the ecological and economic benefits of environmental water in the Murray-Darling Basin. (CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship, Canberra, Australia, 2012). Contact Information: Rosalind Bark, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, 41 Boggo Road, Dutton Park, QLD 4102, Australia, Phone: +61 7 3833 5678, Email: [email protected]


13

USING PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR HABITAT MITIGATION ON RANGELANDS Sheila Barry1, Stephanie Larson2 and Theresa Becchetti3

1University of California Cooperative Extension, Santa Clara County, San Jose, CA, USA 2 University of California Cooperative Extension, Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, CA, USA 3 University of California Cooperative Extension, Stanislaus County, Modesto, CA, USA

Urban development and public works projects increasingly require mitigation to meet both federal and state environmental regulations including conservation of special status species. In California, mitigation often occurs on rangelands which have been primarily managed as working ranches. Developing agreements with the ranchers has the opportunity to achieve mitigation outcomes that are cost effective and efficient; however, there are numerous obstacles to ensure adequate payments and accountability. A case study of a mitigation site on a working ranch in the San Francisco Bay area of California demonstrates the opportunities and challenges of using Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) to achieve required habitat creation, restoration and management objectives. The 97.7 ac site which is a portion of a privately owned cattle ranch was selected by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a mitigation site for a highway improvement project. The ranch is habitat for California Red Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, and San Joaquin Kit Fox. Creation, restoration, and management of habitat are being achieved on the site through PES to the rancher as well as contracts with construction and landscaping firms. Caltrans has paid the rancher for specific grazing management, monitoring livestock, site security, fence repair, water trough installation, road grading, invasive species removal, native species establishment, pond water management, and debris pick-up and removal. Caltrans has paid contractors for fence building, water system development, riparian planting, debris pick-up and removal, wetland creation, and road grading. Contractors are preferred for some parts of the project because of work scope, licensing requirements, contracting requirements, and accountability. Benefits and challenges of PES were identified in this case study. Benefits of PES included conservation of a larger landscape and improved effectiveness and cost efficiency through the rancher’s vested interest and on-site management. On the other hand, challenges include sacrificing the larger landscape to achieve conservation outcomes on the mitigation site, perceived conflict of interest, and difficulty in providing accurate PES valuation and accountability. PES to ranchers could provide long-term sustainability of mitigation sites on working rangelands, however, processes need to be further developed to ensure both adequate payments and accountability. Contact Information: Sheila Barry, University of California Cooperative Extension Santa Clara County, 1553 Berger Drive Bldg 1, San Jose, CA 95112, USA, Phone: 408 438 8791, Email: [email protected]


14

ESTABLISHING A WATERSHED INVESTMENT FUND FOR PES David Batker1, Rowan Schmidt1 and Karl Morgenstern2

1Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA, USA 2Eugene Water and Electric Board, Eugene, OR, USA

Riparian areas generate a suite of important ecosystem services, including water filtration and regulation, soil erosion control, aesthetic beauty, recreational opportunities and habitat for wildlife. In addition to human and environmental health benefits, these services provide tremendous economic value to local and regional economies. The Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) is a drinking water utility that serves approximately 200,000 people in western Oregon with water supplied by the McKenzie Watershed. EWEB is developing an innovative Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) program, designed to move finance into needed restoration and conservation of riparian areas for drinking water quality. To provide a robust economic baseline for EWEB’s PES program and other source water protection measures, Earth Economics conducted an Ecosystem Service Valuation (ESV) of the McKenzie River Watershed. The ESV used Geographical Information Systems data to estimate the annual value of local and regional benefits provided by the watershed. Special attention was paid to valuation of riparian areas along the main stem of the McKenzie River that would be eligible to receive payments. This presentation will describe the methods and approach used to calculate economic values of the ecosystem services provided by riparian lands in the McKenzie Watershed, and how the valuation will be refined as the market develops. The study results are being used to educate landowners, ratepayers and policy makers on the economic benefits of investing in riparian ecosystems and other natural capital assets. Contact Information: David Batker, Executive Director, Earth Economics, 107 N. Tacoma Ave, Tacoma, WA 98403, Phone: 253-539-4801, Email: [email protected]


15

FUNDING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE VIA A WATERSHED INVESTMENT DISTRICT FRAMEWORK David Batker and Jennifer Harrison-Cox

Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA, USA The Green-Duwamish Watershed is located in Washington State, USA. The watershed covers 664 square miles (about 425,000 acres) of land and water where nearly 700,000 people live, and where many thousands more people work, commute and play. All these people and institutions affect, and are affected by, the watershed they share. This shared watershed provides natural capital goods and services to all of these stakeholders, including salmon, flood risk reduction, biodiversity and recreation. However, there is no institution responsible for making sure, at the watershed scale, that these goods and services are being managed in a coordinated, efficient way that reduces overall costs and increases overall benefits. Since 2005, Earth Economics has worked with local groups in the Green-Duwamish Watershed to protect and enhance watershed health by assessing the value of the watershed’s ecosystem services. One completed report led to the unanimous approval of the $5 million North Winds Weir Project, a salmon habitat project with associated flood protection benefits. Now we are helping groups in the watershed to develop independent funding mechanisms for the watershed’s Salmon Habitat Plan, estimated to cost $200-300 million over ten years. In 2009 Earth Economics identified 21 possible funding mechanisms. From these, the concept of a Watershed Investment District emerged and was embraced by stakeholders. A Watershed Investment District, currently being developed and pursued in Washington State by Earth Economics and representatives of many cities, counties, businesses and area councils, would improve efficiency by aligning the management scale of a watershed with watershed scale natural and built capital. Better coordinated, investments in the watershed could be more effective and longer lasting, saving hundreds of millions for public and private institutions. Better coordination will also eliminate waste and potentially reduce the tax burden for local, regional and state residents. In addition, a Watershed Investment District with tax authority could be funded more fairly; the provisioners, beneficiaries and impairments of ecosystem services can be mapped at the watershed scale, and with this information, funding mechanisms can be generated and project overlaps identified. Contact Information: David Batker, Executive Director, Earth Economics, 107 N. Tacoma Ave, Tacoma, WA 98403, Phone: 253-539-4801, Email: [email protected]


16

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF POLLINATOR DECLINES Dana Marie Bauer and Ian Sue Wing

Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Pollination is a valuable ecosystem service which provides a variety of benefits including food and fiber, plant-derived medicines, ornamentals and other aesthetics. Mounting evidence of long-run declines of both managed and wild insect pollinators at local and regional levels has raised concerns over potential risks to global food security and economic development. A particular worry is the convergence of these trends and agriculture’s increasing dependence on pollination services, which has fueled fears of a global pollinator crisis. These concerns have spurred efforts to quantify the economic benefits of pollination as an ecosystem service and assess the economic and broader societal impacts of adverse supply shocks. In this paper, we incorporate the pollinator dependence of different agricultural crops into the production functions of a multi-region, multi-sector computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. We simulate catastrophic pollinator declines as exogenous reductions in the productivity of crop sectors by the fraction of pollinator-dependent production. The resulting price and quantity adjustments across domestic and international markets for agricultural as well as non-agricultural commodities elucidate the welfare impacts of pollinator declines and the economic channels through which they operate. Results show economic risks to both direct crop sectors and indirect non-crop sectors in the economy, with a substantial amount of regional heterogeneity. In addition, there exists potential for winners, those regions with a comparative advantage in the production of non-pollinator dependent crops. Comparison to partial equilibrium analyses shows that, in general, the partial equilibrium approach overestimates the costs to agricultural producers, underestimates total economy-wide losses, and overestimates social welfare losses in most regions. Contact Information: Dana Marie Bauer, Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA, Phone: 617-353-7555, Email: [email protected]


17

PAYMENTS AND MARKETS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OVER THE PAST DECADE. UPS AND DOWNS AND HOW DID WE GET HERE Ricardo Bayon

EKO Asset Management Partners, New York, NY, USA The world of Payments and Markets for Ecosystem Services has seen its share of ups and downs over the past decade. There was the creation of a mitigation banking market in the US, the creation of a European Emissions Trading Scheme, the creation of dozens of smaller PES systems everywhere from Latin America to Asia, to Africa. But there was also the defeat of climate legislation in the US, serious questions being raised about the effectiveness of these markets, the crash of prices for Certified Emissions Reductions under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism, and the disappearance of more than one company aiming to make money from these environmental markets. So as the world slowly crawls out of the Great Recession of 2007/2008, what lies in store for the whole concept of Payment for Ecosystem Services? This presentation will look at the ups and downs in the markets for ecosystem services, ranging from global carbon markets, to mitigation banking in the US, to water funds in Ecuador and Colombia. But rather than harp on the past, the presentation will use the lessons of the last decade to look forward and see how these markets and payment schemes might develop in the future. It will talk about emerging "markets" in little remarked ecosystem services such as stormwater management and water temperature trading, and it will talk about the challenges facing entrepreneurs in these and other markets worldwide. Contact Information: Ricardo Bayon, EKO Asset Management Partners, 1350 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, United States, Phone: 415-373-6363, Email: [email protected]


18

MODELING ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EXPANDED U.S. BIOENERGY PRODUCTION Robert H. Beach1, Bruce A. McCarl2, Sara B. Ohrel3, Gregory S. Latta4, Justin S. Baker1, Yuquan W. Zhang1 and Steven K. Rose5

1Environmental, Technology, and Energy Economics Program, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 2Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 3Climate Economics Branch, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 4Forest Engineering, Resources, and Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 5Energy and Climate Analysis Research Group, Electric Power Research Institute, Washington, DC

Bioenergy production has been expanding rapidly in many regions of the world, due primarily to increasing concerns related to climate change and energy security. However, because commercially viable bioenergy is produced primarily from agricultural feedstocks, higher production volumes increase pressure on land resources. Competition for land is expected to continue growing in the future as mandated biofuels volumes increase along with rising demand for food, feed, and fiber both domestically and internationally. Modeling of alternative policies is important to enhance our understanding of potenital implications and to inform policy design aimed at mitigating any negative effects. In the U.S., bioenergy expansion has been driven primarily by mandated increases in liquid biofuels for transportation. There is also ongoing interest in policies promoting renewable electricity production and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation that would place further demands on land. In this study, we explore the interactions between demand for agricultural and forest land for GHG mitigation, transportation biofuels feedstocks, and bioelectricity feedstocks and the implications for land use change and GHG emissions. We apply the recently updated Forest and Agriculture Sector Optimization Model with GHGs (FASOMGHG) to explore the implications of alternative bioenergy policies for renewable energy production mix, land use, trade, and net GHG emissions. FASOMGHG is a forward-looking dynamic model of the forest and agriculture sectors that simulates the allocation of land over time to competing activities in both the forest and agricultural sectors and the associated impacts on commodity markets. In addition, the model simulates environmental impacts resulting from changing land allocation and production practices, including detailed accounting for changes in net GHG emissions. There has been little work examining the net effects of jointly implementing policies requiring the use of transportation biofuels and bioelectricity while simultaneously promoting GHG mitigation. We find substantial interactions between alternative bioenergy and forest and agricultural GHG mitigation policies, with potentially large impacts on commodity markets, land use, and net GHG emissions. Contact Information: Robert Beach, Environmental, Technology, and Energy Economics, RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194, USA, Phone: 919-485-5579, Email: [email protected]


19

LOST OPPORTUNITY COST AS A FORM OF PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Theresa Becchetti1 and Sheila Barry2

1University of California Cooperative Extension, Stanislaus County, Modesto, CA, USA 2University of California Cooperative Extension, Santa Clara County, San Jose, CA, USA

Rangelands comprise the largest land mass in the state of California, providing forage for livestock, a marketable product. Rangelands also provide many ecosystem services such as habitat for threatened and endangered species, clean water and air, viewshed, and carbon sequestration to name a few. Landowners typically do not receive any monetary reimbursement for their stewardship in providing these ecosystem services to the public. Markets for many of these services have been difficult to establish with limited ability to adequately monitor and measure services provided. At the same time, rangelands in some areas of the state have been experiencing rapid conversion to other, more profitable forms of agriculture such as almond and walnut orchards. During this conversion to a higher value product, ecosystem services are being altered, and in some cases negatively affected. Connectivity of habitat for San Joaquin kit fox has been a concern with conversion on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley. Connectivity and proper functioning of vernal pool ecosystems is of concern on the eastside. Water supply has come into question as the conversion has led to pumping of ground water to irrigate the new crops. To prevent further conversion of rangelands and the loss of the services they provide, there needs to be a mechanism to identify and compensate landowners for the value of products and services being received from rangelands. This paper looks at lost opportunity costs as a method for determining the value of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) for rangelands. PES can compensate landowners for the value of products and services they provide, making them more competitive financially to remain as large, unaltered land. Real estate values as well as University of California Cooperative Extension Cost Studies will be used to demonstrate the difference in value (lost opportunity cost) between the primary products of rangelands (livestock production) and the products of the converted rangelands (almond and walnut orchards). Lost opportunity costs will provide guidance for PES. If conversion is to be slowed or stopped to protect the ecosystem services rangelands provide, this dollar value should represent the value of PES to keep rangelands providing ecosystem services. Contact Information: Theresa Becchetti, University of California Cooperative Extension, 3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite A, Modesto, CA 95358. Phone: 209-525-6800 Email: [email protected]


20

PRIORITIZING WETLAND RESTORATION: A REVIEW AND APPLICATION TO THE MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, USA Todd K. BenDor1 and Michael Deegan2

1Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 2Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA

Over the last two decades, numerous studies have developed methods for determining optimal locations of wetland restoration sites. Many of these studies prioritize restoration sites based on the ability of the site to achieve specific environmental goals and produce ecosystem services, including improvements to flood risk reduction, habitat connectivity, and water quality. We present a review of available efforts in this area, comparing the ecological, cultural, and economic factors and data used to locate and rank wetland sites. We also compare these methods based on their 1) flexibility in evaluating restoration priorities based on multiple environmental goals, 2) consideration of future environmental stressors, and 3) sophistication in using multiple types of data, including Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote sensing, and demographic and land value data. We specifically evaluate this literature in the context of the Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program (MsCIP), a large-scale ecosystem restoration and flood risk reduction program focused on increasing the resilience of coastal Mississippi in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Our findings have implications for targeting restoration priorities in large-scale resiliency programs, including compensatory mitigation markets and other ecosystem service improvement programs. Contact Information: Todd K. BenDor, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB #3140, New East Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3140, Phone: 919-962-4760, Email: [email protected]


21

KEY TOOLS TO CREATE TRANSPARENT AND EFFICIENT WATER QUALITY MARKETS IN THE US Kathy Benini

Global Head of Environmental Markets, Markit, New York, NY, USA Transparency and efficiency are critical to successful market-based environmental programs. Sellers and buyers must be able confirm and demonstrate ownership of credits, and transact them, in an efficient, low cost, low risk and highly transparent way. Well-designed centralized market infrastructure like registries and auction platforms can help ensure all of these outcomes, and deliver real-time information widely and rapidly to regulators, buyers, and investors. This presentation will explore the role and value of registries for water quality markets and how they help ensure efficient and transparent market-based programs. It will provide examples of how registries have been deployed across the US water markets, highlighting key considerations for policy makers, regulators and program co-ordinators who are implementing market mechanisms to improve water quality and ensure successful markets. We will also explore other types of market infrastructure we have delivered in various US water market programs (including introductory and auction platforms) and note key requirements of generating and tracking transactions in these markets. Contact Information: Kathy Benini, Global Head of Environmental Markets, Markit, 620 8th Avenue, 35th floor, New York, NY 10018, United States, Phone: 212-205-1742, Email: [email protected]


22

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INNOVATIVE PAYMENTS FOR WATERSHED SERVICES PROGRAMS Drew E. Bennett1,3, Sally Duncan2 and Sue Lurie3

1College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA 2School of Public Policy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA 3Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

Novel partnerships among municipal water utilities, the Forest Service, and other organizations are emerging across the country to achieve the dual objectives of watershed restoration and water quality improvement on public and private lands. These efforts incorporate a variety of institutional structures, novel financing mechanisms, and are tailored to meet the different needs of source watersheds. Although these programs are designed for their specific geographic settings, they can serve as models for the development of similar programs and partnerships in new locations. Research funded by the Bullitt Foundation and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) has informed a review of lessons learned from these efforts in Oregon, Washington, and several other locations across the country, as well as recommendations for future analyses that could further PWS development. Contact Information: Drew E. Bennett, College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 104 Wilkinson Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5506, USA, Phone: 719-355-4950, Email: [email protected]


23

PAYMENTS FOR WATERSHED SERVICES: TRACKING PERFORMANCE AROUND THE WORLD Genevieve Bennett, Kate Hamilton and Nathaniel Carroll

Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC, USA The forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other habitats that serve as our ‘natural water infrastructure’ are being degraded and destroyed at alarming rates around the world, and so are the critical ecosystem services they provide including filtering pollutants, regulating stream flows, and recharging aquifers. One policy response has been to develop incentives for watershed protection in order to ensure downstream water quality and availability. Considerable interest in these incentive mechanisms, known collectively as “payments for watershed services” (PWS), has arisen in recent years. PWS uptake is driven by the desire for more cost-effective, politically feasible conservation tools, particularly where regulatory frameworks are lacking or traditional command-and-control approaches to regulation are impractical or inequitable. However, multiple mechanism types, varying terminology, and sheer global scale makes estimating PWS programs’ impacts difficult, and the actual size, scope, and nature of PWS uptake is not yet well understood. Ecosystem Marketplace’s 2010 “State of Watershed Payments” tracked a diverse and rapidly growing family of watershed payment projects around the world, estimating total payments exceeding USD $50 billion to date and more than $9.3 billion annually. The “State of Watershed Payments: 2012” update builds on and expands this research to chart the watershed payments landscape as we find it today and a global market for watershed services that has matured considerably since 2010. Through extensive interviews, surveys, telephone calls and desk research, the authors collect and analyze data on more than 200 active programs around the world. This globally comprehensive dataset will inform a qualitative and quantitative summary of the size, scope and structure of worldwide PWS performance in terms of the structure and values of transactions. The study also attempts to identify global patterns in program and payment mechanism design to contribute to our understanding of PWS ‘on the ground’. Key variables in program design identified include level of conditionality, ecosystem service targeted, management intervention, demand driver, and payment mechanism characteristics. The results improve our understanding of PWS impacts and demand for PWS on the ground. The study provides a useful and broad dataset against which to contrast the theoretical literature on the application and performance of incentive-based mechanisms. Improved information about the variety of incentive mechanisms that have been developed, their contexts, and their performance may also help inform future policy-making and program development. Contact Information: Genevieve Bennett, Ecosystem Marketplace, Forest Trends Association, 1050 Potomac Street NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA, Phone: (202) 298-3000, Email: [email protected]


24

THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS IN A POLICY MIX FOR CONSERVATION Ademar R. Romeiro, Paula Bernasconi1 and Bruno P. Puga

Center for Agricultural Economics and Environment, Institute of Economics, University of Campinas, SP, Brazil Sao Paulo is the most industrialized state in Brazil and constitutes 30% of the national GDP. It is also the most populated, with more than 40 million inhabitants, 95% of whom live in urban areas. This economic wealth is situated within two ecosystems characterized by high biodiversity indices, the Atlantic Forest and the Cerrado. The resulting pressure on these natural areas has transformed the landscape into extensive rural areas, contrasted with many small natural fragments and few bigger remnants. Because of its topography and geographical position at the transition between a tropical and subtropical region, the biodiversity of the State of Sao Paulo is among the highest in the country. Within this heterogeneous economic, social and environmental context, Sao Paulo faces several biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation challenges that have to be addressed by the state and the Brazilian federal conservation policies. To address the diverse objectives of conservation, multiple programs and different combinations of economic instruments will be required. 7The main reason for designing policy mixes is to overcome the weaknesses inherent in single instrument policies, which include low ecological effectiveness, high opportunity and transaction costs of environmental goal attainment, unjust distribution of environmental burdens or abatement costs among the affected stakeholders, or (prohibitively) high transaction costs. In this paper we aim to evaluate the importance of considering a mix of economic instruments in the creation of policies to address different contexts and challenges in biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. We begin with an overview of the biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation context in the Sao Paulo State and the main policy instrument called the Forest Code, which is known by its strict direct regulation. We then elaborate a description of two regions in the state that have very different characteristics but face huge challenges of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. The Cantareira Mantiqueira corridor is internationally recognized as a biodiversity hotspot and is also the watershed responsible for providing water for the inhabitants in the metropolitan area of Sao Paulo. The other region, Mogi-Pardo Watershed, hosts the most modern agriculture lands of Sao Paulo State, mainly sugar cane, with high opportunity costs and general lack of compliance with the Forest Code. After defining the context and challenges, we briefly address the role that two economic instruments could play in the two contexts: payment for ecosystem services in Cantareira and tradable development rights in Mogi-Pardo. We conclude with a discussion of the opportunities these instruments present as well as some of the challenges associated with their implementation that policymaker should consider. Contact Information: Paula Bernasconi, Center for Agricultural Economics and Environment, Institute of Economics, University of Campinas, PO Box: 6135 - CEP 13083-970, University City Zeferino Vaz, Campinas, SP, Brazil, Phone: +55-19-3521-5707, Email: [email protected]


25

ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT OF MULTIPLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: A PORTFOLIO APPROACH Richard Bernknopf

Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Ecosystem services are distributed spatially, thus the regulatory controls intended to promote the sustainability of those services also should be implemented in a spatially explicit manner. Using an expected value-variance decision model that is spatially explicit, we assess the expected return on investment and uncertainty regarding the application of interventions either through the market (i.e. prices) or through standards (i.e. quantities). In our model we include the characteristics of the landscape and their effects on the provision of ecosystem services. Consider the example of an afforestation policy that seeks to maximize the total economic value of the ecosystem services in a geographic region. The integrated ecological-economics model produces a range of outcomes for specific ecosystem services depending on alternative investment plans for forest development. Implementation of specific land management choices changes the quality and quantity of ecosystem services associated with the changes in forested land. Thus, the policy could have different effects on the expected benefits in terms of expected total economic value and the risks associated with alternative protocols for implementation. It is this riskiness of an afforestation policy that can be expressed as land portfolio volatility associated with the managed growth of forests. An example of a regional portfolio for a small group of ecosystem services will be presented for the Tensas River Basin in Louisiana. In this example the key tradeoff is between the benefits of carbon sequestration and the benefits of all other ecosystem in a managed forest. Contact Information: Richard L. Bernknopf, Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, Phone: 650-935-2330, Email: [email protected]


26

ESTIMATING THE COSTS, CAPACITY AND TRADEOFFS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN A NET RESOURCE ASSESSMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY Richard Bernknopf

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Economists have developed temporal (dynamic) or spatial (comparative static) models in an attempt to manage the exploitation of natural resources. However, natural scientists assess our natural resources with models that output a probabilistic estimate of volumes of geologically based commodities. What is rarely done in harmony with a natural resource assessment is the understanding of the impact that the use of natural resources can have upon the ecosystem services co-locatedwith the resource. Using an optimal control model where the net benefits of a resource are maximized subject to a series of regulatory and budget constraints we seek to develop a method to conduct a resource assessment that mergers ecosystem services with resource extraction. This coupling of both mineral and ecological resources allows us to estimate capacity (quantity), cost and the uncertainty of market commodities and ecosystem services. While a resource assessment for one region is conducted one must also look at substitute sites in order to capture the tradeoffs between resource exploitation and conservation. We extend the initial optimal control model for one site to look at the tradeoffs when comparing two resource assessment units to assess regional development tradeoffs. All of this is accomplished using the dual to the maximum problem, cost minimization in an optimal control setting. Contact Information: Richard L. Bernknopf, Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, Phone: 650-935-2330, Email: [email protected]


27

PERFECTING AND CAPTURING THE VALUE OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMMUNITY ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Scott Bernstein1, Scott Fogarty2 and Steve Wise3

1Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, IL, USA 2Friends of Trees, Portland OR, USA 3Sandy River Basin Watershed Council, Portland OR, USA

Natural systems handle precipitation through storage and permeability. By contrast, standard urban civil engineering practices render surfaces impermeable, leading to a dependence on expensive, usually buried systems of sewers and treatment plants that disconnect communities from the natural water resource. This presentation will explore policies, practices and financing mechanisms that reconnect urban communities with the values clean water represents, and which can integrate natural drainage through green infrastructure into an effective, economical approach for cities.

Urban air emissions from fuel combustion and fine particulate matter disrupt and enhance natural precipitation, leading to “peakier” events, e.g. in Chicago, Il, in a recent five-year period there were 3 “100-year” and 1 “500-year” storms. Water- and weather-related damages are a top priority for property casualty insurers and FEMA. Standard engineering approaches are no longer affordable—urban metropolitan regions in Ohio alone have entered into settlement agreements for over $30 Billion of large-scale investments of tunnel, reservoir and/or treatment plant expansions; the recent well-publicized bankruptcy of Jefferson County, Alabama (Birmingham) involved investments of almost $4 Billion in a weak-market region.

Strategies to increase permeability can return rainwater to shallow aquifers cost-effectively, with savings of up to 80% compared to standard practices, while delivering additional benefits not associated with conventional ‘grey’ infrastructure. Cities across the country have embraced “green infrastructure” as a preferred solution to urban runoff-induced street and basement flooding. Interventions include retrofitting lawns with rain gardens, streets and parkways and parking lots with linear gardens, and tree plantings along rights-of-way acting as linear recharge basins, among other measures.

The barriers to taking such action strategically and systematically include information sufficiently localized to trigger investment, split incentives between the beneficiaries of such actions (property owners and occupants, area residents and businesses, and public agencies who may be pre-committed to conventional solutions), confusing regulatory guidance, access to affordable capital, and insufficient intermediation for these services, where they exist, to be carried out in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. Fundamentally, the shift required is from a centrally managed network to a network of distributed resources, with a set of economics based less on an economy of scale to one based on an economy of scope or “network economy.”

Cities, special-service utilities and entire metropolitan regions are not immune to the effects of the recession, and in a sense are learning to “leave no savings behind.” At the same time, increased USEPA enforcement of the Clean Water Act is accelerating the settlement of violations with ever more expensive Long Term Control Plans; a recent feature is the addition of commitments to demonstration programs for use of green infrastructure. USEPA has formally accepted green infrastructure approaches as components of required long-term control plans in Philadelphia, Chicago, Kansas City, Cincinnati, and Onondaga County, New York, and elsewhere, Portland, Oregon, Seattle, Washington, have invested in systematic green infrastructure as well in large part part because of the cost savings and additional socioeconomic payoffs.

Several years ago, the City of Portland, OR’s Bureau of Environmental Services, working with a local organization, Friends of Trees, and seeking to correct gaps in the city’s tree canopy identified in a 2007 inventory, worked with the Center for Neighborhood Technology to analyze innovative opportunities to capture and mobilize the economic value of enhanced green infrastructure investment in the city’s neighborhoods. In addition to direct appropriations funded by standard tax, user fee and direct borrowing methods, CNT posited that green infrastructure investments created a stream of benefits that could be capitalized against future value, making possible an analogue of tax-increment financing dubbed “tree-increment financing.” A study of the relative benefits of these approaches was conducted, inspired in part by a variant of tree-increment financing underway in Philadelphia, PA, where green infrastructure has now become a staple of that city’s capital investment in stormwater management to the tune of $1.5 Billion.

This presentation will review the analysis conducted, including estimates of the value of benefits identified, pioneering applications of capital infrastructure funding to tree planting in Portland’s Grey-to-Green program and along Interstate 205 in Portland, and identify potential pathways for scaling-up a more permanent urban permeability. Contact Information: Scott Bernstein, President, Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, IL, Email: [email protected]


28

ADAPTING TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PARADIGM BASED ON PROTECTING THE SERVICE OF NATURE: PRIVATE SECTOR CHALLENGES Gregory R. Biddinger

Natural Land Management, Houston, TX, USA A recent BSR (2012) report suggests that “the question is no longer if ecosystem services will be a key framing of environmental issues among multilateral institutions in the coming years, but rather exactly when, where, and how it will occur”. Therefore, it is highly probable that the private sector will be required to reengineer it business systems that related to managing environmental performance. Industry has demonstrated a sincere and comparatively significant effort to develop the capacity to use ecosystem services information in their environmental management systems and operational decisions. Even though there has been significant engagement by industry such reengineering of business systems will require a significant “management of Change” process. Corporations have highly organic and integrated business systems and processes that reflect their operational purpose, historic development, as well as, the external organizations and processes that regulate their business activities. The types and flow of information used to run these organizations are dictated and constrained by the installed business systems and procedures. The utility of ecosystem service or natural capital information by any corporation will be controlled by how their business processes will accept and incorporate the information into areas of governance, annual planning, product or project design, as well as, operational management and performance stewardship. In essence for the value of natural capital and ecosystem services to become ground level influences in managing a business it will need to become useful information for decisions and integrated into these business systems and processes. The current approaches to consideration and manage of the environmental aspects of a business have evolved in a tight alignment with the environmental regulatory policy developed over that last 50 years. The current regulatory framework is founded on science and engineering principles combined with public policy and laws, to craft an environmental management approach designed to identify anthropogenic stresses, assess the risk of impacts and to set standards of acceptable environmental loadings, practice or design. This current framework is based on command and control of risks which could lead to degradation of ecological condition. Whereas any new regulatory framework based on ecosystem service information would be focused on protecting and sustaining the service flows provided by ecosystems and is likely to target sustaining and optimizing that ecosystem performance in terms of human welfare. This new focus will change the regulatory goals and objectives, the data we collect and the tools we use to support assessments of meeting these new goals and objectives. This presentation will review the challenges faced by the private sector to incorporate ecosystem services into its business systems and to respond to the evolution of external regulatory frameworks. Key elements of a “Management of Change” strategy will be presented. Contact Information: Gregory R. Biddinger, Ph.D., Managing Director, Natural Land Management, Houston, TX 77005, Phone: 713-203-0066, Email: [email protected]


29

URBAN SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Eugenie L. Birch

Department of City & Regional Planning, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA In order to identify the impact of planning policies on the levels of urban ecosystem services, it is necessary to develop indicators that have a close nexus with local interventions and take into account these ecosystem services. Such indicators make it possible to measure needs for policy actions and monitor progress.

This presentation will describe the urban sustainability indicators currently being developed by the Penn Institute for Urban Research to measure the progress of federal sustainable development initiatives undertaken by HUD, DOT and the EPA. The development of urban sustainability indicators will enable cities, regions and the federal government to track over time how communities apply the six Livability Principles articulated by the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

The presentation will address how these indicators are being developed to serve as tools to evaluate the progress made by communities in implementing the six Livability Principles that support sustainable urban development. In particular the presentation will focus on the indicators that are being developed to identify the sixth Livable Principle: “Value Communities and Neighborhoods.” While some communities will use the indicator system for projects unrelated to ecosystem services, many communities will use the system to monitor how built environment interventions improve or damage the ecosystem around it.

In order to be sustainable, urban development needs to happen without degrading the quantity, quality or the availability of ecosystems services. Being able to rely on indicators that closely relate to the interventions in order to measure the value of their communities including in terms of ecosystem services and livability will be of use for cities and regions engaging in sustainable development programs. An urban sustainability indicator that takes into account ecosystem services would create an evidence-based performance measurement tool that is currently lacking or ad hoc at best.

Ecosystem services constitute an integral part of urban communities but residents and policy makers face difficulties realizing the scale of ecosystem services, in identifying their value in an urban context, and measuring the effects of varying interventions.

Developing urban sustainability indicators that can measure the effect of interventions on ecosystem services in metropolitan areas among their underlying elements might be a way to better integrate them to a policy-making framework and increase the awareness of the level of ecosystem services that exist in urban areas.

Contact Information: Eugenie L. Birch, Department of City & Regional Planning, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania, 102 Meyerson Hall, 210 South 34th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA, Phone: 215 898 8330, Email: [email protected]


30

ASSESSING THE ROLE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN BLM GRAZING LANDS AND THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN RETIRING GRAZING RIGHTS Henri R. Bisson

Marstel- Day LLC, Tucson, AZ, USA At the request of the few remaining ranching families in the Mojave Desert of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), an effort is underway to value and market relinquishment of their federal grazing permits as mitigation for endangered species impacts from major solar energy and other projects. The result would be compensation to the families based on mitigation and ecosystem services values rather than traditional ranch values. More than 1 million acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service (NPS) could be affected. Species affected would include Federal and State listed and other species such as desert tortoise, Mojave ground squirrel, desert big horn sheep, golden eagles, numerous raptors, many threatened plants and possibly condors. Ecosystem services improvements from grazing removal are expected to include increased carbon sequestration, improved recreation and wilderness values, better soil and water function, improved spring and riparian function and other benefits. Over the last 10 years, livestock grazing in the CDCA has been reduced from many millions of the 13.9 million acres of the CDCA, to fewer than 1.5 million acres. Much of the federal grazing relinquishment was accomplished by acquisition of ranches by several conservation groups, land trusts and the Army Corps of Engineers at ranch values. Some of these relinquishments were used as mitigation for Federal Projects, such as the Army’s Expansion of its National Training Center at Ft Irwin, or to protect the significant resource values of the NPS’s Mojave Preserve. But, much of the relinquishment was done without consideration of the fair market value of species mitigation or ecosystem services benefits, and the grazing leases were bought cheaply and donated to the responsible federal Agencies. The current effort involves inclusion of grazing relinquishment as a mitigation option in the Federal/State Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP). This is a multi-agency, multi-species conservation strategy that is expected to be published in draft later this year. It is intended to conserve habitat over a very large area.While we believe that grazing relinquishment will be accepted by all of the agencies as a viable mitigation tool, current interpretations of the California Endangered Species Act presents a challenge because of a required “durability” requirement imposed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). Grazing on Federal Lands has not been viewed by CDF&G as “durable” because of a 15-20 year time horizon for Federal land use plans. Under prior law, BLM could reintroduce grazing by altering its land use plans. In December of 2011, new legislation was passed by Congress and signed by the President. This legislation permanently removes grazing from Federal lands in the CDCA if it is relinquished as mitigation for endangered species impacts. This was accomplished by the earnest concerns raised by the remaining ranching families and the sincere efforts of Senator Diane Feinstein, and Congressmen Jerry Lewis of California and Mike Simpson of Idaho. We are currently in negotiations with several solar project proponents. Our hope is to make the case that removing grazing over very large areas is cheaper and more beneficial to species than the current requirement to buy increasingly expensive and scarce private lands as mitigation, particularly for the desert tortoise. It will also have significantly greater ecosystem services benefits. Contact Information: Henri Bisson, Marstel- Day LLC, 3032 N Homestead Pl, Tucson, AZ 85749, Phone: 520-360-8813, Email: [email protected]


31

SHOW ME THE SERVICE: TRADE-OFFS IN DOCUMENTING THE SERVICE IN A PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROGRAM Patrick Bohlen

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA Payment-for-environmental service (PES) programs come in many configurations, but all of them share the challenge of documenting the actual service provided. The buyers in such programs need some level of assurance that they are getting what they paid for, and the sellers need assurance that they are getting a fair price for the service they provide. Beyond the complex policy and economic issues related to discovering appropriate payments in PES schemes, there are numerous technical and scientific challenges to documenting the services. Environmental and ecological scientists are accustomed to the challenges involved in measuring and making conclusions about complex natural systems. However, these scientists require a high level of probabilistic assurance, typically 95% or greater, before they are willing to make firm conclusions. Advances in statistical and modeling approaches provide more flexibility in assessing variability in natural systems but these generally require a significant amount of data to assess their validity. Achieving the high level of quantitative rigor environmental scientists have developed to deal with the “messiness” of natural system is usually not possible in the even messier world of developing PES programs. Thus, the need for scientific input on PES programs puts scientists between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the massive foundation of scientific rigor they have been trained to stand on, and the hard place is a seat at the roundtable, where they have to concede some of that rigor without walking away. In this talk, I will review the scientific challenges associated with the Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project, a pilot project that contributed toward the development of the Northern Everglades Dispersed Water Storage PES program in South Florida. The program pays private lands owners, primarily ranchers, for retaining water on their lands, in order to help meet public goals for improving and restoring hydrologic functions in the region. An early challenge in this project was determining which water service—water storage or nutrient retention—provided the better basis for a PES program. In the end, water retention became the main focus, in part due to the greater difficulty in measuring and predicting nutrient storage. Nutrient storage was not completely abandoned, however, due to the regulatory importance of controlling nutrient sources. The water retention service needed to be based on a predictive model that was “good enough” to assess potential water storage, but not as complex as would be needed for more rigorous hydrologic model. Finally, there was interest in knowing how changes in water management on ranches would affect ecological communities, a service for which there was no buyer, but for which all parties had some vested interest. Assessing trade-offs among ecosystem services is likely to be important for many PES programs. Contact Information: Patrick Bohlen, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando, FL 32816-3600, Phone: 407-823-1940, Email: [email protected]


32

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT David Batker and Kate Bonaparte

Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA, USA The built environment and the building sector in particular, have a massive impact on climate change, biodiversity loss, diminished connection to nature, and many other environmental and social issues. Traditional real estate valuation and investment strategies fail to capture the full suite of benefits produced by high performance buildings – and, conversely, the full environmental and social costs of conventional buildings. As the building design and construction industries continue to make step-leap efforts in leveraging processes and technologies to achieve highly sustainable buildings, time is of the essence to institute a new investment model and a strategic redirection of policy incentives that support this industry transformation. This presentation will focus on the current “investment ceiling” within the real estate industry and our proposed changes that will redefine the current economics of real estate, prompting an investment shift toward ecologically restorative buildings and infrastructure. By integrating complex systems analysis, ecosystem services and practical market experience, the presenters in this session will review new methodologies to assess, monetize and demonstrate the value of social and environmental benefits inherent in green buildings and infrastructure. The value captured by these benefits is identified by avoided externalities (e.g. zero impact on a watershed) and positive externalities created through the restorative design principles of a Living Building (e.g. ecosystem services such as habitat/soil regeneration, elimination of toxics in material supply chain, beauty, water conservation, etc.). Our team has created a prototype modeling tool for the purpose of demonstrating how the incorporation of these additional monetized benefits into a real estate pro forma may begin to positively alter investment decisions in the built environment. A new policy framework coupled with an enhanced real estate investment model is a pathway to drive billions of dollars towards a truly sustainable built environment, with exceptional benefits for our local economies and ecosystems. This investment shift has the potential to completely transform the built landscape in the coming decades and allow Living Buildings and Communities to proliferate. We will focus on the core concepts and themes identified is a research report developed in partnership between Jason Twill, Earth Economics, Autopoiesis, and Cushman and Wakefield, and funded through a grant from the Bullitt Foundation. Contact Information: Kate Bonaparte, Research Assistant, Earth Economics, 107 N. Tacoma Ave, Tacoma, WA 98403, Phone: 253-539-4801, Email: [email protected]


33

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT: MORE DISCONNECTS THAN CONNECTIONS? Pieter Booth1, Nicholas Gard1 and Sheryl Law2

1Exponent, Bellevue, WA, USA 2Exponent, Alexandria, VA, USA

The regulatory objective of Natural Resource Damages (NRD) legislation, both in the United States and in the European Union is to compensate the public for ecological and human use services lost as the result of an environmental insult such as a spill of oil or a hazardous susbstance. Regulations have been developed that provide for a failry rigorous scientific and economic assessment of lost services. Adherence to the regulatory NRDA process entails significant transaction costs. For this reason, NRD claims are typically resolved by applying streamlining tools and analyses such as Habitat Equivalency Analysis, or Resource Equivalency Analysis. These approaches are intended to achieve expedited resolution of NRD claims by that dramatically simplifying the process for balancing service losses from a release with gains from proposed restoration. Although one might think that an ecosystem services framework might be very congruent with resolution of NRD liability; there are, in fact, many ways in which an ES approach would hinder and overly complicate the NRD process. In our view, adopting an ES approach to NRD will require explicit and quantitative accounting of intermediate as well as final services and development and application of potentially untested models to simulate ecological production functions. Conversely an ES approach may be effectively used to identify and scale restoration. This presentation explores the two general frameworks of assessment and presents potential risks as well as potential opportunities of adopting an ES approach for NRDA. The assessment is intended to provide a pragmatic perspective of the issues from the point of view of three long-time NRD practtioners who also have extensicve experience in evaluating ES tradeoffs outside the NRD context. Contact Information: P. Booth, Exponent. 15375 SE 30th Place, Suite 250, Bellevue, WA 98007, USA. Phone: 425-519-8700, Email: [email protected]


34

THE ROLE OF STRUCTURED STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING ECOLOGICAL PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS: LINKING STAKEHOLDER VALUE TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT A MILITARY INSTALLATION Pieter Booth1, Sheryl Law2, Jessica Boyd3 and James Boyd3

1Exponent, Bellevue, WA, USA 2Exponent, Alexandria, VA, USA 3Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., USA

Military installations depend on sustainability of ecosystem services to support their missions. Effective management of ecosystem services necessitates through understanding of the relationships between the ecosystem services and site activities, the quality and value of the ecosystem services, and the impacts that landscape changes have on ecosystem services. Thus it is important to accurately describe the functional linkages between ecological process and products and their use to benefit humans. These linkages, termed ‘ecological production functions’ aim to describe and identify the ecological inputs and processes that result in the production of outputs that are valued by humans. In the case of a military installation, these are outputs or ‘endpoints’ that support the mission. A structured stakeholder engagement process was used at a military installation to elicit key ecosystem services and meaningful measurement endpoints as well as preference values for various ecosystem services among military decision makers. The ecological production functions were developed to link endpoints to the underlying ecosystem services. This poster describes the decision landscape and flow of information, the structured stakeholder engagement process for eliciting endpoints and preferences, and the challenges inherent in the development of accurate and meaningful ecological production functions.

Contact Information: P. Booth, Exponent. 15375 SE 30th Place, Suite 250, Bellevue, WA 98007, USA. Phone: 425-519-8700, Email: [email protected]


35

A SPATIAL FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING GREEN AND GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIOS IN COASTAL NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING Timothy Boucher1, Sheila Walsh2, Jorge Brenner3, Rob Griffin4, Greg Guannel5 and Anne Guerry5

1Sustainability Science, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA 2Sustainability Science, The Nature Conservancy, Durham, NC, USA 3The Nature Conservancy- Texas, Corpus Christi, TX, USA 4The Natural Capital Project, Stanford, CA, USA 5The Natural Capital Project, Seattle, WA, USA

Financial loss from natural hazards has been increasing worldwide. Coastal habitats often play an unrecognized but important role in reducing waves and flooding from storms. Protection and restoration of these habitats may offer businesses a new strategy to avert or lessen the impacts of natural hazards. To address this opportunity, The Nature Conservancy-Dow Collaboration is developing methods to assess the value of green infrastructure at Dow’s operations in Freeport, TX. Dow’s Freeport facility, located along the Gulf of Mexico, is threatened by hurricanes and sea level rise. The facility is surrounded by extensive marshes. To inform risk mitigation planning at Freeport, we assessed the costs and benefits of green and gray infrastructure options under sea level rise and development scenarios in the coastal zone of Brazoria County over the next 100 years. The assessment entailed the development of a spatial framework to determine the extent to which coastal habitat could protect against storm-related damage and how external drivers (in this case, sea level rise and development) would affect that potential mitigation. Detailed coastal habitat landcover data, land development projections, land use zoning information, and detailed elevation models were input into a Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM), to develop habitat migration scenarios for 2025, 2050, 2075 and year 2100. For each of these time periods, we varied the extent of marsh restoration and mitigation and the extent of development. Upon completion, these data were inserted into hazard and coastal protection models to assess the value of the protection. These projections demonstrated the potential for the marshes to protect against storm damage to affect the Dow facility. Contact Information: Timothy Boucher, Sustainability Science, The Nature Conservancy, 4245 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203, Phone: 703-841-4117, Email: [email protected]


36

RESEARCH TO REFINE THE DESIGN OF PES PROGRAMS IN FLORIDA RANCHLANDS: SHIFTS IN VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES Elizabeth H. Boughton1 and Mark Clark2

1MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center, Lake Placid, FL, USA 2Department of Soil and Water Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Payment-for-Environmental Services (PES) programs provide an array of services but the benefits of enhancing one service may represent a risk, or disservice, to other potential service(s). In the Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Program (FRESP) in the Northern Everglades, the public “water” services for which landowners were compensated was to enhance water storage and reduce nutrient loading downstream. In order to generate a complete scientific understanding we wanted to test the assumption that managing for these two water services would also result in co-benefits, particularly enhanced wetland habitat and vegetation (1). Furthermore, we also wanted to evaluate whether provision of water services may result in disservices such as: loss of short-hydroperiod wetland plants if storage is too long (2); loss of wetland species with value as cattle forage (3); loss of forage species in upland buffers (4); and increases in non-native/invasive wetland species (5). These risks were also of concern to the private landowners, the sellers, because of their financial implications. Here we present pre- (2006) and post- implementation data in these five categories for four FRESP sites. At all four sites the pre-data include relative frequencies or percent cover of plant species along transects or in random plots (including both wetlands and pastures) where ranchers implemented water management alternatives to provide water services. At Buck Island Ranch, analysis of variance was used to assess vegetation shifts in wetlands exposed to water management in comparison to wetlands that were not exposed to water management; this analysis showed no evidence of enhanced wetland habitat, loss of forage, or increases in non-natives in response to water management. We also used multivariate ordination analyses to investigate community shifts after implementation. Wetland plant communities are known to be highly dynamic, making changes difficult to detect over short time periods and analyses were confounded by severe droughts (2007 & 2010-2011). At the Lykes West Waterhole FRESP site, which was designed to remove nutrients from an adjacent public canal, there was a marked increase in invasive cattail (Typha sp.) associated with increased nutrient loading. We close by summarizing the financial implications of the change in forage availability and present an initial landowner tool to forecast vegetation shifts in relation to participating in a water services PES. Contact Information: Elizabeth Boughton, MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center, Lake Placid, FL 33852 USA, Phone: 863-699-0242, Email: [email protected]


37

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES: WHAT ARE THEY, WHY ARE THEY CONTROVERSIAL, HOW DO WE MEASURE THEM, AND SHOULD WE EVEN TRY? James Boyd

Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., USA The presentation will discuss how environmental values are defined, measured, interpreted, and how conflicts among them are resolved. The implications of “value issues” for ecosystem services evaluation and management will be discussed. The talk will emphasize differences of opinion over how environmental values are defined and communicated. For example, should ecosystem services analysis rely on economic values, and what does “economic value” mean? Does economic value encompass cultural values? Are there alternatives to monetary valuation and if so, what are they? The talk will also address different conceptions of environmental value across cultures and communities. In addition, the talk will explore the ways in which public institutions incorporate environmental values in decision-making and how conflicts among values are resolved. What techniques are available to make transparent both synergies and tradeoffs among within a portfolio of ecosystem services? Contact Information: James Boyd, Resources for the Future, 1616 P St NW, Washington, DC, 20036, Phone: 202-328-5013, Email: [email protected]


38

QUANTIFYING AND MAPPING HABITAT-BASED BIODIVERSITY METRICS WITHIN AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FRAMEWORK Kenneth G. Boykin1, William G. Kepner2, David F. Bradford2, Rachel K. Guy1, Darin A. Kopp1, Allison K. Leimer1, Elizabeth A. Samson1, N. Forrest East1, Anne C. Neale2 and Kevin J. Gergely3

1New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Ecology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA 3U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, Idaho, USA

Ecosystem services have become a key issue of this century in resource management, conservation planning, human well-being, and environmental decision analysis. Mapping and quantifying ecosystem services have become strategic national interests for integrating ecology with economics to help understand the effects of human policies and actions and their subsequent impacts on both ecosystem function and human welfare. Characteristics of biodiversity are valued by humans, and thus are important to include in any assessment that seeks to identify and quantify the value of ecosystems to humans. Some biodiversity metrics clearly reflect ecosystem services (e.g., abundance and diversity of game species), whereas others reflect indirect and difficult to quantify relationships to services (e.g., relevance of species diversity to ecosystem resilience, cultural value of native species). Wildlife habitat has been modeled at broad spatial scales and can be used to map a number of biodiversity metrics. In this approach, we map metrics reflecting ecosystem services or biodiversity features derived from U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program data for habitat models of terrestrial vertebrate species. Example metrics include state-designated species-of-greatest-conservation-need, threatened and endangered species, harvestable species (i.e., upland game, waterfowl, furbearers, and big game), total species richness, and specific taxon richness. The project is being conducted at multiple scales in a phased approach, starting with community-based studies, then multi-state regional areas, culminating in a national-level assessment. These metrics, along with other ecosystem services, will be presented in the National Atlas of Ecosystem Services under development by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its partners. We present results from the Southwest United States (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) and the Southeast U.S. (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia). Further development of these indices will assist USGS and EPA, as well as long-term, multi-scale conservation efforts including state wildlife action plans and landscape conservation cooperatives. Also, international groups, i.e. Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), DIVERSITAS, and the Group on Earth Observatory Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) have called for conducting periodic assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services at global, regional, and sub-regional scales. Their purpose is to address policy relevant questions, identify emerging issues and research gaps, and identify consistent tools and methodologies that can be conducted on various scales, regardless of geography. A key part of the call is for the development of scalable indicators and metrics that could provide thematic assessments, and monitor status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystem services across multiple geographies at multiple scales. The biodiversity metrics in development for the National Atlas of Ecosystem Services also provide an appropriate outlet for the international initiatives and will likely meet their call for the development and deployment of consistent scalable indicators.

Contact Information: Kenneth G. Boykin, New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Ecology, New Mexico State University, PO Box 30003, MSC 4909, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003, USA, Phone: 575-646-6303, Email: [email protected]


39

EXPERIMENTS IN TESTING REAL-TIME WATER LEASING MARKETS Craig Broadbent

Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, IL, USA Markets have been successfully utilized to address environmental policy. Water has been and is a fundamental resource that is under continuing stress. The need for a more flexible set of mechanisms to move beyond the existing water allocation structures in all regions of the U.S. is growing. While some markets do exist, the markets for permanent trades of water rights are laboriously slow and fraught with high transactions costs. Further, while leasing markets exist they often operate in one sector (e.g. agricultural) and/or are highly administered without typically having a robust exchange process on a continuing basis between willing buyers and sellers. This presentation explores, in the context of the Western U.S., the coupling of hydrological, engineering, institutional and economic frameworks to create a genuine leasing market for water resources. This coupled framework is tested in two experimental settings starting with a simplistic agricultural component building to a more realistic setting. Results from the two experimental settings demonstrate each to be robust and efficient with economic welfare gains being observed as a result of voluntary transfers. Contact Information: Craig Broadbent, Illinois Wesleyan University, 205 E Beecher Street, Bloomington, IL 61701, Phone; 309-556-3711, Email: [email protected]


40

A REAL TIME WATER LEASING MARKET IN THE MIMBRES BASIN, NM David Brookshire

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA In December of 2002 New Mexico’s former Governor Bill Richardson stated “I support the concept of water markets, and will assist pilot projects…” In this same document a water leasing system is specifically listed as a recommended conservation strategy for improving the state’s growing shortfall. In cooperation with the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer this research investigates how to establish a functioning water leasing market on the Mimbres River in southwestern New Mexico. What is unique about this work is the approach taken to design and implement the market. Specifically, a virtual water leasing market is developed in which decision makers and stakeholders explore alternative institutional and regulatory frameworks for governing the market. This process of creating a virtual water market has the advantage of engaging the stakeholders and decision makers in the design of the market-enhancing communication. Other project efforts supporting the market are the installation of water meters and establishment of water masters to manage river resources according to priority administration. In the contest of priority administration the water market provides a means for short-term transfers of water between senior and junior rights holders. This work involves intensive stakeholder involvement for the design of and implementation planning for the market, the installation of meters throughout the basin and the establishment of water masters to most effectively manages the basin’s waters during priority administration. Contact Information: David Brookshire, University of New Mexico, 1 University of New Mexico MSC05-3060, Albuquerque, NM 87123, Phone: 505-277-1964, Email: [email protected]


41

OREGON’S EVOLVING POLICY INNOVATIONS TO PROTECT ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Brett Brownscombe

Office of Governor Kitzhaber, Oregon State Capitol, Salem, Oregon, USA Oregon is known as a national leader in the protection and restoration of its natural environment, as well as fostering a special stewardship relationship between its people and its places. Healthy natural resources are key to Oregon’s economy and quality of life. Through a continuing dialogue about how to enhance understanding and benefits related to these underlying connections, and with passage of SB 513 in 2009, the state has established a policy of protecting and enhancing ecosystem service outcomes. Oregon’s agencies, along with federal, local, and private partners, have implemented a number of programs that use an ecosystem service market lens to address water quality and habitat goals through proactive approaches that also benefit landowners. For example, the Department of Transportation implemented an advance mitigation strategy in conjunction with the bridge replacement program. Clean Water Services pays landowners to restore riparian vegetation to reduce water temperature instead of investing in expensive engineering projects. Municipalities needing to address water quality standards in southern Oregon have agreed to purchase water temperature credits from a nonprofit organization working with landowners on stream restoration projects. Governor Kitzhaber has proposed a new approach to the management and protection of natural resources in his 10-year healthy environment policy vision. When implemented, this vision will represent an expansion and evolution of the innovative approaches already in place. Key elements of this vision address the need to improve Oregon’s water and air quality, forests and rangelands, fish and wildlife habitat by doing the following:

1) Coordinating landscape-scale, natural resource plans across agencies and prioritizing conservation areas and actions in order to make both development and conservation more effective.

2) Identifying new approaches to achieving environmental outcomes that move beyond traditional command and control regulation and provide win-win solutions for the economy, communities and the environment.

3) Increasing the use of green infrastructure to improve quality of life / community values, save money, and provide a broader suite of ecological benefits than traditional approaches.

4) Improving to effectiveness monitoring—including coordination of efforts, use of decision support tools, and integration of approaches (e.g., water and habitat quality).

5) Creating market space for achieving ecosystem outcomes and gains for private landowners, regulated entities, agency objectives, and communities at large.

The Governor’s office is looking at legislative and administrative approaches to guide the implementation of the vision. It will set the stage for a new generation of ecosystem conservation efforts in Oregon that focus on specific outcomes, are more strategic, and have a stronger connection to landscape scale conservation priorities, communities, and economic benefit. Contact information: Brett Brownscombe, Natural Resource Policy Advisor to Governor Kitzhaber, Office of Governor Kitzhaber, Oregon State Capitol, Salem, Oregon 97310,USA, Phone: (503) 373-1680, Email: [email protected]


42

COASTAL CAPITAL: STANDARDIZED FRAMEWORK FOR COASTAL VALUATION IN THE CARIBBEAN Lauretta Burke, Benjamin Kushner and Richard Waite

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA Over the past 30 years, the economic valuation literature on the Caribbean’s coastal and ocean resources has increased dramatically. More than 200 studies of the monetary value of marine ecosystem goods and services in the Caribbean currently exist. From these studies, a number of valuation methodologies have been used and applied across various contexts, resulting in a heterogeneous understanding of the value of the Caribbean’s marine resources. As a result, the variety of coral reef economic valuation methods can be confusing and yield results which are not comparable, particularly across countries and time. The absence of standardized methodologies that produce comparable regional results ultimately undermines their credibility amongst decision-makers, and to date economic valuations have had limited influence in decisions surrounding coastal policy, management, and investment in the Caribbean. From 2005 to 2011, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and its local partners conducted economic valuations of coral reefs at national and sub-national levels in five countries: Trinidad and Tobago, St. Lucia, Belize, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica. Building on our experience, strong partner interest and growing local capacity for conducting valuations, WRI is now leading a broad partnership to develop and test a standardized framework for coastal ecosystem valuation in the Caribbean. With our framework as a guide, marine conservation NGOs, researchers and government agencies will be able to conduct quick, accurate, comparable and cost-effective valuation studies, in order to evaluate trade-offs between different management options or future scenarios. In this presentation, we will outline our initiative to develop a standardized framework for coastal valuation in the Caribbean, including an overview of enabling conditions for policy influence, methodologies to address key coastal policy questions, and potential next steps to pilot test the framework in several Caribbean countries. Contact Information: L. Burke, Senior Associate, People and Ecosystems Program, World Resources Institute, 10 G St, NE, Washington, DC 20002 USA, Phone: 202-729-7774, Email: [email protected]


43

EVALUATING AND MAPPING TRADEOFFS BETWEEN CARBON STORAGE AND WATER YIELD Ronald Cademus1, Francisco Escobedo2, Amr Abd-Elrahmn2 and Matthew J. Cohen2

1Department of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 2Department of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Growing concern for climate change due to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has resulted in increased interest in afforestation and/or reforestation as instruments and strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, managing forests solely for carbon sequestration objectives might have negative effects on the provision of water, for example when considering the transpiration and rainfall interception rates associated with the high productivity of subtropical forest types. Therefore information on the interactions between these two ecosystems processes and how they are spatially bundled can provide useful insights for land management decision making. This study in Florida USA, is combining water balance models, ancillary spatial data such as leaf area index (LAI) and precipitation, and integrating it into a simple water balance model. Spatial raster-based land cover (LC) and soil data is also being attributed using the plot-level inventory data and LAI data to quantify water yield and carbon storage for different forest cover types and sites in Florida, USA. This approach together with the use of plot-level forest inventory data is being used to determine spatially-explicit interactions between different forest types with high values for carbon storage and water yield in the state of Florida. These areas, or hotspots, will be analyzed using geospatial statistics such as mapping clusters tools. The scale adjusted, site-specific water balance model and carbon storage values will then be used to analyze the tradeoffs between these 2 ecosystem processes and their underlying forest structure drivers (e.g. basal area, forest types, soil characteristics). Using our hotspot analysis and quantitative graphical tradeoff analyses, we expect that: i) reduction in water yield will be explained by increase in aboveground carbon storage; ii) Water yield will be lower in forest ecosystems with high leaf area index (LAI). Inventory, LAI, climate, and LC data will be sued to explain the underlying drivers and interactions for these processes. The results will identify and map areas where water yield will be higher in forests managed for specific basal areas or stand types. Overall, this study will provide a framework for assessing and managing ecosystems for optimal provision of ecosystem services to people. Contact Information: Ronald Cademus, Forest Resources and Conservation Department, University of Florida/IFAS, PO Box 110410, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA, Phone: 352-301-1326, Email: [email protected]


44

THE APPLICATION OF A NET ECOSYSTEM SERVICE ANALYSIS (NESA) APPROACH TO PHOSPHATE-MINED LANDS IN FLORIDA Kym Rouse Campbell1, Joseph Nicolette2 and Mark Rockel3

1ENVIRON International Corporation, Tampa, FL, USA

2ENVIRON International Corporation, Atlanta, GA, USA 3ENVIRON International Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA

In the United States, Florida ranks first in the production of phosphate rock, which is typically used to make fertilizer. The Central Florida Phosphate District is located in Hillsborough, Polk, Manatee, DeSoto, and Hardee Counties. All lands mined for phosphate after June 1975 must meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) reclamation requirements to return the landscape to a beneficial use following mining. These reclaimed phosphate mined lands provide valuable ecosystem services (ecological, social and economic), such as wildlife habitat and corridors, carbon sequestration, fishing and wildlife viewing opportunities, water recharge areas, water supply and purification, and aesthetic value. The practical application of economics-based ecological and human use service valuation approaches for quantifying the net change in ecosystem service value of alternative Reclamation Plans, as compared to the pre-reclamation baseline condition, are demonstrated. We call this comparative analysis approach for evaluating the change in the ecological, social, and economic services associated with potential alternatives a net ecosystem service analysis (NESA). Understanding the net change in ecosystem service value among alternative Reclamation Plans will allow stakeholders to maximize the benefits of reclaimed sites back to the public while managing cost. The ecological values of Reclamation Plans can be compared using the habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) framework by incorporating a variety of indices of biological health, such as the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI), FDEP’s method for evaluating lake ecological health. Human recreational uses can be estimated using economics based methodologies such as willingness to pay (WTP), benefits transfer approaches, etc. In addition, there are approaches for estimating the economic value (jobs, revenues, etc.) to the local communities provided by the reclaimed site. Using a landscape-level approach, we can compare and quantify the ecosystem services of a pre-mined agricultural area (e.g., citrus, cattle) to the services offered by the same area after mining and reclamation, now a mosaic of uplands, wetlands, lakes, and/or streams. More ecosystem services are typically offered by the area after mining and reclamation, as compared to the area before mining when its use was solely agricultural. Reclaimed phosphate mined lands offer valuable ecosystem services, which are similar to or can exceed those offered by natural lands. The ecosystem services offered by reclaimed phosphate minded lands should be considered during the development of reclamation plans, as well as during the permitting process. We will demonstrate through the NESA approach how these various methodologies can be integrated to compare the ecological, social, and economic values of alternative Reclamation Plans to support stakeholder decision-making. Contact Information: Kym Rouse Campbell, ENVIRON International Corporation, 10150 Highland Manor Drive, Suite 440, Tampa, FL 33610 USA, Phone: 813-628-4325, Email: [email protected]


45

EVOLUTION OF NRDA AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUATION Tom Campbell

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Houston, Texas Session This session will be held as an Interactive Panel Session whereby the panel members will provide a brief overview of their background and experience in Ecosystem Services and NRDA. The panel members will discuss the evolution of the “service-to-service” approaches within the NRDA regime; ecosystem service quantification approaches developed within the NRDA framework; and the application of these quantification approaches to overall environmental decision-making. With the development of accepted methods to quantify ecological and human use service values within the NRDA regime, the panel will discuss the relationship that these quantification approaches can have outside of the NRDA arena. This discussion is necessary as there is a concerted effort to evaluate and develop approaches to quantify ecosystem services independent of those approaches used with the NRDA framework. Are “natural resource services” as defined within NRDA equivalent to “Ecosystem Services”?. Should we consider the experience that the United States has developed over the past 20 years in ecosystem service quantification to applications outside of NRDA such as site remediation, land development, mitigation, ? Session Moderator: Joseph Nicolette, Principal, ENVIRON International Corporation The distinguished panel will consist of the following members:

1. Tom Campbell, Esq. - Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Houston, Texas (formerly Counsel with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

2. Joseph Nicolette - Chief, Social Science Division, National Park Service, Colorado Springs, Colorado

3. Brian Israel, Esq. – Partner, Arnold and Porter LLP, Washington, D.C. (formerly Counsel with the US Department of Justice)

Contact Information: Tom Campbell, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Houston, Texas, Email: [email protected]


46

PES IN CONSORTIUM TO PROMOTE RURAL SUSTAINABILITY, BRAZIL Eneida Campos1 and Lucas Sousa2

1Department of Economics, Federal University of Sao Joao del Rei, MG, Brazil 2Department of Economics, Federal University of Viçosa, MG, Brazil

This paper presents assumptions and challenges to implement a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme in agroforestry production systems through a case study in Sao Joao del Rei region, Brazil, which contains remnants of Atlantic Forest. Using field research, interviews with experts and socioeconomic data, we identified the ecosystem services and its providers, users, funds and institutions. We also calculated the value to be paid to providers using environmental valuation. Then, we propose a PES scheme in consortium involving six municipalities based on assumptions such as: similar ecosystem and socioeconomic characteristics (GDP, HDI, rural production system); geographical proximity between municipalities facilitates the exchange of information and experiences; agroforestry production technology (agriculture, pasture and forest) conserves a bundle of ES simultaneously;. the combination of different land uses in the same area increases the productivity and farmers’ income, due to the perennial character of the forest component in agroforestry system; pre-existence of financing funds, established by Brazilian Federal Legislation (Ecological Goods and Services Tax - ICMS-E, Financial Compensation (CF) and Green Grant Program); no opportunity cost because these funds came from natural resources and should be applied in environmental programs; solid government program of technical assistance and rural extension there, aiming at an efficient and wide spread of conservation technologies; need to integrate sanitation, infrastructure and environment public policies to increase the transfer of funds to pay providers (WWTP generates more ICMS-E to be applied in environmental programs); pre-existing environmental programs and actions in this region could help farmers in membership and stakeholders’ active participation; products such as dairy cattle, corn, sugar cane, coffee, eucalyptus plantations traditionally cultivated in separated in these municipalities are recommended to agroforestry production system, so it´s not necessary to change the usual land uses, here integrated in an agroforestry technology. The PES in consortium allows: greater bargaining power to capture and expand the financial funds of the program; efficiency and achievement of cooperative actions and insertions in local productive systems, aiming at change land use technology; greater political and administrative power together governments to regulate the PES mechanism; attracts labor to the rural area, with positive impact on regional rather than local, due to the PES format in consortium. Efforts to convince farmers to adopt that new profitable and environmentally correct land use technology are needed, besides their willingness to accept compensation revealed in the field research. Also, it is strongly important to ensure providers those funds (ICMS-E, FC, Green Grant) are stable and durable, once established by Brazilian Legislation, guarantying the success of the program, and convince farmers to commit themselves to continue the program after its implementation. Contact Information: Eneida Campos, Department of Economics, Federal University of Sao Joao del Rei, Praça Frei Orlando, 170, Sao Joao del Rei, 36307-352, Brazil, Phone: 55 32 3379 2547, Email: [email protected]


47

A COUNTY-LEVEL PROGRAM TO ASSESS FARMING SYSTEM ECOSYSTEM SERVICES John C. Capece1 and Edward A. Hanlon2

1Intelligentsia International Inc., Labelle, FL, USA 2IFAS Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, USA

The survival of Florida’s biodiversity and economy is dependent on finding ways to balance farm economics with proper management of water and other natural resources. Taking on this challenge of maximizing the delivery of ecosystems services from agricultural production systems is the mandate of the Hendry County Sustainable Biofuels Center. Given that sea level rise is the overarching, long-term threat to the south Florida and its ecosystems, the most valuable ecosystems services for the state of Florida are those that mitigate climate change. Biofuels are put forward as one approach to forestalling climate change, but its value as an industry in providing this and other ecosystem services is unproven. The Sustainable Biofuels Center has developed a set of programs to both document and enhance the ecosystems services values of the evolving Florida biofuels industry. The Center engages in agricultural systems evaluation, sustainability indexing and sustainability research. Methods employed for documenting ecosystems services and costs include Life Cycle Assessment, Emergy Analysis, and optimization of cost-benefit functions. Radically new farming and economic compensation systems must be created and implemented if we are to achieve a successful agricultural business model built upon balanced revenue streams from these varied services. Accordingly, the Center also supports field research and demonstration projects to document the capacity for innovative farming systems to deliver ecosystems services such as water storage. To help promote the inclusion of ecosystems services considerations in farm operations, the program includes curriculum development at both the K-12 and college level, as well as programs to bring diverse stakeholders in to collaborative visioning process. Lastly, since county governments are often the level where new industry seek entry to the landscape, the Center is also developing metrics and tools through which economic development officers can evaluate business developer requests for tax breaks, land use changes and various other permissions and incentives against the economic and ecological benefits as well as any natural resource costs. Solving the underlying problem requires that agricultural lands provide society with a more balanced set of values in the form of food, energy, and ecosystem services through proper water, nutrient, and soil management. County-level programs can help realize that vision. Contact Information: John Capece, Intelligentsia International, Inc., 132 North Lee Street, LaBelle, FL 33935, USA, Phone: 239-245-9954, Email: [email protected]


48

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FRAMEWORK: A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH ON HOW TO OPERATIONALIZE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Cristina Carollo, David Yoskowitz and Carlota Santos

Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX, USA Traditionally, ecosystem services, the ecosystem’s contributions that support, sustain, and enrich human life, have not been accounted for in the natural resource management decision-making process. To allow for the inclusion of ecosystem services into conservation decisions we developed a framework that explicitly incorporates ecosystem services into natural resource decisions, thus strengthening the resulting management process by making it more complete and defensible. The framework was originally developed at the “Integrating ecosystem services into restoration decisions for the Gulf of Mexico” workshop, held at the Harte Research Institute at Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, TX, January 24-26, 2012. At the workshop, regional and national experts began exploring a more consistent process to operationalize ecosystem services and, specifically, to integrate ecosystem services into restoration decisions at all levels (local, state, regional), particularly in the coastal environment. Experts discussed examples of existing projects in which bio-economic information was used to support the decision making process; potential changes in management scenarios due to the inclusions of ecosystem services and their values in restoration-specific decisions; trade-offs and unintended consequences; and transferability issues. The outcomes of the workshop directly relate to Gulf of Mexico issues but there are components, such as the framework, that are readily transferable to other areas. The developed framework is applicable not only to habitat restoration, but also to species protection, conservation, and planning. It is is designed for a broad audience such as resource managers, decision makers, and practitioners. It is general enough to be applied by state, federal, local governments, NGO’s, and the private sector. It can also be used at different spatial scales. The framework, a step-by-step approach on how to operationalize ecosystem services, is divided into 14 steps organized in three main phases: identification, analysis, and implementation and evaluation. Contact Information: Cristina Carollo, Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5869, Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA, Phone: 361-825-2087, Email: [email protected]


49

MPAS ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT IN WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN SEA: THE CASE OF THE NATIONAL PARK OF TAZA Said C. Chakour1 and A. Chaker2

1University of Jijel, Algeria, Associate researcher IRD, France 2PhD student, University of Sétif, Algeria

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the MPAs ecosystem services and their impacts on local development in western Mediterranean Sea. MPAs are often viewed by local actors as a restriction tool that promotes conservation and undermines the economic and social development. In addition to the difficulty of estimating the value of ecosystem services generated by Protected Areas and while most scientists of nature and life are convinced by the profits that should emanate from ecosystems services, it remains difficult to convince local stakeholders, especially the users of the territories about the importance of ecological services which can result from a rational protection. Our analysis is based on the "Costs-Benefits Analysis" method. The case study has served to highlight the contribution of the MPA of Taza to the local development, especially on fishing and tourism activities. Keywords: Marine Protected Areas, Ecosystem Services, conservation, local development, fisheries, tourism, Costs Benefits Analysis, western Mediterranean Sea. Contact Information: Said Chaouki Chakour , Faculty of economy, University of Jijel, Algeria, BP 98 Ouled Aissi, Jijel, Algeria CP 18000, Phone : 213 (0) 662829230, Email: [email protected]


50

A REVIEW OF 2010 STATE FOREST ACTION PLANS FOCUSED ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND MARKETS Chinling Chen

State and Private Forestry, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA June 2010 marked the completion of Statewide Forest Resource Assessments and Strategies for each State and Territory in the U.S. These documents present an opportunity to prioritize national, regional, and state forest management activities. The State Assessments provide an analysis of forest conditions and trends in the States and delineate priority rural and urban forest landscape areas while the Resource Strategies provide long-term plans for investing resources to where those resources most effectively stimulate or leverage desired action and engage multiple partners. It is widely recognized that to keep forest as forest, we need to not only promote traditional markets, strengthen traditional markets that are at-risk, develop new products for traditional markets, but also promote emerging markets for ecosystem services and nontraditional forest resources. However, different states face various challenges and opportunities in addressing ecosystem markets issues. This report aims to summarize the state’s perspective on ecosystem services and related emerging markets. Furthermore, the report will analyze state goals and strategies toward finding new ways for forest conservation. It will also feature successful stories and initiatives that states have been taken. This analysis could help identify key opportunities to address needs to integrate ecosystem services approach into decision making and promote emerging markets. Finally, this effort will provide support for future development of iterations of the State Forest Action Plans. Contact Information: Chinling Chen, Cooperative Forestry, State and Private Forestry, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20250, USA, Phone: 202-205-1274, Email: [email protected]


51

VALUING HEALTH BENEFITS AND STEWARDSHIP IN URBAN PARKS David Batker, Zachary Christin and Jennifer Harrison-Cox

Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA, USA According to the United Nations Population Division, 70% of the world’s population will live within towns and cities by 2030. People in large cities will have smaller living quarters and generally less access to open space and nature. As more people live in cities, the importance and value of urban parks will increase in the 21st century. Urban parks house green infrastructure that provides a suite of ecosystem services, including flood protection, biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water quality. When these lands are highly prioritized and adequate steps are taken to ensure ecological sustainability and biodiversity, the links between parkland and economic prosperity will become evident in the forms of improved ecosystem services, increased social capital, improved health and education, a stronger local economy and a higher quality of life for residents across many decades. In light of recent international economic downturns and the governmental budget reductions, justification for continued park funding is now more important than ever. In 2011, Earth Economics partnered with the Metro Parks Tacoma to provide an analysis of the ecosystem service, health and social values of the 70 parks in Tacoma, Washington State (USA). With an emphasis on the importance of restoration in the parks, the study focused on the increased value of removing invasive species and the rehabilitation of the park's natural vegetation. This research included estimations of the health benefits from physical activity and air purification in urban parks along with the value of the community contribution to parks and the unique park education programs. In total, Tacoma parks were found to provide between $21.8 and $32.2 million in benefits each year. Contact Information: Zachary Christin, Research Analyst, Earth Economics, 107 N. Tacoma Ave, Tacoma, WA 98403, Phone: 253-539-4801, Email: [email protected]


52

IMPROVING RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF AQUATIC RESOURCES BY TAKING A LANDSCAPE AND WATERSHED APPROACH Jae Chung

US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA, USA Characterizing landscape and watershed attributes of aquatic resources facilitates effective decision-making for restoration of wetland and stream functions and services. Because landscape position and condition influence the types of ecological processes, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services, understanding the larger landscape context is important for ecosystem restoration planning. Proximity and connectivity to natural landscapes and other aquatic resources promotes the success of aquatic ecosystem restoration. Proximity to landscape disturbances and uncorrectable impairments serve as constraints to restoration of specific aquatic resource ecosystem services. Knowledge of landscape and watershed attributes should influence restoration site selection and inform restoration objectives and expectations. To facilitate fully-informed decision-making for restoration of ecosystem services, the Corps is developing on-line graphical and tabular characterizations of watersheds in the continental United States. Corps staff would be able to obtain estimates of the amount of existing conservation open space and natural land cover, impervious cover, agricultural land uses, sources of pollution, extent of wetland and stream degradation, and other attributes for a selected geographic area. These data would inform decisions-makers of the opportunities and constraints from a landscape level. In turn, this baseline characterization when combined with hydrogeomorphic class of wetlands should inform the baseline ecosystem services of the aquatic resources in a geographic area. Contact Information: Jae Chung, USACE - Institute for Water Resources, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315, Phone: 703-428-6149, Email: [email protected]


53

EVALUATING SOIL PHOSPHORUS RETENTION AND RELEASE POTENTIAL ON LANDS RECEIVING PAYMENT FOR ENVIRNOMENTAL SERVICES. M. Clark1, P. Bohlen2, S. Shukla3, S. Lynch4, L. Shabman5, H. Swain6 and E. Boughton7

1Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA 2Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL USA 3Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida, Immokalee, FL USA 4Agricultural - Markets Unit, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC USA 5Resources for the Future, Washington, DC USA 6Archbold Biological Station, Venus FL USA 7MacArthur Agro-Ecology Research Center, Lake Placid, FL USA

The Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project (FRESP) was established as a pilot investigation to evaluate the feasibility of paying ranchers for environmental services provided on their lands. Two principal services were identified as part of the project: water storage and phosphorus (P) storage. Initially the project focus was on P storage as the “driver” or primary service for which a rancher would be compensated. However, in most instances water storage instead of P storage was identified as the driver service due to buyer interest and the somewhat easier means by which a water storage service could be quantified. Although P was no longer the primary driver service in most cases, there was still interest in evaluating the potential P storage in conjunction with water storage as well as a need to assure the buyer that any payment for the service of water storage was not going to increase the potential release of P to downstream water bodies. As a result of this concern, a means to evaluate a site’s potential to release or retain P in response to increased flooding was necessary. The principal P reservoir in the landscape is in the soil, and although the vast majority of P in the soil may not be immediately available, measuring certain soil parameters should provide a prediction of the likelihood of soil P at a particular site to be released. Several indices of soil P retention and release potential were investigated as a means to assess those ranchlands that would undergo increased flooding as part of the FRESP investigation. A total of five soil indices were investigated as part of the study; Water Soluble Phosphorus (WSP), Total Phosphorus (TP), Mehlich-1 Extractible Phosphorus (M-1P), Equilibrium Phosphorus Concentration (EPC) and Soil Phosphorus Sorption Capacity(SPSC). Soils were collected from existing wetlands and adjacent uplands that would become flooded in response to increased water storage on eight FRESP project sites. Results from each soil test could be interpreted directly as having a relative increased or decreased potential to retain or release P. However, soil tests were also compared to discharge water quality measurements collected from each FRESP project site to determine which test would provide the best prediction of P release in response to increased flooding. Findings suggest that TP and SPSC may provide the best prediction of soil P dynamics in areas of increased flooding. In addition, by evaluating soil test results from individual sampling locations and comparing them to other samples within the watershed, phosphorus “hot spots” can be identified and managed specifically to mitigate for any increase in potential P release. Contact Information: Mark Clark, Soil & Water Science Department, University of Florida, PO Box 110510, Gainesville, FL 32611-0510, USA, Phone: 352-392-1804 ex 319, Email: [email protected]


54

FEASIBILITY RESULTS FOR THE CONSERVATION INVESTMENT NOTE PROGRAM Chris Larson1, Patrick Coady2, James R. Remuzzi3 and Logan Yonavjak4

1New Island Capital Management, San Francisco, CA, USA 2Coady Diemar Partners, Washington, DC, USA 3Sustainable Solutions, LLC; Nature Returns, L3C, Shepherdstown, WV 4Conservation Private Capital Group, Washington, DC, USA

Purpose: To summarize the results of a feasibility study for a new investment product for land conservation in the US; a publicly offered Conservation Investment Note (CIN). With funding from the California-based Resources Legacy Fund Foundation the Conservation Private Capital Group (CPCG) undertook a comprehensive feasibility study to assess demand for the Conservation Investment Note program. Scope: The CPCG interviewed potential conservation borrowers about their appetite for borrowing money, candidate investors, and financial supporters to provide start up capital. CPCG also conducted detailed financial analysis and modeling. Methods: In connection with the demand portion of the feasibility study, CPCG interviewed fifty land trusts and eleven conservation intermediary organizations and revolving loan funds by email and over the phone. The land trusts were of diverse sizes, geographies, and capacities. The interviews addressed borrowing activity and history, interest in future borrowing, and impediments to borrowing. CPCG interviewed fifteen retail or social investors and fifteen potential funders. All of the retail and social impact investors interviewed were sent a description of the CIN financial model and then interviewed in person or over the phone. All of the investors interviewed had connections with or, an interest in, land conservation. CPCG also interviewed fifteen candidate foundations and individual funders in person, by phone or email. Each interview focused on funding requirements to support the launch of the CIN program, early operations, the LLR, and portfolio investment as senior note holders. Conclusions: CPCG found substantial demand from qualified borrowers. Both the land trusts and conservation intermediary organizations and revolving loan funds commented on current impediments to land trust borrowing. Of particular interest were longer maturities, timely underwriting and simple documentation, in addition to having national reach for the program enabled loans in areas not served by other financing options. All of the candidate foundations and individual funders expressed preliminary interest; two significant foundations had a specific initial interest in supporting the start up funding needs. Recommendations: The feasibility study recommended proceeding to the implementation phase. The CIN idea could open new and significant sources of capital for land conservation across the United States. Contact Information: Patrick Coady, Senior Advisor, Coady Diemar Partners, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: 202-422-8123, [email protected]


55

PES – MARKET SIZE: WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Patrick Coady

Coady Diemar Partners, Washington, DC, USA Purpose: To quantify the estimated “market size” for the major ecosystem markets: wetlands and stream restoration, species, nutrient trading, carbon and emerging markets. Scope: Market size is critical to attacting private capital as well as the nature of the projects. Methods: Market information for ecosystem services has been difficult to obtain and it is usually out of date. Research of reports, studies, relevant websites as well as interviews will be compiled to obtain an order of magnitude estimate. Conclusions: Give the resulting order of magnitude that emerges what does imply for private investors. Recommendations: Greater attention to collecting market information on a systematic basis will aid in attracting private capital. Contact Information: Patrick Coady, Senior Advisor, Coady Diemar Partners, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: 202-422-8123, [email protected]


56

GETTING ECOSYSTEM MARKETS TO SCALE: IS IT POSSIBLE? Bobby Cochran

Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, USA Ecosystem markets have been moving along slowly for a long time. The first markets showed up in the 1970s and 1980s. There are several great examples of local successes for water and biodiversity markets. Will these ever scale up into something that provides significant conservation, and becomes a standard policy tool? We think it is possible, but there are some significant challenges. This presentation will provide an overview of some of those challenges illustrated by stories from Pacific Northwest. Some of the challenges include:

• Policy implementation for the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act are decentralized to states, and often even to district offices within states. This creates inconsistent application of preferences and rules around market design and operations;

• Watersheds and states are unique, but there are a lot of commonalities across market design elements. It may be that only 10-20% of a market design needs to be adjusted to move from Washington to Montana, but how do we get over the strong feelings of local uniqueness;

• Many areas are missing the key capacities and financing to make markets work at scale; and

• There is a tension between theoretically wanting standardization while still wanting to maintain the flexibility of individual program control.

Contact Information: Bobby Cochran, Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, 97123, Phone: 503-681-5112, Email: [email protected]


57

HOW CAN YOU KNOW YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR? Bobby Cochran and Carrie Sanneman

Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, USA

Payments for watershed services make intuitive sense. Why wouldn’t Lima pay for protecting its drinking water source? But how do you know what those protections are worth, and how much do you invest in knowing exactly what you get for your money? This presentation will cover some of these tensions involved in accounting for the provision of watershed payments—taking lessons learned from the Willamette Partnership’s efforts in the Pacific Northwest and applying them to an international context. The presentation will discuss the level of scientific rigor needed, challenges with verifying landowner practices in different cultural and legal settings, and balancing the need of multiple stakeholders. Contact Information: Bobby Cochran, Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, 97123, Phone: 503-681-5112, Email: [email protected]


58

HOW TO BUILD AND OPERATE A WATER QUALITY TRADING PROGRAM— A NEW NATIONAL REFERENCE Bobby Cochran1, Nicole Robinson Maness1, Brian Kittler2, Eric Sprague2, Evan Branosky3 and Mindy Selman3

1Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, USA 2 Pinchot Institute for Conservation, Washington, DC, USA 3 World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA

With funding from the USDA Office of Environmental Markets, Willamette Partnership, Pinchot Institute, and World Resources Institute just released a how-to reference on building point-nonpoint water quality trading programs. The Reference includes best practices drawn from trading programs across the country to help watershed groups explore trading feasibility, convene stakeholders, design a great program, and successfully mange water quality trades. The Reference includes an overview of water quality trading, a step-by-step reference for building and operating a trading program, case studies of programs, and a set of recommendations for how federal agencies and others can support the next iteration of water quality trading. Over decades of water quality trading, there have been lessons learned and challenges. This report shares those in a package that should help new programs get off the ground faster and more successfully. The Reference also wrestles with the balance of customizing programs to local conditions while trying to encourage some national consistency. This presentation will roll out the Reference, summarizing some of its key recommendations, findings, and paths forward, with particular focus on the work being carried out by the Willamette Partnership on the Pacific North West. Contact Information: Bobby Cochran, Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, 97123, Phone: 503-681-5112, Email: [email protected]


59

COASTAL SOLVES: ADAPTING A TERRESTRIAL-BASED GIS TOOL FOR THE NON-MONETARY, SPATIAL EVALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN A COASTAL ENVIRONMENT Alisa W. Coffin1, Zachary D.Cole2, Robert A. Swett3 and Benson C. Sherrouse4

1U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO, USA 2Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 3Florida Sea Grant, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 4United States Geological Survey, Baltimore, MD, USA

Coastal environments experience extraordinary ecological pressures due to the confluence of expanding development, rich coastal resources and climate change. The Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) GIS tool was developed to map and evaluate social values of ecosystem services in terrestrial environments (Sherrouse et al., 2010; solves.cr.usgs.gov). Given the potential of SolVES for informing planning processes with analytic assessments of social values, our challenge was to revise SolVES for use in a coastal environment, where the analysis of social values of ecosystem services is mostly lacking We chose Sarasota Bay, Florida, to test the adaptation of this tool for a coastal setting. Sarasota Bay is a popular destination for anglers, beach-goers, and recreational boaters. The Sarasota Bay watershed also hosts urban areas with over 600,000 inhabitants. SolVES makes use of a suite of environmental base layers in conjunction with locational data about user preferences and attitudes to generate models describing the relationship between values and landscape. These models can be used to predict values for areas where no survey data exist, i.e. transfer values. The values typology of SolVES was revised based on the input from an e-Delphi method, whereby an expert panel was polled to develop values categories for use in this coastal application. Following this step, an online survey was developed soliciting responses to questions about coastal use and, more importantly, the locations of uses and high-value places. To modify SolVES, we incorporated base layers pertinent to the coast and calculated a suite of “seascape” models particular to coastal environments. We were then able to transfer social values of ecosystem services from information-rich locations to locations within the study area lacking social values data. The resulting maps showed areas of converging and diverging values between subgroups of coastal users and have potential to provide crucial information for sustainable coastal planning. Contact Information: Alisa W. Coffin, U.S. Geological Survey, 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA, Phone: 970-226-9480, Email: [email protected]


60

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM Richard A. Cole

Institute for Water Resources, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA, USA

The purpose of this presentation is to review the historic highlights of environmental- and ecosystem-service research and development (R & D) funded by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program (Corps). The Corps has both civil works development and regulatory authority. Its major R & D arm is the Engineer Research and Development Center, or ERDC (formerly the Waterways Experiment Station or WES). Other R & D is funded through its Institute for Water Resources (IWR). For this presentation, ecosystem services are defined as humanly valued ecosystem functions that originate in self-regulating attributes of ecosystems. Natural environmental services include ecosystem services and additional services that originate solely from physical process. These “natural” services differ from the services provided by human development and protection of the environment. Corps R & D of water resources development services began decades before the environmental movement and is associated with economic cost-benefit analysis. Natural environmental services began to be researched by the Corps following passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 and the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972. In NEPA, Congress implicitly elevated the national importance of present and future environmental services by recognizing the “critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man”. The Corps has regulatory authority under Section 404 of the CWA, which provided examples of wetland protection needs that were clearly environmental services (e.g. water supply and recreation). The environmental-impact mitigation needs identified in regulations authorized by the two laws stimulated IWR research on wetland values and evaluation methods during the late 1970s. WES completed early development of the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) in 1987 and the Hydrogeomorphic Method (HGM) in 1995 to facilitate evaluation based on valued wetland functions. IWR became a leader in conceptualizing concepts of wetland mitigation banking based on valued functions in the early 1990s. In 1986, a Corps authority to improve environmental quality at existing Corps projects created a new need for research on the equivalent of environmental service improvement. IWR completed numerous reports of relevance to environmental service evaluation during the 1990s, one of which explicitly addressed Linkages between Environmental Outputs and Human Services. Other reports summarized existing methods for determining environmental resource significance, valuing environmental benefits, assessing risks and uncertainties, and reviewing and monitoring Corps environmental improvement projects. In 1996, the Corps was authorized to improve environmental quality of public interest using aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection measures. This stimulated continuing research, managed largely through ERDC, on what constitutes ecosystem service restoration and benefits measurement and methods for managing risks and uncertainties. Ecosystem services were directly addressed in at least one IWR report in 2003. Contemporary ecosystem services R & D is described in later presentations. Contact Information: Richard Cole, USACE Institute for Water Resources, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building s, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868. Phone: 703-428-7291, Email: [email protected]


61

21ST CENTURY CONSERVATION AND THE ROLE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Sally Collins

Rights and Resources Initiative, Lyons, CO, USA Taking stock of the progress of ecosystem services valuation and of environmental markets is essential to understanding the critical role played and key gaps moving forward. If a collective assessment were made of all of the changes transforming the field of ecosystem services over the past decade, the progress would be astounding. From Forest Trend’s original Katoomba meeting 12 years ago to the publication of Gretchen Daily’s New Economy of Nature and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment seven years ago, a lot has changed and changed remarkably fast. This transformation is moving almost as fast as the wildfires raging in Colorado in the summer of 2012; with equal speed, this new thinking is spreading swiftly to clear the way for some new, fresh approaches to conservation. Valuing nature, ecosystem services, and natural infrastructure, together with the idea of conserving these services for people, epitomizes the definition of a paradigm shift in conservation. The recent Rio+20 Conference reinforced the idea that conservation in the 21st Century will have to be different. Glenn Prickett (The Nature Conservancy) so eloquently stated this to columnist Thomas Friedman in a June 2, 2012 NYT’s piece: We spent the 20th Century protecting nature from people and we will spend the 21st Century protecting nature for people. Markers of this change are numerous, from a snapshot of the expansion of ecosystem services on the internet to the number of colleges offering classes in the subject. Early concerns over monetizing nature are giving way to earnest and successful efforts to incorporate natural value into everything from business sustainability decisions to federal planning. Results are starting to be felt:

• Astounding and ironic partnerships are forming across societal sectors, across government “silos” and within universities.

• New markets are being designed and executed, new mechanisms put in place to assure performance, and a new approach to decision-making in businesses and government is shaping how money and resources are deployed.

• A new vocabulary is emerging, blending the economic world with the environmental disciplines.

• Academic degrees are being offered that blend business, biology, and sociology, economics and sustainability.

• New offices, agencies, organizations, and institutions are emerging. A summary of progress will be provided in this presentation, along with recommendations of critical gaps, opportunities, next steps, and a challenge to push for more institutional reforms. Contact Information: Sally D Collins, Consultant, Former Director of the USDA Office of Environmental Markets, PO Box 1919, Lyons, CO, USA, Phone: 202-841-8467, Email: [email protected]


62

WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD: WHAT IS NEEDED TO SUSTAINABLY MANAGE REACTIVE NITROGEN IN THE UNITED STATES? Jana Compton1, Otto Doering2, James Galloway3, Stephen Jordan4, William Moomaw5, Anne Rea6, Daniel Sobota7 and Thomas Theis8

1National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, USA 2Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN, USA 3Environmental Sciences Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA 4US Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL, USA 5The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA 6National Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA 7National Research Council based at US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, USA 8Institute for Environmental Science and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Reactive nitrogen (N) is essential for food, fuel and fiber production of a growing human population. Intensification of reactive N (defined as any N compound other than N2) release to the environment, however, has resulted in important and mounting impacts on human health and essential ecosystem services such as the provision of clean air and water, recreation, fisheries, climate and UV regulation, aesthetics and biodiversity. In 2011, the EPA Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) Integrated Nitrogen Committee released the report “Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An Analysis of Inputs, Flows, Consequences, and Management Options.” The SAB made several research and management recommendations based on their analysis, indicating that the adoption of their recommendations could decrease the amount of reactive N inputs to atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic systems in the United States by 25% as an initial step to address the issues of excess N. In this presentation, we link flows of reactive N through the N cascade to the relevant local, state, and federal agencies with programs in place to manage reactive N. Generation of air quality standards and water quality criteria for reactive N is under EPA’s purview, but the responsibilities for management of many sources and fluxes of N are less clear. Agricultural N inputs, the largest source of N to the national landscape, are managed largely though volunteer USDA and local outreach programs that focus on reducing reactive N losses from the crop-soil system. Responsibility for monitoring and managing N losses to the environment falls to a collection of government agencies (e.g., USDA, USGS, NOAA, EPA, states, tribes and municipalities) and non-governmental organizations (e.g., watershed councils and non-profit foundations). However, communication among these entities can be uneven and the spatial and temporal scales of reporting among groups are usually not consistent. Additionally, we note some sources and forms of reactive N can have greater effects on human health and ecosystem functions than do others, and this concept should be expanded to better support sustainable management. Using multiple metrics to establish criteria for the most effective points of intervention is critical for successful nitrogen management. Lastly, we discuss the role that individual food, material and energy consumption choices can play in reducing per capita and national N use. Effective communication with the public about the costs of excess reactive N is critically important because these changes cannot happen without strong public support. Creative approaches will be needed to determine economically efficient, socially acceptable, and environmentally friendly ways to achieve reductions sufficient to balance the benefits and risks of N in the United States. Contact Information: Jana Compton, US Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division, 200 SW 35th St.,Corvallis, OR 97333; Phone 541-754-4620; Email: [email protected]


63

CHALLENGES FOR EVALUATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS Sarah Connick

Corporate Health, Environment and Safety Department, Chevron Services Company, San Ramon, CA USA With the widespread increase in work around the concept of ecosystem services in academic, governmental and nongovernmental settings, a variety of companies are seeking to understand and anticipate how the concepts may be applied to enhance or possibly supplant existing business processes. This talk will share ideas regarding the application of ecosystem services concepts in the corporate setting, and address challenges facing corporate practitioners, such as: (1) At what spatial and temporal scale(s) can ecosystem service tools be applied meaningfully? (2) Who are the beneficiaries and what is it they value? (3) What services should be focused on? (3) What are the consequences of focusing on specific services? (4) How does an ecosystem services perspective build on existing practice? Contact Information: Sarah Connick, Health, Environment and Safety Department, Chevron Services Company, 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road, Room K2109, San Ramon, CA 94583, USA, Phone: 925-842-9731, Email: [email protected]


64

(RE)COUNTING NATURE’S BENEFITS Kyle Copas

NatureServe | LandScope America, Arlington, VA, USA NatureServe is working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to expand content about ecosystem services on LandScope America (www.landscope.org), an online conservation guide co-developed with National Geographic. The goal of this collaboration is to share selected content from EPA’s forthcoming National Atlas for Sustainability, a mapping application that allows users to view and analyze multiple ecosystem services. An initiative of EPA’s Healthy and Sustainable Communities Research program, the Atlas is intended to share the program’s transdisciplinary research and enable decision-makers at all levels of governance to proactively conserve ecosystem services. Our approach throughout this collaboration is for LandScope to translate and interpret the Atlas’s sophisticated and highly technical material to make it accessible for audiences—land trust practitioners, agency executive, and citizens, for example—not accustomed to using spatial data on ecosystem services. This approach will also apply to the additional nonspatial editorial content on the theme currently under development. Upon publication of the material this fall, we will conduct user review and testing and use this presentation to share initial conclusions and recommendations. Contact Information: Kyle Copas, NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Fl., Arlington, VA 22203, USA, Phone: 703-908-1895, Email: [email protected]


65

SURVEY PROTOCOLS IN FOREST ECOSYSTEM SERVICES COST ASSESSMENT FROM THE SUPPLY SIDE –FOREST OWNER STORYLINES Lambini Cosmas Kombat

Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research, Bayreuth, Germany Gathering economic data in forest ecosystem services through surveys could be very challenging taking into account complexities of forest nature and ecosystem services based on the difficulties in what indicators to measure, access to cost data, spatial issues and what specific method to apply in the assessment. This paper attempts to assess costs of provision from the direct and indirect costs to integrated cost assessments of the forest owner joint production of forest externalities, taking into account trans-boundary spill-over effects and spatial issues. The paper attempt to provide a practical guideline tool in the design of forest surveys for cost assessment of forest ecosystem services from the supply side, using forest owner perspective. The protocol attempts to answer survey methodological questions to gathering relevant data for the the cost estimation of forest owners in a qualitative and quantitative field survey in European Forest Regions. The paper outlines research processes and steps before and after the survey. They are categorised into the planning phase, designing phase, the implementation phase, data collection phase and concludes with some general proposed principles in developing a forest owner survey and interview guide for implementation in the context of cost of provision of forest externalities. The paper tries to set up a framework for surveys on cost assessment and challenges involved in the implementation of the survey processes. Contact Information: Lambini Cosmas Kombat, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth Center for Ecology and Environmental Research (BAYCEER), Bayreuth, Germany, Phone: +4917677167290, Fax: +49921552564, Email: [email protected]


66

OVERVIEW OF NATURAL RESOURCE MARKETS Don Coursey

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA The last two decades have witnessed the application of economic markets to address problems of environmental policy over a range of areas including the removal of lead from gasoline, the reduction of acid rain producing sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere and the limiting of carbon dioxide emissions. Markets have also been successfully utilized outside of the environmental policy area to address policy problems made complex by the laws of physics such as, the trading of electricity in a network and the combinatoric auction used to allocate scarce airport landing and take-off slots. However, during this same period, little attention has been paid in the application of markets to a most fundamental and important commodity, water. This presentation explores the necessary components required to build a fully coupled economic and hydrological/engineering institution that will allow for the emergence of a genuine leasing market for water. Contact Information: Don Coursey, University of Chicago, 1155 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, Phone: 773-834-0789, Email: [email protected]


67

CREDIT-BASED PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Matthew Cranford and Susana Mourato

Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom The most prolific conceptualisation of PES promoted direct payments as the most efficient form of incentivising good environmental behaviour, but both that PES conceptualisation and the acceptance of direct payments as always being the best option have recently been questioned. Depending on the specific market and social conditions, indirect PES may be preferred. Improving access to affordable capital is one such form of indirect PES that is particularly relevant for PES in developing countries. Capital constraints have, for example, been cited as a constraint on the uptake of agroforestry and the scaling-up of forest carbon supply. The main issue with such an approach is how to include conditionality. There are very few examples, but one such mechanism is credit-based PES (CB-PES), where the level of loan repayments can be lowered as an environmental condition is met. A choice experiment was carried out in Northern Ecuador to explore the dynamics of CB-PES, illuminate lessons for its implementation, and comment on its appropriateness as an incentive. CB-PES was found to be a promising incentive in this case. In particular, it was found that of the amount of debt repayment forgiven if the condition was met, only a small portion of it could be considered compensation for meeting the condition. The remainder would be support for overcoming the market imperfection of credit constraints. CB-PES fits multiple criteria recently noted in the PES literature as desirable qualities of an incentive, but in particular, it would fit the description of a supportive, rather than coercive incentive noted in behavioural literature as a key requirement of a well-designed incentive. Contact Information: Matthew Cranford, Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. Phone: +44 (0)20 7955 7718, Email: [email protected]


68

INCENTIVE CHOICE AND JOINT LIABILITY IN PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Matthew Cranford and Susana Mourato

Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom Many payments for ecosystem services (PES) are made to providers of ecosystem services (ES) that live in rural, remote and/or hard-to-reach places that are not well integrated into goods markets (i.e. not environmental markets). Potential ES providers living in such areas often rely strongly on community institutions and social capital. National and subnational PES programs across Latin America demonstrate this well. For example, Ecuador’s Sociobosque works across the country’s coast, mountains and jungle; Mexico’s CONAFOR provides incentives to conserve a variety of forest types, including natural (and often remote) forests and community-owned forests; and many local or decentralized payments for watershed services across Latin America pay land users that live upstream, in mountain communities scattered across difficult terrain. Implementing PES in these contexts raises many questions about how best to deliver such incentives. In Colombia, Chingaza National Park is where the majority of Bogotá’s water resources originate. The terrain is mountainous and the communities living around the park are only accessible after hours of driving on difficult dirt tracks. Agua Somos is a water fund currently being capitalized by government, NGOs, utilities, IGOs and the private sector, to provide sustainable financing to ensure the provision of watershed services in Chingaza and other key protected areas around Bogotá. As it develops, the water fund is considering how providing incentives (i.e. PES) to land users will form part of its strategy to ensure a sustained water supply to Colombia’s capital and provide many other co-benefits of good land management practices (e.g. biodiversity conservation). We carried out a choice experiment in the communities living around Chingaza to ask potential ES providers what types of incentives they would prefer under a PES scheme. We focused on two key questions raised by implementing PES in the remote and difficult terrain of the Colombian Andes, in communities with a heritage of common land and high social capital. First, is it best to provide cash incentives: is that what locals want and would it provide the greatest benefit to them? Second, with monitoring difficult and social capital high, is it best to provide incentives to an individual household alone or make a group of households jointly responsible for deliverying ES? These questions are not only important for their economic implications, but they are also relevant to the motivational aspects of incentives. Behavioural studies have demonstrated effects of incentive design that are highly relevant to the contexts in which PES are implemented throughout Latin America. The results of our choice experiment are placed in the context of the PES and behavioural sciences literatures and demonstrate key dynamics that help inform PES design in the Andes and elsewhere. Contact Information: Matthew Cranford, Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. Phone: +44 (0)20 7955 7718, Email: [email protected]


69

CHANGES IN HUMAN WELL-BEING & ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM RESTORATION Robert L. Crimian

Master of Science in Environmental Studies Program, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA The purpose of this study is to determine the changes in ecosystem services from the restoration of Noisette Creek saltmarsh in North Charleston, South Carolina and explore the impacts on human well-being as well as the perceptions of restoration benefits in nearby communities. Well-being in this study is defined as a state of health or sufficiency in environmental, social, and economic aspects of life. Ecosystem services in this study are defined as human benefits from resources and processes that are supplied by natural ecosystems. North Charleston, and the surrounding Noisette Creek community, has historically served as an industrial hub for the entire Charleston region. Some of the areas along the creek are populated by low-income residents, so the impacts of such heavy industrialization give rise to not only environmental degradation but environmental justice issues. The socio-economic conditions of local people and their relationship with natural resources, perception of natural resource management, and attitudes about conservation are crucial to consider when planning and conducting restoration or conservation of natural resources. Three focus groups were conducted to determine community perceptions of restoration and the role of Noisette Creek within the community. The Q-method was then used during ten interviews to statistically determine individual perceptions of restoration and how each individual values Noisette Creek. Secondary data from sources like Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics is being collected to create social, economic, and health indicators to assign current levels of well-being in the study area. The focus group and interview data will be analyzed to determine how communities and individuals perceive the present condition and the future condition of Noisette Creek. Together with the socioeconomic indicators, this information can be used to evaluate current levels of well-being in North Charleston and assess whether the restoration of Noisette Creek saltmarsh will benefit the creek’s ecosystem services and human well-being. Additionally, this information will be used to support future restoration planning along Noisette Creek. It will also be used to educate the surrounding communities about ecosystem services and how they contribute to human well-being. Contact Information: Robert L. Crimian, 351 Huger St., Charleston, SC, 29403, Phone: 267-280-3344, Email: [email protected]


70

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PAYMENTS REQUIRED TO PROMOTE INCREASED LONGLEAF PINE HABITAT ON PRIVATE LANDS IN NORTH CAROLINA FOR OFF-BASE RCW MITIGATION Viola Glenn1, Frederick Cubbage1 and Ron Myers2

1Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA 2North Carolina Forest Service, Raleigh, NC, USA

Military bases are central to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) in North Carolina. A key strategy proposed for meeting the on base requirements of ESA is the development of economic incentives to encourage cooperative conservation of RCW habitat between federal military and nonindustrial private agricultural and forest landowners (NIPAFs). Longleaf pine management regimes were analyzed for three primary goals that included (1) timber maximization, (2) multiple products, and (3) ecological services focused on developing RCW habitat. Capital budgeting models for land management options consistent with RCW habitat requirements were analyzed and compared with traditional pine management options and agricultural alternatives, using discounted cash flow measures of net present value (NPV) and soil expectation value (SEV) as criteria at a 4% discount rate. The difference between the base pine management options and the longleaf pine for ecosystem alternative provided a baseline opportunity cost for conversion to RCW habitat. Longleaf pine managed for ecosystem services had lower financial returns than conventional loblolly pine and only yielded a positive NPV with the addition of moderate pine straw revenues. Depending on the site quality and management regime, the opportunity costs of conversion of loblolly pine to longleaf pine managed for ecosystem services ranged from $485 to $698 per acre with no pine straw income to $56 to $255 per acre with moderate income from pine straw. These results were highly sensitive to changes in both stumpage price and cost share rate. The opportunity cost associated with transitioning average agriculture sites to longleaf ranged from $1,612 to $4,655 per acre dependent on the crop, indicating that any future incentives for habitat creating programs should focus on lands that favor forestry or on poor agriculture lands. These alternative pine and crop opportunity cost estimates could be used as a basis to support conservation payments to provide an economic incentive for NIPAFs to manage for RCW habitat. The 10 year annual conservation payment that would be required to make longleaf pine financial returns equal to loblolly pine ranged from $58 to $83 per acre per year with no pine straw income and $7 to $30 per acre per year with moderate income from pine straw. These conservation payment rates are reasonable, and suggest payments for ecosystem services offer potential to establish longleaf pine ecosystems and create additional RCW habitat on nonindustrial private agriculture and forest lands. Other possible RCW ecosystem payments that could be investigated could include paying much of the costs for longleaf stand establishment, or paying landowners to extend the harvest of old loblolly pine or longleaf stands for up to 30 years beyond their typical sawtimber rotations. Contact Information: Fred Cubbage, Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA , Phone: 919-515-789, Email: [email protected]


71

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION Cathy Cullinane Thomas1, Kristin Skrabis2, William Gascoigne1 and Lynne Koontz1

1Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO, USA 2 Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC, USA

Federal investment in ecosystem restoration and monitoring protect federal trusts, ensure public health and safety, and preserve and enhance essential ecosystem services. Given constrained budgets and competing demands for investment, there is a need to better understand the connection between restoring the health and productivity of ecosystems, and the resulting economic benefits to local communities. As part of the FY 2011 Department of the Interior’s Economic Contributions report, we conducted nine case studies that highlight the economic impacts of a wide range of restoration projects supported by Interior. Employment impacts were measured for each of the case study projects using the IMPLAN input-output software and data system for estimating the effects resulting from the interdependencies and interactions of economic sectors and consumers. These impacts include jobs and labor income supported by the actual restoration work. To estimate the economic impacts of the case-study projects, cost data provided by project managers and contractors were used to determine the mix of products and services required to accomplish each project. Local regional impacts were estimated by constructing unique production functions in IMPLAN for each case study. Direct impacts were estimated using employment figures, labor expenditures, and non-labor expenditures provided by contractors. Reported impacts reflect restoration expenditures external to Interior; the impacts did not include job and labor income impacts supported directly by departmental employees. Restored ecosystems are expected to benefit local communities beyond the completion of a restoration project. Thus, the case-study projects will create additional future jobs and non-market benefits by providing increased opportunities for tourism, improving and sustaining fisheries and wildlife habitat, and reducing risk from flooding and other natural disasters. These future benefits were not accounted for in this analysis. The case studies illustrate the substantial economic benefits that restoration projects provide for local communities, and the variation in impacts across projects emphasizes the need to take caution when transferring impact estimates from one project to another. Restoration type, costs and availability of inputs and labor, and modeling methods all play large roles in the final impact estimates. While the jobs and economic impacts from restoration are substantial and important, they do not represent the full economic value of ecosystem restoration, because they do not capture the net benefits associated with environmental goods and services not bought and sold in markets. Developing well-established, tangible values for the resources and associated services under Interior's trust would help ensure that the public’s benefits are maximized from investment in Interior’s restoration activities. Contact Information: Cathy Cullinane Thomas, Economist, U.S. Geological Survey, 2150 Centre Ave, Fort Collins, CO, USA, Phone: 970-226-9164, Email: [email protected]


72

FOREST ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: MANAGEMENT SCENARIO PLANNING Brent Davies

Ecotrust, Portland, OR, USA How might different forest management practices yield different results over time? How can the timing of specific activities be planned around timber prices and logging costs? What are the financial implications of delaying harvests to take advantage of potential carbon markets? The ability to quickly answer these types of questions has depended on complex management systems and detailed data available only to the largest forest products companies. Ecotrust is developing online software that will provide land managers in the Pacific Northwest the capacity to do this type of forest management scenario planning from their home computers. The tool is scalable to other regions and land types where data is available. Forest managers will be able to visualize alternative management scenarios on their own lands – and receive immediate feedback on how their decisions might pay off in terms of timber harvests, carbon sequestration, and financial returns. This presentation will demonstrate an early version of the tool and its core functionality. Using the Scenario Planning Tool

• Identify forest areas on a map.

• Use the preloaded Forest Service’s Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) data, or upload stand-specific data.

• Designate forest management areas.

• For each forest management area, define management prescriptions, or choose from a wide array of pre-defined prescriptions that represent different management objectives.

• Define scenarios for timber prices (per board foot) and carbon prices (per ton), or select the default of current price levels.

Scenario Planning Tool Outputs

• Graphs of the volume of timber generated and carbon stored over the next 100 years

• Maps of standing volumes, species mixes and age classes over time

• Graphs of financial returns for timber over time

• Graphs of the potential to realize carbon credits over time, as compared to a regional baseline

• Description of potential eligibility for ecosystem-based incentives Additional Features of the Scenario Planning Tool

• Securely and confidentially store and manage data and scenario runs.

• Share scenario runs with others.

• Explore collaborative decision-making among forest landowners and managers. Contact Information: Brent Davies, Ecotrust, 721 NW 9th Ave. Suite 200, Portland, OR 97209, Phone: 503-453-9166, Email: [email protected]


73

PARTNERS WITH NATURE, DEVELOPING SCENARIOS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND RESILIENCE IN THE GREATER PORTLAND REGION Brent Davies

Ecotrust, Portland, OR, USA This talk will describe Ecotrust’s recent study that examined how the Portland Metro area could better utilize ecosystem services. In an urbanizing world, there are huge potential economic, social and environmental benefits to investing in ecosystem services in or near metropolises. We developed a set of scenarios that explored the potential for meeting social goals through management for ecosystem services across the greater region. We focused on three services of significance to the rural-urban context: carbon sequestration, stormwater interception, and food production. Our questions were:

• What percentage of the region’s climate change commitments could be met through biological sequestration — trees and other plant matter?

• What percentage of the city’s stormwater management commitments could be met via green infrastructure?

• What percentage of the region’s food needs could be satisfied with regional production? Based on plausible scenarios for working with nature, we developed the following estimates: New carbon sequestration in the region’s riparian areas and urban forests could sequester 485,472 metric tons of CO2 per year by 2050, meeting 2.1 percent of Oregon’s greenhouse gas reduction targets on a current per capita basis. Stormwater interception by new urban forest canopy could meet 6.3 percent to 14.8 percent of city’s projected infrastructural needs by 2040. We found no specific targets for regional food production to satisfy regional demand, but based on a preliminary analysis of landscape suitability, we estimated that the region could supply current regional consumption for most crop categories, with the exception of meat products. Contact Information: Brent Davies, Ecotrust, 721 NW 9th Ave. Suite 200, Portland, OR 97209, Phone: 503-453-9166, Email: [email protected]


74

HARNESSING THE POWER OF THE AMERICAN RESTORATION INDUSTRY: UNDERSTANDING THE SCALE OF JOB CREATION Adam Davis

Ecosystem Investment Partners, San Rafael, CA, USA

This is a luncheon Open Forum ‘brainstorming’ session moderated by Adam Davis. This will be an initial meeting and good opportunity for parties interested in pursuing a working group or a future research project to get together to discuss the following key questions:

1. What is currently known about the scale of job creation related to ecosystem restoration projects

2. What are the sectors and industries that need to be included in the ‘ecological restoration industry’

3. What research methods (ie. Job multiplier effects, etc.) should be used in producing ‘job creation numbers’, associated with ecosystem restoration

Contact Information: Adam Davis, Ecosystem Investment Partners, 1005 A Street, Suite 313, San Rafael, CA 94901, USA, Phone: 415-462-0163, Email: [email protected]


75

USE OF THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CONCEPT IN EUROPEAN POLICY AND DECISION MAKING Rudolf S. de Groot

Environmental Systems Analysis group, Wageningen Univ., Wageningen, The Netherlands This contribution will discuss if and how the concept of ecosystem services has influenced the setting of regulations and/or laws in Europe (eg the European Water Framework Directive) and informed developments in specific sectors (eg. mining, agriculture, urban development). Based on an estensive literature review, and input from the Ecosystem Services Partnership (www.es-partnerhsip.org) , the presentation will show some real-world examples from Europe where government law makers and/or private sector developers have actually been influenced in their actions and decisions by potential impacts on (or benefit to) ecosystem services. Contact Information: Rudolf de Groot, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands, Phone: 31317482247, Email: [email protected]

http://www.es-partnerhsip.org/

http://www.es-partnerhsip.org/


76

VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICE OF CARBON STORAGE AND SEQUESTRATION IN THE NORTHERN COAST OF SÃO PAULO B. F. Pavani1, W. C. de Sousa Jr 1, C. E. N. Inouye1, A. Y .I. Mello2 and S. A. Vieira 2

1Department of Aeronautical Infrastructure Engineering at Technological Institute of the Aeronautics, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil

2Nucleus of Environmental Studies and Researches at State University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil Ecosystems sustain life on earth and generate the necessary services to support life on the planet and human welfare. Thus, the valuation of ecosystem services is based on the need to measure the specific utility that a society derives from a good or service. The carbon sequestration and storage are linked to ecosystem function to climate regulation, which maintains the ecological processes essential for life support. Considering that approximately 40% of historic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the last two centuries were derived from changes in land use and management, especially related to deforestation, fertilizer use and inappropriate farming practices, pointed out the need for geospatial valuation of service storage and carbon sequestration. This paper presents economic values calculated for the processing of Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) in the Northern Coast of São Paulo. Was applied the module Carbon Sequestration and Storage INVEST Model 2.1 (The Natural Capital Project) that adds the amount stored in each stock of carbon in the landscape of land use maps and land cover, according to the market price of carbon and discount rates. The outputs showed an alarming release of carbon into the atmosphere, intensifying the negative effects of climate change. The estimated loss is of about 6.3 million dollars to this reduction of the storage capacity of carbon. However, it points to the economic value of approximately 1.3 billion dollars for carbon still stored in the landscapes of the region, reinforcing the reasons of conservation and preservation of the rainforest and other forest remnants. For purposes of policies to address the trade-offs associated with the use of natural resources, this work becomes important to demonstrate a loss of economic changes in the flows of ecosystem services. Contact Information: Bruna Fatiche Pavani, Department of Aeronautical Infrastructure Engineering, Technological Institute of the Aeronautics, Praça Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50, Vila das Acácias, 12.228-900, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil, Phone: +55 11 97180860, Email: [email protected]


77

ENHANCING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES USING RIPARIAN RESTORATION PROJECTS Robert L. Deal

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, USA The City of Medford, Oregon is working to achieve its Total Maximum Daily Load wastewater regulatory requirement through riparian restoration rather than construction of gray infrastructure, resulting in cost savings to the city and improvements to aquatic habitat. The Forest Service helped provide capacity for this effort by funding demonstration projects in cooperation with The Willamette Partnership and The Freshwater Trust. Building on a multi-agency agreement formed from the Counting on the Environment protocols we assess the viability and feasibility of markets to implement program designs and actual credit transactions. This is being implemented in the Rogue River basin of southwestern Oregon and includes an ecosystem service assessment across ownership boundaries, and the design of implementation programs and protocols to mitigate stream temperature and develop specific water quality trading credits. We describe some of these protocols including the COTE standards developed in SW Oregon and some of the purchasing and verification procedures necessary to achieve stream temperature reductions. These protocols and program designs can be used in other watersheds and regions and use riparian restoration activities to achieve broader ecosystem co-benefits. Contact information: Robert L. Deal, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 SW Main Street, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205, Phone: 502-808-2015, E-mail: [email protected]


78

ACCOUNTING FOR ADAPTATION IN PAYMENT FOR WATERSHED SERVICES SCHEMES: AN APPLICATION OF CLIMATE COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT Amielle A. DeWan, Kevin Green and Nigel Asquith

Rare, Arlington, VA, USA Climate compatible development (CCD) is a term used to describe projects, actions, activities, or policy decisions that contribute simultaneously to development, adaptation, and mitigation. Payment for watershed services schemes (PWS)have been identified as a potential contributor to both the mitigation and development elements of CCD, however the adaptation contribution may be less clear. Small scale reciprocal watershed agreements, however, build on a strong foundation of mitigation and development, with an additional emphasis on social/ecological resilience, adaptive capacity, and community buy-in to the payment scheme. We thus hypothesize that the price of adaptation can be incorporated into existing small-scale payment for watershed services that include multiple social and ecological outcomes. The objectives of this work are to: 1) develop an analytical framework to simultaneously evaluate CCD indicators; 2) test the application and relevancy of CCD indicators to existing PWS schemes in Latin America and 3) evaluate the ability of different types of small scale reciprocal watershed agreements to contribute to improved socio-ecological resilience, mitigation, and development. We have developed a model that incorporates multiple CCD objectives and indicators into an index that allows for the explicit comparison of PWS types and their relative contribution to adaptation, mitigation, and development. Indicator values were based on a comprehensive analysis of existing literature and will be tested and refined using data from existing PWS projects in Bolivia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Columbia. We will discuss the development and application of a comprehensive CCD index as well as the potential for PWS schemes to account for adaptation benefits and costs. Contact Information: Dr. Amielle A. DeWan, Director of Conservation Research and Monitoring: 703.522.5070 Ext. 118 Email: [email protected]


79

THE NORFOLK COUNTY ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SERVICES (ALUS) PROGRAM AS A COMMUNITY-BASED MODEL FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION Goretty M. Dias1 and Bryan Gilvesy2

1School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada 2ALUS Chair, Norfolk County, ON, Canada

Farmers and ranchers manage one-third of the world’s land and play a positive role in ecosystem service provision through a history of conservation and restoration of natural features. The Norfolk County ALUS Pilot Project in Ontario is a voluntary, incentive-based, farmer-delivered program that rewards farmers for their environmental stewardship, initiative and innovation in implementing integrated solutions that enhance agricultural productivity and ecosystem services. We will present a case study highlighting the underlying principles of this unique and successful community-based model for provision of ecosystem services. Participants are provided with start-up assistance, technical expertise and support, and incentive payments for producing nature's benefits. Capacity building occurs through the communication of knowledge and experience from successful strategies implemented in pilot projects, and is facilitated through farm and conservation agencies and farmer-to-farmer interactions. The program also invests in the capacity of citizens and rural communities, and allows flexibility in implementing appropriate strategies that consider local agricultural operations, landscapes and environmental priorities. To date, the ALUS Team has provided technical and financial support to 97 farm families on 102 farms, impacting over 700 acres of agricultural land. Participants claim that the program is a business strategy and that it empowers them financially and morally. Through participation in the program, farmers reduce operational risk, build resilience to environmental risks, and create value. They also gain a sense of ownership and pride for not only feeding people but also creating a healthy environment. Norfolk ALUS is also developing a business model based on private sector funding and market mechanisms. Thus, the community-based model is also being used to develop Ecological Credits via an innovative open source program developed by farmers for farmers. We will present the robust verification process that has been developed for Ecological Credit buyers, and the results from testing the process with the farming community. The system allows money to flow from the markets through the community groups and into farmers’ hands. Contact Information: Goretty M. Dias, School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1, 519-888-4567 X38571, Email: [email protected]


80

SPATIAL SUBSIDIES OF MONARCH MIGRATION: A TALE OF THREE COUNTRIES Karen Oberhauser1, Leslie Ries2, Jay E. Diffendorfer3, Kenneth Bagstad3, Ruscena Wiederholt4 and Darius J. Semmens3

1Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA 2Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA 3United States Geological Survey Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, Denver, Colorado, USA 4School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Monarch butterflies travel between breeding grounds in the US and Canada to overwintering sites in central Mexico, utilizing larval host-plants and nectar resources in a wide range of habitats, and high altitude wintering sites in a relatively small area in Mexico. While the services they provide are difficult to quantify, monarchs engender a great deal of passion and investment of both time and money among children and adults throughout North America. Their wintering sites are a popular tourist destination, many people plant milkweeds and nectar sources specifically to support monarchs, and thousands of individuals voluntarily engage in a variety of citizen science programs designed to provide data to help understand monarch population dynamics. We used matrix modeling techniques to understand the relative contributions of monarch wintering, migrating and breeding locations to monarch populations; and a willingness-to-pay survey as a first step in understanding the value of monarchs to individuals in the US. Together, these efforts will help us to quantify spatial subsidies for monarch butterflies, and to develop cooperative management of this tri-lateral resource. Contact Information: Jay Diffendorfer, Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, United States Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 516, Denver, CO 80225, Email: [email protected]



81

WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR MONARCH BUTTERFLIES Jay Diffendorfer1, B. Butterfield2, J. Loomis3, L. L. Hoffman4, D Semmens1, K. Bagstad1, J. Goldstein4, K. Oberhauser6 and L. Ries7

1United States Geological Survey Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, Denver, Colorado, USA 2National Gardening Association, South Burlington, VT, USA 3Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 4Udall Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA 5Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA 6Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA 7Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) are an iconic insect across North America providing widely valued cultural ecosystem services, yet populations have shown declines in the last ten years. The primary (eastern) population of monarchs winters in Mexico and migrates north each spring, spreading across the United States’ Midwest and Northeast and into southern Canada, reproducing along the way. A smaller population exists in the western US, wintering in California. Adults feed on nectar from a variety of flowers, but eggs are laid exclusively on milkweed plants. We present results from a survey of Americans regarding monarch butterfly conservation. In 2012, the National Gardening Association (NGA) added 6 questions regarding knowledge, attitudes, and willingness to pay for monarch conservation (the first of its kind) to its National Gardening Survey of the general population. Harris Interactive ran the internet-based survey and 2290 participants were selected from Harris’s pool of ~8 million registered respondents in a stratified random sample designed to be demographically and economically representative of US households. The survey asked questions about willingness to pay for planting nectar or milkweed plants and donating to conserve monarch habitat in 5 regions across their range in the US and Mexico. Fiftyfive percent of Americans were not aware monarch populations were in decline, yet 70% considered monarch conservation important. Only 13% of households currently grow nectar plants for monarchs, while 4% grow milkweed, having spent a total of $655 and $63 million respectively on these plantings. Respondents expressed a one-time willingness to pay ~$30 to plant nectar plants and ~$25 for milkweed in home gardens. Extrapolating to 118 million households in the US, the one time willingness to pay was ~$919 million for nectar plants and $444 million for milkweed based on individuals who indicated they would pay and had space for the plants. One time, willingness to donate for monarch conservation, by those individuals willing to donate, did not vary across regions and was ~$18 per household. However, the percentages of respondents willing to donate was lower than expected for wintering sites in Mexico, and higher than expected for summer breeding habitat in the northeast US and southern Canada. Summing across all 5 regions in the monarch range and extrapolating to 118 million households in the US, total nationwide one-time, willingness to pay for monarch habitat conservation was ~4.6 billion dollars. Contact Information: Jay Diffendorfer, Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, United States Geological Survey, PO Box 25046, MS 516, Denver, CO 80225, Email: [email protected]



82

CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY, TRANSPARENT REPORTING AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Johnathan DiMuro

Associate Sustainability Manager, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA A sustainability report enables companies to communicate sustainability information in a similar fashion to financial information and frameworks allow for comparability across entities, using common disclosures and metrics. The pressure to improve the transparency and thoroughness of corporate sustainability reporting is continuously increasing. There is also an ever-increasing emphasis on both biodiversity and ecosystem services management and reporting. Sustainability reporting is an important way for companies to measure, track and improve sustainability performance, and more companies are choosing to produce these reports due to stakeholder interest and concern about sustainability. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is the most widely used framework for sustainability reporting. Within this framework, there are specific aspects and indicators that attempt to describe a company’s interaction with biodiversity. The indicators for biodiversity request information on land owned in areas of high biodiversity, descriptions of significant biodiversity impacts and management strategies for such impacts, habitats that the entity has protected or restored, and detailed information for species on the IUCN Red List in areas of operation. The current framework does not require reporting on the entire suite of ecosystem services use and impacts, however information on water use and GHG emissions is required to report to attain a high GRI reporting level. GRI is currently working on the next refinement (G4) which acknowledges the importance of ecosystem services, but retains emphasis on land and biodiversity management as key reporting criteria. This poster will focus on the effectiveness and appropriateness of GRI indicators to accurately reflect a company’s interaction with and management of nature. It will also discuss a company’s ability, or lack thereof, to gather the biodiversity and ecosystem services data needed to accurately report. Recommendations on ways to improve data collection will be provided. Contact Information: Johnathan DiMuro, Sustainability and EH&S Department, The Dow Chemical Company, 2020 Building, Midland, MI 48674, USA, Phone: 989-636-2020, Email: [email protected]


83

INCORPORATING NATURE’S VALUE INTO BUSINESS DECISIONS AT THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Johnathan DiMuro

Associate Sustainability Manager, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA The integration of sustainability into the culture of The Dow Chemical Company is a long-pursued and ongoing process. Our commitment started well before the 1994 initiation of our 10-year improvement goals that proved successful in driving best-in-class safety and environmental performance acheivements. In 2005 we set the bar even higher with the introduction of Dow’s 2015 Sustainability Goals that encompass a more external focus and ensure that Dow’s products and operations support the needs of future generations. We recognize the importance of the benefits that Dow and society receive from nature and hold ‘Protecting the Planet’ as a core value. During 2010 we better defined the need to quantify the value of nature’s benefits and services, which led us to initiate a $10 million collaboration with The Nature Conservancy. This presentation will cover Dow’s perspectives and objectives on incorporating the value of nature into business decisions with respect to risk assessment, environmental footprint analysis, and long-term cost effectiveness. Engaging Dow employees is critical to achieve success and the presentation will discuss the methods and techniques used to increase awareness and engagement. Criteria used to collaboratively identify and prioritize pilot sites will be included. The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review, Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change v. 2.0 was used in the first two pilot sites as the foundation for selecting and prioritizing specific ecosystem services for analysis and valuation, and details on how it was used and tailored for each application will be presented. Contact Information: Johnathan DiMuro, Sustainability and EH&S Department, The Dow Chemical Company, 2020 Building, Midland, MI 48674, USA, Phone: 989-636-2020, Email: [email protected]


84

RANCHER PREFERENCES FOR PES PROGRAM DESIGN IN WYOMING Esther Duke1 and Kristiana Hansen2

1Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 2Agricultural and Applied Economics Department, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA

The upper Green River Basin in southwestern Wyoming provides critical habitat for a number of important bird and wildlife species, including mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The region is also one of the key headwaters of the Colorado River with a blue ribbon fishery and providing water for millions of consumers throughout the southwest. Traditionally a rural working landscape, dominated primarily by ranching, the region is now home to one of the largest natural gas fields in the United States. Massive oil and gas development throughout the upper Green impacts biodiversity and ecosystem services. One of the avenues through which energy companies can minimize the impact of their extractive activities in the upper Green is through off-site mitigation. Ranchers are open to the idea of supplying term wildlife habitat and riparian/water resource leases on their land in exchange for an additional stream of revenue. A payment for ecosystem services (PES) market appeals to members of the community, who are looking for ways to maintain traditional land uses in spite of development pressures within the basin. Both ranchers and energy companies are particularly interested in using this market approach as a strategy to avoid population losses of greater sage grouse that could lead to listing under the Endangered Species Act. The presence of buyers motivated by regulatory and pre-compliance pressures and willing sellers make the basin a potentially viable location for an ecosystem services market. A team of researchers from the Sublette County Conservation District, University of Wyoming, The Nature Conservancy, and Environmental Defense Fund are developing a payment for ecosystems (PES) market in which private funders (e.g. energy companies) pay basin ranchers to undertake conservation practices on a contractual basis. The project is in the pilot phase now. The ultimate goal of the project is to establish a self-sustaining ecosystem services market in the upper Green River basin. The success of any market depends on developing market institutions that are acceptable to all actors. We focus here on the perspective of ranchers in the basin who might undertake conservation measures through this program, with an eye toward understanding which ecosystem services, contract terms, and market institutions would encourage their participation. Grassroots support from local ranchers is crucial to program success. To this end, we have facilitated landowner focus groups and undertaken a survey of all ranchers in Sublette County (~400) as potential ecosystem service sellers. Choice experiments included in the survey are designed to reveal the PES program design preferences of respondents by estimating the trade-offs between various levels of three program attributes (management practice, contract length, and payment amount) in a simulated PES program. We also plan to collect information related to demographics, land use, socio-economic status, PES familiarity, and other pertinent factors to inform analyses of: 1) factors affecting landowners’ stated willingness to participate, 2) program design preferences, and 3) potential eligibility conditioned upon hypothetical program design parameters. We will report our focus group findings as well as initial results from the survey. Contact Information: Esther Duke, Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA, Phone: 970-491-2197, E-mail: [email protected]


85

RECENT UK DEVELOPMENTS IN THE APPLICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN POLICY Helen Dunn

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK

The aim of this presentation is to provide an overview of recent UK developments in the application of ecosystem services thinking into policy. There is an increasing body of evidence on the economic value of ecosystems and the services they provide and a greater awareness of the role of natural capital in supporting economic growth & wellbeing. The Natural Environment White Paper was published by Defra in June 2011, following on from the publication of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA), the first independent assessment of the state and trends in UK ecosystems and the benefits to the economy and society. The presentation will provide an overview of the NEA in terms of its analytical underpinnings, the evidence generated and how this fed into the development of the key actions and reforms of the Natural Environment White Paper. A particular focus for this presentation will be on actions relating to a key theme in the White Paper on growing a green economy. A number of current initiatives looking at the development of greener markets will be explored including recent work on payments for ecosystem services and a business led initiative, the Ecosystem Markets Task Force which is due to report back to the UK Government by March 2013. Natural Environment White Paper: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/ UK National Ecosystem Assessment: uknea.unep-wcmc.org/ Ecosystem Markets Task Force: www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/ Contact Information: Helen Dunn, Senior Economic Adviser, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR, UK. Phone: (+44) (0)20 7238 6848. Email: [email protected]

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/


86

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: A SUSTAINABILITY METRIC FOR CORPORATIONS? Craig Duxbury

Walt Disney Imagineering, Research and Developmen, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA Many corporations are improving their sustainability practices to meet both business needs as well as for corporate social responsibility. Corporations are also realizing that they need to understand impacts and decencies on ecosystem services. Thus, using an ecosystem services approach may provide a method to meet sustainability goals and provide a metric to measure and quantity these efforts. There are many issues to consider before an ecosystem service approach is implemented. Further, there is considerable uncertainty around these issues and questions include:

• What is our level of understanding and confidence to infer ecosystem services from ecosystem functions?

• Is an ecosystem service approach applicable for non-extractive corporations?

• At what scale does an ecosystem service approach become relevant?

• Can we operationalize the ecosystem service approach?

This talk will present our approach to answer these questions, and some initial findings. Contact Information: Craig Duxbury, Walt Disney Imagineering, 1365 Avenue of the Stars, Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830, Phone: 407-560-6519, Email: [email protected]


87

FLORIDA’S COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION BLUEPRINT Thomas Eason

Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL, USA The Cooperative Conservation Blueprint (Blueprint) is a major multi-partner strategic planning process initiated in 2007 by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as part of implementing its State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). The process is bringing together landowners, businesses and governmental and conservation organizations to achieve multiple aims. The first aim is to create a compelling natural systems vision of what Florida could look like if steps are taken to conserve the critical environmental resources and working agricultural lands that the state’s wildlife depend upon and that provide ecosystem services and quality of life for the benefit of all Floridians. The second aim is to build agreement among government and private interests to use that vision as the basis for unified statewide land-use and investment decisions to conserve those critical environmental and agricultural resources for future generations. The third aim is to maintain a sustainable economy and a wide range of agriculture and nature-based opportunities. By achieving these aims, the Blueprint provides a mechanism to help Floridians work together to maintain the state’s native wildlife and their habitats and enjoy access to ample quantities of fresh drinking water, clean air, recreational areas, and agricultural products. The Blueprint allows environmental resources to exist in harmony with social and economic priorities. This linkage of social, economic, and ecological elements encourages owners of priority conservation areas to view them as an asset because they are linked to meaningful conservation incentives. Contact Information: Thomas Eason, Deputy Director, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Phone: (850) 488-3831, Email: [email protected]


88

DEVELOPING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR COMPENSATORY MITIGATION IN NORTH CAROLINA Michael Ellison

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Raleigh, NC, USA The state of North Carolina is committed to balancing responsible economic development and environmental protection. Toward this end, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP) provides compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to waters and wetlands regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. NC EEP restores, protects and enhances ecosystems to generate four types of credits: stream, wetland, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset. Projects are developed through partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders that includes willing landowners, universities, consultants, contractors and full-delivery mitigation providers. Credits are voluntarily purchased by permit applicants who meet state requirements to access the program. NC EEP seeks to optimize ecosystem service production at the watershed level based on a watershed planning framework that functions at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Since 2003 the NC EEP has developed over 600 projects to generate in excess of 615 km of improved streams and 8280 ha of wetlands. In addition, over 100 non-mitigation projects identified through NC EEP watershed plans have been completed by other stakeholders. The program enjoys strong credibility amongst regulators and provides cost-certainty and permitting efficiencies for its customers. Perhaps the oldest and largest in-lieu fee mitigation program in the United States, NC EEP’s success is largely based on these primary factors: sunbelt economic growth, historic land uses, the structure of the NC Department of Transportation and its relationship with NC EEP. This presentation will describe how the program applies evolving restoration science within a complex regulatory, political and economic milieu. Contact Information: Michael Ellison, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1652. Email: [email protected]


89

INTEGRATING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FRAMEWORKS TO IMPROVE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: AN EXPLORATION OF BENEFITS AND APPROACH Rebecca Epanchin-Niell

Resource for the Future Adaptive management is a process of “learning by doing” that focuses on learning about management outcomes and incorporating what is learned into ongoing management. In contrast to the analytical or value framework that an ecosystem services approach provides for natural resource management, adaptive management is fundamentally a decision process. However, both are recognized as important approaches to natural resource management. In this talk we will examine the ways in which these two approaches are complementary, such that integrating them into a common framework may facilitate improved natural resource management outcomes. Specifically, we tackle the questions of how application of ecosystem service analysis within an adaptive decision-making process can improve the outcomes of management as well as advance the understanding of ecosystem service identification, production, and valuation. We will also explore what this integration looks like. Contact Information: Rebecca Epanchin-Niell, Resource for the Future, Email: [email protected]


90

ASSESSING AND MAPPING POTENTIAL LOSS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM HURRICANES Sonia Delphin1, F. Escobedo1, A. Abd-Elrahman2 and W. Cropper1

1School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 2School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Geomatics Program, University of Florida, Plant City, FL, USA

Hurricanes are a direct driver affecting ecosystem structure as well as processes and services. Information on the effect of drivers on ecosystem services is relevant to landowners and policy makers due to predicted increases in hurricane frequency and intensity as a result of climate change. This study identified forest damage risk zones due to hurricanes and estimated the potential loss of aboveground carbon storage and timber volume. Using landuse-landcover spatial data, available plot-level forest inventory data, the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoff (InVEST) model, and a decision tree based framework; we determined the potential damage to forests from hurricanes in the Lower Suwannee (LS) and Pensacola Bay (PB) watersheds in Florida. We used biophysical factors identified in previous studies as being influential in forest damage in our decision tree. We also used ancillary spatial data such as hurricane wind risk maps and other plot-level data in our framework. Results show that aboveground carbon storage was 10,193,640 Mg in the LS and 31% of this value was located in high forest damage risk (HR) zones. However, in the PB aboveground carbon was 1,392,047 Mg and only 0.5% of this was in high HR zones. The timber net volume in the LS was approximately 20,402,395 m3 and 15% was under high HR while in the PB the total was 3,730,642 m3 and about 0.7% was under high HR. Results can be used to assess the risk of ecosystem services losses due to hurricanes. This framework can also be used for post-hurricane forest management such as identifying timber salvage areas, planning ecosystem service provision scenarios, and implementing pre and post-hurricane management activities. Contact Information: Francisco Escobedo, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, 361 Newins-Ziegler Hall, PO BOX 110410, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA, Phone: 352-846-0856, Email: [email protected]


91

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND VALUE OF FLORIDA’S FOREST STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM LANDS Francisco Escobedo1, Nilesh Timilsina1, Damian Adams1, Timm Kroeger2, Taylor Stein1, Sonia Delphin1, Melissa Kreye1, Amr Abd-Elrahman1, Chris Demers1 and Tatiana Borisova3

1School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 2The Nature Conservancy, Washington DC, USA 3Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) is a voluntary conservation program available to private landowners and provides assistance in developing a multiple-use management plan through site visits and technical assistance. To assess the overall benefits of these non-industrial private forests, this multi-disciplinary study analyzed ecosystem service provision and value of Florida’s FSP lands. A survey assessed private landowners’ and land managers’ perceptions of ecosystem services. Statistical and geospatial models, land use/cover (LUC) data, geo-referenced USDA Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plot-level data, were used to quantify-value carbon storage on FSP and adjacent lands. The LUC, FIA, timber market, and ancillary spatial data and the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services model were also used to quantify and value water quality/yield and timber production. Meta-analyses of willingness to pay studies determined the value of programs like the FSP that protect water quality. Finally, the economic value of abundance enhancement of key wildlife species due to FSP management practices that avoid loss and degradation of wildlife habitat was estimated. Our survey found that familiarity of respondents with terms such as “ecosystem services” and “carbon storage” was highly variable and private landowners ranked “scenery”, “overall recreation” and “drinking water quality” as most important. Model results indicate that FSP lands retained more nitrogen and phosphorus than did non-FSP lands. Net merchantable timber growth was greater on FSP lands in northeastern and southern Florida and the average total value of carbon stored on FSP lands ranged from $300,000 - $578,000. Our study also found that the willingness to pay for forest-based water quality benefits from FSP land was estimated at $17 - $335 million. Finally, wildlife habitat conservation value provided by FSP lands was approximately $54 million. Altogether, the typical acre of forest land enrolled in the FSP program provides ecosystem services that have a present value of $5,030 per acre. For the 437,800 acres enrolled in FSP during 2010, we estimate that the present value of ecosystem services from these lands is more than $2.07 billion. In relative terms, water provided the largest share of the value (66%) followed by carbon stocks (25%), timber production (7%), and wildlife (2%). Results of the study should be viewed as a conservative estimate of ecosystem services and values provided by these lands, but can be used to inform policy makers, the public, and land managers about the potential value of forest-based ecosystem services and the economic loss associated with urban development or conversion of these working forests. Contact Information: Francisco Escobedo, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, 361 Newins-Ziegler Hall, PO BOX 110410, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA, Phone: 352-846-0856, Email: [email protected]


92

BIOPROSPECTING SAPWOOD AND HEARTWOOD OF SPECIES BROSIMUM POTABILE DUCKE, BROSIMUM GUIANENSIS (AUBL.) HUBER, BROSIMUM RUBESCENS TAUB. MORACEAE FAMILY, IN THE UPPER ALTO RIO SOLIMÕES – AM, BRASIL Claudia E. Silva1, Niro Higuchi2, Claudete C. Nascimento3 and Marta M. Brasil4

1Graduate Institute of Botany of the National Amazon Research - INPA, Brazil 2Laboratory of Forest Management / LMF National Institute of Amazonian Research - INPA, Brazil 3Laboratory of Engineering and Wood Artifacts / LEAM National Institute of Amazonian Research, Brazil 4Laboratory of Forest Management / LEAM National Institute of Amazonian Research – INPA, Brazil

Brosimum The genus is of economic importance in the country, such as carpentry, general construction, props, etc.. The research aims to bioprospecting to determine the physical properties of dimensional stability and economic applicability for basic density of species Brosimum Guiana (Aubl.) Huber, Brosimum potabile Duke and Brosimum rubescens Taub., Family Moraceae. Samples of the species were of fallen trees, in areas of forest management in the Upper Rio Solimões-AM, the wedges removed with sapwood and heartwood, and then taken for identification in the Anatomy Laboratory of the National Institute of Amazonian Research / INPA. The following is the procedure to harvest the wood and then taken to saturation, the specimens were cut getting sapwood and heartwood to check the density and sizing measurements in micrometer - Model Digimatic micrometer, follows the procedure for drying in an oven at 1050 to check the dimensional stability of tangential and radial dried species. For basic density of displacement liquid to the species B.rubescens Taub the sapwood ranged from 0.76 0.84 and the core; B.guianensis (Aubl.) Huber between the core and the sapwood 0.31 to 0.43 and B. Duke potabile the sapwood and heartwood 0.51. Therefore, the anisotropy for the species B. rubescens Taub to the sapwood and heartwood 1.44 1.51 B. guianensis (Aubl.) Huber for the sapwood and heartwood 1.48 and 1.38 for B. potabile Duke for the sapwood and heartwood 1.94 1.26. The results of the ratio are below 2%. Show that the method of dimensional stability and basic density are essential to drive economic applicability of the species under study, establishing a better applicability, technology and sustainable use. Keywords: Basic density, wood technology, physical properties of wood-infrared NIR and forest management Contact Information: Claudia E. Silva, Graduate Institute of Botany of the National Amazon Research - INPA, Email: [email protected], [email protected]


93

POLLINATION SERVICES FROM THE PRAIRIE POTHOLE REGION N. H. Euliss, Jr.1, A. L. Gallant2, J. S. Pettis3, M. Spivak4, E. Evans4, M. Smart4, R. Bryan5, N. Rice4, Z. Browning6, J. Miller7 and D.M. Mushet1

1U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Resources Observation and Science Center, Sioux Falls, SD, USA 3U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bee Research Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, USA 4Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA 5Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, USA 6Browning’s Honey Company, Jamestown, ND, USA 7Miller Honey Farms, Gackle, ND, USA

The Northern Great Plains is the most important region in the United States for provisioning pollination services for the Nation. Long summer days and the variety of flowering plants that grow in the prairies accord pollinators extended periods to forage. The value of the area for honey production has long been known by commercial beekeepers that place bee colonies in the region late each spring. Equally important but less well known is the value of the region for building honey bee colony strength needed for transportation elsewhere in the United States to meet the pollination needs of fruit and nut crops worth more than $29 billion annually. The Northern Great Plains contributes significantly to the agricultural industry as a producer of corn, soybeans, wheat, and other crops, and towards that end the landscape has been intensively and extensively altered at the expense of native habitat for pollinators. Federal programs targeting restoration of native habitats, such as the Conservation Reserve Program, partially have offset the loss of ecosystem services provided by grasslands. Policy makers and resource managers need estimates of potential effects on ecosystem services to inform decisions and actions related to policy and programs. In response to that, we prototyped a model to evaluate the suitability of land-use configurations across the region for honey production. We now are refining the model to account for effects from climate and to include projections of health and fitness of honey bees to pollinate our nation’s crops. To project effects of land-use and climate change on provisioning pollinator services at the regional scale, we are designing our model for compatibility with the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) modeling platform. InVEST already contains a generic module for native pollinators that we will refine with findings from studies we have underway on native pollinators in North Dakota. Results from our landscape model for honey bees and our subsequent findings for native bees will contribute to a larger collaboration among federal, state, university and other entities to quantify the effects of land-use and climate change simultaneously on multiple ecosystem services. This effort, the Integrated Landscape Modeling project, is providing a tool to inform decisions and evaluate outcomes for various ecosystem services, including pollination, from drivers of change such as shifting climates and economic incentives. Contact Information: Ned H. Euliss, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, 8711 37th Street SE, Jamestown, ND 58401, USA, Phone: 701-253-5564, Email: [email protected]


94

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND THE RANCH BOTTOM LINE Terry R. Fankhauser1 and Ted Toombs2

1Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and Partners for Western Conservation, Arvada, CO, USA 2Environmental Defense Fund, Boulder, CO, USA

The connection between ecosystem services and a ranch’s bottom line is not always obvious, but today’s working ranch does much more than raise livestock. Ranchers manage rangelands that provide us with valuable benefits such as clean water, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and other ecosystem services. Ranchers, in turn, depend on clean water, abundant vegetation, and other ecosystem services as much, or more, than anyone else. While many ranchers are keenly aware of this interdependence, the impact ecosystem services have on a ranch’s bottom line is often less clear. Ranchers are experiencing increasing pressure from volatile livestock markets, rising feed costs, increasing public scrutiny, land development pressures, and degradation of rangelands, all of which are creating unprecedented challenges for ranch management. Yet, these same challenges can sometimes be transformed into opportunities. In fact, ranchers are well-positioned to play a major role in responding to increased societal concerns about protecting and restoring ecosystem services—because ranching can be commensurate with conservation stewardship if done “right”. Payments for ecosystem services offer ranchers an opportunity to adopt a new, more diversified business model that provides multiple benefits to the rancher and the public. To make this transition, ranchers will need to understand and be able to evaluate specific opportunities and risks relevant to ecosystems on their individual ranch. Without this, certain risks associated with changes in management, or potential business opportunities that could help ranchers expand and diversify income may be overlooked. The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, is a decision-support tool designed to help corporations assess these ecosystem service-related opportunities and risks, and in the process make a clearer connection between these services and the company’s bottom line. Ranchers must wear many hats to ensure a successful operation, and a critical one is that of a business person. The most valuable benefit of the ESR is that it provides a simple, “low-tech” framework to help ranchers more clearly see the connection between ecosystems and the ranch bottom line. A co-benefit of the ESR approach is that it can help illustrate this connection to a much broader audience including practitioners, scientists, and policy makers who work closely with ranchers. By incorporating ecosystems with the ranches bottom line, ranchers can develop businesses that are more resilient to economic and ecological change, because they can proactively adapt, minimize risk, and capitalize on new opportunities as they arise. In turn, ranchers can better position themselves to anticipate new market opportunities, identify new sources of revenue, reduce costs, influence government policy, identify their impact and dependence upon ecosystem services, improve their land management, build new stakeholder relationships, and demonstrate leadership in environmental and financial sustainability. Contact Information: Terry R. Fankhauser, Executive Vice President, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, 8833 Ralston Road, Arvada, CO, 80002, USA, 303-431-6422, [email protected]


95

ENHANCED CARBON SEQUESTRATION SCENARIOS: EVALUATING TRADEOFFS AMONG MULTIPLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Stephen P. Faulkner1, Richard Bernknopf2, Bogdan Chivoiu3, John B. Churchill4 and Jun Wang4

1USGS Leetown Science Center, Kearneysville, WV, USA 2University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA 3IAPWS, Lafayette, LA, USA 4IAPWS, Kearneysville, WV, USA

Given the importance of terrestrial land sinks in North America, maximizing natural carbon storage processes to enhance ecological carbon sequestration is a key climate mitigation strategy. The effects of increasing ecological carbon sinks through changes in land-use or land management on other ecosystem services are not well quantified. We have developed an ecosystem services modeling framework that uses empirically derived landscape- and site-scale inputs to forecast the effects of climate and land-use change on multiple ecosystem services. The component models corresponding to each ecosystem service respond to the spatial and temporal dynamics determined changes in the number, distribution, structure, and composition of the landscape patches. In this study, we evaluated the effect of two different afforestation scenarios designed to enhance carbon sequestration on wildlife habitat (migratory bird species richness, duck energy days), water quality (sediment loading), and water quantity (stream flow), in the Tensas River Basin, Louisiana. Scenario I increased the current bottomland hardwood forest by 15 percent by planting oak (Quercus sp.) and hickory (Carya sp.) species on marginal agricultural patches, typical of current afforestation practices; Scenario II replaced all agricultural patches with fast-growing Eucalyptus plantations. As expected, carbon storage increased by 274 percent under Scenario II (Eucalyptus) compared to only 114 percent under Scenario I during the 100-year model run. However, changes in the other ecosystem services varied depending on the specific service. Migratory bird species richness increased by 22.2 percent under Scenario I, but only 0.2 percent under Scenario II. Duck energy days followed a similar pattern with much greater increase under Scenario I (73.0%) than Scenario II (49.1%). The effect of replacing all agricultural patches with Eucalyptus plantations resulted in large reductions in sediment loading (-61.8%) and stream flow (-24.4%) compared with modest reductions under Scenario II (2.9% in stream flow and 16.6% in sediment loading) Incorporating ancillary impacts on these and other ecosystem services into econometric models and resource assessments will improve our ability to evaluate the tradeoffs between resource use, development, and conservation and better understand the full effects of potential climate mitigation strategies. Contact Information: Stephen Faulkner, USGS Leetown Science Center, 11649 Leetown Rd, Kearneysville, WV 25430 USA; Phone: (304) 724-4471; Email: [email protected]


96

HOW ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS FIT – THE BIG PICTURE OF LAND CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION David Festa

Environmental Defense Fund, San Francisco, CA, USA This discussion will focus on the way in which environmental markets fit into the ‘big picture’ of land and water protection in the U.S. Environmental markets are a tool in the toolbox that offers enormous promise to expand the pool of capital available to finance protection and restoration projects. At the same time, this tool is clearly not the solution to every problem. Where do environmental markets fit in relation to traditional federal conservation funding, Farm Bill incentives and the activities of non-profit conservation groups? How can incentives for farmers, ranchers and foresters to provide environmental benefits co-exist alongside professional environmental restoration companies? This discussion will provide examples and case studies describing how metrics, credits and environmental accounting tools facilitate both ‘market’ and ‘non-market’ conservation and restoration projects. Contact Information: David Festa, Environmental Defense Fund, 123 Mission Street, 28th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-293-6050, Email: [email protected]


97

LAND USE TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN FUEL, FOOD, AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Michal Fidler1, John C. Capece1, Edward A. Hanlon2 and Kamal Alsharif3

1Intelligentsia International, Inc., LaBelle, FL, USA 2University of Florida - IFAS, Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, USA 3Department of Geography, Environment, and Planning, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

Reflecting rapidly growing interest in biofuel, the U.S. Government has enacted new regulations and adopted progressive goals to encourage production of biomass crops. Florida is aggressively pursuing the development of a biofuel industry and experimenting with crops such as sugarcane, energy cane, sweet sorghum, and others. But large-scale conversion of lands to biofuels has the potential to preclude or limit their availability for delivery of ecosystem services, particularly in cases where the net carbon emission reductions are marginal. This study establishes relationships between biofuel crops biomass production, associated yields, land use requirements for these crops, biomass to biofuel conversion methods and the overall fuel demands, particularly in Florida’s transportation sector. An important metric in evaluating the ability of various biofuel options is the crop's land use efficiency in delivering fuel from available lands. This study (1) estimates the land use requirements of biomass production in Florida using various bioethanol crops, (2) provides a simplified measure of these crops efficiency in delivering energy products (bioethanol) and (3) evaluates the land use implications of using biofuels as a substitute for petroleum-based gasoline to meet an average Florida person fuel needs. Concerns are being raised regarding food production, available land, water as well as other resources diverted by biofuels production. With the world having currently 4.89 billion hectares of agricultural land for its 7.052 billion inhabitants, there is on average 0.69 hectares of agricultural land available per person. Florida has even less available agricultural land per person (0.18 ha), but its favorable climatic conditions, advanced research and modern technologies as well as traditional leading role in agricultural production make Florida one of the nations’ foremost regions in biofuel production potential. With Florida having almost 19 million inhabitants, over 14 million registered vehicles with average annual mileage of more than 13,000 miles/vehicle/year and an average fuel efficiency of 23.5 miles/gallon, on average 650 gallons of bioethanol per year would be needed for a Floridian if only bioethanol was used as a vehicular fuel (assuming bioethanol having 67% energy content of petroleum-based gasoline per unit volume). Results show a range from 0.24 ha/person using Energy Cane to 2.10 ha/person using Sweet Sorghum to produce the volume of bioethanol necessary to satisfy the average vehicular fuel needs of one person in Florida. This land use requirement range is roughly the same as the total available farmland in Florida and globally, suggesting a one-for-one trade off between fuel, food, and ecosystems services. Assuming no change in food production and consumption habits, the likely result of biofuels sector expansion would be the conversion of natural lands or low-intensity agricultural lands into high-intensity biomass production. While there is a tremendous potential to shift some of the Florida energy needs to biofuels, the farmland and natural areas that would be required for producing only bioethanol crops must be carefully compared to the total of Florida’s limited available land and the priority uses for that land. Use of lands that are considered marginally productive for current cropping systems may be suitable for biofuel production but may also be those lands necessary for delivery of essential ecosystems services. Contact Information: Michal Fidler, Intelligentsia International, Inc., 132 North Lee Street, LaBelle, FL 33935, USA, Phone: 863-517-2795, Email: [email protected]


98

SPATIALLY-TARGETED PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICE: A NEW MECHANISM FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION Michael Flaxman

Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) have been proposed for a variety of public goods. However most PES schemes are non-spatial, or treat homogenous spatial units as fully interchangeable regardless of context. This makes it difficult to use conventional PES to incentivize spatially-coordinated landscape conservation which is a major priority for most large scale ecological restoration efforts and particularly critical in effective climate adaptation planning. In this work, I demonstrate a novel method for spatially-targeting PES and apply this to climate adaption planning for Southern Florida. The policy goal is to develop and maintain a connected network of open space which allows habitats and species to migrate under expected climate change. Using a policy-sensitive land cover simulation model known as AttCon, I show that spatially targeting PES leads to more efficient conservation network formation than either fee-simple purchase or conventional PES. I also investigate conservation performance under the interesting case of adaptive management under imperfect information. In this simulation, I begin by targeting PES on a conservation pattern which is optimal for a low-climate change scenario, and then measure performance under high climate change. Such methods allow for the testing of policy and plan resilience under both climate change and uncertainty about climate change. This is early work, but initial indications are that approaches shown should be generalizable to a variety of contexts in which the construction of specific spatial patterns such as contiguous networks is desirable or necessary. They might also be applied in various cases of scientific uncertainty or public policy dispute, combining the ideas of adaptive management with the flexibility of PES. Contact Information: Dr. Michael Flaxman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Mass Avenue, Room 9-522, USA, Phone: 617-710-9087, Email: [email protected]


99

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION PROJECTS Maura Flight, Robert Paterson and Kate Doiron

Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA Ecosystem service models have been used to demonstrate the value to humans of natural resources at risk from, for example, over-development or catastrophic events such as climate change. They have also been used to inform land management plans by balancing conservation and development objectives. This study applies an ecosystem services approach in an alternative context: to inform the targeting and prioritization of natural resource restoration projects. Myriad site-specific factors influence: 1) how a given ecosystem performs its various ecological functions; and 2) the extent to which human populations benefit from this functioning. The heterogeneity among ecosystems of even the same type complicates our ability to extrapolate ecosystem service values across sites. In order to compare the relative benefits of alternative future restoration projects, it is important to understand the factors that will drive differences in the values of services. Toward this end, this study applies existing ecosystem models, including the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST), along with site-specific data to evaluate the service benefits of two tidal marsh restoration projects, one in California and one in Massachusetts. Specifically, we assess the differences of the two restored marsh sites in providing carbon storage, aesthetic enhancements, habitat, water purification, and flood mitigation. For each service, we identify the key factors influencing the differences in ecosystem service benefits. The results of this study confirm that it is inappropriate to rely on schedule-based, unit value transfers to monetize the values of ecosystems such as tidal marshes, and offer additional information on how to account for site-specific factors influencing relative benefits of restoration projects. Contact Information: Maura Flight, Industrial Economics, Inc., 2067 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02140, Phone: 617-354-0074, Email: [email protected]


100

HOW ARE HUMAN WELL-BEING AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES RELATED? Annet Forkink and Christopher Coutts

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Currently there is an active public debate in Florida on options for sustainable management of the natural landscape while stimulating economic growth. Opinions range from: 1) a region can overcome economically challenging times if developers are given free rein; to 2) growth management is necessary to maintain the State’s attractiveness to the eco-tourists. Opposing opinions can be based in part on differences in perceived relationship between human well-being and the services provided by different ecosystems. While it is generally agreed that there is a relationship between human well-being and ecosystem services, it is not well known how these variables relate and to what extent ecosystem services affect human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). This research will study the perceived relationship, among residents, between human well-being and the services provided by different coastal ecosystems in North Florida. Coastal ecosystems can have an effect on human health in several ways by providing, for example: 1) adequate livelihoods and basic materials for good life (e.g. food and jobs); 2) security (e.g. storm protection); 3) a landscape for physical activities; 4) an aesthetic pleasing environment and wildlife viewing opportunities (e.g. birding), and/ or 5) good social relations. Not every person will perceive the benefits of ecosystem services in the same way. In addition, what is perceived as beneficial at the regional level may not be the same at the individual level. It is expected that the perceived relationships between human well-being and ecosystem services differ between different stakeholders which may account for low public support for certain conservation and growth management measures. Improved understanding of the relationship between human well-being and ecosystem services may help balance sustainable natural resource use and economic growth by finding appropriate planning actions. These actions may include improving collaborative and communicative planning strategies, information transfer to fill information gaps and/ or transparency in the planning process. The study is focused on coastal counties in North Florida, as the debate about sustainable use of natural resources is prevalent in this region, and coastal communities are believed to be more vulnerable due to an increase in population in combination with the effects of climate change. Literature research is used to explore the existing knowledge base and to determine information gaps. At a later phase, in-depth interviews with different stakeholders will be useful to explore the perceived relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being at different scales. References: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.Island Press, Washington, DC. Contact Information: A. Forkink, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32327, USA, Phone: (850)644-5015, Email: [email protected]


101

THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX CULVERT, HOLISTIC APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE FLOOD MANAGEMENT David C. Fowler

Association of State Floodplain Managers & Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Milwaukee, WI, USA As stated in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 it has always been the intention of Congress to use our natural resources in a sustainable way. The reality is that we have seldom achieved this goal. As we move forward into the future this country faces tough choices on the use of our floodplains and floodways. Current floodplain and floodway management policy has two primary objectives, flood loss reduction and the conservation and protection of the natural and beneficial functions of our “natural” riparian resources. While considerable effort has been applied to the first objective, the second objective has had only minor consideration by our floodplain managers. While it is often quoted “Floods are the act of God and flood damages are the acts of man”, we forget that it is the second part which increases the risk from the first. Flooding losses in the United States are expected to exceed $20 billion annually. Current economic assessments of flood damages, and actions to reduce flood damages, consider a narrow range of costs and benefits. This narrow scope precludes innovative flood-risk reduction projects and hinders the development of more holistic flood management that can both counter rising flood damages and provide a broader range of values than current approaches. The benefits of ecosystem services are not yet considered in federal Benefit-Cost Analysis, which contributes to a focus on structural flood protection measures. Pragmatic and integrated tools and methods are needed to support sustainable solutions that reduce future flood risk and reverse the ever increasing escalation of damage to human health and property. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) post-flood damage evaluations of flood loss and replacement costs are evaluated on a building-by-building basis and only include construction replacement and evaluation of historically based flood probabilities. Cumulative impacts to the community, including social and environmental costs and ecosystem service benefits, are not factored in. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers takes a broader approach, but does not consider a comprehensive suite of physical, social, and environmental costs and benefits that could be evaluated. Floodplain management, for too long has been focused on structural flood damages with little consideration to the cultural, economic or environmental effects and benefits of a selected “flood control” strategy. Too often the dominant flood control strategy was to confine the river to a predefined channel size and capacity that maximized the availability of land for development or agriculture. Efficiency in water transport was the ultimate goal, and this resulted in structural interventions being constructed at the expense of the natural system. Impacts from structural flood control projects have resulted in both short term and long term economic and environmental consequences. This presentation will provide local examples of sustainable flood management that mitigate these impacts and provide flood management practices that are cost effective and sustainable. Contact Information: David Fowler, Association of State Floodplain Managers, 260 West Seeboth, Milwaukee, WI 53204, Phone: 414-277-6368, Email: [email protected]


102

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY Jessica Fox

Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA The electric power industry is directly tied to ecosystem services. Access to clean, flowing, cool water is an example of the power industry's dependence on services provided by nature. Water is used for cooling, exhaust gas cleaning, waste product transport, and driving turbines; water provides an inexpensive form of transport for coal-fired plants; water is the power source for hydroelectric facilities. Other services important to the industry include carbon sequestration to mitigate CO2 releases, air purification to mitigate air emissions, and water purification to mitigate pollutant discharges like nutrients. The Electric Power Research Institute is working collaboratively with its members to develop a decision support framework for incorporating ecosystem service considerations into day-to-day business decisions. This presentation will review initial interest and discussions around ecosystem services within the power industry and how those discussions led to current projects. It will review a case study of an ecosystem services pilot project that EPRI developed within the power industry, and will present up-to-date research on testing and developing the first industry-specific decision support framework. Contact Information: Jessica Fox, 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA, Phone: 650-855-2138, Email: [email protected]


103

THE OHIO RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY TRADING PROJECT Jessica Fox

Electric Power Research Institute, Hillsboro, Palo Alto, California, USA The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and its partners have received a $1.4 million of funding to facilitate “pilot trades” of nutrients between point and nonpoint sources in the Ohio River, marking the first trades in what could provide a model for dischargers to comply with EPA requirements in many watersheds facing high nutrient levels. When the program becomes fully operational in 2015 it will be a preferred method of attaining permit compliance and will serve as a model for other watersheds. The launch of the program comes as many state and industry officials are struggling to comply with growing EPA efforts to clamp down on nutrient pollution in a host of major watersheds, resulting in large hypoxic dead zones. But the trading program, if successful, could help provide a market-based cap-and-trade system to help dischargers comply with the regulatory requirements. EPRI will facilitate a handful of pilot trades between at least three National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders and at least 50 farms implementing agricultural conservation best management practices on up to 20,000 acres across Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Illinois or Tennessee. The pilot trades are expected to result in reductions of up to 45,000 pounds of nitrogen 15,000 pounds of phosphorus annually. The conservation practices have the potential for ecological benefits, such as improved wetlands and restored habitats, with the credit trading program offering new revenues for farmers and a potentially cost-effective alternative for power companies and other industries to meet nutrient effluent permit obligations. Using scientific research and a sophisticated watershed model, this project could result in a multi-industry market that may accelerate water quality improvements in the Ohio River Basin and establish a model for other domestic regional trading markets. EPRI began developing its Ohio River Basin nutrient trading program in 2009, with the intention of developing a large-scale, mutually accepted interstate trading market for nutrient reduction credits between point sources — which are subject to strict limits of nitrogen and phosphorus in its NPDES permits — and nonpoint sources such as farms, which contribute to nutrient loads but are not subject to NPDES permits. Nutrient trading has long been viewed by agricultural, industry and environmental stakeholders as a possible solution to controlling nutrient pollution on a large scale. Since farmers and other nonpoint sources can implement best management practices (BMPs) — such as installing buffer zones, cover crops and other measures — to reduce nutrient pollution at a fraction of the cost and with greater impact than point sources can, allowing point sources to offset their nutrient loads by buying credits from farmers could hasten the reduction of nutrients in a watershed. One of the differences between the EPRI program and other attempted interstate trading programs is the involvement of state officials through the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) and nonpoint stakeholders, including agriculture organizations. ORSANCO is a multi-state water quality management commission whose members are comprised of representatives from member states’ environmental agencies. Since the states in the Ohio River basin are already coordinating efforts to manage water quality through ORSANCO, the process of developing a trading program is made that much easier. This presentation will provide an update of this large collaborative effort with a particular focus on recommendations, lessons and tools to increase participation and create demand in water quality markets and make them successful. Contact Information: Jessica Fox, Senior Scientist, EPRI -Electric Power Research Institute, Hillsboro, Palo Alto, California, USA. Phone: +1 650-855-2138, Email: [email protected]


104

DECENTRALIZED POLICY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SCALABILITY Todd Gartner

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA Regulatory jurisdictions, watershed boundaries, and species ranges require that ecosystem markets for water and biodiversity be place-based. Local scale allows markets to incorporate the ecological, economic, and political factors of the local context. But to achieve landscape-level benefits and institutionalize the markets approach, ecosystem markets need a level of consistency of application across local contexts. This requires connecting demonstration- and policy-level efforts across the country, consensus-building around best-practices, and enhanced coordination both within and across regulatory agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. This presentation will discuss the need for consistent application of preferences and rules around market design and operations across place-based ecosystem markets and what it will take to achieve it. The presentation will draw on experience with both payments for watershed services initiatives and conservation markets for imperiled species. Contact Information: Todd Gartner, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 20002, Phone: 410-790-4070, Email: [email protected]


105

ENGAGING POTENTIAL BUYERS AND STIMULATING DEMAND Todd Gartner

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA Payments for watershed services projects cannot succeed without real demand from those who benefit from watershed services. Yet these beneficiaries often do not understand the full suite of watershed benefits they receive, impending threats to those benefits, the direct role they could play in protecting those benefits, and the financial case for doing so. This presentation will discuss the importance, challenges, and best-practices of engaging beneficiaries as potential buyers of watershed services, including crafting and communicating the business case for watershed investment, mechanisms for soliciting investment, and creating accountability for how resources are used. The presentation will draw on lessons learned in WRI’s efforts in northern New England, North Carolina, and the Pacific Northwest. Contact Information: Todd Gartner, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 20002, Phone: 410-790-4070, Email: [email protected]


106

GREEN VERSUS GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS: LESSONS FROM MAINE’S CROOKED RIVER WATERSHED Todd Gartner, John Talberth and Erin Grey

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA For the green infrastructure approach to be successful, water resource decision-makers need rigorous and actionable green v. gray cost-benefit analysis that fully accounts for the design, location, scale, risks, and financing of interventions needed on the landscape to produce promised services. This presentation will discuss WRI’s experience conducting a green v. gray cost-benefit analysis for the Crooked River Watershed outside Portland, Maine. Working with the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences and others, WRI compared the present value cost of green infrastructure investments needed to maintain Portland’s water filtration waiver to the present value cost of the gray infrastructure (membrane filtration) that would be needed if the waiver were to be revoked. Savings are estimated at 67 percent ($68.2 million). The analysis addressed specific conservation practices across the landscape, informed by a conservation priority index that indicates which practices should be implemented where, and at what scale in order to maximize outcomes. The presentation will cover challenges, results, impact on decision-making, and lessons learned. Contact Information: Todd Gartner, World Resources Institute, Portland, OR, 97209, Phone: 410-790-4070, Email: [email protected]


107

VALUING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS OF SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT CONSERVATION William Gascoigne1, Janet Perry2, Chris Hartley3, Frank Casey4 and Lynne Koontz1

1Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch, Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO, USA 2Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., USA 3Office of Environmental Markets, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA 4Science and Decisions Center, Energy Minerals and Environmental Health, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA

In March 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) launched the Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI) to provide a holistic approach to conserving sage-grouse populations and the habitat the candidate species depends on, while sustaining working ranches in the West. Under SGI, the NRCS orchestrates voluntary and incentive-based approaches for species and habitat conservation on private (and sometimes public) rangelands—lands that provide substantial social, cultural, and economic benefits. To date, the NRCS has obligated $112 million in financial assistance to restore sage-grouse habitat in 11 western states, including California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. It is important to understand the full impacts of such management efforts, as they require considerable resources. These financial investments have resulted in direct economic impacts in terms of supporting local contractors and material suppliers involved in restoration activities, while also supplying valuable indirect benefits through increased ecosystem services. In addition to conserving sage-grouse species populations, ancillary ecosystem service benefits from habitat restoration include increased forage production, improved water quality, and greater biodiversity, to name a few. This presentation will review our efforts to quantify and value these ecosystem service benefits under the SGI, with particular focus on increased forage as an input into livestock production. In doing so, we will address how biophysical data from resulting habitat restoration is matched with ranch production models to supplement economic valuation. Additionally, the potential for payments for ecosystem services (PES) regarding sage-grouse habitat on private lands will be discussed. Contact Information: William Gascoigne, Fort Collins Science Center, USGS, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. C, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA, Phone: 970-226-9227, Email: [email protected]


108

CHALLENGES IN TRANSLATION: THE ROCKY PATH FROM SCIENCE TO PRACTICE ON PUBLIC LANDS Marianne S. Gengenbach

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL USA Before ecosystem services can play a significant role in management decisions, their assessment may need to be able to occur and be reported at the land management unit level. In 2008, the Florida Legislature revised the state’s conservation land management statutes to require the reporting of “estimated calculable financial benefits to the public for the ecosystem services provided by conservation lands, based on the best readily available information or science that provides a standard methodology to be consistently applied by the land managing agencies.” While this reflects an important attempt to increase the understanding of the full economic value of Florida’s conservation lands and explain their importance to the state’s economy and quality of life, its implementation has presented challenges that have been insurmountable to this point in time. However, the implementation efforts have identified crucial hurdles that will require the collaboration of the scientific, governmental and public/private land management communities to overcome. This presentation will identify some of the hurdles that block practical implementation of ground-level ecosystem services assessments and their use for management decisions and provide an outline for achieving possible solutions. Contact Information: Marianne S. Gengenbach, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 100, Tallahassee, FL 32399, USA 850-245-2773, Email: [email protected]


109

DESIGNING INNOVATIVE CORPORATE WATER RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FROM AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PERSPECTIVE M.S. Berry Kennedy, Daniel J. Gerding, Makely F. Lyon, Joshua A. Rego and Emily S. L. Taylor

School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA With uncertainty surrounding the specific impacts of global climate change, it is increasingly important for corporations to fully incorporate the value of services nature provides into strategic decisions. Working closely with The Dow Chemical Company, our team of five Masters of Science students from the University of Michigan researched emerging tools and strategies to support and sustainably leverage ecosystem value within one of the world’s largest chemical manufacturing companies. Specifically, our project focuses on fresh water provisioning and impending scarcity. Implementing ecosystem service valuation techniques that more accurately capture the true value of water resources is an important first step towards changing private sector water consumption practices. Corporations must then develop innovative systems that allow for nimble adaptation to changing ecosystem conditions. Based on lessons from energy efficiency financing, carbon pricing and trading, and infrastructure investment, we established a framework for preemptive corporate response to changes in freshwater availability. Analysis of case studies of organizational responses to other natural resource challenges provided a framework for deciding what financial, institutional or operational responses might be appropriate in a given context. The framework is intended to be policy-agnostic; in other words, the goal is to facilitate action that reduces water risk regardless of water policy and socio-economic context. The outcome of this work is a strategy to analyze and adapt existing natural resource response mechanisms to freshwater in a particular corporate context. This strategy will guide companies to choose among alternative options to shift water-related policies, practices and technologies to those that support corporate growth while promoting positive environmental and social impacts. Contact Information: Masters Project Team 228. c/o Emily Taylor, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA, Phone: 734.604.6861, Email: [email protected]


110

SYMBIOITIC DEMAND: AN ANTITHESIS TO THE “TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS” Timothy Gieseke

Ag Resource Strategies, LLC, New Ulm, Minnesota, USA In 2009, the Minnesota legislation directed the Department of Agriculture to develop a “reasonable assurance” process for the purpose of accounting for farmers’ land management activities that met the state’s TMDL (water quality) goals. To meet this legislative objective, a new economic concept called symbiotic demand was employed to integrate a farm’s production and natural resource management outcomes. Ag Resource Strategies, LLC initiated the symbiotic demand process by applying ecosystem service market signals based on land management metrics. The primary market signals were metrics related to “TMDL regulatory compliance”, with the intention other stakeholders could use the market signal model to demand ecosystem services or natural capital management criteria. One-hundred livestock and crop farms were assessed to determine their sustainability “starting line”. The “TMDL compliance” market signal was used as the sustainability “finish line”. Due to the transparency of the process, farmers could determine how to best engage within this eco-market to meet their business’ interests. From within this ecocommerce context, four principles emerged: geo-intelligence, strategic doing, shared governance and shared value. Geo-intelligence was created with location-specific land metrics associated with watersheds. This concept could simultaneously be applied to other geographically defined sheds such as milk, wildlife, grain, etc. Strategic doing was the result of a transparent market signal allowing individuals or entities to contribute toward the desired outcome, rather than using a hierarchical planning approach. Shared governance resulted from self-organization among the stakeholders engaged in assisting farmers in meeting the TMDL goals. Shared value resulted from multiple entities achieving common land management objectives. The conclusion is symbiotic demand is an antithesis of the “tragedy of the commons”. If the “tragedy of the commons” is defined as the mismanagement of land [resources] causing degradation and imposing a negative effect upon entities that rely on those resources, then symbiotic demand is the valuation of beneficial management by multiple entities creating a positive effect for entities and managers that rely on those resources. The recommendation is to incorporate symbiotic demand as an economic means to apportion the costs and multiple values associated with ecosystem services and natural capital management. This would place ecosystem service markets, governmental programs and corporate sustainability objectives within a larger and common economic context. Fundamentally it would shift the sustainability movement from largely a project mentality to one of a more fluid, outcome-based valuation process. Contact Information: Tim Gieseke, Ag Resource Strategies, LLC. 40322 541st Avenue, New Ulm, MN 56073, USA, Phone: 507-359-1889, Email: [email protected]


111

ECONOMIC APPROACHES AND MARKET CONSTRUCTS FOR CROSS-BORDER MIGRATORY SPECIES CONSERVATION Joshua H. Goldstein1, Kenneth J. Bagstad 2 and John Loomis3

1Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, Denver, CO, USA 3Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

Migratory species are a widely recognized biological phenomenon, and diverse efforts (e.g., international treaties, incentive programs) have been implemented to address their conservation. Recently, the importance of migratory species in providing ecosystem services of local, regional, and global importance has been recognized and may provide another avenue to advance conservation efforts. The ecosystem services framework orients researchers and practitioners towards quantifying and valuing the benefits provided to people by migratory species. In this talk, we will examine and critique the role of economics, and market constructs in particular, in valuing ecosystem services for cross-border migratory species across their migratory range. Drawing upon insights learned from our working group’s focal migratory species (northern pintails, monarch butterflies, and Mexican free-tailed bats), we will discuss the following: 1) methodological approaches for valuing ecosystem services from cross-border migratory species and the need for biophysical and cultural information to define the units of ecosystem services to be valued (type, magniture, temporal and spatial location); 2) using economic information to guide conservation policy decisions, including the development of market-based programs such as cross-border payments for ecosystem services; and 3) considering the strengths and limitations of an economic approach to appropriately characterize the ecosystem-service values of migratory species for different stakeholders, policy decisions, and to guide investments in on-the-ground conservation projects. Contact Information: Joshua H. Goldstein, Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, 1480 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA, Phone: 970-491-5220, Email: [email protected]


112

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CONSERVATION AS A VALUABLE ASSET TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY Rita Gomes

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal Nature and human activities are responsible for generating drivers of change that affect ecosystems direct or indirectly, and, consequently, their capacity to provide services. Population growth and land use changes account for the most relevant direct drivers of change. While there is a growing recognition of the importance of ecosystem services for human well-being and a need to protect them, governments all over the world have not been able to mainstream ecosystem services into decision-making, especially at the planning level, - fundamental for stopping ecosystem services unsustainable use - mostly because they are still taken for granted and for free. The influence of humans over ecosystems is most obvious when considering the local level, but, if on one hand decision-makers at local level can directly influence the choice of technology, land use changes and external inputs, on the other hand they have little control over prices and markets, property rights, technology development and on local climate. Exploring and assessing territorial development options on ecosystems, and consequently their capacity to provide services, therefore becomes an important issue for local decision-making, safeguarding their maintenance and consequent local communities’ well-being. However the conservation is still perceived in many cases as a cost and a constraint to local socioeconomic development. There is a need for decision-makers to find more creative and systematic financing solutions, so that instead of conservation and investments on natural capital being seen as an obstacle or a cost, they start being seen as an opportunity for capital gains. The purpose of this communication is to share advances on the potential of municipal ecosystem services conservation schemes to generate economic revenues, and the potential application of these revenues to ensure the sustainability of local communities. Specifically, those mechanisms enabled by the mainstreaming of ecosystem services into Municipal Master Plans. A draft of a developed framework will be presented for discussion, as well as the first advances of it’s application to Alcochete, a Portuguese municipality inside Lisbon metropolitan area, with a recognised diversity and richness of natural capital and with high conservation interest.

Contact Information: Rita Catarina Gomes, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Instituto Superior Técnico, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal, Phone: +351 – 21 – 841 83 42; Email: [email protected]


113

ECOSYSTEMS MARKETS: PERSPECTIVES FROM A PORTUGUESE NGO Paula Lopes da Silva1 and Rita Catarina Gomes2

1Enterprises and Biodiversity Project Coordinator, Dep. Nature Conservation and Biodiversity, Quercus – National Association for Nature Conservation, Lisbon, Portugal

2Expert Volunteer, Dep. Nature Conservation and Biodiversity, Quercus – National Association for Nature Conservation, Lisbon, Portugal

Human demand for ecosystem services is increasing as a consequence of the world’s demographic and socioeconomic patterns, threatening in the middle/long term, the ecosystems capacity to provide the services essential to current and future generation’s well-being. Experiences on setting market mechanisms to help to protect the ecosystems and consequently the services they provide are increasing, but there are still many challenges to overcome, towards making them effective on conserving ecosystems services. NGO’s play an important role on society informing and mobilizing public opinion, monitoring the implementation of public policies, ‘think tanks’, etc. NGOs usually dare to be creative and have the audacity to propose and test innovative solutions, stepping ahead their time, and they also can have an important role on ecosystem markets. Portugal is a small European country, though holding a recognized biodiversity with high conservation interest, and part of its territory is located inside the Mediterranean Biodiversity Hotspot. Quercus is a Portuguese NGO founded in 1985, as an independent, nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization. Since its foundation has come to occupy both an irreverent and constructive place on Portuguese society on the defense of multiple environmental protection causes, a work recognized by the awarding of some prizes. Quercus work is focused mainly on Portuguese territory, but it works in partnership with international NGOs and networks, including on Business and Biodiversity related topics, having recently promoted an event on forest ecosystem markets. Quercus advocates for the transition to a real Green Economy, one that does not focus on continuous growth, as the current economic model does, but fits the real carrying capacity of the Earth ecosystems. Ence, for us, it should remain central that the ultimate goal of setting and promoting ecosystem markets, should be, in the end, to effectively give back to Nature, i. e., to contribute to restoring, promoting or at least stop depleting ecosystem services. In short, doing business with and FOR nature. Departing from the major basic blocks of any kind of market, namely Supply, Demand, Value (and its perception) and the Institutional Landscape, this communication will bring some insights about the possible ways NGO’s can contribute to setting ecosystems markets. It presents Quercus contributions and other real cases that illustrate how, in our opinion, NGOs can be active players on defining and promoting Value, shaping Supply, raising Demand and influencing the Institutional Landscape for fair and effective ecosystem markets. Contact Information: Paula Lopes da Silva, Quercus - National Association for Nature Conservation, Centro Associativo do Calhau, Bairro do Calhau, Parque Florestal de Monsanto, 1500-045 Lisbon, Portugal, Phone: +351 931 634 670, Email: [email protected]


114

A PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PILOT PROJECT SURVEYING FOR RARE PLANTS ON PRIVATE LANDS Art Goodtimes1, Peggy Lyon2 and Joshua Goldstein3

1Center for Collaborative Conservation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 2Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 3Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

In 2010 San Miguel County in southwestern Colorado launched a pilot Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) project to provide payments to private landowners in exchange for access to allow a field botanist to inventory for targeted rare plant species.

Inspired by a presentation by Sally Collins, the founding director of the USDA Office of Environmental Markets, Commissioner Art Goodtimes received a fellowship from the Center for Collaborative Conservation at Colorado State University to initiate an on-the-ground PES project -- matching fellowship money and CSU advisory support with an existing open space mill levy fund levied in the County. The project operated under the auspices of the County Open Space Commission.

A statewide effort, the Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative was started in 2009. Most public lands in the state had been surveyed, but potential sites on private lands had not. A rare plant survey was perceived as meeting County and State goals for locating habitat on private lands, refining the extant of existing populations, and developing possible monitoring and protection measures.

The entire two-and-a half year process of conceptual development, project discussion and delineation, stakeholder outreach, field work protocols and final survey results provides, we believe, a useful template for getting a small, local PES project underway. Six landowners were compensated for participating in the pilot and two properties were found to contain populations of one of the four targeted rare plants species. The County is working on developing a long-term monitoring program for at least one of the surveyed properties.

Important lessons were learned in limiting the focus of a project, stakeholder participation, testing for measurable results, using sliding scale reimbursements, the etiquette of contract writing, appropriate types of confidentiality, public outreach versus invitation, and the long-term viability of a program.

The success of the pilot has also inspired San Miguel County to continue and possibly expand the Rare Plant PES Project, as well as beginning work to see if a larger PES effort can be organized – perhaps on behalf of the County’s federally-endangered Gunnison Sage Grouse (Centrocercus minimus) or the BLM-managed Spring Creek Wild Horse herd.

Commissioner Goodtimes would like to share his County’s PES success story with rural governments, universities and advocacy groups, as we begin to build a network of successful PES programs in rural communities around the country. And eventually a state and national PES marketplace.

Contact Info: Art Goodtimes, San Miguel County, P.O. Box 1170, Telluride, CO, 81435, USA, Phone: 970-728-3844, Email:[email protected]


115

OPPORTUNITIES FOR URBAN FORESTRY PROJECTS AS CARBON OFFSETS IN CALIFORNIA Gerry Gray1 and Greg McPherson2

1American Forests, Washington, DC 2U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis, CA

This paper will explore opportunities for urban forestry projects in California’s compliance-based carbon offset market and as a mitigation measure to help meet state environmental objectives. The paper presents information, lessons and strategies from a workshop on Carbon Offsets & the Urban Forest held in Davis, California on June 6, 2012. California is at the forefront of efforts in the U.S. to develop policies that address climate change. The state’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or AB 32, requires California to return to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020. Over the past six years, the state has developed an impressive framework of policies and market mechanisms to achieve this goal, including a cap-and-trade program to trade carbon credits. While urban forestry projects may participate in the cap-and-trade program through the Urban Forest Project Protocol, no projects have been registered to date. A key purpose of the June 6th workshop was to explore current obstacles facing urban forestry projects and strategies to overcome those obstacles. In summary, workshop participants agreed that the current protocol presents nearly insurmountable hurdles and needs revision. Dr. Greg McPherson presented an alternative protocol approach that would address a number of key hurdles by focusing on the urban tree canopy (UTC) instead of individual tree sites. Another opportunity within the cap-and-trade program is to ensure that urban forestry projects are recognized as legitimate activities for the investment of state revenues expected to be generated by the auctioning of carbon allowances. State legislators are currently debating the best uses of these new fiscal resources, which are estimated to amount to billions of dollars annually. Under the broad framework of California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or SB 375, developers may get relief from certain environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if their new residential and mixed-use projects include approved mitigation measures. Although urban forestry is cited as a mitigation measure, a formal protocol does not yet exist. Participants at the June 6th workshop stated that urban forestry projects appeal to many developers as a mitigation measure, but few projects have been undertaken because of the uncertainty regarding their legal defensibility. Adoption by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association of an urban forest project protocol for CEQA mitigation would be a major step toward encouraging the use of urban forestry projects by local jurisdictions, consultants and developers. American Forests is serving as a national partner with the U.S. Forest Service and other participants from the July 6th workshop and has initiated a “community of practice” around the topic of urban forests and carbon offsets to help expand knowledge nationally and advance workshop strategies to increase opportunities for urban forestry projects. Contact Information: Gerry Gray, Senior Vice President, American Forests, 734 15th St. NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 USA, Phone: 202-737-1944 ext. 217, Email: [email protected]

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/

http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/


116

VALUING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH USED OIL RECYCLING; Stephanie Beadle1, Gretchen Greene,1 Lisa Grice1 and Mark Pharist2

1ENVIRON International Corporation, Portland and Chicago, USA 2Safety-Kleen, Plano, Texas, USA

Recycling markets have been in place for the better part of the last 40 years, and these markets function with varying degrees of governmental support and involvement. Governments are involved because the ecosystem services associated with recycling are public goods, such as the savings in virgin resources, and reductions in the waste stream. At the same time, if the recycled resource becomes more valuable, the markets are increasingly subject to distortion at the hand of the very policies that sought to enhance the market in the first place. Once thriving, market forces may change rapidly and policies are not always able to keep pace. This paper will review the ecosystem services associated with used oil recycling as the resource has transformed from a waste product to a commodity over the past decade. Ecosystem services associated with used oil recycling will be identified and values for the services will be developed depending upon the different processing dispositions of the used oil. A global policy survey will identify the effectiveness of different regional approaches to used oil management. A case study will be provided based for the new legislation on used oil in California, Senate Bill 546, which attempts to increase the collection of used oil, and the degree of re-refining of used oil. Recommendations will be developed for potential efficiencies in the provision of ecosystem services based on the economic analysis of the markets and associated ecosystem services provided. The ecosystem service values associated with used oil recycling and re-refining include savings in virgin energy, reduced energy required for processing, and in some cases reduced emissions. These will be measured through a review of literature on used oil, and by developing per gallon estimates of ecosystem services for each final use of used oil. Energy savings will be valued using the price of the virgin energy displaced through collection of used oil. A survey of literature will be conducted to estimate the value of the saved emissions and the value of reducing illegal disposal of used oil. Research on used oil management policies and the effectiveness of different strategies will be presented and will provide a context for the case study of SB546 in California. Finally, the value of ecosystem services prior to SB 546 will be evaluated in terms of the government funding level for the previous management program. Next, the proposed impact from SB 546 will be analyzed, and the potential value of increases in ecosystem services will be forecast and evaluated again in the context of the government program and spending. Based on the results of the analysis, recommendations will be made for ways to improve and streamline the used oil recycling system in California. This case should provide a good example and stimulate discussion of how public/private cooperation can achieve improved ecosystem service levels, and where there are weaknesses and vulnerabilities associated with this kind of economic cooperation. Contact Information: Gretchen Greene, PhD, ENVIRON International Corporation, 8440 SE Sunnybrook Blvd., Suite 204, Clackamas, OR, 97015, Phone: 360-608-1975, Email: [email protected]



117

CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AND COMMERCIAL RISK DRIVE LIFECYCLE FOCUS ON RESOURCE DEPENDENCY Lisa Nelowet Grice

ENVIRON International Corporation, Denver, CO, USA We are on the cusp of a new era where lifecycle thinking affects our understanding of the resource dependency of the products and services we offer. Where formerly companies focused on the availability of raw materials from first tier suppliers, and took for granted the availability of cheap water; now companies have begun to evaluate resource availability risks throughout their supply chain. In addition, the nascent sustainability issue of driving raw materials to their “highest and best use” is threatening even greater uncertainty around resource availability. This presentation will focus on the fast developing corporate sustainability drive for holistic thinking around resource dependency. Contact Information: Lisa Grice, ENVIRON International Corp, 303 E. 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, Phone: 303-382-5480, Email: [email protected]


118

MANOMET/SPATIAL INFORMATICS GROUP FOREST CARBON FORECASTER: A CARBON PRO FORMA TOOL TO EVALUATE CARBON MARKET OPPORTUNITIES ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC FORESTLANDS John Gunn1, Timothy Robards2, David Saah2 and Thomas Buchholz2

1Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Brunswick, ME, USA 2Spatial Informatics Group, LLC, Pleasanton, CA, USA

The tool is intended to provide a first estimation of carbon market opportunities and the ability to test alternate scenarios to determine the conditions where future market entry may be possible. A landowner or forest manager is walked through a series of questions about a forest property and carbon project to determine eligibility, costs, and potential financial benefits under the current carbon standards and protocols (Climate Action Reserve and American Carbon Registry). Summary pro forma analytics are provided for multiple scenarios to allow the user to evaluate options within and across carbon registries. Primary users are forestry and natural resource professionals and carbon project developers. Landowners with some knowledge of forest management and carbon markets will also find the tool useful. Basic knowledge of a forest parcel’s acreage and forest cover types are necessary. Many default values are provided for transaction costs, but a working knowledge of forest inventory and management costs will help to ground truth the defaults for a particular region. It is also helpful to have some basic understanding of the possible carbon reductions that could be generated from the project. The tool resides in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet but eventually will be migrated to a web-based interactive platform. Contact Information: John Gunn, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, 14 Maine Street, Suite 410, Brunswick, ME 04011, USA, Phone: (207) 721-9040 ext. 4, Email: [email protected]


119

INCORPORATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INTO LAND USE PLANNING IN WASHINGTON STATE SYSTEM SERVICES AND LAND USE POLICY Kevin Halsey

Ecosystem Services Group, Parametrix, Portland, OR, USA The presentation will address recent activities in Snohomish County, WA, with a particular focus on the Tulalip Tribe’s efforts to integrate ecosystem services into regional land use planning activities. The Tulalip’s activities seek to create a net positive ecosystem services outcome from future development that occurs within the Lower Quliceda portion of the tribe’s properties. Concurrently, Snohomish County is endeavoring to integrate ecosystem services into watershed planning for the Skagit River watershed in which the Lower Quilceda region is located. These efforts are providing an ideal opportunity to work through issues of integrating analysis and decision making at multiple scales. The Tulalip are developing code provisions that will be applicable at a site/project scale, which will guide avoidance, minimization and off-sets for future activities that could impact ecosystem service. These code provisions must nest within the ultimate goal for the sub-region of net positive ecosystem service outcomes for the Lower Quilceda planning area. However, these activities are all happening within Snohomish Couny’s larger scale watershed planning and will both inform and be informed by that process. The focus of the presentation will be on the role metrics play in the processes, including the need for multiple metrics that fill specific roles within the planning process and program implementation. In addition, the presentation will suggest ways in which the metrics contributed to addressing the essential spatial and temporal scale issues that the project must consider. As the project evolves we anticipate many lessons learned, but an early outcome of the project is a clear signal that if we desire to optimize the integration of ecosystem services into urban settings, it is necessary to move beyond an either/or approach to ecosystem services. It is easy to get trapped into a dichotomous framework for ecosystem services of either nature or technology. However, an urban context forces us to consider, and be able to measure, ecosystem services in a more nuanced manner – more of a spectrum of conditions from natural to man-made that include a blending of nature and technology in creative ways. Optimizing use of our urban areas and maximizing use of ecosystem services in planning processes will increasingly require this nuanced approach. An additional suggestion of the effort thus far is that “valuing” exercizes can take many forms and while monetized values can be very useful in many contexts, non-monetary values can often be a more meaningful means of understanding the trade-offs inherent in planning processes. This is particularly true when there is a heavy focus on cultural services within the receptor population. Contact Information: Kevin Halsey, Parametrix, 700 NE Mulnomah, Portland, OR 97232, Phone: 503-416-6166, Email: [email protected]


120

STATE OF THE VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKETS 2012: DEVELOPING DIMENSION Molly Peters-Stanley and Katherine E. Hamilton

Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC Developing Dimension is the sixth annual report created to shed light on voluntary carbon market (VCM) trends. Findings are based on data reported by 312 offset suppliers, seven exchanges, and all major registries. This presentation focuses on parts of the report salient to discussion around local buyer activity and conservation co-benefits in the forest carbon offset markets. In 2011, suppliers in the overall VCM reported transacting the second-highest volume (95 MtCO2e) and value ($576 million) tracked in this report series. If one excludes a low priced, high volume outlier from the 2010 market, the average price for VERs increased from $6/tCO2e in 2010 to $6.2/tCO2e in 2011. While European buyers upped their offset purchases (mostly overseas at a lower price), US buyers supported domestic projects to sustain climate action in the absence of federal cap-and-trade – buying more credits than companies in any other country. Buyers in developing countries also bought locally, whether to “green” their end of a supply chain as exporters or to prepare for domestic GHG regulations. A third of market value in 2011 came from forest carbon credit sales. REDD and IFM transactions averaged $12/tCO2e, followed by A/R at $9/tCO2e. Purely voluntary demand propelled A/R projects to transact 7.6 MtCO2e – the second largest volume in the VCM. While transacted REDD credits fell by 59% from 2010 due to political barriers, technical challenges, and interest in lower-priced credits, REDD’s transactions (7.3 MtCO2e) and above-average price still yielded the highest value of any project type. Across project types, credits with a high average price (>$8/tCO2e) were transacted by purely voluntary buyers who sought projects with social, environmental and often local benefits. Credits under domestic standards achieved the highest average prices of any standard at $17.3/tCO2e, largely owing to the high cost of project inputs in the case of developed country programs, and heightened demand for local initiatives. In descending order, the top reported business motivations for offsetting were CSR, PR/branding, resale, anticipation of regulation or commodity investment, and supply chain greening. Across the globe, national programs developed to support domestic demand. Domestic standards made headway in 2011, including China’s Panda Standard, the UK’s Woodland Carbon Code, Japan’s J-VER, Korea’s K-VER, and Australia’s Carbon Farming Initiative. China’s forest-facing China Green Carbon Foundation and Panda Standard won their first transactions in 2011, with all credits sold to domestic firms. US-based Norfolk Southern signed a $5.6M deal to support Greentrees’ A/R work. Latin American programs like Costa Rica’s C-Neutral Standard and Chile’s Santiago Climate Exchange aimed to guide domestic offset use. Oceania found greater clarity over domestic offsets under Australia’s new carbon price, while New Zealand fed compliance forest carbon credits into the VCM. Most credits transacted domestically in Africa went to South African buyers like NedBank, which remained active in the VCM with an eye on the country’s proposed carbon tax, which may include a domestic offset component. Forestry and land-use credits are among the top project types that suppliers expect to generate over the next five years, and comprise the largest volume of unsold credits in supplier portfolios. Forest carbon offset suppliers have the opportunity to tap into local demand by marketing their close-to-home conservation co-benefits, capitalizing on the trend toward regionalization in the VCM. Contact Information: Katherine Hamilton, Director of Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, Phone: 203-430-9808, Email: [email protected]


121

A TOOL TO BUILD THE CAPACITY OF DECISION-MAKERS TO ADAPT TO CROSS-SECTORAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Paula A. Harrison1, Mark D.A. Rounsevell2, CLIMSAVE partners3, RUBICODE partners4, BESAFE partners5 and OPENNESS partners6

1Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 2School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK 3www.climsave.eu 4www.rubicode.net 5www.besafe-project.net 6Coordinated by Eeva Furman, SKYE (www.ymparisto.fi)

Decision-makers and other interested citizens need to be able to access reliable science-based information to help them respond to the risks of climate change impacts on ecosystems services and assess opportunities for adaptation. Participatory integrated assessment (IA) tools combine knowledge from diverse scientific disciplines, take account of the value and importance of stakeholder ‘lay insight’ and facilitate a two-way iterative process of exploration of “what if’s” to enable decision-makers to test ideas and improve their understanding of the complex issues surrounding ecosystem service assessment and adaptation to climate change. The CLIMSAVE IA Platform is a web-based participatory IA tool which allows stakeholders to assess climate change adaptation for a range of ecosystem services from the agricultural, forestry, biodiversity, coastal, water and urban sectors. The linking of models for the different sectors enables stakeholders to explore and understand the interactions and trade-offs between different ecosystem services, rather than viewing their own policy area in isolation. The CLIMSAVE IA Platform will form part of the tools provided by CLIMATE-ADAPT, the EC Web Portal for supporting adaptation decision-making in Europe. The EU-funded CLIMSAVE project builds on the RUBICODE project which collated and reviewed information on ecosystem services for the main terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in Europe. This included information on the current status and trends in ecosystem services and how these may be monitored over time, how biodiversity contributes to service provision, what might happen to services in the future under various drivers of change, how services can be valued in decision-making, and policy and research needs for conserving and managing ecosystem services. The EU BESAFE project is also continuing many aspects of the research from RUBICODE through an investigation of the importance people attribute to alternative arguments for the protection of biodiversity and in particular how this relates to ecosystem services. It is analysing how uncertainties or gaps in scientific knowledge on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services affect stakeholder’s perception of the value of biodiversity and argumentation related to biodiversity conservation. The results are being used to produce a framework, web-based database and associated toolkit that will give guidance on the effectiveness of alternative arguments and protection strategies in various contexts. Finally all the research from these different EU-funded projects is being brought together and expanded in a new large scale research project known as OPENNESS: Operationalisation of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: from Concepts to Real-world Applications. OPENNESS is developing, and testing in 26 case studies, new operational frameworks that provide practical and tailored solutions for integrating ecosystem services into land, water and urban management and decision-making. This paper will present the main principles and outcomes from this integrated set of European projects and how they are being used to build the capacity of decision-makers in applying the ecosystem service concept. Contact Information: Paula A. Harrison, Environmental Change Unstitute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK, Phone: +44-1484-660379, Email: [email protected]


122

USDA: HELPING MARKET-BASED APPROACHES ENGAGE LANDOWNERS IN CONSERVATION: A USDA PERSPECTIVE Christopher G. Hartley

U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Environmental Markets, Washington, DC, USA USDA supports agriculture and promotes environmental stewardship of air, soil, water and other natural resources with funding and authorities provided under the Farm Bill. Section 2709 of the 2008 Farm Bill directed USDA to establish technical guidelines that outline science-based methods to measure the environmental services benefits from conservation and land management activities in order to facilitate the participation of farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in emerging environmental services markets. Payments for ecosystem services and the establishment of environmental markets offer opportunities to leverage existing Federal investments in conservation and attract additional resources to protect and enhance biodiversity and the environment. USDA has committed to working cooperatively with other government agencies and the private and non-profit sectors to build a robust, accessible, and scientifically credible market system to ensure that the potential ecological benefits to the public, the wildlife and the environment are being realized. Contact Information: Christopher G. Hartley, U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Environmental Markets, 4056 South Building, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20250 USA, Phone: 202-690-0832, Email:[email protected]


123

THE YUKON RIVER INDIGENOUS OBSERVATION NETWORK: PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM BASELINE DATASETS HIGHLIGHTING CLIMATE VARIATION INDICATORS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS R. Toohey1, L.M. Mackey1, C. Hasburgh1, P.F. Schuster2 and N. Herman-Mercer2

1Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, Fairbanks, AK, USA 2United States Geological Survey, Boulder, CO, USA

The Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council (YRITWC) is a consortium of 70 Alaskan Tribes and Canadian First Nations that live within the Yukon River Basin. As a direct result of Indigenous-observed changes and increased concerns about water quality, the YRITWC created a Science Department. Over the years, the YRITWC Science Department through direction from its Member Nations has formed the largest international Indigenous Observation Network (ION) in the world. The YRITWC has trained over 100 environmental technicians to participate in ION to effectively monitor and investigate their local environments with global implications. In collaboration with the YRITWC and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), ION has developed two projects that focus on water quality and permafrost monitoring. Combined with a detailed study by the USGS from 2001-2005, the ION database now covers over 10 years of historical water quality data in some locations. Water quality parameters such as pH, alkalinity, major ions, dissolved organic carbon, greenhouse gases, and water isotopes, have been collected at 45 sites during 2001–2010. The historical record and detail of this water quality study have led ION to become part of the Arctic Great Rivers Observatory (GRO) project that compares discharge, water chemistry, and climate change among the great rivers draining into Arctic Ocean. In 2009, ION, YRITWC and USGS began monitoring the active layer of soil above permafrost at 20 locations throughout the watershed. Continuous (i.e., 30 minute data) soil moisture and temperature are recorded throughout the year at the surface and above the permafrost layer. Manual measurements of the active layer are taken during early fall of each year to monitor changes in thickness. Through this project, ION has become a major contributor to the Circumpolar Active Layer Monitoring Network (CALM). Preliminary data and analysis from the water quality and permafrost studies will be presented. Through ION, these studies contribute to increasing local Indigenous knowledge about processes affecting water quality and permafrost in their communities. These local observations have contributed to the global understanding of climate change and ultimately its impacts on subsistence communities. In the future, ION will draw even more on the integration of Indigenous ecological knowledge with cutting edge scientific concepts and instrumentation to assess, mitigate and adapt to changing local environments. Contact Information: Carol Hasburgh, Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, 323 2nd Street, Unit A, Fairbanks, AK 99701, Email: [email protected], [email protected]


124

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECOVERY CREDIT SYSTEM: LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES K. Brian Hays1, Justin Tatum2 and David Wolfe3

1Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, Texas A&M University, Gatesville, TX, USA 2Texas Watershed Management Foundation, Gatesville, TX, USA 3Environmental Defense Fund, Austin, TX, USA

We describe here a recovery credit system that can be used as a tool to positively contribute to the ecological integrity of a landscape and meet the needs of issues ranging from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), to water quality/quantity, etc. This policy innovation is accomplished by providing incentives for private landowners to put into practice conservation measures. The 3 year pilot project presented here was implemented on private lands near Fort Hood, Texas for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). This model utilizes a reverse auction whereby landowners make competitive bids to enter the program. During the pilot project 13,858 acres of private land was enrolled in the program. Of that area, 2201 acres of occupied endangered species habitats are being conserved, enhanced, and expanded through performance based contracts ranging from 10 to 25 years. As a result, Fort Hood has gained credits that may be used to offset future impacts to the species on the installation thus providing the army with additional training flexibility. One of the features of this system is that the anticipated duration of recovery credits matches the expected duration of adverse impacts they are intended to offset. The specific features of the golden-cheeked warbler example and principles for guiding the establishment of similar recovery crediting efforts will be outlined. In addition we will provide examples of how recovery crediting has been used as a model to develop similar programs throughout the United States. Contact Information: K. Brian Hays, Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, 2005 E. Main, Suite 124, Gatesville, TX 76528, USA, Phone: 254-865-2061, Email: [email protected]


125

SUBURBAN LANDSCAPE WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY SERVICES Dianna M. Hogan and J.V. Loperfido

US Geological Survey Eastern Geographic Science Center, Reston, VA USA The Chesapeake Bay is a degraded estuary due in part to excess sediment and nutrient pollution originating in its 168,000 km2 watershed. Increasing urban and suburban land use in the Bay watershed is compromising the ability of the landscape to provide important ecological services that include water purification (for example, nutrient and sediment removal, retention, or transformation), water storage, groundwater recharge, wildlife and plant habitat, and recreation. Local level stormwater mitigation practices, fundamental to managing pollutant loads and stormwater quantity and timing, can help developed and developing areas retain these services. The use of Green Infrastructure including distributed suburban stormwater management is one method currently used to mitigate the water quantity, timing, and quality of stormwater runoff. One goal of Green Infrastructure is to mimic natural watershed hydrologic conditions by reducing the volume and mitigating the timing and quality of surface stormwater runoff. It does this by promoting stormwater infiltration, preserving forested riparian zones, and removing and retaining pollutants including excess nutrients and sediment. This extensive management of stormwater is performed using stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) in series (that is, distributed on the landscape), and novel techniques including rain gardens, bioretention systems, recharge facilities, storm filters, and volume storage facilities. This presentation uses case studies in Maryland and Virginia to describe the monitoring protocols used to provide metrics to estimate ecological effects of newer distributed green infrastructure versus traditional centralized stormwater management protocols on stormwater runoff quantity, timing and quality in comparison to a natural system. This includes detailed mapping of land use and stormwater mitigation practices (important for interpreting altered watershed service production), and field monitoring the export of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. Data analysis documented the effects of land cover and different stormwater management (that is, green infrastructure compared to traditional and forested) on water export magnitude and timing, groundwater recharge, stream baseflow, and water quality conditions. These ecological effects directly determine the provision of watershed and downstream services of surface and ground water availability, flood mitigation, water quality regulation, and habitat as a function of suburban watershed stormwater management. Relating stormwater management policy to the provision of ecosystem services in anthropogenic environments helps support improved land use and effective mitigation decision making for service availability. Contact Information: Dianna Hogan, Eastern Geographic Science Center, US Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, Phone: 703-648-7240, Email: [email protected]


126

DEVELOPMENT OF SIMRIW-RS (SIMULATION MODEL FOR RICE WEATHER RELATIONS WITH REMOTE SENSING) Koki Homma1 and Masayasu Maki2

1Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan 2Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

As the previous studies suggests, satellite based remote-sensing is quite useful to obtain the information for crop production. However, the estimation of rice production in the previous studies is mostly based on the course relationship between accumulated LAI and rice production, and the relationship is lack of crop ecological mechanisms. Accordingly, if the crop ecological processes are incorporated into the relationship, it is expected to improve the accuracy of estimation of crop production. Such kind of processes could estimate not only the production as the results but also the cause for the production by inverse calculation. If the inverse calculation can suggest the constraints of production, e.g. soil fertility, water management and cultivar, the suggestions are quite useful to improve the productivity and to develop strategy for the future. In order to incorporate crop ecological processes into the relationship between remote-sensing data and crop production, we have been developing a simulation model combined with remote-sensing. This presentation explains the concept of the simulation model and reports the present status of development. The architecture of simulation model has been derived from SIMRIW-Rainfed, which was developed on the basis of SIMRIW (SImulation Model for Rice-Weather relations; Horie 1987) to simulate variation in rice productivity at farmers’ paddy fields in Northeast Thailand (Homma and Horie 2009). Since SIMRIW is widely adapted to simulate rice productivity under future climate scenario (Horie et al. 1995; Tanaka et al. 2011), its derivative simulation models are also expected to be able to simulate that. Since the model calibration is conducted based on LAI, improvement of estimation accuracy by remote sensing is also necessary. For the purpose, TIPS (Time-series change Index of Plant Structure) was developed and tested. The combination of simulation model and remote sensing (SIMRIW-RS) well calibrates the default results to the actual results. It is suggested that the parameter calibration is also usful to evaluate field characteristics. Contact Information: Koki Homma, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa-Oiwake, Sakyo, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan, Phone +81-75-753-6042, Email: [email protected]


127

ESTIMATION OF RICE YIELD FROM REMOTELY SENSED DATA Chiharu HONGO1, Gunardi SIGIT 2 and Takaaki FURUKAWA1

1Center for Enviromental Remote Sensing, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan 2Regional Office of Food Crops Service West Jawa Province, Indonesia

The environmental conservation and food production is one of the most critical issues that we have to make best efforts to solve from now on in every country. The remote sensing agricultural research, especially related to rice production and rice field management is very important for Asian countries, because rice is the staple food for the people and, on the other side, Asian agriculture frequently suffers from heavy losses caused by meteorological events. Considering these matters, it is a good idea to develop an efficient rice cultivation support system based on a concept of the precision agriculture which can effectively increase the rice production and also realize the environmental conservation. In this study, to assess the feasibility of the estimating rice yield using remotely sensed data, the investigation of the relation between annual rice production from the agricultural statistical data and cumulative LAI derived from MODIS LAI 8days composite data was carried out in west Jawa, Indonesia. The result shows significant positive correlation between the annual rice production and the cumulative LAI of each month except for February and December. The correlation coefficients in January, May and September, a couple of months before the harvesting season respectively, are relatively high against other months. There is positive correlation between the cumulative LAI of January, May and September and the annual rice production (r=0.664, p<0.01). Moreover, the correlation coefficient gets higher when limited to three sub-districts where the irrigation ratio is more than 80% (r=0.866, p<0.01). It was possible to estimate the annual rice production of 2008 using the cumulative LAI of January, May and September from 2003 to 2007. This study indicates that the cumulative LAI of remotely sensed data is applicable to the estimation of rice production amount in wide areas, and the creation of each estimation equation for the irrigated paddy fields and the rain fed paddy fields will contribute to improvement of the estimation accuracy of the annual rice production. Contact Information: Chiharu HONGO, Center for Enviromental Remote Sensing, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan, Phone: +81-43-290-3859, Email: [email protected]


128

BEYOND THE RIPARIAN ZONE: MANAGING BEAVER FOR WATERSHED PROVISIONING SERVICES Abby Hook

Abby Hook, Environmental Consultant, Seattle, WA, USA Across the western United States, the reintroduction of beaver (Castor canadensis) is increasingly being used as a low-cost restoration technique with the goal of improving water quality, through reduction of fine sediment and increase in optimal temperatures. However, the reintroduction of beaver requires a longer-term commitment from landowners due to threats the species pose to owners’ infrastructure and property through tree removal and flooding. The risk to property will necessitate that landowners be compensated for continuing to manage for the species. This presentation explores the concept of paying landowners to manage for beaver towards providing expanded ecosystem service goals, including: flood abatement and groundwater recharge. The presentation will explore how the Tulalip Tribes of Washington State propose using beaver to create green infrastructure and mitigate expected hydrological changes due to climate change in the Snohomish Basin. The discussion will include a description of potential transaction tools, such as:

- water quality trading markets (for temperature credits)

- stormwater certificates (similar to renewable energy certificates)

- habitat credits (to be applied towards salmon recovery)

- voluntary payment for watershed services (direct payment to landowner) Contact Information: Abby Hook, Hook Knauer LLP, 335 NW 49th St, Seattle, WA, 98107, USA, Phone: 206-947-3332, Email: [email protected]


129

REALIZING THE POTENTIAL OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM AND LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION AS TOOLS FOR PROTECTING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES David Houghton

National Wildlife Refuge Association, Washington, DC, USA The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest wildlife conservation program, founded by Teddy Roosevelt in 1903 with the primary mission of supporting the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of American wildlife species and their habitat. Today the Refuge System includes 556 refuges covering 150 million acres and provides critical habitat for both common and endangered species. Ecosystem services associated with the Refuge System are both critical and abundant; through this panel discussion, we hope to stimulate dialogue about ways to protect and perhaps to enhance these ecosystem services. Refuges tend to be located where the biodiversity is highest, along waterways and river corridors, coastal marshes, grasslands and unique desert ecosystems. Many refuges were originally designated to protect critical biological “hotspots” or migratory stopovers, which were buffered by relatively compatible private lands, often agricultural or other rural working landscapes. And yet, without proactive, collaborative, landscape-scale conservation and restoration strategies, the Refuge System is at risk of devolving into a collection of islands, which could in turn devastate the associated ecological services by forcing their fragmentation. A ‘Beyond the Boundaries’ large-landscape conservation strategy to protect refuges, surrounding lands and waters will help safeguard species migration and adaptation, while also providing outstanding ecosystem services benefits for Americans like improved water quality and storage, flood protection and carbon sequestration. For example, NWRA has identified projects in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley that offer the potential to restore more than 50,000 acres of bottomlands consisting of cypress swamps and hardwood forests teeming with oak, gum, ash, and cottonwood. By restoring these areas, we will improve river water quality, restore diversity and enhance populations of both common and endangered wildlife, mitigate flooding of communities along the river, and expand the carbon sequestration potential of the Mississippi River bottomland hardwoods. Likewise, in the Northern Everglades, NWRA has been a key catalyst in bringing together a diverse group of public and private stakeholders to create the 150-thousand-acre Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area, a project that will result in improved water quality and storage that will benefit the millions of south Florida water users. On and around national wildlife refuges throughout the country there are countless opportunities to restore, enhance and protect tens of thousands of acres of native forests, wildlife habitat, and the associated ecological services. The result will be more habitat for wildlife, improved water storage and quality, improved storm protection, greater potential for carbon sequestration, and improved quality of life for Americans. Contact Information: David Houghton, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 521, Washington, DC 20015, Phone: 603-831-0920, Email: [email protected]


130

PES MARKETS OVER THREE DECADES: A VETERAN SPEAKS George Howard

Restoration Systems, Raleigh, NC, USA George Howard will speak from his perspective as early entrant (1996) into PES markets. Prior to that he was policy staffer in U.S. Senate with responsibilty for wetlands and Clean Water Act. George’s company, Restoration Systems, is one the nation’s largest mitigation bankers with 25,000 acres in various stages of credit approval or monitoring at 40 locations in nine states. George will be a source of information and dialougue concerning the many remaining inefficiencies in ecosystem service markets, from uninformed private capital to a recalcitrant regulatory community largely unwilling to fully exploit marketmechanisms to repair the nation’s waters. He will also provide insight and status regarding the promise of new markets and the expanding geography of commercial compensatory mitigation, as well as offer discrete examples (Gulf Restoration, Chesapeake Water Quality Banking, Dam Removal) which representenormous opportunities for both investors and conservationists if entrepreneurial PES schemes were fully embraced. Contact Information: George A. Howard, President, Restoration Systems, LLC, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211, Raleigh, NC 27604, Phone: 919.755.9490


131

WHAT IS PWS? A CATALOG AND TYPOLOGY OF INCENTIVE-BASED WATERSHED PROGRAMS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES Heidi Huber-Stearns1, Genevieve Bennett2, Theodore Toombs3, 4, Joshua Goldstein3 and Anthony Cheng1

1Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 2Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC, USA 3Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 4Environmental Defense Fund, Boulder, CO, USA

The past decade in the western United States has seen a rapid expansion in incentive-based programs focused on watershed ecosystem services, which are often broadly classified as Payments for Watershed Services. Currently, over 60 such programs are in operation or design phases in the western United States. As these programs continue to expand, a window of opportunity exists to use lessons learned from these programs to shape future design and implementation of new programs. The existing policies, natural resource concerns, and intensified motivations to work across administrative and geographic boundaries in the western U.S. provide a fitting context for investigating why and how ecosystem services approaches are being increasingly utilized. Examining the actors, policies, and outreach, which both drive and shape such programs is a critical step in this process. Until now, no comprehensive report existed that detailed characteristics for all of these western U.S. programs. The recent work of Ecosystem Marketplace and Colorado State University has resulted in a catalog of these programs across the region. The purpose of our investigation was to understand the key design elements of these programs in order to develop a typology of all existing programs in the western U.S., as well as to better understand how experimentation on the ground differs from what we know of Payments for Ecosystem Services literature and related theory. We conducted quantitative analysis of program documents and information provided by program contacts, as well as preliminary data for Ecosystem Marketplace’s 'State of Watershed Payments 2012' report, for the western U.S. This analysis focused on understanding program and mechanism design, through asking foundational questions on: 1) the types of actors and external factors driving the emergence of such conservation approaches, and those involved in design and implementation; 2) the fundamental attributes characterizing these programs; 3) the key similarities, differences, and patterns between programs; and 4) how these programs fit (or not) under current general definitions of Payments for Watershed Services. Our analysis also allowed us to develop a typology of programs based on those developing and existing within the western U.S. Our results provide enhanced understanding of the different types of programs that are emerging, what drives their operation, and how their mechanism design influences their program typology. Understanding what and how actors, policies, and communication influence the design, implementation, and outcomes of these projects across the landscape is essential to providing lessons learned for future program development. Our results and conclusions have implications for on-the-ground application and future research. Our findings help fill a gap within existing academic research, by cataloging current watershed program efforts across the landscape, and have implications for watershed programs across the western U.S., as well as Payments for Ecosystem Services initiatives more broadly. Contact Information: Heidi R. Huber-Stearns, Forest and Rangeland Stewardship Department, Colorado State University, 1472 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA, Phone: 541-326-2749, Email: [email protected]


132

A CEAP STUDY OF DENITRIFICATION IN MID-ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN WETLANDS Patrick Hunt

USDA-ARS, Florence, SC, USA In the last several decades, there has been considerable effort to protect and restore wetlands throughout the USA. These efforts have required significant investment of both private and public funds. Accordingly, it has become important to document the effectiveness of this protection and restoration. This study for the Mid-Atlantic Region (MIAR) Wetland Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) was part of the US Department of Agriculture CEAP. It assessed natural, converted, and hydrologically restored wetlands from Delaware to North Carolina. There were forty-eight total sites. Each site was sampled at 4 landscape elevations (wettest to driest) during three years. This presentation reports an assessment of soil denitrification conducted as one component of the MIAR Wetland-CEAP using denitrification enzyme activity (DEA). DEA values varied significantly with relative elevation and management. All of the management types had regression R2 for DEA and elevation greater than 0.90. The DEA response to nitrate addition varied significantly with relative elevation and management. Moreover, the percentage of denitrification as nitrous oxide was different with relative elevation and management. In all aspects of DEA, the restored wetlands were more similar to the natural wetlands than to the concerted wetland. Contact Information: Patrick Hunt, USDA-ARS, 2611 W. Lucas St., Florence, SC 29501, Phone: 843-669-5203, Email: [email protected]


133

GOING GLOBAL - THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES EXAMPLES Reed Huppman

ENVIRON International Corporation, Washington, DC Project finance has traditionally been the primary type of financing for major infrastructure and extractive industry projects globally. With the launcing of the Equator Principles in 2003, the sources of project finance with environmental and social good practice requirements were expanded from the multilateral development banks and export credit agencies to private banks. There are now over 70 private banks around the globe which have adopted the Equator Principles, and these banks apply the Internatioanl Finance Corporations Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability along with the IFC, US Exim Bank, US OPIC, and a number of other international finance institutions. Performance Standard 6, Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources, the objectives of which are: i) to protect and conserve biodiversity; ii) to maintain the benefits from ecosystem services; iii) to promote the sustainable management of living natural resources through the adoption of practices that integrate conservation needs and development priorities. However, IFC typically implements policies on a precedent basis, so the presentation will examine several cases on how ecosystem services were defined and analyzed, and discuss apparent trends. Contact Information: L. Reed Huppman, ENVIRON International, 1401 New York Avenue, Washington, DC, 20005, USA, Phone: 703 516 2470, Email: [email protected]


134

USING STATED PREFERENCES TO PREDICT OUTCOMES IN MARKETS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: ACCOUNTING FOR HETEROGENEITY IN PREFERENCES AND SCALE Julie Insignares-Santos and Emi Uchida

Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA Inspired by community-based programs, this study reports on a novel experiment involving the design and implementation of a local market for ecosystem services. The first phase of the experiment involved eliciting preferences for farmland ecosystem services via a mail-in choice experiment. The ecosystem service being offered to the respondents was a contract to protect grassland-nesting habitat for fledgling bird populations on hay fields in the community. Each contract contained a variety of related characteristics, with both public and private goods components. The community members were subsequently asked to participate in a local market for the farmland amenity. This research is focused on assessing to what degree stated preference methods could be used reliably to predict market participation in new market scenarios for public goods. It is well known that preferences estimated from stated choice methods are confounded by hypothetical bias. In addition to addressing this concern, this paper explores the relationship between individual-specific heteroscedasticity in error variance and prediction in both market participation and contribution level in revealed preference experiments. To achieve these goals, a random parameter logit model in WTP space was estimated on the stated preference data using Hierarchical Bayesian estimation procedures. The WTP space model has advantages in producing more behaviorally consistent estimates of monetized values as well as providing direct individual-specific estimates of scale. These estimates were then used to predict market participation via a random effects probit model and determinants of the contribution levels via selection-adjusted interval regression. We find that, while estimates of WTP from stated preference methods can provide some guidance in predicting whether and at what level individuals will participate in new markets for ecosystem services, estimates of scale are useful for identifying patterns in stated choice responses that also affect the prediction task. Our findings suggest that choice experiment researchers can capitalize in important ways on the strategies uncovered by analyzing heteroscedasticity in error variance. This is particularly pertinent given that the direction of research on econometric models of choice has of late focused on capturing scale as well as taste heterogeneity from choice data. Contact Information: Julie Insignares-Santos, Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, 1 Greenhouse Road, Kingston, RI 02881, USA, Phone: 914-755-2074, Email: [email protected]


135

URBAN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES UNDER THREAT IN DHAKA MEGA CITY IN BANGLADESH Shafi Noor Islam

Department of Ecosystems and Environmental Informatics, Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus, Germany Urban ecosystem is dynamic ecosystem that has similar interactions and behaviours as natural ecosystems. Moreover it is a hybrid of natural and manmade elements whose interactions are affected not only by the natural environment, but also culture, heritage, Architecture, human behaviour, politics, economics and social organizations. Urban areas cannot exist in isolation. The ecological footprint analysis of Dhaka mega city has shown that city requires a productive land and several times the city’s size and shape has changed and supports its citizens. Dhaka city has emerged as a fast growing mega city in recent times. It began with a manageable population of 2.2 million in 1975 which reached 12.3 million in 2000 and current population is 15 million in 2010. The urban population growth rate is 6.9%. Dhaka city has found its highest rate of physical and population growth during 1981-1991, with the population doubling during that decade and the city expanding from 510 km² to 1353 km². However, the expansion of Dhaka city is constrained by physical barriers such as the low-lying flood prone areas around the city. The locational importance of Dhaka city (in17thCentury) including the urbanization process as had been generated in those days. The medieval Dhaka and its typical urban issues were not however dealt with details of the growth of population, housing, transport, social interaction, hazards, municipal government health and sanitation. The major part of the city lies between 20 -25 feet above sea level and it is free from flood. The rapid urban growth in Dhaka city is also exercises influences on all aspects of social life including the nature of economic development as well as demographic and many other social and ecological processes. The urban ecosystem contains four spheres in Dhaka mega city such as i) the natural and fluvial environment, ii) the built environment, iii) the culture and heritage environment and iv) the socio-economic environment. Furthermore it also offers supporting services, regulating services and cultural services. In addition the urban ecosystem of Dhaka mega city has valued in different categories for example ecological values, economic values, social values and cultural values. The urban ecosystem services are degraded due to rapid growth of population and city size, infrastructure development, shrinking fluvial process, lessening of vegetation and green spaces, vehicle and air pollution and increased industrial pollution and waste mismanagement. The paper is prepared based on secondary data sources. The objective of this paper is to understand the urban ecosystems services and its rapid degradation scenarios on Dhaka mega city, to analyze different categories of urban ecosystem services and their potential values. Make some practical recommendations for better management of urban ecosystem services in Dhaka mega city in Bangladesh. Contact Information: Shafi Noor ISLAM, Department of Ecosystems and Environmental Informatics, Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus, P.O. Box 101344, D – 0313 Cottbus, Germany, Phone: +49 0355692762, Email: [email protected]


136

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM SUGARCANE PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA: A CASE STUDY Jose-Luis Izursa1, Nana Amponsah1, John Capece1 and Edward Hanlon2

1Intelligentsia International Inc., LaBelle, FL, USA 2IFAS Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, USA

A life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from sugarcane production in Florida, United States. The goal was to determine the relative contributions of the different processes of the sugarcane production to these emissions, and to examine the proportion of greenhouse gas emissions in Florida as a result of this agrucultural activity. The detailed LCA analysis was performed for one hectare of sugarcane plantation in organic soil and one hectare in mineral soil, including four processes: land preparation, plantation, crop management, and harvesting for the crop year 2011/2012. The emissions were estimated based on a model that considers all significant CH4, N2O, and CO2 emissions during each of the sugarcane production processes, as well as emissions from manufacture of inputs (fertilizer, pesticides). The results found in these two hectares of sugarcane were then extrapolated to the sugarcane production area in the whole state of Florida, considering the type of soil. Previous analysis performed by Murphy et al. 2010 for the whole country found that based on a mean yield of 44.4 Mg sugarcane/ha-yr, 14,143; 18.51 and 6.65 kg of CO2, CH4 and N2O respectively are produced per year for each ha of sugarcane produced in organic soils. More than three-quarters (80%) of the greenhouse gas emissions, as measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per ha-yr, is due to cultivation of organic soils. With our analysis we want not only to update these results for the sugarcane production in Florida, as a support for ethanol generation but we want to estimate the GHG intensity of sugarcane production. With the updated results and total account of GHG emissions from sugarcane production, the project will make recommendations on what areas should the growers should focus on reducing GHG production. However, mitigation approaches must also recognize that the sugarcane production system also has many ancillary environmental benefits, allowing biomass production that can preserve soil carbon reserves, serving as temporary water retention fields and provide other ecosystems services. Contact Information: Jose-Luis Izursa, Intelligentsia International Inc., LaBelle, FL 33935, USA, Phone: 301-219-1824, Email: [email protected]


137

IDENTIFYING NATURE’S BENEFITS, DEFICITS, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION IN POPULATED PLACES: A HIGH-RESOLUTION COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL ATLAS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Laura E. Jackson, Anne C. Neale, Andrew Pilant and Timothy Wade

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC USA Towns and cities rely on clean air, water and other natural resources for public health and quality of life. Yet, these natural resources and their benefits are not always fully understood or considered in local decisions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and partners are developing a high-resolution community component to the National Atlas for Ecosystem Services, a web-based, easy-to-use mapping and analysis tool, so that citizens and planners can assess the status of local natural resources and their benefits at neighborhood scales. Users will also be able to evaluate impacts to natural resource supply and demand under future conditions like population growth and climate change. This community component of the Atlas will feature 50 U.S. cities and towns of varying size, location, demographic makeup, and environmental and health risks. These gradients will assist in furthering research, as well as transferring lessons learned to similar communities. The tool will include the following ecosystem services:

• Temperature regulation

• Air filtration, overall and near roads

• Water filtration

• Water supply

• Access to nature and open space

• Potential for food production Public health and well-being will be assessed regarding:

• Extreme heat events

• Traffic pollution

• Flooding

• Contamination of drinking and recreational waters

• Lack of opportunity for physical exercise, outdoor experience and play. Base maps will display environmental data at up to 1m resolution. Community benefits will be mapped at the U.S. Census block-group level. The Urban Atlas will include the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s i-Tree toolkit, which calculates multiple benefits of urban tree cover. The goal is to help identify the extent to which natural infrastructure meets community demand and where supply falls short, including in disproportionately burdened and disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Community participation is integral to prioritizing local issues and identifying supporting data for inclusion. The first version of the Atlas will be released on EPA’s public website in 2013. It will incorporate six pilot communities: Durham, NC; Portland, ME, Tampa, FL; Milwaukee, WI; Fresno, CA; and Portland, OR. Contact Information: Laura E. Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 USA, Phone: 919-541-3088, Email: [email protected]


138

THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY’S SCIENCE AND DECISIONS CENTER: ADVANCING SCIENCE- BASED DECISIONS Shonté M. Jenkins

Program Analyst, United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions Center (SDC), is an interdisciplinary center for applications and research in decision science (adaptive management), ecosystem services, and resilience. SDC is building capacity and mechanisms for delivering resource science that is relevant and adds value to decision making by partner agencies and the private sector. The mission of SDC is to promote the integration of science, including economic science, with natural resource management. SDC constitutes the USGS institutional presence for three sustainability science focus areas: decision science, ecosystem services, and resilience. Ecosystem services and their values are an integral part of the comprehensive framework used by the SDC, which includes integrating values into management objectives, comparing trade-offs, evaluating the consequences of management decisions, and using the new information to improve future decision making. The framework includes changed drivers (land use change, climate change, etc.) influencing ecosystem functions and processes which produce ecosystem services; these services are then attributed social value through market or non-market valuations; and valuation feeds into the goals and objectives of adaptive resource management. Ecosystem services valuation activities in which the SDC has been involved include facilitating evaluation of the efficacy of the ecosystem valuation models and tools, chairing three international conferences organized by A Community on Ecosystem Services (ACES), carrying out ecosystem services valuation research in support of resource management with various partners, and presenting seminars on ecosystem services valuation research by public and private entities. The poster will include material authored and developed by SDC staff including Dr. Ellie Brown, Dr. B. Ken Williams, Dr. Carl Shapiro, Dr. Frank Casey. Contact Information: Shonté M. Jenkins, Program Analyst, Science and Decisions Center, United States Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Mail Stop 913, Reston, VA 20102, Phone: 703-648-5742, Email: [email protected]


139

THE COLORADO CONSERVATION EXCHANGE – A RANCHER’S VIEW David M. Jessup

General Partner, Sylvan Dale Ranch, Loveland, CO The Colorado Conservation Exchange (CCEx) is being organized by a coalition of university, rancher and environmental groups to develop a market for ecosystem services in northern Colorado. So far, it has set up a financial management component with the help of the Community Foundation, raised seed money from a brewery and a university organization, built a sizeable coalition of private-public stakeholders to advise and support the effort, and launched two pilot projecs to demonstrate viability of the market concept.

• The Roberts Ranch pilot project seeks to reduce sediment runoff and soil erosion from the massive Campbell Valley washout northwest of Ft. Collins. A sizeable amount of sediment is deposited annually into waterways, irrigation ditches and reservoirs downstream. Ranch managers are changing grazing patterns and working with Wildlife Conservation Volunteers to build side-channel erosion barriers. Project organizers are attempting to quantify the reduction in sediment load resulting from their conservation practices, and establish a monetary value to downstream beneficiaries who might be encouraged to contribute.

• The Sylvan Dale Ranch pilot project is designed to measure nutrient runoff from cattle pens into the Big Thompson River both before and after new managment practices are imlemented to reduce the load. Local water utilities, the NRCS, and university groups are cooperating in the effort. Knowing how many pounds of nutrients are generated by a given number of cows confined for a particular period and subjected to a measurable amount of precipitation allows for the creation of a model with application to other non -point source livestock operations. This information is critical for establishing credible and transparent monetary values for the implementation of similar water quality projects on other farms and ranches.

The CCEx has engaged both potentential "buyers" and "sellers" in a non-regulatory based market. To gage interest among land stewards, interviews were conducted with 16 ranchers and 7 natural resource agency heads. Most ranchers in the survey said they needed at least some income from off-ranch sources, and reported increasing development pressure on their land. There is openness to working with local government and environmental groups to implement an eco-services market. Significantly, when asked about promising aspects of a payment for ecosystem services system, 57% of the ranchers mentioned new income, while 85% mentioned enhancing conservation on their land, which they would like to do anyway if they had the resources. However, there is skepticism about the time and energy required, the possibility rigidity of new management practices, and the cost of their implementation. With ranchers, the question is whether the tradeoff between payments and interference is worth it. In another university study of nutrient management practices on irrigated farms and pastures statewide, Bauder and Keske found fairly high voluntary adoption of best management practices, but without incentives, participation may dwindle in hard economic times. Contact Information: David Jessup, Sylvan Dale Ranch, 2030 N. County Rd. 31D, Loveland, CO 80537, Phone: 970-481-8342 (cell) & 970-667-3915 (office), Email: [email protected]


140

THE VALUE OF FIXING CARBON AND RELEASING OXYGEN IN THE GUANZHONG-TIANSHUI ECONOMIC REGION USING GIS Li Jing, Ren Zhiyuan and Guo Cailing

College of Tourism and Environment, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China Quantitatively evaluating the functions of CO2 fixation and O2 production is important in the study of ecological systems. This article attempts to measure and evaluate the rate of carbon fixation and oxygen release in terrestrial ecological systems using remote sensing, to provide baseline data for the regional ecological environment. Changing land use and land cover types influence vegetation composition and health, so understanding the effects of these changes on carbon fixation and oxygen production provides an important tool for monitoring ecosystem responses to environmental change. Solar radiation is the primary source for physical and biological processes in the atmosphere and on the surface of the earth. This is the only energy source used by green plants during photosynthesis. Green plants produce all organic assimilates through photosynthesis. Net plant productivity (NPP) is the total amount of organic matter accumulated by vegetation per unit area and time, and equals the difference between the carbon absorbed by photosynthesis and the carbon released by autotrophic respiration NPP reflects not only the productivity of a plant community in its natural environment, but also its ability to sequester carbon. The balance between carbon fixation and oxygen production plays a key role in global biogeochemical carbon cycles. So, carbon flows through an ecosystem are an important determinant of the ecosystem's ability to act as a carbon sink. Using remote-sensing images and precipitation, temperature, and total solar radiation data from1998 to 2007, and a light utilization efficiency model, we studied the effects of changes in these parameters and land use and cover types on the ability of plants to fix carbon and produce oxygen in the Guanzhong-Tianshui economic region. The results show: 1) the economic value of carbon fixation is 22.635 billion yuan·a-1 in the Guanzhong-Tianshui economic region. Over the past ten years, the highest value of carbon fixation was in 2005 at 30.173 billion yuan·a-1; the minimum was 15.906 billion yuan a-1 in 2002. By taking an average of the two measuring methods the value of oxygen released, the average value is 24.045 billion yuan a-1, more than 1.41 billion yuan a-1 higher than the value of carbon fixation. 2) From the perspective of land use types in the Guanzhong-Tianshui economic region, forestland > grassland > cultivated land > other types. From 1998 to 2007, the value for farmland converted to forest land or grassland for average carbon fixation and oxygen production has increased by 1,614.29 yuan /hm2 a and 1,960.67 yuan/hm2 a ,respectively. Forest land and meadow changed to cultivated land has had the average value for carbon fixation and oxygen production reduced to 1,081.37 yuan/hm2 a and 1706.60 yuan/hm2 a, respectively. 3) From a spatial distribution perspective, unit area value of carbon fixation and oxygen production in the southern counties is higher than in the northern counties of the Guanzhong-Tianshui economic region with the value gradually declining from the south to north. By examining the values of carbon fixation and oxygen production based on the normalized difference vegetation index data in various climate scenarios, we were able to explore the influences of land use and cover changes on carbon fixation and oxygen production, as well as the effects of climate change. Carbon fixation and oxygen production in northern China's agriculture and animal husbandry region and the endangered central loess region—which has serious soil erosion and high evaporation rates is—declining in value. Therefore, study of this fragile ecological environment is relevant. Contact Information: Li Jing, College of Tourism and Environment, 199 South Chang’an Road, xi'an 710062, Phone: 8613720618191, Email: [email protected]


141

ECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR COASTAL AND MARINE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT Donna J. Lee1, Grace Johns2, Vernon R. Leeworthy3, William Nuttle4 and David Loomis5

1DJL Economic Consulting, Honolulu HI, USA 2Hazen and Sawyer, Hollywood FL, USA 3Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA/NOS, Silver Spring MD, USA 4Eco-Hydrology, Ottawa ON, CAN 5Institute for Coastal Science and Policy, East Carolina University, Greenville NC, USA

Purpose: Economic indicators combined with natural science data can inform resource managers on the status of the coastal and marine environment based on the provision of ecosystem services to humans. As part of the suite of mangement tools, economic indicators can be used to set goals, measure progress, and highlight successes. Scope. This presentation will summarize our approach for selecting and evaluating economic indicators to assess the status of coastal and marine ecosystem services in South Florida. Approach. In selecting economic indicators, we 1) specified criteria, 2) listed candidate indicators, and 3) applied the criteria to narrow the list. In rating ecosystem services, we 4) outlined a rating scheme, 5) collected data, 6) analyzed the data to generate numerical scores, and then for purposes of communicating findings to a broad audience, 7) converted the scores to qualitative ratings “good”, “fair” and “poor”. Data. We compiled user information for years 2009 to 2011 for: wildlife recreation, recreational fishing, commercial fishing, live collection, and property protection. We obtained natural science data on sea grass, mangroves, coral, fish, invertebrates, and water quality. Results. We identified five economic indicators for broadly assessing the status of coastal and marine ecosystem services: seafood harvest, marine life harvest, storm damage claims, park visitation, and boat registration. Our analysis of seafood harvest data indicates that the ecosystem service “Food Supply” is in good condition. Our analysis of marine life harvest data indicates that the ecosystem service “Ornamental Resources” is in poor condition. Our analysis of storm damage claims data indicates that the ecosystem service “Property Protection” is in poor condition. Our analysis of park visitation and boat registration data indicates that the ecosystem service “Recreational Opportunies” is in good condition. Conclusion: From these preliminary findings we conclude that managers have done a good job managing fish stocks and critical fish habitat. Managers have also done a good job providing people with park facilities and boating facilities for coastal and marine recreation. While managers have done a good job protecting and restoring reef resources in the Florida Keys and Dry tortugas, in other areas of South Florida there is need for improvement. Contact Information: Grace Johns, Hazen and Sawyer, 4000 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 750N, Hollywood FL 33021, USA, Phone: 954-987-0066, Email: [email protected]


142

GETTING THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES YOU PAY FOR David Primozich and Alex Johnson

The Freshwater Trust, Portland, OR, USA The quality, integrity, and transparency of ecosystem services trading programs are critical to their long term viability. Standards governing the creation and use of credits provide the level of quality, credibility and transparency that regulators require and the public expects to protect and enhance water quality through market mechanisms. We will present our experience with the traditional voluntary restoration projects as well as the additional rigor necessary for compliance-grade credit generation for use in our current Pacific Northwest water quality trading programs. Additionally, we will discuss how delivering such projects at scale demands operational advancements to manage the longer implementation windows, larger need for plant stock and materials, and greater liability associated with compliance-grade credit generation. Three key points for valid and functional projects in a payment for ecosystem services context are:

• Quality Standards – Credits used to offset discharger impacts must meet strict standards for project quality. Criteria for species diversity, planting density, non-native and invasive management, seed source, and site selection are established to ensure that offset projects maximize ecological value and minimize unintended consequences.

• Independent Verification – Third-party verification is needed to ensure that quality standards, site management, and long-term stewardship requirements are being met over time.

• Credit Registration – A credit registry helps regulated entities and regulators guarantee and report to the public that credits used to offset regulated impacts are in place, are performing to standards, and are being used by only one buyer against one regulated impact at any one time.

Three key points for delivering restoration projects at scale are:

• Scaled-Up Operations – Large multi-year restoration programs demand long term seed collection and propagation schedules, efficiencies in site preparation and maintenance, and consistency from subcontractors.

• Risk Management – The liability inherent in delivering compliance credits requires professional contracting, financing and accountability mechanisms to effectively manage risk.

• Long View – As each project for thermal compliance must be maintained to standards for a minimum of 20 years, cost modeling and pricing per plant becomes more comprehensive and informed to drive down the total costs of implementation and maintenance over time.

We will cover these points and others that also help to ensure rigor, transparency and functionality of compliance-grade credit generating restoration projects over time at the scale necessary to meet demand from compliance buyers. Contact Information: Alex Johnson, Ecosystem Services Manager, The Freshwater Trust, 65 SW Yamhill St, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97204 (USA), Phone: 503-222-9091x18, Email: [email protected]


143

MODELING WILDLIFE OCCURRENCE TO EVALUATE ECOSYSTEM SERVICE TRADEOFFS: A STUDY OF HABITAT DIVERSITY IN LONGLEAF PINE ECOSYSTEMS Shelly A. Johnson1, Holly K. Ober2 and Damian C. Adams1

1School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 2Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Protection of biodiversity can lead to important spillover effects for ecosystem functions and services. Conservation incentives for landowners in Florida encourage management and restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems to promote wildlife habitat in general, but specifically to enhance habitat for the threatened gopher tortoise. Direct impacts of management on gopher tortoise habitat are well-established, but to date no research has assessed the effects of gopher tortoise management on habitat for other wildlife species or identified important ecosystem service tradeoffs in this context. With increasing emphasis on managing longleaf pine ecosystems for gopher tortoise, it is timely for land managers and decision-makers to understand how management that favors habitat for gopher tortoise will impact the biodiversity and related ecosystem services. The purpose of this study is to assess how occurrence of habitat for gopher tortoise leads to spillover effects on habitat for other species of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife and the tradeoffs among wildlife habitat diversity. We identify habitat for gopher tortoise and a diversity of other wildlife species occurring in the native range of Florida longleaf pine ecosystems, using occurrence data from existing datasets and knowledge of stand, management, and landscape characteristics. We predict the relative probability of occurrence of each species’ habitat, estimate the percent contribution of each variable, create response curves for each covariate, and produce habitat distribution maps for each species, using Maxent software for species habitat modeling. We use estimates of the relative probability of occurrence to define the potential occurrence of habitat as optimal, marginal, poor, or unsuitable for each species. Finally, we identify correlations of species occurrence at each level. We discuss the probability of occurrence of several key wildlife species (e.g. white-tailed deer, red-cockaded woodpecker, northern bobwhite, Sherman’s fox squirrel, and others) whose habitats are provided at each occurrence level relative to gopher tortoise habitat. Additionally, we review the resulting diversity index calculated from the richness of habitats and evenness of quality at each occurrence level, present a list of species’ functional groups (e.g. pest controller, seed disperser, nutrient cycler, cavity-builder, etc.) defined at each occurrence level, as well as a resulting list of ecosystem services at each occurrence level (e.g. hunting, pest control, recreation, pollination, etc.). The relationships identified here are of value to the investigation of both ecological and ecosystem service tradeoffs, and should be considered for effective ecosystem management, conservation planning, and future management decisions. Contact Information: Shelly A. Johnson, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110410, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA, Phone: 352-846-0902, Email: [email protected]


144

SPATIAL PATTERNS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ACROSS LANDSCAPE GRADIENTS: APPLICATION TO FLORIDA Shelly A. Johnson1, Jessica Steele2, Rajeev Pillay3, Patrick O’Donoughue4 and Damian C. Adams1

1School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 2Department of Geography, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 3Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 4Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Ecosystem service provision can vary greatly across a landscape, given both ecological and social gradients. Identifying and understanding the potential tradeoffs among services can be important for land management and policy decisions influencing their provision. Using Florida (USA) as an example, we employed existing data to quantify proxy-indicators of provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services in the state; created county-level maps of selected ecosystem services (e.g., timberland, cattle inventory, citrus production, carbon sequestration, groundwater quality, biodiversity, and outdoor recreation); and employed spatial statistical analyses in ArcGIS and R (e.g., Moran’s I, Pearson’s Correlation, K-means Cluster Analysis, Principle Component Analysis) to assess measures of association or interaction between the services, and identify spatial patterns, interactions, and bundles of these services statewide. We found distinct spatial patterns for almost all of the services with significant positive and negative correlations between them. In particular, services were geographically clustered on the landscape as a result of the underlying biophysical characteristics and human activities occurring at the county level, with observed change in services along both latitudinal and agricultural gradients. Due to the strong influence of these gradients on the distribution of services, some services are highly correlated with other services and may be viewed as ecosystem bundles (e.g., citrus and cattle), and others (e.g., timber and citrus) viewed as tradeoffs. Our study illustrates empirical assessment of spatial patterns, correlations, and bundles of multiple ecosystem services; and adds to the literature on ecosystem service tradeoffs. In addition to reporting our findings, we discuss their implications on effective ecosystem management, conservation planning, and future management decisions in Florida. Contact Information: Shelly A. Johnson, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110410, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA, Phone: 352-846-0902, Email: [email protected]


145

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUATION WITHIN UNITED STATES REGULATORY RULEMAKING: STATED PREFERENCE ESTIMATION OF BENEFITS WITHIN SECTION 316(B) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT Robert J. Johnston 1, Elena Besedin2, Erik Helm3 and Ryan Stapler2

1George Perkins Marsh Institute and Department of Economics, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA 2Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA 3US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA

The relevance of ecosystem service valuation is often argued through its potential impact on regulatory decisions. The ecosystem services literature, however, is dominated by analyses with little formal relationship to regulatory rulemaking. Because few stated preference analyses of ecosystem service values have been implemented for direct use within regulatory policy analysis, the published literature offers insufficient insight on many issues of central relevance for such applications. For example, the literature often presents intricate econometric models of public preferences for ecosystem service outcomes that have no clear biophysical interpretation, overlooking the challenges of developing stated preference policy scenarios that are simultaneously (1) realistic, (2) biophysically meaningful and measurable, (3) able to capture relevant final policy outcomes and (4) understood by respondents. In addition, the attention to scenario realism, pretesting, and review within regulatory rulemaking can reveal potential methodological shortcomings that may otherwise go unnoticed. This paper discusses the first stated preference analysis of ecosystem service values to be conducted in the context of US EPA rulemaking aimed at the protection of aquatic ecological systems. The choice experiment analysis was designed to estimate public willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements in fishery resources obtained through reductions in fish losses due to impingement and entrainment in industrial cooling water intake structures (CWIS). Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) enables US EPA to regulate cooling water intake structures to reduce entrainment and impingement mortality. Estimating public values related to resulting changes in fish mortality and aquatic ecology is necessary to determine the full range of benefits associated with 316(b) regulations. We present results of four independent choice experiments designed to estimate WTP for regional 316(b) regulatory benefits. Among the uncommon aspects of this effort is an eight year survey development process interspersed with multiple EPA, OMB and peer reviews; official information collection requests (ICRs) and notices of data availability (NODAs); required public comment periods; and a US Supreme Court case (Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., No. 07-588) regarding the permissible use of benefit cost analysis within 316(b) rulemaking. An additional challenge was linking quantifiable changes in entrainment and impingement—with initial effects quantified in terms of effects on fish eggs and larvae—to measurable outcomes which respondents value. Inattention to such ecological relationships is a common shortcoming of stated preference surveys, but is unacceptable when defensible linkages between biophysical outcomes and WTP estimates is required. Similar attention was required for the regulatory and institutional aspects of policy scenarios. Results demonstrate significant WTP for outcomes of proposed 316(b) regulations related to effects on fish mortality, commercial fish populations, and aquatic ecological condition, and find heterogeneity in values across different aquatic ecosystem service outcomes and US regions. Discussion emphasizes (1) survey and model development in the context of US EPA regulatory rulemaking, (2) the use of results in conjunction with ecological models to estimate welfare changes, (3) potential areas of future research that are crucial for ecosystem service valuation within regulatory rulemaking. Contact Information: Robert J. Johnston, George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, 950 Main St., Worcester, MA 01610, USA, Phone: 508-751-4619, Email: [email protected]


146

A VISION OF SUCCESS: HOW NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT WILL ENHANCE AND SUSTAIN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Stephen J. Jordan

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL USA Clean air and water, ample healthy food, renewable fuels, productive fisheries, diverse ecosystems, resilient coasts and watersheds: these are some of the benefits that depend on sustainable nitrogen use and management. Thus, in our vision of the future, uses of reactive nitrogen are sufficient to support beneficial functions of ecosystems and the economy, without degrading them and harming people and society through overuse and waste. This is the balance that can be defined by ecosystem services and their net benefits to society. To achieve the vision will require advances in the realms of technology, policy, management, governance, and education. We will have to account for the entire life cycle, in which a single molecule of reactive nitrogen can participate in many processes, be transformed repeatedly, and travel great distances in air and water. In a sustainable future, less nitrogen will cascade through the environment, because we will approach an optimal balance of sources, sinks, and recycling. Then society will know reactive nitrogen as a valuable, renewable resource, not to be wasted, rather than the ubiquitous, insidious pollutant it is today. Contact Information: Stephen J. Jordan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, FL 32526, USA, Phone: 850-934-9350, Email: [email protected]


147

FRAMEWORK FOR VALUING DEGRADATION OF FOREST DUE TO COAL MINING Surabhi Joshi and Pritee Sharma

School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Indore, M.P., India To meet its incessantly increasing energy need, India is thinking towards opening its dense forest zone for coal mining. This paper argues that converting this dense forest cover into a coal mine would completely reverse the ecological function of the area from being a carbon assimilator to a hotspot of anthropogenic green house gas (GHG) emissions. This paper provides a novel framework for empirically estimating the benefits and costs of a policy decision to compromise large areas of dense forests for coal mining in India. The framework attempts to internalize the social costs of enhanced GHG emission into the benefit cost analysis. Based on the case study undertaken it is revealed that even when estimated conservatively, 59.4% of the estimated GDP potential of the coal extracted from ‘forest compromised due to coal mining' would be needed to compensate the enhanced climate change liability associated with this land use change. The study quantitatively estimates benefits and costs associated with the land use change. The benefits of coal mining are estimated in terms of GDP generating potential of the coal reserves under an identified ‘No Go’ forest zone in India proposed to be opened for coal mining. The GDP generating potential of the coal extracted is estimated on the basis of national energy intensity estimates ($/Kilogram oil equivalent). The costs associated with the land use change are estimated in terms of value of the forest and vital ecological services compromised along with social cost of enhanced GHG emissions. The forest valuation is done in terms of timber and non timber forest product value. Loss in vital ecological services is estimated in terms of value of top soil loss, water recharge service and flood prevention function of forests. An estimate of the GHG emissions in terms of loss of carbon pool due to deforestation and methane emission for coal mines is performed. The study uses data from existing Indian studies on natural resource accounting, GHG inventory studies along with standard emission factors to generate a scenario. Forests provide vital ecological functions and any policy decision that compromises forests renders unavailability of these vital functions to the society. This study derives its relevance from the fact that an emerging economy like India aims to scale up its power generation capacity fivefold by 2030 with coal as a preferred fuel in the energy mix. As a substantial portion of existing coal reserve in India lie in dense forests compromising forests for coal mining is inevitable. Thus integrating the GHG perspective to ecological accounting methodologies becomes an essential policy directive , internalizing temporal environmental liabilities for transitioning economies Contact Information: Surabhi Joshi, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, M-Block, Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET ,Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyala campus , Khandwa Road Indore, M.P. 452007, India, Phone: +91-9449478191, Email: [email protected]


148

LANDSCAPE PLANNING TOOLS AND METRICS Jimmy Kagan1, Mary Klein2 and Frank Davis3

1Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University, Portland, OR, USA 2NatureServe, Arlington, VA, USA 3Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

The science and practice of landscape planning and analysis as applied to biodiversity conservation has expanded greatly over the last two decades, as has the implementation of new methodologies and tools into state and regional conservation plans. Recently, standard frameworks for thinking about landscape planning have become more widely used and adopted, generally including goal setting, assessment, strategy development, adaptive implementation and monitoring. However, there remains a bewildering array of tools and strategies; no clearly identified methods for integrating information and plans; and few landscape level metrics that can be applied to available data. Metrics are critical to help prioritize conservation actions, as well as to allow for an analysis of the success of any plans and activities. A number of federal agencies, state agencies, and NGO’s have been working to help address these issues, and there are many experts available to assist practitioners interested in developing landscape level plans and metrics. An example is a partnership led by NatureServe to develop metrics for biodiversity condition and tracking outcomes using a consistent approach and practical design. The metrics use an already well-accepted nested hierarchy of ecological units, and whenever possible rely on data currently collected by agencies with national protocols and regional or national datasets. The method allows for ecological integrity to be evaluated in a transparent and repeatable way, reflecting increasing disturbance or recovery. The outputs, including maps and summaries can provide a context for land use or watershed planning, connectivity analysis, mitigation and restoration priorities or other biodiversity related measures. Different levels of assessment from broad, using only spatial data and imagery, to more detailed biological assessment in the field have been developed. To help implement this, EPA has built the National Atlas of Ecosystem Services, which seeks to provide access to available spatial data and science to help map indicators of ecosystem services. EPA has also worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to develop the Maryland Watershed Resources Registry, a suitability analysis tool identifying watershed needs and areas where those needs are best addressed. Tools have been developed to promote community visioning, conservation planning, environmental decision-making, efficient reserve designs, habitat connectivity and fragmentation, and alternative future analysis, each of which require various levels of expertise and information. These models and tools are both continually improving, and becoming more accessible; as is the data needed to run them. However, as more and more information becomes available, integrating the tools and their outputs remains an unsolved problem. Integration of information and tools and standardization of metrics is important because it can both significantly reduce the cost of planning and restoration by creating efficiencies and better outcomes, while making implementation of identified conservation strategies simpler. Contact Information: Jimmy Kagan, Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR, 97215, USA, Phone: 503-725-9955, Email: [email protected]


149

EVALUATING WATER QUALITY ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF WETLANDS UNDER CLIMATIC CHANGE Rosemary M. Records1, Mazdak Arabi1, Steven Fassnacht 2, Walter G. Duffy3 and Sharon N. Kahara3

1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 2Department of Geosciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 3California Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, USA

Quantification of wetland water quality impacts at a watershed scale is critical to regulatory programs, conservation programs and ecosystem service markets alike. Changes in global climate may have severe effects on future diffuse pollutant fluxes and water availability. Ecosystem services under current and future climate may vary greatly, and current management strategies will likely be inadequate to address such water resources impacts. However, few studies have evaluated the long-term effectiveness of management practices under climatic change, and the small number of climate scenarios often utilized limits practical application of these assessments. In this study, we assess wetland ecosystem services under current and potential future climate in a semi-arid watershed of the United States where excess nutrients loads are implicated in hyper-eutrophication. In particular, we evaluate the potential impacts of climatic change on wetlands water and erosion regulation, water purification, and nutrient cycling. We couple a calibrated Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) hydrologic model of the Sprague River of Oregon with climatic forcings from 112 distinct climate projections of the near future to mid-century (2015-2065). Downscaled and bias-corrected projections represent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC-SRES) emission pathways A2, A1B and B1 and 16 Global Circulation Models (GCMs). This study is, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive watershed-scale assessment to date of the impacts of climatic change on water quality in the Pacific Northwestern United States. Hydrologic models driven with this extensive suite of climate projections provide critical insight into wetland functions under potential future median and extreme water resources conditions. Variable predictions of streamflow, sediment and nutrient fluxes under climatic change emphasize the importance of accounting for potential climate change impacts in long-term watershed management and valuation of ecosystem services through wetland attenuation of sediment and nutrients, and demonstrate the necessity of a compreneisve set of climate change scenarios in such assessment. We suggest that future work expand on research presented here by (1) Determining wetland areas and best management practices (BMPs) in study areas critical to water quality; (2) Utilizing optimization algorithms to identify the type, extent and landscape position of wetland restoration and BMPs for cost-effective abatement of diffuse pollutants; and (3) Identifying watershed management options resilient under a broad range of potential future climate conditions. Contact Information: Sharon Kahara, PhD, California Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Humboldt State University, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA, USA, Phone: 707-826-3724, E-mail: [email protected]


150

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF BALANCING THE EFFECTS OF EUTROPHICATION PROCESSES - REGULATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN BRACKISH ESTUARIES (THE SOUTHERN BALTIC SEA) Jacek Zaucha2 , Ilona Kamińska1 and Tomasz Zarzycki1

1Department of Experimental Ecology of Marine Organisms, Institute of Oceanography, University of Gdańsk, Gdynia, Poland 2Macroeconomics Chair, Faculty of Economics, University of Gdańsk, Sopot, Poland

The increasing intensity of the marine resources exploitation requires a more in-depth description of all the benefits which we obtain thanks to the sea, especially that a certain proportion of these benefits can be classified as positive external effects. In connection with this, one of the major categories which should be mentioned is the regulating ecosystem services. The lack of economic valuations of the regulating services, prepared for particular environment-economic conditions, creates demand for this new area of marine ecosystem research, owing to the fact that the regulating services of the Gulf of Gdansk (the case study area) have neither been analysed nor economically valued yet, and there is no awareness of their significance and contribution to the development. The scientific goal of this work is to estimate the economic value of balancing the effects of eutrophication processes - regulating ecosystem services of the Gulf of Gdansk by using a combination of two non-market goods valuation methods, i.e. the Replacement Cost Method (RC) and the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). Under certain conditions replacement cost method can be used for evaluating the indirect use values. In addition the pilot CVM survey will be applied in order to reaffirm the economic value that was estimated while using the RC. As a result, the monetary value of these ecosystem parts (both biotic and abiotic) that are directly responsible for operating the service will be presented. Consequently, it will be possible to indicate the groups of organisms or areas that are worth protecting in order to provide the undisturbed ecosystem service. The project results will aid the development of creating such an environment management system, in which the natural balance of the natural capital is on the same level of importance as economic and social aims. The project assumes preparing valuation using the RC fulfilling all required conditions necessary to obtain credible results. In addition, it will verify the effectiveness of the used research methods. The project will be an important contribution to the discussion on improving and using methods of estimating the environment economic valuation and and will help the environmental functions to arise in the environmental decision-making processes on the administrative level through the implementation of environmental issues and sustainable development to policy and strategies for marine management. Contact Information: Ilona Kamińska, Department of Experimental Ecology of Marine Organisms, Institute of Oceanography, University of Gdańsk, ul. Marszałka Piłsudskiego 46, 81-378 Gdynia, Poland; Phone: 0048-58-523-6870, Fax: 0048-58-523-6678, Email: [email protected]


151

VALUING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF SURFACE WATERS IMPROVED BY REDUCING OVER ENRICHMENT FROM EXCESS NUTRIENTS Mary Jo Kealy

CH2MHill, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA Significant documentation of the harmful effects of nutrients on many surface water bodies—and in particular on several major, highly visible water bodies receiving nutrient loads from very large geographic areas (such as the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and Chesapeake Bay)—is available. Nearly all states, including Utah, have targeted a number of water bodies for nutrient-driven total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies. However, reducing nutrient loadings can be costly. Before embarking on the path of establishing statewide nutrient criteria, it is prudent to first assess those costs along with anticipated improvements in water quality and resultant economic benefits. This is accomplished by measuring the changes in valued ecosystem services caused by a proposed action and involves comparing the level of ecosystem services without the action (i.e., baseline condition) to the level of ecosystem services with the action. Benefit-cost analysis proceeds by first identifying the effects of the action. On the cost side of the ledger are higher costs of treating wastewater discharges, implementing stormwater and non-point source best management practices, and other compliance and administrative costs. The benefits are all generated by the water quality improvements that result from reducing nutrient loads. When water quality improves, so does the value that people place on water-based recreation activities (e.g., fishing, waterfowl hunting, boating, and swimming) near shore recreation activities (riparian green-way activities such as walking and wildlife observation, picnicking by the water). Property values of waterfront locations are sensitive to the water aesthetics. The costs of treating drinking water and industrial process water can be sensitive to surface water quality as can aquatic life. To some extent, the quality of life of citizens is tied to sustaining the health of the aquatic ecosystem in their care and some residents are willing to pay to improve and protect their state’s water resources and steward them for future generations to enjoy. This presentation will summarize the results from analyses of data from two surveys sent to random samples of Utah households. The first, a stated preference survey, supports an evaluation of total willingness to pay to maintain and improve surface water quality of lakes, rivers and streams that are adversely impacted by excess nutrients. The second survey collected data on water based recreation activities, which is used to estimate a random utility model of recreation demand. This model is then simulated to estimate the increase in recreation value due to reducing nutrients to impaired waters. This research is distinguished by the direct ties between nutrient reductions and water quality improvements provided by the State. The results provide strong evidence of substantial willingness to pay for enhancing ecosystem services derived from Utah’s surface waters, but given the high cost of achieving nutrient reductions statewide, a targeted approach is recommended. Contact Information: Mary Jo Kealy, 211 N. Pembrey Dr., Wilmington, DE 19803, USA, Phone: 302-478-1521, Email: [email protected]


152

A FRAMEWORK TO “MAINSTREAM” ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR ECOSYSTEM-BASED-MANAGEMENT Christopher R. Kelble1, Pamela Fletcher2, Geoffrey Cook1,3, William Nuttle4 and Jerry Lorenz5

1Ocean Chemistry Division, NOAA/Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, FL, USA 2University of Florida Seagrant, Gainesville, FL, USA 3Cooperative Institute for Marine & Atmospheric Studies, RSMAS, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA 4Eco-Hydrology Inc., Ottawa, Canada 5Audubon of Florida, Tavernier, FL, USA

As we shift from single species, single-sector management to ecosystem-based-management, there is a pressing need to integrate natural and human dimensions science within a framework that informs the holistic management of ecosystems. We propose a framework that merges the Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response (DPSIR) model with ecosystem services to produce an Ecosystem service, Response, State, Pressure, Driver (EBM-DPSER) model. Ecosystem services reflect societal goals, values, and desires and thus should be the focus of EBM. By replacing impacts with ecosystem services, the EBM-DPSER framework captures a broader range of our understanding of ecosystem processes. Specifically, it explicitly incorporates a wider range of interactions between the environment and human society. This is most easily illustrated by the EBM-DPSER’s ability to incorporate the benefits society receives from the ecosystem allowing for easier communication of positive ecosystem-human interactions in addition to impacts done to the ecosystem by human activities, which are nearly always negative within the DPSIR framework. If the framework is followed, responses are directly informed by changes in ecosystem services, allowing for management and behavioral changes to proactively alter the system to meet the goals of society prior to an impact occurring. Several example applications from south Florida and the Gulf of Mexico are being undertaken as pilot studies to use EBM-DPSER as a decision-support tool to inform management responses. These pilot studies are being conducted across a range of scales and methodologies to determine the benefits or lack of benefits in using the framework across a range of applications. At the local scale, we are using the EBM-DPSER framework to quantify the trade-offs associated with a response that consists of a poll and troll zone where combustion motors are prohibited within a 38-km2 zone of Florida Bay. The aim of this scenario analysis is to inform the decision process of the relative effect of the poll and trawl zone not just on the ecology within the state module, but also on humans by examining the potential impact on ecosystem services, such as recreational opportunities. At the larger scale, we are attempting to implement the EBM-DPSER model throughout the Gulf of Mexico to develop ecosystem indicators and conduct risk assessment within the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) project. The EBM-DPSER framework will be presented along with results from these pilot studies that will be used to refine the framework and, hopefully, advance the “mainstreaming” of ecosystem services into decision-making. Contact Information: Christopher R. Kelble, NOAA/Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorlogical Laboratory, 4301 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149, USA, Phone: 305-361-4330, Email: [email protected]


153

CALIFORNIA’S REGULATORY FOREST CABON MARKET: PANACEA OR PANDORA’S BOX FOR U.S. LANDOWNERS? Charles D. Kerchner and William S. Keeton

Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA Adoption of California’s economy wide cap and trade bill (AB 32) has created a long awaited U.S. regulatory program for forest carbon offsets. With prices predicted at average $35 per ton during the first three compliance periods (2013-2020), AB 32 could provide an unprecedented incentive mechanism for landowners to increase carbon storage. Despite the potential financial and environmental benefits from California’s market, there have been few studies that examined the factors affecting carbon market profitability for landowners. Our project examines (1) how property characteristics (i.e. stocking level, forest type, size etc.) and silvicultural treatments impact a project’s profitability under AB 32, and (2) how legislative requirements, such as 100 year monitoring and project invalidation affect participation. We used forest inventory from 30 non-industrial private forest properties in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine to quantify eligible carbon offsets per California Air Resources Board’s forest protocol. While results indicate property characteristics like stocking and size drive profitability, legislative factors, such as long-term monitoring costs, invalidation and potential program termination are equally important to consider. Our results can help planners assess a project’s feasibility while also developing key policy tools to overcome legislative barriers. Contact Information: Charles Kerchner, University of Vermont, 343 Aiken Center, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, United States, Phone: 802-999-6986, Email: [email protected]


154

APPLYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO TRIBAL WETLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Sarah A. Kidd

Ecosystem Services for Urbanizing Regions IGERT Fellow, School of the Environment, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA

The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept has great potential to be used by Columbia River Basin tribes for identifying ecological restoration priorities, tradeoffs, and management strategies for culturally significant ecological goods and services. This paper discusses how the ES concepts can be an effective tool for Tribal natural resource agencies to identify culturally significant wetland ecosystem services currently impacted by landscape modifications and land-use change (including urbanization, agriculture, grazing, and dam construction) throughout the basin. These wetland ecosystems provide a myriad of services such as clean water, flood protection, wildlife habitat, livestock habitat and food, human food, fuel, and fiber. However, depending on the condition, land-use impacts, and management of these wetlands, some services may be more abundant or easier to restore than others. The holistic nature of the ES concept provides a robust framework for identifying the cultural, economic, and ecological tradeoffs resultant from these land-use practices and the suite of services provided by different wetland re-establishment, restoration, and management efforts. Identifying traditional ecological knowledge of historic and current wetland locations and conditions within traditional tribal use areas is useful for identify current ES tradeoffs being made in the region. Understanding these tradeoffs and how they relate to tribal natural resource management goals will be fundamental to developing management strategies that promote tribal well-being. Tribal use of the ES concept for defining natural resource management goals and priorities also provides a framework for aligning local and regional agency goals as well as regional management, conservation, and restoration strategies for these ecosystems. Contact Information: Sarah A. Kidd, ESUR IGERT Program, Institute for Sustainable Solution - SUST, Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, USA , Phone: 541-217-8184, Email: [email protected]


155

DEVELOPMENT BY DESIGN: INTEGRATING A LANDSCAPE SCALE PERSPECTIVE INTO MITIGATION DECISION MAKING Joseph M. Kiesecker and Christina Kennedy

The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO, USA The world is changing more rapidly each day. Fast-paced development threatens some of our most cherished lands, waterways and wildlife. Over the next several decades, there will be even more pressure to convert and develop our lands and waters to provide food, energy, transportation and housing for a growing, hungry world. The importance of economic development for improving human well-being means that society will likely choose to value development over conservation if we continue to present it as an either/or option. Going forward achieving conservation goals will require a more integrated vision of development and conservation. Mitigation offers the opportunity to minimize the impacts of development through application of the mitigation hierarchy: avoid, minimize, restore, or offset. Here we outline a four-step framework we call Development by Design (DbD), developed to address the key deficiencies in mitigation and mesh with existing regulatory approaches. DbD brings together conservation and mitigation planning to help reduce conflicts between development and conservation goals, improve the effectiveness of mitigation and deliver more sustainable outcomes for the development of natural resources. We will also discuss how landscape scale mitigation planning can be adapted to incorporate impacts to ecosystem services. Contact Information: Joseph M. Kiesecker, The Nature Conservancy, 117 East Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA, Phone: 970-484-9598, Email: [email protected]


156

PANEL DISCUSSION: CREDIT BUYERS SESSION Mark S. Kieser, Moderator The purpose of the presentation is to gain insight from credit buyers engaged in water quality trading or similar environmental markets. The buyers in this panel discussion will be asked a series of questions and will provide feedback based on their unique perspectives as buyers. The panelists represent a number of different organizations, such as municipal sewer treatment facilities, large-scale food processors, and conservation authorities. The panel discussion will probe key drivers and motivations of buyers engaging in credit purchases. Buyers will share their views on:

• What advantages and benefits are offered with credit purchases

• Top concerns when using non-point source credits for compliance

• Who might they most trust to execute trades with landowners

• Considerations that influence participation in trading/credit purchases

• Issues around managing risk and liability in the marketplace

• Their perceptions for future market expansion

Participants will have time to ask buyers questions at the end of the session. Contact Information: Mark Kieser, Senior Scientist, Kieser & Associates, LLC, 536 E. Michigan Ave., Suite 105, Kalamazoo, MI, USA, Phone: 269-344-7117, Email: [email protected]


157

PAYMENTS FOR WATERSHED SERVICES IN THE RIMAC WATERSHED PERU: CONTEXT AND CHALLENGES Mark S. Kieser

Kieser & Associates, LLC, Kalamazoo, MI, USA Kieser & Associates is co-leading an effort with Forest Trends and EcoDecision, LLC in an effort to identify common project goals and a common metric for a newly established water fund (AQUAFONDO) for Lima, Peru. The water fund will be designed to fund projects which address both water quality and quantity issues for the water supply of Lima with a population of 12 million. Lack of wastewater treatment, mining, ancient irrigation and farming practices and overall lack of regulation have led to the severe depletion of an available and suitable water supply. This project is utilizing fundamental principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) for developing a project funding scheme that will address a range of social, environmental and economic outcomes that meet a diversity of stakeholder needs. The framework will build on the following elements:

• Development of a watershed schematic to inform geographic areas of need

• Identification of key stakeholders and watershed concerns

• Finding commonly proposed solutions (potential projects)

• Determination of a common performance metric(s)

• Development of a system for determining project credits

• Solicitation approaches for finding and funding projects

• Identification of program constraints and pre-requisites

• Framework development for project implementation

• Implementation of funded projects and framework adaptation This presentation will highlight critical elements of PES schemes in developing settings where regulation and/or enforcement are largely absent. Contact Information: Mark Kieser, Senior Scientist, Kieser & Associates, LLC, 536 E. Michigan Ave., Suite 105, Kalamazoo, MI, USA, Phone: 269-344-7117, Email: [email protected]


158

A RAW LOOK AT BUYER NEEDS FOR NUTRIENT OFFSETS Mark S. Kieser

Kieser & Associates, LLC, Kalamazoo, MI, USA This presentation explores the critical elements of an existing nutrient offset program being initiated through buyer demand. The City of Santa Rosa, California needs nutrient offsets to satisfy a “no net discharge” requirement for their Laguna Subregional Treatment Plant (LTP). The LTP discharges to the Laguna de Santa Rosa, which at 14 miles long is the largest freshwater wetland in Northern California. The zero net load discharge requirement was issued under an NPDES permit resolution by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). The resolution requires the City to either: 1) implement further wastewater treatment; 2) increase its water reclamation initiatives with steam power generation and/or the irrigation of urban and agricultural lands to reduce the amount of nutrients discharged to the Laguna; or, 3) use nutrient credits to offset any nutrient discharge. In wet years the LTP is predicted to discharge up to 50,000 pounds/year of both phosphorus and nitrogen beyond what they can send to reclamation activities. Costs to upgrade the existing wastewater facility are greater than $40 million, far surpassing crediting alternatives potentially provided by agriculture in the watershed. The City must identify nonpoint source credit opportunities with agriculture, negotiate credit terms with the Regional Board, collaborate with local resource conservation districts to implement nonpoint source projects, and pay for all related costs of the nutrient offset program. They must also address margin of safety and nutrient equivalence between their discharges and those of crediting projects. A substantial void, however, exists with information and approaches for effective point source/nonpoint source trading (offsetting) in the Laguna because this is the first application of offset credit demand for a treatment plant in California. As various options have been proposed to the Regional Board by the City, it has become evident that the process to secure credits under the nutrient offset program is administratively burdensome and continuously evolving. This creates tremendous market uncertainty and high costs for the buyer. Whereas other WQT programs have managed to develop in the absence of credit demand, offset credit demand here necessitates that the City chart its own course in the absence of other California examples. The City’s responsibilities for Clean Water Act compliance illustrate how buyers need a repeatable and defensible program structure to participate in nutrient trading and offset programs. This project presents the first real opportunity for California to respond to WQCT demand at a local level where a variety of pressures facing municipalities and production agriculture might be relieved with innovative market-based trading opportunities. As such, this project serves as the cornerstone for future nutrient trading in California and has thus garnered the support of both regulatory and conservation agencies. This presentation will focus on current buyer needs and recommendations for future program improvements that include:

• Establishing approvable crediting methods for nonpoint source projects

• Establishing and refining credit opportunities for regulated dairy operations

• Minimizing current transaction and administrative costs

• Third party credit provision

• Negotiating credit projects in the absence of formal market structure Contact Information: Mark Kieser, Senior Scientist, Kieser & Associates, LLC, 536 E. Michigan Ave., Suite 105, Kalamazoo, MI, USA, Phone: 269-344-7117, Email: [email protected]


159

CONSERVATION MARKETPLACE: SURVIVING BEYOND PILOTS WITH VOLUNTARY AND VISIONARY MARKET DEMAND James A. Klang

Kieser & Associates, LLC, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA Conservation Marketplace Midwest’s (CMM) goal is to provide support for ecosystems service market transactions in order to accelerate conservation implementation, education and awareness. CMM is a nonprofit in Minnesota with membership consisting of local government, elected officials, conservation minded nonprofits, and private sector professionals. CMM’s founding objective is outreach to agriculture (Ag) and rural city land managers for leveraging ecosystem market funding opportunities. CMM is focused on providing the “middleman” role by facilitating environmental markets and supporting services necessary for credit transactions. CMM has had to adaptively manage its original framework due to delays in water quality trading (WQT) market development and the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) market collapse from 2008 to 2010. In 2011 and 2012, CMM has seen increasing success working with voluntary buyers. This presentation will discuss how CMM adjustments in market approaches towards buyers have maintained and expanded CMM’s mission. CMM’s footprint covers the southern half of Minnesota. These regions of rural Minnesota range from counties with over 80 percent Ag land use to a near equal blend of Ag and forested areas. The leading industry in this region is agriculture, which reflects the Midwest Corn Belt in general. The economy is dominated by row crops, livestock operations and Ag service organizations. CMM founders recognized the importance of honoring this Ag-based community. Emphasis has focused on ecosystem service markets that preserve prime agricultural lands as well as providing alternative income options for marginal farmland. The adjustments CMM made included expanding the types of ecosystem service markets it facilitates, in addition to providing educational and market development roles. In Minnesota, environmental markets other than WQT and CCX include wetland banking and a limited number of endangered species habitat development sites. Initially these market options were considered to have limited potential, either due to CMM’s desire to limit long-term liability associated with wetland permanence requirements, or lack of a steady stream of transactions. In order to survive, CMM diversified into market development. CMM considered applications of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) frameworks and Corporate Sustainability programs. In order to support these market types, CMM encouraged buyers to engage with qualified professionals in larger development teams and educational efforts. By adapting CMMs delivery structure to include education and development components focused on state agencies (with oversight authority), buyer needs, credit generator needs and the public interest, CMM was able to enter into two new markets relatively early and is starting a third. These include pollinator credits and two municipal drinking water supply/ wellhead protection PES programs. A third emerging effort is assessing the feasibility of the food industry obtaining Row Crop Certifications to document a sustainable supply of corn and soybean commodities. As a result of CMM’s commitment to flexibility and collaboration, they have been able to meet their objectives in spite of fluctuations in ecosystem market conditions. CMM has successfully obtained over $140,000 in funding from early buyers for credit definition and implementation of pilot projects in new markets. Contact Information: James A. Klang, PE, Senior Project Engineer, Kieser & Associates, LLC, 536 E. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300, Kalamazoo, Michigan, Phone: (269) 344-7117, Email: [email protected]


160

APPLYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CONCEPTS TO PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT Jeffrey D. Kline1 and Marisa J. Mazzotta2

1USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR, USA 2 Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI, USA

Federal agencies have adopted the concept of ecosystem services with the hope that it will improve the process and outcomes of natural resource management. Despite interest and years of related work by economists since at least the 1960s, challenges remain for operationalizing ecosystem services in landscape management. We consider how economists might best help public lands management agencies address ecosystem services. We review the policy context and history of economic analysis to support landscape management. We develop a conceptual model of landscape management that defines the informational needs of landscape managers. We discuss the challenges that economists and ecologists face in developing needed information and what these imply about the types of economic analysis that can be accomplished. Finally, we consider the types of analyses that might be beneficial to managers, and suggest how economists and ecologists can most effectively help managers use such information in national forest public engagement processes. Though our discussion and conclusions are generally applicable, we focus on issues specific to the USDA Forest Service. The changing social and political context of pubic forest management combined with more frequent use of litigation, has recast the management task as a “wicked” problem, characterized by dynamic social and political factors and significant biophysical complexity. National forest managers must now consider a myriad of forest values held by numerous stakeholders with conflicting views across large and changing landscapes. Often there is little consensus regarding management goals, resulting in conflict and a seemingly instinctual distrust of managers and scientists. Such problems are not easily addressed by conventional scientific paradigms and approaches. Rather, they require transdisciplinary approaches and a meaningful collaborative interaction among managers, scientists and stakeholders. Scientific methods and analysis must be transparent and readily understandable to stakeholders. These demands call for more simplified yet scientifically credible approaches to evaluating management outcomes. We conclude that economists must work with managers and ecologists to conceptualize the economic problem of tradeoffs among joint products of landscapes that may be complementary or competing in production. A simple conceptualization of what the tradeoffs are, where services are provided on a landscape, and who stands to benefit can provide a structure for discussing tradeoffs with the public and stakeholders. Economists must guide managers and ecologists concerning the types of information needed to evaluate tradeoffs, both quantitatively and qualitatively. This includes formulation of relevant ecological measurement endpoints, conceptualization and estimation of ecological production functions that relate those endpoints to management actions of interest, and conceptualization and estimation of the joint production relationships among the endpoints. More broadly, economists must seek ways to communicate more effectively with managers and ecologists. This includes using nontechnical language in oral presentations and writing, and occasionally publishing in outlets besides peer-reviewed journals. Economists also must develop reasonable expectations about what information is necessary to support landscape management decisions. Finally, economists must seek to develop information that is sufficient if not necessarily perfect. Methods of economic analysis must be consistent with economic theory, but usable with limited information, including qualitative information when necessary.

Contact Information: Jeffrey Kline, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA, Phone: 541-758-7776, Email: [email protected]


161

SERVES: A WEB-BASED ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUE EXCHANGE PLATFORM Jonathan Kochmer, Azur Moulaert and Corinne Cooley

Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA, USA Humanity faces a paradox: on the one hand, never before have humans been so successful and powerful in terms of total population, technological prowess, food production, energy, wealth and knowledge. Yet at the same time, our success itself, the sheer size of the human enterprise, is now unraveling the systems of the planet upon which we all depend. Climate change, ocean acidification, water shortages, pollution, species extinction, shrinking fossil fuel reserves, declining soil fertility and more threaten global and local ecological and economic sustainability. This is The Sustainability Paradox. Sustainability problems are related to physical stocks and flows (pollution, species abundance, water, oil). Their measurement is in physical units. Science provides guidance for solving physical problems, such as and where to restore a key estuary for salmon, in physical measures. The way economies have generated solutions has been to properly allocate financial stocks and flows (and their rewards) that direct physical assets, technology and labor. These have economic measures with units in dollars. The first step to solving the Sustainability Paradox, and solving problems as diverse as climate change, salmon restoration and human exposure to toxic chemicals, requires a translation of the physical benefits and damages associated with these environmental problems into the economic language and policy which directs resources to both create solutions and halt actions that threaten the health of future economies. SERVES (Simple Effective Resource for Valuing Ecosystem Services) is a tool for translating the values provided by natural systems or damage to these systems, linking understanding provided by the natural sciences and the implementation of change enabled by good investment, markets and economic decision-making. SERVES uses geographic and physical input from, and provide economic output to, cutting edge science-based ecosystem service modeling and analytical tools, and dramatically increases their effectiveness for informing policy. This paves the way for improving public and private investment and helping correct economic incentives and shift/create markets to solve some of humanity’s most pressing problems. Web-based SERVES has practical versatility and functionality for decision makers, urban planners, watershed managers and the conservation community. Innovations include an intuitive user interface, downloadable calculation tables, inflation adjustments, currency conversion and the ability to create and save scenarios by each logged-in user. The database itself draws on a reservoir of studies that economists can comment on and add to. Using basic GIS data, users are able to create tables that identify the ecosystem services present at various scales – including site, regional, watershed, biome, and sectoral scales – and calculate the annual economic value of those services to the community. SERVES presents results in a standard economic (appraisal) format to bring natural capital into the center of overall economic planning. SERVES will help drive investments towards sustainability and create a green economy on a global and local scale. Until new non-monetary methods for valuing ecosystem services are broadly adopted, a “simple and effective tool for valuing ecosystem services” is essential for including natural capital and ecosystem services into decision making. Contact Information: Jonathan Kochmer, Principal Researcher, Earth Economics, 107 N. Tacoma Ave, Tacoma, WA 98403, Phone: 253-539-4801, Email: [email protected]


162

MINING AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES – HARD TRADE-OFFS IN ECUADOR Maya Kocian, David Batker and Jennifer Harrison-Cox

Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA, USA We need minerals, and copper is no exception. You are probably reading this on a device that contains copper. Minerals like copper are also valuable commodities, so it is no wonder that nations across the globe have aggressively pursued natural resource extraction as a quick and easy path to economic development. In 2003, however, an independent panel of the World Bank released a groundbreaking report indicating that countries that relied on extractive industries actually suffered negative growth. This finding makes sense when one compares the short-term income provided by mining to the inequitable distribution of benefits and costs, and its longer-lasting deleterious environmental and social impacts. The extent of the damage inflicted depends on the type of industry. Copper mining, for example, almost always results in polluted waterways, eroded topsoil, denuded forests, diminished biodiversity, contaminated air, and in the case of the Intag Region (Ecuador) the potential loss of a unique cloud forest system- all of which affect quality of life. Is mining worth jeopardizing critical natural capital? Years ago, when the first multinational mining company arrived at Intag, the majority of the residents decided it is not. Social movements arose and the community of Intag explored alternative development models for their region. In 2010, Earth Economics began a project in the Intag region to assess the economics of copper mining in biological hotspots. The area straddles two important biological hotspots: the Tropical Andes, and the Choco-Darien Western. Conventional economic analysis was used to measure the profits of copper extraction, and ecosystem service valuation was used to measure potential impacts of the copper mine on the surrounding cloud forest. Ecosystem service valuation has been surprisingly well received by the rural community leaders as a challenge to the copper mine. Results confirm the cloud forests of Intag provide tremendous ecological, cultural and economic value over generations. The relatively short-term benefits of the proposed copper mine should be considered in light of this value. Contact Information: Maya Kocian, Economist, Earth Economics, 107 N. Tacoma Ave, Tacoma, WA 98403, Phone: 253-539-4801, Email: [email protected]


163

CEV, NEW WAYS TO VALUE NATURAL CAPITAL FOR BUSINESS Ayako Kohno1, James Griffiths2, James Cadman3 and James Spurgeon4

1Environmental Strategy Office, Hitachi, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan 2World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Geneva, Switzerland 3Environmental Resources Management, Ltd.(ERM), London, the United Kingdom 4Sustain Value, Oxford, the United Kingdom

Valuing natural capital is a critical issue for companies in any industry to plan and conduct sustainable management for its operation. A new methodology introduced by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) called the Corporate Guide to Ecosystems Valuation (CEV) is a framework for improving corporate decision-making through valuing ecosystem services. This guide is the first of its kind, catering directly for the needs of business. It was developed through an 18-month process of close collaboration with businesses themselves – fourteen members road tested the Guide, working with four partners: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World Resources Institute (WRI), ERM and PwC. Purpose: The purpose of the CEV pilot projects conducted by Hitachi are threefold as follows: 1) To quantify ecosystem footprints by monetizing the societal (economic) and financial costs and benefits of ecosystems and ecosystem services, through the operation. 2) To re-think and improve project planning, to be more sustainable in practice. 3) To tackle the issue of ecosystem conservation through the lens of lifecycle and supply chain frameworks. Scope: Since May 2011, Hitachi had conducted the following two CEV pilot projects, with the support of ERM and Sustain Value. 1) Water Treatment Business in the Maldives by Hitachi Plant Technologies, Ltd. and Male' Water & Sewerage Company Pvt. Ltd. 2) Identifying Effects on Ecosystems using IT software(GeoMationFarm) and Improving Efficiency in Agricultural Production by Hitachi Solutions, Ltd. The scope for the first project is the current drinking water treatment and sewerage treatment business operation by the Male' Water & Sewerage Company Pvt. Ltd. and its future expansion plan in Male and its surrounding Islands, in the Maldives for the next 30 years. The scope for the second project is the application of GeoMationFarm, an agricultural information management system that improves efficiency of resource use and enhances crop productivity. The hypothetical studies are conducted, targeting the USA and France. (Note: This study is a high-level theoretical analysis based on publicly available data.) Methods used: The methodology of the Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV), which was developed by WBCSD and published in April 2011, was used for both pilot cases to assess and value ecosystem impacts. The Results: As we have conducted the pilot projects, we have found that the CEV method is helpful in structurally guiding one through the steps to follow, and the core element of this initiative is the accumulation of know-how among the project team that worked together, and the new findings about ecosystem management which were not foreseen with the lense of the usual “financial” business planning approach. Conclusions: CEV is a useful tool to raise awareness by communicating the results both internally within the company and also externally to various stakeholders. Recommendations: It is recommended that more companies utilize CEV as a useful tool to measure the relationship between company operations and the ecosystem services. Through being better informed by the results of the CEV, continued efforts to enhance internal coordination within various divisions of the company is achieved, and findings from the CEV results can help improve business planning. Contact Information: Ayako Kohno, Hitachi, Ltd., 6-1, Marunouchi 1-chome, Ciyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8220, Japan, Phone: 81342355821, Email: [email protected]


164

ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE COASTAL LAGOON OF KARAVASTA IN ALBANIA Romina Koto1, 2 and Aida Bani1

1Agro-Environmental Department, Faculty of Agronomy and Environment, Agricultural University of Tirana, Tirane, Albania 2National Agency of Environment and Forestry, Tirane, Albania

Coastal lagoons are valuable ecosystems, which provide humans with many benefits. These benefits may take several forms but the economic benefits are highly valued, and are obtained from the lagoon’s goods and services. These goods and services are subjected to pressures and impacts from human development. Therefore in order to assess what changes may occur is studied: the Karavasta lagoon situated in the western lowland central Adriatic Sea as the widest and most important lagoon in Albania. The Karavasta lagoon ecosystem is a dynamic area included in the "List of Wetlands of International Importance" (Ramsar, 1971), with a diverse floristic population of fauna endemic sub-endemic species. The Karavasta lagoon ecosystem is threatened by land use changes, a decrease in sustainable use and where management interventions are minimal. In developing countries, too often are ecosystem values suffered for the sake of economic development, therefore the study also aims to demonstrate to policy and decision makers about the need for improved management. A total evaluation of services and products related to their characteristics was necessary to analyze the lagoon. The identification of environmental functions and activities of the Karavasta lagoon was based on the terminology of the MA (Millennium Assessment 2003). The study has showed that despite the level of human development: low, medium or high, impacts to the lagoon ecosystem it essentially continues to provide key goods and services. Through TEV (Total Economic Value) will be calculated the economic value of services and products of the Karavasta lagoon. TEV estimates (use and non use value) that society or the individual receives or loses from natural sources. It has also shown that there is a large potential for the Karavasta Lagoon to be sustainably managed so that its value can at least be maintained for future generations. Contact Information: Romina Koto, Agro-Environmental Department, Faculty of Agronomy and Environment, Agricultural University of Tirana, Koder Kamez, Tirane, Albania, Phone:00-355-682063096, Email:[email protected]


165

CARBON SEQUESTRATION POTENTIAL FROM COATAL WETLAND RESTORATION SITES Paul R. Krause1, Alyssa M. Beach2, Emily E. Cooper3 and George C. Weber4

1ERM, Marina del Rey, CA, USA 2ERM, Irvine, CA, USA 3ERM, Walnut Creek, CA, USA 4ERM, Carpinteria, CA, USA

The restoration of coastal wetland sites is a high priority for coastal states where wetlands have been reduced from both natural and anthropogenic means. The ecosystem service losses resulting from the degradation of coastal wetlands impact not only the surrounding human population, but also the associated ecological communities. For these reasons the restoration of coastal wetland sites has become a high priority for resource agencies, industry, and stakeholder groups. The benefits of restoring of coastal wetland habitats are well documented, and have been shown to result in specific ecosystem service gains. One service provided by the restoration of coastal wetland sites that has received little attention is the benefit of the increased greenhouse gas (GHG) sequestration. To address this issue a study was carried out at the Carpinteria Salt Marsh, located in Carpinteria, CA. This 230 acre coastal salt marsh has been identified as a partially degraded marsh, and restoration plans are in place for specific activities in the coming years. For this study Carpinteria marsh dynamics were modeled to determine the level of potential GHG sequestration currently taking place, and following restoration activities. A multi-component box model was developed that accounted for both marsh GHG evolution and sequestration. Where appropriate, site-specific studies were carried out to support and validate important input parameters to the model such as specific sediment properties (e.g., grain size, organic carbon content, and accretion rate), plant cover and type estimates, and spatial mapping. Additionally, a sediment transport model was used to understand how natural forces (i.e., storms and tides) influence the movement of sediment through the salt marsh both before and after restoration. The results of this study indicated that restoration activities have the potential to result in a net GHG sequestration (measured in CO2 equivalents) following restoration. Furthermore, the sequestration potential far outweighs the GHG quantities generated through the restoration activities themselves, thus yielding an overall net sequestration following restoration activities. This important ecosystem service gain should be quantified for coastal and other restoration projects in the context of the overall net environmental benefit for such projects where appropriate. Contact Information: Paul R. Krause, ERM, 4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 530, Marina del Rey, CA 90292, USA, Phone: 1-310-496-5790, Email: [email protected]


166

APPLYING THE ECOLOGICAL ENDPOINT APPROACH TO FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROJECTS: NOTES FROM THE FIELD Timm Kroeger

Central Science Department, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA The “ecological endpoint” approach is attractive to many economists working on questions of ecosystem management because it defines ecosystem services with respect to the specific human uses they support. This benefit-specific definition of services facilitates the comprehensive accounting for ecosystem services and their valuation, especially if the latter requires application of stated preference approaches. It also provides clear guidance in terms of locations and metrics for measuring specific service flows.

Despite the obvious conceptual appeal of the endpoint approach, predicting how a particular intervention affects service flows can be a challenging undertaking for many services. First, such an analysis requires knowledge of the production functions of the services of interest – which in turn requires a quantitative understanding of how an intervention affects relevant outputs from the intervention site; how these outputs are attenuated between the intervention site and the site of the actual service provision; and how other factors beside the intervention influence service provision. Second, in addition to the production functions of the target service, the estimation of changes in service flows attributable to a given intervention requires data on the key inputs to service production during the relevant time period. This can impose substantial information requirements that in some cases may require significant investments in research. While the implementation of the ecological endpoint approach thus may appear daunting and in some cases prohibitive, it nevertheless is necessary for the meaningful performance evaluation of any ecosystem services project. Using the example of watershed conservation projects designed to yield increases in the flows of particular ecosystem services, we show how application of the ecological endpoint approach fundamentally changes output metrics, impacts monitoring requirements and modifies service models. Based on these insights, we discuss the concrete challenges freshwater ecosystem services projects need to overcome in order to enable application of the ecological endpoint approach. Contact Information: Timm Kroeger, Central Science Department, The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22203-1606, USA, Phone: 703-841-5823, Email: [email protected]


167

REFORESTATION AS A CORPORATE COMPLIANCE MEASURE FOR AIR POLLUTION MITIGATION: THE CASE OF GROUND-LEVEL OZONE Timm Kroeger

Central Science Department, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA Many metropolitan areas in the United States are characterized by ambient concentrations of ground-level ozone that exceed the Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone (8hr) and are designated as non-attainment areas by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). High ozone concentrations have been shown to be harmful to human and plant health. They also may negatively affect business performance by reducing employee productivity and requiring the reduction of ozone precursor emissions or the imposition of Clean Air Act penalty fees on regulated emission sources in non-attainment areas. A large body of research has documented the removal of ozone and one of its precursors (NO2) by trees via uptake of these gases through leaf surfaces. The EPA has identified tree planting as an “emerging” measure states can employ in their State Implementation Plans for achieving compliance with the NAAQS. Thus, tree planting could become available to regulated sources as a new compliance tool alongside existing emission control approaches. Such an outcome appears desirable because of the additional ecosystem services urban greenspaces provide compared to technology-based abatement options. However, in order for regulated sources to consider tree planting as an ozone compliance measure, information about the private cost-effectiveness of ozone precursor removal by trees is needed. Such information is currently missing. This study develops a general methodology for estimating the private costeffectiveness of tree planting for ozone precursor removal and applies it to a reforestation project in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) ozone non-attainment area in Texas, USA. The study also identifies a range of additional or co-benefits reforestation provides that existing, technology-based abatement approaches do not provide, along with methods for estimating the biophysical flow and monetary value of these benefits. Our methodology identifies portions of a nonattainment area in which additional tree canopy is likely to achieve maximum ozone and NO2 removal and generate the maximum amounts of precursor credits. Within those areas, project cost, site availability, conservation value and projected climate change impacts on habitat suitability are used to select the preferred project site. Project canopy is modeled over time and the U.S. Forest Service’s peer-reviewed and widely applied Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model is used to estimate ozone and NO2 removal and VOC (an ozone precursor) emissions by the project. Based on consultations with air quality regulatory agencies and using key atmospheric characteristics that impact ozone formation, we estimate the quantities of precursor credits the project would generate for its owner and compare its cost-effectiveness to that of competing control approaches. Finally, we generate estimates of selected co-benefits the project produces. Contact Information: Timm Kroeger, Central Science Department, The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22203-1606, USA, Phone: 703-841-5823, Email: [email protected]


168

SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Lisa LaCivita

Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA Water is essential for life. We know this on a cerebral level, but in the developed world, we very much take for granted accessibility to a safe, reliable water supply that is also inexpensive. Frederick County, Virginia is not typically water stressed and rain-fed agriculture is the dominant practice. About one third of the county’s 100,000 residents (including the City of Winchester) are provided with water through a public system for which usage can be quantified. The other two-thirds of the population rely on private wells or water supply systems where usage reports are not typically required. Estimates must be used to gauge the quantity of water withdrawals from private sources. Large commercial withdrawals are reported. Regional aquifers are unconfined and the interplay of precipitation, transpiration and evaporation with runoff and recharge is complex. The folded, faulted and weathered geology includes areas of karst which adds to the complexity of accessing water resources. Despite these uncertainties, municipalities must consider and plan for the regulation and provision of water resources as they estimate future population growth. We know that precipitation, ground water and surface water are a linked part of the dynamic hydrologic cycle. We understand that land-use and land cover impacts water quality and quantity. Land use decisions are typically made at the county level. We expect that good governance would incorporate the use of the best possible science towards informed decision making regarding water resources. We observe that social, economic and political considerations are also important factors. This research seeks to examine what actions a county can take towards water resource sustainability. What parameters are under or beyond their control? What are priorities given limited resources and funding? How can citizen involvement, transparency, decision support, accountability and reporting best be accomplished? Contact Information: Lisa F. LaCivita, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, 110 Virginia Drive, Stephens City, Virginia 22655 USA, Phone: 540 303 2184, Email: [email protected]


169

A BINARY APPROACH TO DEFINE AND CLASSIFY FINAL ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES Dixon H. Landers1, Amanda M. Nahlik1, Paul L. Ringold1 and John Powers2

1USEPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR, USA 2USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., USA

The ecosystem services literature decries the lack of consistency and standards in the application of ecosystem services as well as the inability of current approaches to explicitly link ecosystem services to human well-being. Recently, SEEA and CICES have conceptually identified Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) as the preferred approach to make the ecosystem services concept functional. For the past several years the Office of Research and Development of EPA has been working to develop an approach suitable for using FEGS as an organizing concept for an ecosystem services classification system. We believe that implementation of Ecosystem Services begins with a FEGS framework composed of definitions, principles and a binary classification approach which specifies 1) the specific beneficiary and 2) the biophysical aspects of the environment with which the specific beneficiary interacts. This approach requires the definition of environmental classes that tessellate the earth and specific beneficiaries that discretely identify the biophysical attributes of environmental classes that contribute to human well-being. To develop this approach, it has been essential that natural scientist and socials scientists work in concert. Our FEGS classification approach presently defines 3 environmental classes and 14 subclasses that describe a total of 240 unique beneficiaries. The tables or matrices we have created allow a user to enter the matrix from either the beneficiary or environmental class perspective. Definitions and principles used are also provided along with detailed definition of beneficiaries for each environmental sub-class and the nature of the FEGS we believe that they would value. We view our work as a collection of hypotheses regarding the beneficiaries and the environmental attributes that they seek, consume or appreciate. This FEGS classification approach will be ready for testing and evaluation by October 2012. Contact Information: Dixon H. Landers, USEPA, Western Ecology Division, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333 USA, Phone: 541-754-4427, Email: [email protected]


170

DEVELOP AND DOCUMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ON RANGELANDS Stephanie Larson1, Sheila Barry2, Theresa Becchetti3, Morgan Doran4, Karen Giovannini 5, Larry Forero6, Holly George7, Mel George8, Roger Ingram9 and Valerie Eviner9

1University of California Cooperative Extension, Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, CA, USA 2University of California Cooperative Extension, Santa Clara County, San Jose, CA, USA 3University of California Cooperative Extension, Stanislaus County, Modesto, CA, USA 4University of California Cooperative Extension, Yolo County, Woodland, CA, USA 5University of California Cooperative Extension, Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, CA, USA 6University of California Cooperative Extension, Shasta County, Redding, CA, USA 7University of California Cooperative Extension, Plumas, Quincy, CA, USA 8University of California Cooperative Extension, Placer County, Auburn, CA, USA 9University of California, Davis, CA, USA

Rangelands comprise the largest land mass in western states. These rangelands have traditionally been a source of forage for marketable products, such as livestock, which is a leading agricultural commodity and an important source of revenue to local economies. However, in addition to marketable products, rangelands and their stewardship also provide valuable ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are the functions performed by ecosystems that lead to desirable environmental outcomes. Typically, those who supply ecosystem services are not rewarded for all the benefits they provide to others because markets for their services have not been developed. Arguably the most prominent reasons why markets for ecosystem services rarely exist are the uncertainty about ecosystem processes and an inability to define market and non-market services. Rangeland ecosystems provide benefits to the landowner and to all life forms living or passing through that land. The values of well-maintained ecosystems range from neighbors that benefit from an open viewscapes, clean water and air and carbon sequestration. There is potential for rangeland owners and managers to receive additional revenue from their stewardship and the services their lands provide. To assess the potential of payments for ecosystem services, this project developed a decision support system which identified best management practices used on rangelands and documented increased ecosystem services based on research results. Information developed was used to educate rangeland owners and managers on the types of ecosystem service enhancements that could be achieved through implementation of best management practices. Data generated also developed documentation for potential payments to land owners for ecosystem services provided by rangelands and their stewardship. This project strived to build partnerships with land owners, agencies, NGOs and policy makers to acknowledge the importance of managing local rangelands, not only for the benefit of the manager, but for the extended benefits to the community receiving the subsequent increases in ecosystem services. This project was accomplished through collaboration between University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) farm advisors and UC Davis researchers, along with key partners such as the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition (CRCC). Contact Information: Stephanie Larson, University of California Cooperative Extension, 133 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 109, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, Phone: 707-565-2621, Email: [email protected]


171

ASSIGNING MONETARY VALUE TO PEST CONTROL PROVIDED BY MEXICAN FREE-TAILED BATS TADARIDA BRASILIENSIS Laura López-Hoffman, Ruscena P. Wiederholt and Kelsie LaSharr

School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) are an important asset in agricultural areas, especially those producing cotton. These migratory bats travel between Southern Mexico and Northern Mexico/Southwestern United States each year, providing an essential ecosystem service, pest control. Mexican free-tailed bats, a general insectivore, lower costs in cotton fields by reducing damage caused by pests. By studying Mexican free-tail bats and their impacts on the economy of crop production, we estimated the ecosystem service value they provide to farmers across the United States and as well as studying trends over time. Using current and historical data for crop production, agricultural practices, pesticide use, bat populations, and crop damages, we determined a monetary value for Mexican free-tail bats. We applied this method over 50 counties in the southwestern United States to determine the overall effects of reduced damages these bats can provide. The pest control value was estimated as the money saved by avoided crop damage and the avoided use of pesticides. We estimated the pest control value over multiple years to illustrate the dynamic nature of ecosystem service valuation. We determined that the worth these bats provide varies over time as a function of changes in land-use and socio-economic factors in the southwest. This demonstrates that, along with environmental change, variation in social factors can also affect the value of ecosystem services. This is an area, in our opinion, that merits further study in the ecosystem service field and an increase in conservation of bat migration sites. Contact Information: Kelsie LaSharr, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, 3301 E 24th Street, Tucson AZ, Phone: 480-678-1631, Email: [email protected]


172

EVALUATING DOMESTIC CARBON MARKETS WITH FOREST SECTOR MODELS Gregory Latta1, Sara Ohrel2 and Darius Adams1

1Department of Forest Engineering, Resources, and Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA 2Climate Economics Branch, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA

Climate change induced by anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions such as fossil fuel combustion, conversion of forest land, agriculture, and industry has emerged as one of the most compelling issues of our time. Forests can play an important role in emissions abatement efforts through afforestation, improved forest management, and utilization of biomass for energy production. Identifying effective mitigation opportunities is complex in that it involves a complex interaction between shifts in forest investment, harvest rates, and utilization as well as the associated market responses via prices and trade levels. Forest sector models are increasingly utilized to identify efficient policy signals that reduce GHG emissions levels to meet both domestic and international climate change goals. Their ability to simulate climate change policies vary as they differ in geographic scope, intertemporal dynamics, product incorporation, and forest growth representation. First, we present an array of the theoretical and structural components of a suite of commonly applied forest sector models. We then discuss how these factors may influence a model’s ability to simulate a policy such as a carbon tax/subsidy system. Finally we present a case study where we apply the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOM-GHG), a partial, spatial equilibrium model of the United States forest and agriculture sectors to evaluate the effect on mitigation potential ofa voluntary carbon offset market for improved forest management. Marginal abatement cost curves similar to those employed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their evaluation of recent US climate policy debated in Congress are developed. Results demonstrate the impacts of carbon markets on commodity prices as well as indicate the importance of accounting methodology in determining policy effectiveness. Contact Information: Gregory Latta, Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management, Oregon State University, 013 Peavy Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA, Phone: 541-734-6264, Email: [email protected]


173

AN ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER NEEDS TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT OF AN INVEST MODEL OF LAKE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR THE NATURAL CAPITAL PROJECT Martha Campbell, Kirsten Howard, Kevin Le, John Shriver and Lisa Wan

School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Introduction Lakes provide an inordinate number of benefits to people that include fresh drinking water, power production, tourism, fishing, and other recreational uses. However, inland lakes are increasingly being subjected to stressors from agricultural and economic development, which lead to increased lake pollution and threaten the valuable benefits lakes provide to humans. In order to further develop important ecosystem service approaches for inland lakes, University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment graduate students have partnered with the Natural Capital Project to create a practical Lake Eutrophication Model that will be integrated into InVEST, the Natural Capital Project’s suite of free, open-source ecosystem service analysis models. The Lake Eutrophication Model will include 1) a practical biophysical model that predicts inland lake eutrophication levels and 2) an economic valuation model that predicts the resulting economic impacts on recreation and property values from the eutrophication levels. The model will predict lake clarity and other metrics for freshwater inland lakes and connect the economic value provided by the lake to eutrophication levels present in the ecosystem. The model is intended to enable policy makers, environmental practitioners, and the private sector to make better-informed, science-based decisions about inland lake management and land use tradeoffs. Stakeholder involvement is increasingly common in science-based decision-making processes (Source). Ecosystem service assessments should engage stakeholders early and often in the process, including during problem formulation (Source). Although we will not be conducting a field application of the Lake Eutrophication Model, consulting with stakeholders to inform model development is critical to creating a relevant, useful product. To better understand which stakeholders are likely to use the Lake Eutrophication Model and what outputs it should produce to be most useful to them, we are surveying and interviewing key personnel from federal agencies, state agencies, environmental non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, industry organizations, and local conservation and recreational organizations in Michigan. The survey and interview results will help the team better understand what major issues practitioners are facing related to lake water quality, how management decisions are made related to lake water quality in Michigan, and what scientific and decision making tools could improve current lake water quality efforts around the state. Research Question To guide the survey and semi-structured interview, we asked the following research question: “Who are the potential users of these models in Michigan and what questions can the models inform for them?” Methods The short survey and interviews will be administered to a diversity of stakeholder representatives who directly use Michigan lakes or are invested in Michigan inland lake health and practitioners and experts who work on inland lake issues and management. The questions explore how management decisions are made related to lake water quality. The results will be qualitatively analyzed, and the information gained will be used to inform model development and model outputs. Results and Conclusions The interviews are currently being conducted results and conclusions will be completed by the end of November. With the Graduate Student Fellowship, we hope to be able to present the results and conclusions at the conference. Contact Information: Kevin Le, University of Michigan, 440 Church St, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, Phone: 408-838-6155, Email: [email protected]


174

TRADEOFFS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM WETLANDS AND STREAMS IN THE HOUSTON REGION L. James Lester, Gregory R. Biddinger and Lisa A. Gonzalez

Houston Advanced Research Center, The Woodlands, TX, USA Southeast Texas has a subtropical climate and coastal ecology. Water is a dominant feature of the landscape. Land use decisions made during the growth of the Houston-Galveston metropolitan area have resulted in disruption of the flow patterns, volume and pace of hydrologic flows in the region. Previous development decisions have not considered ecosystem service loss when assessing tradeoffs. In particular, palustrine wetlands, streams and bayous have not been recognized for the ecosystem service related benefits they provide, including storm water control, pollution reduction, and recreation. Few examples of regional land use decision support systems, which include and value ecosystem services (ES), exist for U.S. metropolitan areas. Our objective is to build a decision support system (DSS), grounded in local bio-physical data tied ultimately to local data on benefits, that will encourage more informed regional land use planning. Since high and variable precipitation rates are a feature of this region and can result in dramatic increases in surface runoff and stream flows quantifying flood mitigation services will be an initial focus of this DSS Flooding has the greatest economic impact and drives more development and infrastructure decisions than any other ecosystem perturbation in the region. Tropical Storm Allison in 2001, the most extreme precipitation event around Houston in the last 30 years, resulted in flood insurance claims amounting to >$1 billion. The value of wetlands for mitigation of flooding has been estimated by studying the relationship between permits for wetland loss and flood damage. The number of Sec 404 wetland permits issued in a watershed has a significant effect on peak stream flow and is a significant predictor of flood damage (Brody et al. 2011). Attributes of regional water drainage systems, natural water bodies and wetlands are relatively well known and have been compiled by local organizations. Benefits in terms of avoidance of flood damage can be estimated. Application to a GIS-based DSS system is straightforward. Beyond flood mitigation benefits, fresh surface water is the principle source of drinking water for Houston-Galveston communities. As well, fresh water flows are essential to maintain both fresh and saltwater fisheries which provide ~ $3.2 Billion/Year in economic benefits to the region. Aquatic and associated riparian habitat bolster additional recreational activities such as birding which is a major ecotourism focus for coastal communities. Although the economic value of birding in the region is generally recognized, the links between landscape modifications, bird abundance and expenditures by bird watchers remains to clarified and valued. In conclusion, this region is a good laboratory for development of a DSS based on ES from water bodies and wetlands. The spatial data on ecological resources is well developed. Some ES have sufficient data for valuation, while other ES are poorly understood. The local importance of aquatic systems in the context of flooding and water quality and the availability of data on these systems recommend them as the subject for developing the DSS and testing the reaction of target user groups. Contact Information: L. James Lester, HARC, 4800 Research Forest Dr., The Woodlands, TX, 77381 USA, Phone: 281-364-6041, Email: [email protected]


175

LANDSCAPE SCALE CONSERVATION AS AN ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE - KEY ROLE FOR ECOSYSTEM MARKETS James N. Levitt

Program on Conservation Innovation at the Harvard Forest, and Department of Planning and Urban Form, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Harvard University, Waverley, MA, USA

Program on Conservation Innovation at the Harvard Forest, Harvard University and Fellow, Deparment of Planning and Urban Form, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, USA Purpose: To consider, through several case studies, the critical role that ecosystem service markets can play in the initiation and realization of large landscape conservation projects that weave together public, private and non-profit land holdings into a whole greater than the sum of the parts, with measurable and enduring conservation outcomes. Scope: To demonstrate the wide applicability of ecosystem service markets as key catalysts for large landscape conservation initiatives, the case studies will include one situation within the United States and one in South America. The US-based study will consider the role of potential carbon markets in the planning for a large landscape conservation initiative in the Quabbin-to-Wauchusetts region of north-central Massachusetts. The South American example will consider the use of actual use of carbon market sales in the restoration of region in and around the Torres del Paine National Park in Chile following a devastating forest fire there. Methods: The author has recently come to understand both cases quite well. He also has extensive professional involvement with the emergence of landscape scale conservation as a leading paradigm for conservation in the twenty-first century. For example, he recently organized and ran a conference on the future of landscape-scale conservation at the United States Library of Congress. The conference featured insights from conservation leaders in at the federal, state, large NGO, land trust and private conservation communities. The author’s experience will be reflected in the case studies, which make clear the connection between sophisticated conservation finance techniques and ambitious large landscape conservation initiatives. Conclusions: To paraphrase Mark Twain, “reports of the potential death of carbon markets in the United States and abroad are greatly exaggerated.” Indeed, these two case studies demonstrate that existing carbon markets can play instrumental roles in collaborative regional conservation initiatives. Recommendations: Ecosystem service markets can play a key role in facilitating the growth in prominence of the large landscape conservation paradigm gains at the federal, state and local levels in the United States, and in selected markets around the globe. Ecosystem service market participants should make large landscape conservation initiatives a key focus of their activities. Contact Information: James N. Levitt, Director, Program on Conservation Innovation at the Harvard Forest, Harvard University and Fellow, Department of Planning and Urban Form, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; PO Box 79218, Waverley, MA 02479, Phone: 617-966-1117, Email: [email protected]


176

ASSESSING THE CO2 INCENTIVE LEVELS THAT WOULD MAKE FARMER ADOPTION OF GHG MITIGATING PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES BREAK-EVEN INVESTMENTS Jan Lewandrowski1 and D. Pape2

1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA 2ICF International, Washington, DC, USA

The purpose of this presentation is to facilitate a better understanding of how crop and livestock farmers would respond to incentives to adopt production and land management practices and technologies that mitigate greenhouse emissions (i.e., either decrease GHG emissions or increase carbon sequestration associated with farm operations). Numerous economic studies have concluded that, given appropriate incentives, U.S. agriculture could mitigate significant quantities of greenhouse gas emissions by retiring certain lands from production and by making changes to livestock diets, manure management systems, grazing lands management, tillage systems, crop rotations, and nitrogen fertilizer use. With the exceptions of afforestation and adopting no-till, these studies rarely make clear what exactly farmers would change in their crop and livestock operations. Numerous agronomic studies and reports have described a wide range of specific GHG mitigating changes farmers could make in managing their crop and livestock operations. These works typically assume adoption and focus on the quantity of mitigation that could be achieved. Farmers, however, will only adopt practices and technologies that make economic sense from the standpoint of their operations. The work presented here, fills a gap between the economic and agronomic studies referred to above by identifying specific production and land management technologies and practices that “representative” farm operations could adopt to reduce their GHG footprint, and, by computing the GHG incentive level (stated in dollars per metric ton of CO2 mitigation) that those farms would require to consider adoption of the technology or practice a break-even investment (i.e., the incentive level that would just cover the farm-level costs of adoption). As appropriate, “representative” farm operations are distinguished by USDA production region, commodity produced, and size of operation. The presentation is developed from material contained in a contract report recently completed by ICF International for USDA’s Climate Change Program Office. This report describes specific changes farmers could make to crop and livestock production systems as well as several land retirement possibilities that would result in quantifiable GHG emissions mitigation. For each practice and technology, the report presents detailed data on the costs that “representative farm operations” would incur adopting and maintaining the practice or technology as well as the most up-to-date estimates of the GHG mitigation that would result from adoption. The break-even incentive levels presented here (and in the ICF report) are computed from these cost and GHG mitigation data. In this presentation, we present the list of technologies and practices for which data on adoption costs and the resulting GHG mitigation could be documented. We then work through an example showing how these data are used to compute break-even incentive levels. The balance of the presentation focuses on showing which farms in which regions start to find specific GHG mitigation actions economically rational to undertake as the GHG incentive level rises from $0.0 to $100 per mt CO2 equivalent. While the break-even incentive levels are specific to GHG mitigation, the cost data and general approach are applicable for computing similar incentive levels for other environmental services (either individually or bundled). Contact Information: Jan Lewandrowski, Climate Change Program Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250, USA. Phone: 202-720-6699, Email: [email protected]


177

MODELING THE PRODUCTION OF MULTIPLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Tingting Liu1, Nathaniel H. Merrill1, Arthur J. Gold2, Dorothy Q. Kellogg2 and Emi Uchida1

1Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA 2Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI, USA

Over the past few decades, agricultural and forest lands in the northeast US have been lost to residential development. Combined with more intensive farming on remaining lands, these trends have led to losses in valuable ecosystem services from the agricultural and forest landscape. This study seeks to spatially quantify hydrological ecosystem services (water quality and quantity) related to wildlife habitat and flood risks, as well as production of provisioning ecosystem services (food and fiber) at the watershed scale. We also investigate the effects of stressors faced in the coming decades—land use change and climate change—as well as choices in land management practices on production of these ecosystem services. We demonstrate the approach in the Beaver River watershed in Rhode Island using a spatially-explicit, process-based hydrological model (SWAT). Our key finding is that choices in land use and land management practices create tradeoffs across multiple ecosystem services such as provisioning, regulating and supporting ecosystem services. Stressors such as urbanization, increased agriculture intensity and climate change make spatially explicit modeling necessary to understand the complex relationships between efficient land use and the complexity in the function of ecosystems. Contact Information: Tingting Liu, Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, 1 Greenhouse RD., Kingston, RI, 02881 USA, Phone: 401-855-2258, Email: [email protected]


178

SOCIAL VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN URBAN AND RURAL CONTEXTS Zachary D. Cole1 and Jarrod L. Loerzel2

1Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Sports Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 2Master of Environmental Studies Department, College of Charleston and ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve

Graduate Research Fellow, Charleston, SC, USA

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between rural and urban stakeholders and their social valuation of ecosystem services, paying particular attention to the spatial and geographic assessment of the relationship to underlying environmental characteristics. The two areas of interest are Greater Sarasota Bay, located in western Florida and the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto (ACE) Basin, located in southern South Carolina. Both of these areas are representative of coastal environments, however Greater Sarasota Bay is highly urbanized while the ACE Basin is relatively rural and undeveloped, revealing important differences when broadly considering ecosystem services assessment. Both studies explored the spatial quantification of social values of ecosystem services and their relationship to underlying environmental characteristics. Data was collected through online, interactive mapping and random mailback surveys in both study locations and analyzed using a geographic information system tool called Social Values of Ecosystem Services (SolVES) (Sherrouse et al., 2011). The SolVES model was used to analyze spatially explicit social value data and supplementary use perception data and their connection with underlying environmental characteristics resulting in the production of a “Value Index” - an index representing a quantitative, non-monetary value metric that is used to compare relative values across the respective landscapes. This presentation will discuss study results two-fold. First, we will describe the methodological challenges of choosing appropriate and meaningful spatial data layers that best model the spatial dispersion and relative value of corresponding social values within and between contexts. Quantitative results from the two study areas suggest substantive differences in the relationships between social values and underlying environmental characteristics. Second, our analysis shows substantive variance in relative social values between the areas as modeled by the Value Index. Additonally, analysis of tabular data illustrates interesting disparity between stakeholder groups’ perceptions of ecosystem services. These differences are important for managers and policy-makers to consider when undertaking the assessment of proposed resource management options. Through the generation of maps illustrating the distribution of the Value Index across a given landscape, SolVES offers a valid way to spatially measure the social values of ecosystem services and present them in a way that is understandable to a wide variey of stakeholders. Early results unveil the benefits of a spatially-based, quantitative assessment of ecosystem services that provides insight into social and environmental relationships across disparate coastal contexts. We feel understanding socio-ecological relationships is vital to comprehensive ecosystem-based resource management and recommend increased adoption of social value quantification alongside environmental and economic spatial assessment. This presentation presents the lessons we learned while attempting to advance knowledge within the realm of spatially-based ecosystem service assessments. Contact Information: Jarrod L. Loerzel, College of Charleston, Master of Environmental Studies Department, 284 King Street, Charleston, SC 29401, USA, Phone: 843-367-6586, Email: [email protected]


179

ASSESSING FARMER UNDERSTANDING OF AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Rebecca A. Logsdon12, Margaret M. Kalcic12, Elizabeth Trybula12, Indrajeet Chaubey1 and Jane R. Frankenberger1

1Agricultural & Biological Engineering Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA 2Ecological Sciences & Engineering Interdisciplinary Graduate Program, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Ecosystem services, or the benefits that society receives from ecosystems, are sensitive to land-use change. In the Midwestern United States, many ecosystem services have been traded to favor increased food and fuel provisioning. Although agricultural management strategies have emphasized maximizing food and fuel production to accommodate growing global demand, farm owners and operators may have the opportunity to protect vulnerable ecosystem services while maintaining or even increasing farm profitability. Management decisions made by agricultural producers determine the extent to which agroecosystems restore, maintain and increase ecosystem services. However, the extent to which producers understand ecosystem services is not well documented. To address this, our study evaluated current farmer understanding of the ecosystem services concept and tested the language used by academics and agencies to describe ecosystem services. A mixed method survey was distributed in June 2012 to a randomized sample of one thousand farmers who had received USDA payments across Indiana. Survey questions were tailored to quantify current farmer knowledge of ecosystem services; this included metrics designed to test concept understanding with respect to prior conservation management experience. The project overview, survey results, analysis, and future work will be discussed in this presentation. Survey responses are being followed by a series of small focus groups with voluntary survey respondents. Focus group questions will assess ecosystem service-based terminology and valuation, as well as farmer interest and willingness to improve on-farm services. Survey and focus group outcomes will be used to create more realistic scenarios that can be modeled for their impact on all ecosystem services. Contact Information: Rebecca A. Logsdon, Agricultural & Biological Engineering Department, Purdue University, 225 S. University St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA, Phone: 765-494-1134, Email: [email protected]


180

A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO EVALUATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Rebecca A. Logsdon12, Indrajeet Chaubey1, Benjamin M. Gramig3 and Bernard A. Engel1

1Agricultural & Biological Engineering Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA 2Ecological Sciences & Engineering Interdisciplinary Graduate Program, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA 3Agricultural Economics Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

The wealth of literature surrounding the ecosystem service concept has been growing exponentially since the early 1990s. However, widespread use of ecosystem services in economic and land management policies and decisions has not grown at the same pace. One of the reasons we propose that this lack of adoption is occurring is the shortage and simplicity of methods to quantify and compare ecosystem services across diverse landscapes. Although models such as InVEST and ARIES have contributed greatly to this area of research, more work is needed to better quantify and predict the dynamic, non-linear nature of ecosystem services. The purpose of this research was to develop quantitative indices for five ecosystem services: fresh water provisioning, food provisioning, fuel provisioning, erosion regulation and flood regulation. The ecosystem service indices were applied to Wildcat Creek Watershed in Central Indiana to demonstrate their effectiveness at evaluating ecosystem services. The methods were further evaluated by applying them to three extreme land use scenarios in the study watershed: all forested, all urban and all corn. Results show that these quantitative indices are able to capture the effects that different land uses can have on ecosystem service provision. These methods can serve as a foundation for quantification of the full suite of ecosystem services as they are applicable across any watershed at any given time. Contact Information: Rebecca A. Logsdon, Agricultural & Biological Engineering, Purdue University, 225 S. University St., West Lafayette, IN 47905, USA, Phone: 765-494-1134, Email: [email protected]


181

ASSESSING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM RANGELANDS BASED ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Philip Heilman1 and Sapana Lohani 2

1USDA-ARS Southwest Watershed Research Center 2University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Ecosystem services include all the tangible goods and intangible benefits that humans get from ecosystems. They have garnered much interest in the past decade. Quantifying these goods and services is a crucial topic for protecting ecosystem services and land management decision making. However, market prices are usually not able to capture the opportunity costs of using natural resources. Ecosystem services from rangelands are even less well-understood since rangelands are themselves extensive, complex, and sometimes underrated ecosystems. The most widely used conceptual unit in the range discipline is the “ecological site”, defined as “a distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics and ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation”. Each ecological site can have more than one state, which forms the basis for the State and Transition Models (STMs). The STMs, developed by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for each ecological site, offers a powerful tool for management of rangelands through defining potential vegetation communities, describing the management induced transition of one vegetation community to another, and documenting the benefits and services provided by the various potential vegetation communities. Performance of ecosystem services can be assessed within each state in an ecological site. This study is about evaluating ecosystem services within each state based on the different management practices in the Empire Ranch in south eastern Arizona. We will also discuss the practical difficulties, as well as the potential benefits, of linking the concepts of ecosystem services and state and transition models in the rangeland. Contact Information: Sapana Lohani, School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Biological Sciences East, Tucson, AZ 85721; Phone: 520-465-1711; Email: [email protected]


182

AN ECONOMIC AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NUTRIENT CREDIT TRADING FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY Ross Loomis, Justin Baker, George Van Houtven and Robert Beach

RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA The purpose of this study is to examine the economic and geospatial implications of nutrient credit trading as a cost saving strategy for meeting the recently established Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits for nitrogen and phosphorus. In particular, we estimate the total potential cost savings that could be achieved under alternative trading scenarios. These scenarios differ according to the source categories that are allowed to participate – significant point sources, agricultural nonpoint sources, and/or urban stormwater sources. They also differ according to the geographic boundaries placed on trading, ranging from only between sources located in the same state and river basin to trading allowed between any sources located with the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. To conduct the analysis and simulate outcomes with nutrient trading, we developed an optimization model that estimates the lowest cost combination of BMPs to meet nutrient reduction targets within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This optimization model, which relies on data and parameters from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, provides an opportunity to understand cost-effective BMP implementation and potential gains from nutrient trading within the watershed. One barrier to widespread nutrient trading is the concern for impacts to local water quality. Compared to conditions without trading, some areas would experience more load reductions and others would receive less. Using our optimization model, we explore how alternate geographic restrictions affect the potential cost savings of nutrient trading, how trading could alter the geo-spatial distribution of nutrient loads, and what the potential implications are for water quality in both the tidal and nontidal areas of the watershed. The results of the study indicate that, even with relatively high transaction costs and additional load reduction requirements for agricultural nonpont sources and geographic restrictions, nutrient credit trading could deliver significant cost savings in the implementation of the Bay TMDL. As expected, expanding the geographic scope of trading increases these potential cost savings. Trading is expected to achieve greater load reductions in upstream areas within the Potomac river basin, with a mix of impacts in other river basins. Contact Information: Ross Loomis, RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA, Phone: 919-541-6930, Email: [email protected]


183

WHAT MAKES GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS AND INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL ON THE GROUND? Carl Lucero1 and Bernhard Osterburg2

1USDA, Office of Environmental Markets, Washington, DC, USA 2Institute of Rural Studies, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig, Germany

In the US as well as in the EU, governmental programs offer financial opportunities to enhance environmental performance while providing sustainable agricultural production. These conservation programs can be likened to Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs as they both provide basic financial assistance for projects on the ground, but a key difference is PES projects are "conditional" on their performance. Specifically, PES participants must achieve certain outcomes or do (or refraining from) certain activities in order to receive payment. These Performance-based payments typically require legal and policy frameworks, as well as effective monitoring, verification, and reporting. Conservation programs pursue similar objectives, but payments are typically not conditional upon individual performance. Both conservation programs and PES projects can be targeted to achieve desired environmental and social outcomes, taking into account their particular goals as well as synergies and trade-offs with other goals and programs. Are conservation programs a good model for PES projects and how do they incorporate the PES aspect of "conditionality"? What lessons can we take from conservation programs and how can they be carried over into a PES framework that includes supportive legal and policy aspects, and responds to demands for continuous environmental improvement? Additionally, what is the government's role in developing the institutional structure to make PES work? How do conservation programs integrate environmental regulation aspects and how would PES work under existing environmental regulation? Is the political environment in favor of PES, and what is the role of public administration? Can we find differences between the US and Germany in this respect? These questions and others will be discussed at this table. Contact Information: Carl Lucero, USDA, Office of Environmental Markets, Washington, DC, USA, Phone: +1 (202) 401 0531, Email: [email protected]


184

IS IT GOOD TO BE GREEN?: ASSESSING COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING IN MARYLAND AND FLORIDA Amy J. Lynch

Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Over the past twenty years, landscape-scale green infrastructure planning has emerged as a way to protect green spaces supporting ecosystem services and revalue them in the planning and development process. Despite the growth, there is little empirical research on the specific strategies that comprise green infrastructure planning and their role in protecting and retaining green space, functional ecosystems, and rare and critical areas. This study addresses that gap by comparing how county planning agencies in Maryland and Florida carry out green infrastructure planning, the extent and impact of inter- and intra-county relationships, and the effectiveness of county green infrastructure planning in retaining and preserving green infrastructure over time. The research includes three case study counties in Maryland and in Florida, selected for the varying strength of their green infrastructure planning programs. The multiple case study design emphasizes the differences in outcomes between county planning agencies that are highly involved in green infrastructure planning and those that are not. To accomplish objectives, the study also employs a mixed-methods approach, using quantitative data for assessment and qualitative information for context. The quantitative component assesses the outcomes of green infrastructure planning through a GIS-based pre-test (retrospective) and post-test (modern) that highlight changes in green infrastructure over time. Major areas of analysis are 1) gain/loss of green infrastructure of all types, 2) preservation of rare or ecologically significant lands, and 3) connectivity of the green infrastructure network. Data sources include local and state-level plans and policies, interviews with planning professionals in the six counties, and county-level GIS data such as land use/land cover, environmentally sensitive areas, and preserved lands. The study examines the utility of green infrastructure planning as a public sector strategy and contributes to scholarship on strategies for ensuring long-term ecological viability and resiliency. The paper includes lessons for agencies and organizations interested in improving green infrastructure planning strategies, as well as for those seeking to understand the potential of this increasingly visible facet of environmental planning. Contact Information: Amy J. Lynch, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, 127 Meyerson Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA, Email: [email protected]


185

USING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO IMPROVE AIR POLICY FOR NITROGEN AND SULFUR DEPOSITION Jason A. Lynch1, Tara L. Greaver2, Christine Davis3, Robin L. Dennis4 and Randy Waite3

1USEPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington DC, USA 2USEPA, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC,

USA 3USEPA, Office of Air and Radiation Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA 4USEPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

Secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are established to protect public welfare, which by definition includes soils, water, crops, vegetation, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate. These attributes of the environment are considered important to protect for the public good, a similar concept to ecosystem services. Several well-studied ecosystem services (ES) associated with oxides of N and oxides of S (NOx/SOx) (e.g., recreational fishing in the Adirondacks and red spruce timber production) were used to help describe adversity in the recent review of the secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for NOx/SOx. Although there are a few well-studied ecosystem services, the majority of services are not well quantified and there is opportunity to improve the utility of ES in future NAAQS reviews and for guiding air pollution policy. In order to better use ES for air pollution policy several key research areas must be addressed: a more comprehensive understanding of ecosystem exposure to air pollution and resulting ecosystem condition, a comprehensive database of known critical loads in the US, more ecosystem service loss functions, improved service validation and enhanced multimedia models to provide an integrated approach for assessing exposure-to-condition-to-service. In this presentation we discuss current research efforts to address these research needs and improve the quantification of ecosystem services related to NOx/SOx air pollution. Contact Information: Jason A Lynch, USEPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC, 20640, USA, Phone: 202-343-9257, Email: [email protected]


186

IS CIVIL SOCIETY INVOLVEMENT NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL PES? Sarah Lynch1 and Florian Schöne2

1World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA 2Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union, Berlin, Germany

For some PES schemes, the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from the civil society sector was a crucial part of their success. The discussion at this world café station will focus on the question for what environmental issues and in which institutional setting civil society engagement is necessary and helpful. Furthermore, the discussion will explore the issue of what specific roles civil society actors can and should play in the implementation of PES schemes. As their involvement can be multifold, possible roles may range from the design and initiation of new PES projects, guaranteeing enough uptake and support from farmers and policy makers, creation of new ecosystem service markets, ensuring sufficient scale for transactions, clarifying regulatory issues to reduce risk for market transactions and/or serving as an intermediary and champion (“best practice”). Finally, the conditions for the successful involvement of civil society actors will be analyzed and how important the social and cultural framework is for their engagement. What differences do exist here when we compare the US and European countries? Contact Information: Sarah Lynch, PhD, Director, Agriculture and Markets, World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA, Phone: +1 (202) 640-9518, Email: [email protected]



187

PROMOTE WOODY BIOMASS AS AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICE Dave Atkins and Kate MacFarland

State and Private Forestry, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., USA Woody biomass is a byproduct of forest restoration work carried out to improve ecosystem function and reduce wildfire risk. While biomass is not typically considered among ecosystem goods and services, we argue that woody biomass is important to include when examining the multiple ecosystem goods and services that come from forested ecosystems. Its value can offset some of the costs of forest restoration. Better understanding the economic and ecological role of woody biomass helps to carry out forest restoration work. In addition, because woody biomass has a value that currently exists in the market, its changing policy context, price dynamics, and financial mechansims make it an important, non-hypothetical example to consider in various decision making scenarios. This presentation outlines a framework for understanding woody biomass within an ecosystem services context. It examines the opportunities for both demand and supply side of the financial mechanisms to improve ecosystems, including increased woody biomass prices and reduced wildfire risk. It presents several examples of payment for ecosystem services programs that involve woody biomass utilization, such as the Denver Water Board’s forest health projects. Finally, it discusses the policies of woody biomass utilization that are being implemented at the national, regional, and state scale. The role of the Forest Service in supporting these policies and their progress is also discussed. Contact Information: Dave Atkins, Cooperative Forestry, State and Private Forestry, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20250, USA, Phone: 202-205-1382, Email: [email protected]


188

VALUING NATURAL SYSTEMS WITHOUT DOLLARS Doug MacNair1 and Stuart Norvell 2

1Natural Resource Economics Practice Leader, Cardno ENTRIX, Raleigh, NC, USA 2Senior Project Economist, Cardno ENTRIX, Riverview, FL, USA

One of the four core missions of the Southwest Water Management District is protecting natural systems. To help with that mission, the District desired metrics for valuing and prioritizing the natural systems provided by their current land holdings. In addition, they wanted to be able to integrate the metrics and values with those from their other core missions of protecting water quality, water supply, and flood control. This presentation describes a pilot project that helped the District measure relative values of different types of natural systems. To be useful to decision makers, the values for ecosystem services should reflect the consensus of those familiar with the services provided by natural systems and reflect the goals and priorities of the agency. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, decision makers often prefer natural systems values not solely be denominated in dollars. We used a conjoint survey which requires participants to make a series of trade-offs that vary in the amount and type of natural systems provided. The survey presented participants with pairs of hypothetical parcels and asked respondents to rate them based on their attributes. By varying the combinations of attributes across the pairs, a statistical model can estimate the relative importance participants give to each attribute. Attributes that capture the ecological value of the hypdothetical parcels are based on three key metrics that are readily available in GIS datasets that are maintained by various Florida state agencies: Potential Habitat Richness; Natural Community Type; Florida Ecological Greenways Network Score. The trade-offs also included water supply measured by groundwater supply (MGD). Including water supply makes it possible to compare the relative weight experts give to water supply and the other natural systems. This makes it possible to express the natural systems attributes in MGD equivalents and dollars. We worked with District staff to identify over 100 experts who have in-depth knowledge of land uses and ecosystems in the region. Participants included staff at local, state, and federal level government agencies, representatives from regional nonprofit organizations, and private sector consulting firms. The results of the survey provided metrics for valuing natural systems which have been built into a decision support tool for evaluating land holdings across all four core missions. The evaluation can be conducted with or without monetary values. The presentation will provide practical insights into using survey based approaches to valuing ecosystem services. We will describe challenges in developing the survey instrument, issues in estimating the statistical models, and approaches for implementing the decision support tool. Workshop participants will receive a link to the pilot survey used for the District and the results from the workshop participants will also be described. Contact Information: Doug MacNair, Natural Resource Economics Practice Leader, Cardno ENTRIX, Raleigh, NC, USA, Phone: 919-239-8901, Email: [email protected]


189

BUILDING BRIDGES: CONCURRENT WORKGROUP SESSIONS Julie Risien1, Becca Madsen2, Chris Corbin3, Brendan McLaughlin4 and Rob Fiegener1

1Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA 2Madsen Environmental, Denton, TX, USA 3Lotic LLC, Missoula, MT, USA 4Resource Media, Seattle, WA, USA

Ecosystem services and related concepts present unique communications challenges. There is a need to identify myths and paradigms that create obstacles to reaching key audiences and practice applying creative tools to overcome them. This active and collegial learning session will employ participants to share and test a variety of tools for successful communication across sectors and with the public. This advanced session will build on Part one, Communicating ecosystem services: successful strategies from case studies and the Part two pre-workgroup presentation on ecosystem services messaging considerations. Participants will engage in concurrent facilitated workgroups to apply their experience to a communications challenge at the bridge between two different sectors. Communications challenges will posed by participants. Role-play scenarios prepared by discussion leaders will also be available. Each workgroup will address one of the five bridge building foci: Science ↔ Policy; NGOs ↔ Public; Practitioners ↔ Business; Business ↔ Consumers; Government ↔ Public. Leaders will engage participants to summarize the communication challenges between the two relevant sectors and identify perceptions and approaches of both communicators and the intended audience. Leaders will then provide instructions for an activity and facilitate participation in active learning. Leaders will end the session with discussion and synthesis from group experiences. Contact Information; Julie Risien, Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University 110 Strand Agricultural Hall, Corvallis, OR 97330, Phone: 541-737-2034, Email: [email protected]


190

EXAMPLES OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Becca Madsen

Madsen Environmental, Denton, TX, USA The concept of ecosystem services has been gaining traction in academic and natural management fields since the release of the Millennium Ecosystem Services Assessment in 2005. The corporate world is now investigating application of the concept to identify impacts, provisioning, dependencies, and opportunities related to the services that Nature provides for free. This presentation reviews several examples of corporate communication of ecosystem services in publicity, social media, annual reports, and other media outlets. Contact Information: Becca Madsen, Madsen Environmental, 2220 N Locust St, Denton, TX 76209, USA, Phone: 443-534-0425, Email: [email protected]


191

GULF SAVER® BAG: A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO SPARTINA ALTERNIFLORA MARSH RESTORATION Lawrence D. Malizzi1, Leslie Carrere2, P.J. Marshall2, Marvin Marshal2, Alan Parsons1 and Margo D. Moss1

1Matrix New World Engineering, Inc., Baton Rouge LA, USA 2Restore the Earth Foundation, Inc., USA

The use of the Gulf Saver® bag (bag) for Spartina alterniflora marsh restoration at Popcorn Beach at the Pass a Loutre WMA, Venice, Louisiana demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach for marsh restoration. The bag is a biodegradable, self-contained package of native plants with its own site-specific custom mixed supply of natural nutrients to support, feed, and protect the native vegetation. Each bag contains three, one year old Spartina seedling plugs and are the size of a sandbag (45 cm). The bag is a stability kit that jump starts growth and survivability in the face of storm surge, wave action, and rapid erosion. Vegetative restoration of the Gulf Coast marshes is of paramount importance to establish a living, growing barrier in the face of land loss and rising sea levels. In addition, Gulf Coast wetlands provide economic stimulus for coastal communities and the nation as a whole, from commercial fisheries to recreational activities, in the form of critical habitat for fish and wildlife. As one of the three principal outlets of the Mississippi River, the Pass a Loutre Site is challenging to restore using traditional planting techniques due to the variable tidal range, high wave energy and substantial discharge rates on-site creating an obstacle to Spartina plug establishment. In December 2010, 400 bags (1200 plugs) were placed on the north end of Popcorn Beach as a demonstration project. Half of the bags (200 bags) were distributed in cluster formation (2-3 bags) in a checkerboard pattern, in an approximately 22 m by 25 m area adjacent to the beach, with 3 m between bag clusters. The remaining half (200 bags), were deployed as a continuous row along portions of the perimeter in order to enhance sediment capture and to buffer interior bag groupings from high energy tidal forces. In March of 2011, 50 additional bags of Spartina plugs in cluster formations were deployed to reinforce the perimeter by arraying bags adjacent to the perimeter rows deployed in December 2010. The first monitoring event at the Site was conducted in December of 2011 at pre-surveyed, permanent 1 m by 1 m plots. The average percent cover of the Spartina was 78%, with an average canopy height of 93 cm in the bag area. A second monitoring was conducted at the same plot locations in April of 2012. The average percent cover was 85% and the average canopy height was 119 cm in the bag area. Of importance is the fact that the Spartina had completely filled in the treatment area in a twelve month period. In addition, the initial linear formation of Spartina along the perimeter had expanded outwards to a width of 8 m from the original planting in 17 months. The percent cover, average canopy height, and aerial extent of the Spartina demonstrates the effectiveness of the bags for use in marsh restoration. Contact Information: Lawrence Malizzi, Matrix New World Engineering, Inc., 1521 Concord Pike Suite 301, Wilmington, DE, 19803, USA, Phone: 302-824-7074, Email: [email protected]

Margo Moss, Matrix New World Engineering, Inc., 4451 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite E, Baton Rouge, LA, 70809, USA, Phone: 504-319-1575, Email: [email protected]


192

VERIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES BEYOND CARBON Nicole Robinson Maness

Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, USA Several organizations specialize in verifying carbon reductions, but what about water and biodiversity? With new markets come new challenges, and Willamette Partnership has built a system that balances rigor, objectivity and consistency with the need to be efficient and continually improve program performance in a rapidy evolving field. In addition to developing verification protocols and training verifiers, Willamette Partnership plays an active role in selecting and contracting third-party verifiers for water and biodviersity markets and provides guidance to verifiers as needed through the process. Verification in these emerging markets requires some tradeoffs. Sticking strictly to the ISO standard for third party verification may limit opportunities for peer learning or improving projects. Remote sensing can reduce costs, but is it really a substitute for a field visit? How does the role of third party verification relate to agency obligations? In this session, the Willamette Partnership will share its experience building and implementing a system to verify the water and biodiversity benefits of restoration. Contact Information: Nicole Robinson-Manness, Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, 97123, Phone: 503-681-5112, Email: [email protected]


193

POLITICAL PROCESSES AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ON THE OCEAN: EXPLORING THE DIMENSIONS OF PUBLIC CHOICES AND VALUES Paul Manson

Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA Do our aspirations for ecosystem services to be included in decisions align with the political processes and institutions we work within? What determines if an ecosystem services application can take root in a decision setting? These questions are critical to understanding how and when ecosystem services will play a key role in public choices. Finding the best method to balance between competing values and science on the environment is a continual challenge for natural resource managers and elected representatives. Ecosystem services methods provide a common language to discuss these values, but it comes with challenges. One environment well poised to explore these questions is the ocean. Efforts to include ecosystem services in marine spatial planning have focused on the development of economic models and participatory GIS tools to support decisions. This paper explores how these tools interact with the political processes and mechanisms in marine planning. It reviews decision-making in coastal and marine spatial planning and the challenges found so far. In application, new ecosystem services based information can be difficult for the public and concerned interests to understand and include in traditional decision structures. The results here are based on reviews of recent policy processes for marine spatial planning on the West Coast of the US. It shows how various emerging ecosystem services tools can integrate with these existing mechanisms. The key contribution of this work is a focus on the political and policy forces at work in political decision-making. Institutional structures are found to guide the types of policies and protections adopted for the ocean. Through this a model for planning, information and mediating value differences can be understood across different settings. This is a distributed model for information and values that challenges the underlying comprehensive assumptions of formalized planning and ecosystem services. Suggestions are provided on how to better link the political arbitration of values with the rational model of values in ecosystem services. It is also argued that these lessons can be applied in other common resource or public good settings. Contact Information: Paul Manson, NSF Ecosystem Services for Urbanizing Regions IGERT Fellow, PhD Student, Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA, Phone; (503) 804-1645, Email: [email protected]


194

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, VALUES AND PARTICIPATION IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES VALUES Paul Manson

Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA Applications of ecosystem services in government decision-making processes have not emerged as quickly or broadly as hoped. Ecosystem services appear to be a natural fit for these public natural resource management choices. This paper explores tools used to make a successful application of ecosystem services in the combined land use and open space planning process of Washoe County, Nevada. Washoe County is located in western Nevada, home to the communities of Reno and Sparks, as well as North Lake Tahoe and Pyramid Lake. The County faced rapidly growing housing prices and development with the housing boom of the early to mid 2000’s. Additionally, the county participates in a periodic review of federal land holdings that may be sold for development. In 2006 the county adopted an ecosystem services based natural resource and open space plan. This plan guides development, open space protection, and recreation opportunities through traditional planning tools. But notably it goes beyond these to also align these land protections with lands that provide superior natural protections and management of natural hazards and water resources. Ecosystem services played such a critical role in the plan as to result in the adoption of a “no-net-loss” of ecosystem services policy for the county as future development occurred. Instead of approaching the valuation of lands for ecosystem services through economic models, the county used a public participatory process supported with GIS decision support tools. Through a series of workshops, public participants were organized into small groups and participated in a series of forced preference surveys. The survey results were reported real time in public meetings to allow for reflection and response by individuals by the direction the entire group was moving. This greatly moderated extreme views, resulted in compromises in values, and ultimately agreement on priorities. These priorities were then paired with a spatially explicit multiple criteria decision support model to provide direction on what lands required the most protections. The outcome of these events showed that informed public concerns aligned with technical group concerns. The process also showed that non-market and non-economic valuation produce meaningful priorities on the landscape. These in turn were converted into spatially explicit datasets for applied planning use for the county. This paper also reviews the changes in the county land use since the adoption of the plan. Contact Information: Paul Manson, NSF Ecosystem Services for Urbanizing Regions IGERT Fellow, PhD Student, Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA, Phone; (503) 804-1645, Email: [email protected]


195

GENERATING SUPPORT FOR NATURAL CAPITAL INTERVENTIONS AND BROADENING THE FUNDING BASE BY UNLOCKING INVESTMENTS IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES THROUGH LAND USER INCENTIVES, IN SOUTH AFRICA Christo Marais

Department of Environment Affairs, Cape Town, South Africa Since 1995, following the country’s transition to democracy, the South African government has developed a number of public programmes aiming at improving the country’s natural capital and ecosystem services. These public programmes are i) “Working for Water” – responsible for the management of water catchment through the clearing of invasive alien species; ii) “Working for Wetlands” – responsible for the rehabilitation of degraded wetlands; iii) “Working on Fire” – responsible for the implementation of integrated veld and forest fire management; and iv) “Working for Land” – responsible for the restoration of land through the introduction of indigenous vegetation. The main objective has been to improve and sustain degraded land to enhance biodiversity, the productive potential of the land and ecosystem services. Without jeopardizing this overarching objective, it has become abundantly clear that natural resource management can, and should, also play an important role in the stimulation of economic development and alleviating poverty (Blignaut et al. 2007, Blignaut et al. 2008a, Blignaut 2009). While improved delivery of ecosystem service remains the main driver of the “family of Working for Programmes”, the job creation potential they represent provides an additional argument for their expansion. Using historic operational records of these programmes' costs, labor intensities, and performance, Giordano, Blignaut & Marais (in prep) estimated their job creation potential, and their potential to achieve different objectives from an ecosystem goods and services. They estimate that between 192 000 and 494 000 full-time jobs could be created over the next 15 years depending on the level of effort and the environmental objective. These jobs could lead to income flows into poor rural households of between US$2 and US$15billion a year. Such figures are impressive and call for dedicated measures to unlock this job creation potential. However the government can simply not afford to fund the full cost of natural resource restoration and maintenance and therefore the country needs to unlock private investments in ecosystem services. During the 2012/13 financial year the government has allocated more than $304 million to these programmes. To unlock private investment the Department of Environment Affairs has embarked on a land user incentives programme aiming at improving watershed services, the carbon balance, environmental risk mitigation and biodiversity by unlocking investments and/or resources through the formal water sector, corporate social investment, the carbon market and private land users. The presentation will look at the first round of land user incentives, its potential impact and the lessons learnt during the initial phases of the programme. Contact Information: Natural Resource Management Programmes, Department of Environmental Affairs, 14 Loop Street, Cape Town, 8000, Phone: +2721 441 2727 or +2782 551 8316, Fax: +2786 513 5734, Email: [email protected]


196

MAINSTREAMING WATERSHED SERVICES IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN WATER SECTOR Christo Marais

Department of Environmental Affairs, Cape Town, South Africa When considering the mainstreaming of watershed services one needs to look at it in the context of the water value chain. The value chain could either be long or quite short depending on socio-economic scenarios, availability of water and the nature of the country in question. The potential links in the chain are (i) watershed services, (ii) extraction, either from run of river or ground water, (iii) storage (bulk water), (iv) reticulation/distribution, (v) purification, (vi) water services (water supply & sanitation) and (vii) water treatment before it is released back into the system. In South Africa an agreement exists between the Departments of Water (DWA) and Environmental Affairs (DEA) for the latter to restore and protect watershed services in the country. DEA agreed to implement projects focusing on the improvement of the following watershed services:

1. Improve Flows

a. Decrease Flood/high flows;

b. Improve Low Flows;

c. Improve yield from existing and new water infrastructure, and

d. Improve the Ecological Reserve, through the restoration and improvement of land management practices and the control of invasive alien plants.

2. Minimize Sediments

a. Minimize siltation of rivers, dams and other infrastructure through restoration, improvement of land management practices and the control of invasive alien plants.

3. Optimize Water quality

a. Optimizing water quality to minimize purification costs;

b. Minimize waterweeds, and

c. Optimize water quality in areas where water is extracted from rivers in order to minimize health risks through restoration, improvement of land management practices and the control of invasive alien plants.

The presentation will focus on:

1. The socio-economic priorities of South Africa and how natural resource management can add value,

2. A few case studies illustrating the impacts of improved land management practices on watershed services,

3. The institutional arrangements needed to implement such projects and the stakeholders and,

4. Challenges experienced during the implementation. Contact Information: Natural Resource Management Programmes, Department of Environmental Affairs, 14 Loop Street, Cape Town, 8000, Phone: +2721 441 2727 or +2782 551 8316, Fax: +2786 513 5734, Email: [email protected]


197

NUTRIENT CREDIT TRADING: PENNSYLVANIA’S APPROACH TO REDUCING CHESAPEAKE BAY COMPLIANCE COSTS Paul K. Marchetti

PENNVEST (Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA The water quality issue for the Chesapeake Bay that is related to activity in Pennsylvania is that nitrogen and phosphorous (i.e. nutrient) discharges into the Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers encourage the growth of algae in the Bay, which in turn depletes its oxygen supply and destroys habitat for shellfish and other aquatic life. These nutrient discharges originate in wastewater treatment plant discharges as well as from agricultural activities, such as the land application of manure to fertilize farm fields. Reducing these nutrient discharges in order to comply with their obligations under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement is an expensive undertaking for regulated wastewater treatment plants in Pennsylvania. In order to reduce these costs, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in 2005 established the nutrient credit trading program for entities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Under this program, lower cost nutrient reducing activities on farms create credits that are sold to regulated treatment plants. They, in turn, can claim the associated nutrient reductions in meeting their nutrient discharge permit limits, thus avoiding more costly treatment plant modifications. Despite creation of the nutrient trading program, many treatment plant operators were reluctant to purchase credits to meet their permit limits due to uncertainty over farmers actually fulfilling their obligations to reduce nutrient discharges. This perceived risk significantly inhibited the demand for nutrient credits. In order to address this problem, the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) added its financial resources to help stimulate this market. The value added that PENNVEST brings to this market is the role of ‘central counterparty’, being the buyer to all sellers and the seller to all buyers. By playing this intermediary role, PENNVEST effectively mitigates market participants’ concern over future contractual fulfillment. By purchasing its credits through PENNVEST, a wastewater treatment plant receives PENNVEST’s commitment to supply those credits. Similarly, buyers receive the certainty of payment for the transactions completed. In its capacity as “market maker”, PENNVEST began conducting credit auctions in 2010 and, in conjunction with Markit acting as auction administrator and registry, PENNVEST hosts regular auctions throughout the year. Its most recent auction was held on November 7, 2012. While the initiation of PENNVEST’s nutrient credit trading activity in 2010 has been promising, there are challenges to be faced in order for the market to successfully mature. These challenges include mitigating market manipulation, expansion of the program to interstate trading and fostering demand among treatment plant operators and other potential credit buyers through a variety of outreach activities. This session will focus on PENNVEST’s experiences in setting up and operating the Commonwealth’s nutrient credit clearinghouse together with recommendations, lessons and tools to increase participation and create successful water quality markets. Contact Information: Paul K. Marchetti, PENNVEST, 22 South Third Street, Harrisburg, PA, 17101, Phone: 717-783-4496, Email: [email protected]


198

VALUING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: WHY THE CONTROVERSY? John Arthur Marshall

Arthur R. Marshall Foundation for the Everglades, Lake Worth, FL, USA In the continuing controversy regarding an accepted approach and methodology to Ecosystem Services Valuation (ESV), this paper will consider current policy documents and case studies, including potential applications to the Central Everglades Project as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The author will pose the “controversy” question to subject matter experts a priori, as the means for further discussion (more than is usually allowed in a 20 minute presentation, with minimal time for Q&A). The strongest message from the National Research Council, in their 2005 Study - Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-making was that failure to place a value on ecosystems gives them a default value of zero. The alternative of not placing a value on ecosystems (planetary biomes providing local services), one at a time, or holistically, appears to be the root cause of an unsustainable planetary trajectory. At this point of uncertainty of planet earth’s future, hence social-well-being, we need to get busy and institutionalize an approach to ESV as disaster avoidance. This paper will push for action in that direction. Contact Information: John Marshall, Arthur R Marshall Foundation, 1028 N. Federal Highway, Lake Worth, FL 33460, Phone: 561-233-9004, Email: [email protected]


199

INTEGRATING FEDERAL EFFORTS TO SUPPORT ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS – AN INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE Steve Marshall1, Robert Ensor2, Tom Watson3 and David Brookshire4

1U.S. Forest Service - State and Private Forests, Washington, DC, USA 2Howard County Soil Conservation District, Maryland, USA 3Watson Farms, Minnesota, USA 4University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

This session builds on the previous Luncheon Session titled “Investing in Market Design – A Government’s Perspective on Quantifying Environmental Performance”. This session will open with a brief recap of the luncheon session and a challenge to identify the Federal government’s role in developing performance metrics for environmental markets. This intro will follow with 5 minute vignettes from Federal, state, and local land managers and academia who will present their perspective on environmental markets, answering such questions as why environmental markets are important; what are some of the challenges facing environmental markets; and, what is the Federal government’s role in developing performance metrics. This intro is designed to set the stage for a broader interactive dialogue where the audience raises questions about market infrastructure development and provides comments and recommendations on such issues as to what is the government’s role in metric development; how to best promote ecosystem services; and, what type of outside involvement and support is needed to accomplish this goal. The panel will continue to be available on stage to interpret questions and clarify issues as necessary, but the intent of the interactive dialogue is to solicit input from the audience on how the Federal government should go about developing performance metrics. Contact Information: Carl Lucero, Office of Environmental Markets, USDA, 4055-S, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20250, USA, Phone: 202-401-0531, Email: [email protected]


200

IS FISHING REALLY WORTH MORE THAN BIODIVERSITY IN THE OPEN OCEAN? Summer L. Martin1, Lisa T. Ballance1,2 and Theodore Groves3

1Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA 2 Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, La Jolla, CA, USA 3Center for Environmental Economics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Degradation of marine ecosystems and loss of biodiversity through the overexploitation of resources, habitat destruction, pollution and anthropogenic climate change has been well documented. The root of this problem is economic in nature: modern industrial society has largely made decisions about resource use without considering the negative impacts of its actions on the environment. Ecosystem services, until recently, were assumed to hold no value because they were not traditionally traded in markets. Society has made decisions to maximize economic value by choosing something that has monetary value (e.g. commercial fisheries) over something that has no monetary value (e.g. biodiversity). The valuation of ecosystem services offers an economic solution to this problem by assigning monetary values to nature’s benefits. Ecosystem service valuation for the ocean has primarily focused on coastal systems, such as coral reefs, mangroves and estuaries, with much less emphasis on open ocean ecosystems. However, as management for open ocean ecosystems moves toward more holistic approaches, efforts to value their services will need to progress. The purpose of our research is to provide a case study in the valuation of open ocean ecosystem services, with a view toward evaluating tradeoffs between fishing and biodiversity conservation. Here, we focus on the oceanic eastern tropical Pacific (ETP), an area of 21 million km2 that includes waters of 12 nations and the oceanic commons. We document the major ecosystem services provided by the ETP, identify the major user groups of these services, and quantify the economic value of these services using existing data from commercial fisheries and biodiversity conservation efforts in the region. Our results will contribute to this challenging, but critical, movement toward ecosystem-based management for the open ocean. Contact Information: Summer L. Martin, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive Dept. 0208, La Jolla, CA 92093-0208, USA, Phone: 909-228-8735, Email: [email protected]


201

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND AQUATIC WEEDS: CASE STUDY OF A HIMALAYAN WETLAND Fareed A. Khan1, Ather Masoodi1, Anand Sengupta2 and Gyan P Sharma3

1Department of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, UP, India 2Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gujrat, India 3Department of Environmental Biology, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

Ecosystem services offered by wetlands are closely interlinked with the livelihoods of people in developing countries. Degradation and loss of wetland ecosystem services harms the health and wellbeing of individuals and local communities. The present study deals with Wular lake- the largest freshwater lake in India and a Ramsar site, located at an altitude of 1580m asl. between 34°16′N and 34°25′N latitudes and 74°29′E and 74°40′E longitudes. The lake provides livelihoods to a population of 10,964 households in 31 villages along the shoreline. The lake also provides important habitats for migratory water birds within Central Asian Flyway. Aquatic weeds are a major challenge to the services offered by the wetlands in the region. More recently alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) has invaded this Himalayan valley, reported first time from Wular lake. The weed forms isolated floating islands of variable sizes in this lake. Monitoring of the weed for 4 years reveals that the total number of patches increased from 6 in 2008 to 87 in 2011 with total area of all patches increasing from 41.3 m2 in August 2008 to 831 m2 in August 2011. We did predictive modeling using a variant of the Lotka-Volterra rate equation, to estimate the spread rate of the weed assuming the entire lake area available for spread. The model suggests that this weed may potentially cover entire lake in 13-19 years since 2008. Alligator weed is an emerging threat to the livelihoods of thousands of households, who completely depend on the resources from this lake. The results from this study warrant an urgent need for a “Maintenance Control” program that would keep the weed at the lowest possible level. Currently, such a program could be accomplished via hand-destruction of the plants. If a maintenance control program is not initiated, the rapid expansion of alligator weed will most likely cause the need for a major chemical control program and the development of a biological control program. The resulting economic loss can be minimized if we initiate a rapid action now. The weed is extremely difficult to control once established and eradication is very expensive, especially in developing countries Contact Information: Ather Masoodi, Aquatic Ecology Lab, Department of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh UP 202002 India, Phone: 955-763-2887, Email: [email protected]


202

PERCEPTIONS OF SUPPORTING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: A CASE STUDY OF PORTLAND’S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Marissa Matsler

Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA Use of the Ecosystem Services framework to facilitate holistic land-use planning at the local level holds promise due to its explicit inclusion of both social and ecological trade-offs alongside traditional economic values. However, abstract services (i.e. supporting services such as nutrient cycling) are still difficult to bring to the table, often resulting in ambiguous goals and metrics at the municipal scale. This paper explores the current framing of ecosystem services concepts, in particular supporting service concepts, within green infrastructure design and development in Portland, Oregon. Through narrative interviews, survey techniques, and document analysis differing interpretations of the benefits of green infrastructure, and contrasting interpretations of the linkages and trade-offs between services, are characterized. The Ecosystem Services framework is used to identify how agencies are employing supporting ecosystem service language in different ways to define and measure infrastructure project goals, specifically focusing on interpretation of interdependencies and trade-offs between supporting and provisioning services. Through dissection of perceptions of natural resource management concepts at the local level, the variety of differing and contrasting understandings of socio-ecological connections are illuminated. Identifying and displaying these discrepancies early in the planning process can lead to clearer ecosystem service goal definition on a project-by-project basis. This work also has implications regarding communication between and within agencies, as well as between agencies and the public, ultimately strengthening the efficacy of the Ecosystem Services framework as a management tool on the ground. Contact Information: Marissa Matsler, ESUR IGERT Program, Institute for Sustainable Solution - SUST, Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, US; Phone: 541.740.4102; Email: [email protected]


203

A METHODOLOGY TO DEVELOP A FRAMEWORK FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICE ASSESSMENTS ACROSS MULTIPLE GEO-POLITICAL SCALES Simone Maynard1,2

1Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia 2SEQ Catchments, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Globally, the importance of ecosystem services (ES) to sustainable development and the well-being of people is recognised in many international programs and policies (e.g. the MEA; Ramsar Convention; CBD). Recently, the UN established the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the UN Statistical Division is applying ES to the development of internationally comparable statistics on the environment-economy relationship through the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting. Slowly, attention is being turned to national scale ES frameworks and assessments (e.g. US Ecosystem Service Research Program, the UK National Ecosystem Assessment). In Australia, the words 'ecosystem services' now appear in many key documents across the environment and agriculture portfolios. To date however, information has not been developed to incorporate ES into any of these programs, let alone to assess ES and integrate information across geo-political scales and sectors programs (e.g. government, non-government, business and agriculture). Daily and Polasky et al (2009) describe two fundamental changes that need to occur to improve environmental management: the need to rapidly advance information and tools to forecast and quantify ES provision; and that ES need to be explicitly and systematically incorporated into decision making by all sectors of society. Through a PhD at the Australian National University, research was conducted into identifying an appropriate methodology to develop a framework for ES assessments across multiple geo-political scales (regional to national). To identify an appropriate methodology, this research focused on 3 Lines of Enquiry: 1/ what is an appropriate process to develop a multi-scale ES framework? 2/ what information is required to support the framework and conduct assessments? and 3/ what decision support tools are required to apply the framework, to conduct and communicate assessment outcomes?. A combination of applied research and multiple case study analysis with semi-structured interviews was applied to identify an appropriate methodology. Applied research was conducted at the regional scale (22 000 km2) in Australia. Over 190 participants from across the sectors and the South East Queensland (SEQ) region were engaged in developing their own ES framework and tools for assessment. To view the potential to upscale the regional framework to a national scale, 33 face to face semi-structured interviews were conducted with Leads from the world's two leading national scale programs - the Ecosystem Services Research Program coordinated by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the UK National Ecosystem Assessment coordinated by UNEP. This presentation will discuss the outcomes of this research, providing insight into many research questions commonly asked, such as: what are ES and what information is required to conduct assessments?; what is the role of biodiversity in ES provision?; what type of spatial tools (maps and models) are required to conduct and communicate assessments and what is an appropriate scale?; what is an appropriate process to develop tools for multi-scale ES assessments?; what is the role of government in ES assessments? Contact Information: S. Maynard, SEQ Catchments, PO Box 13204, George St, Brisbane, Queensland 4003. Phone: +61 7 3211 4404, Email: [email protected]


204

EVALUATING CLIMATE CHANGE AND ASSOCIATED POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE Bruce A. McCarl1, Sara Ohrel2 and Robert Beach3

1Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 2 Climate Economics Branch, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 3Environmental, Technology, and Energy Economics Program, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC

Climate change poses three issues for agriculture, namely those of effects, mitigation and adaptation (EMA). In particular

• the effects issue involves the question of what are the food production and price implications of an altered climate

• the mitigation issue involves how can agriculture contribute to the reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

• the adaptation issue involves the ways agriculture can adapt to producing in a world that has realized climate change plus is influenced by mitigation policy

Modeling is used to examine such events since they generally involve situations not yet observed in terms of either physical production conditions or market incentives for net GHG emission reduction. Agricultural sector modeling is a common tool used to analyse such questions. Such models allow one to simulate the implications of EMA developments and prospective policies as they alter production, market prices, international trade, regional income and consumer welfare. In this paper we review a long term effort to carry out such analyses. We first present the theoretical structure of a sector model and discuss its strengths and weaknesses relative to other modeling approaches. We then provide examples of analyses done in terms of the (a) the effects of projected climate change on US agriculture; (b) the implication of an optional US cap and trade program and c) the identification of climate change adaptation strategies and their value. Contact Information: Bruce McCarl, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, MS 2124, College Station, TX 77843-2124, USA, Phone: 979-204-6023, Email: [email protected]


205

THE MID-ATLANTIC WETLAND CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT PROJECT Megan Lang1, Greg McCarty2, Mark Walbridge2, Patrick Hunt3, Metthea Yepsen4, Dennis Whigham5, Martin Rabenhorst4, Chris Palardy4, Vance Monroe6, Joseph Mitchell7, Jarrod Miller3, Daniel Fenstermacher4, Liza McFarland4, Shelley Devereaux6, Judy Denver8, Clinton Church9, Andrew Baldwin4 and Scott Ator10

1US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 2US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 3US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, Florence, SC, USA 4Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA 5Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA 6Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA 7Mitchell Ecological Services, LLC, High Springs, FL, USA 8US Geological Survey Water Sciences Center, Dover, DE, USA 9US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, University Park, PA, USA 10US Geological Survey Water Sciences Center, Baltimore, MD, USA

Wetlands impart many important ecosystem services, including the maintenance of water quality, the stabilization of the climate through carbon sequestration, and enhancement of biodiversity through the provision of food and habitat. The conversion of natural or semi-natural lands to agriculture has led to broad scale historic wetland loss, but current USDA conservation programs and practices seek to replace or ameliorate the ecosystem services lost to agricultural conversion. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Wetland Conservation Effects Assessment Project (MIAR CEAP-Wetland) is one of several USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Project National Wetland Component investigations undertaken to collect and interpret data on ecosystem services provided by wetlands established through USDA conservation practices. The MIAR study is currently employing a multi-disciplinary, multi-scale approach to meet project goals in the Mid-Atlantic (New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina) Coastal Plain, focusing on depressional, non-tidal wetlands. Study collaborators are focused on four primary research areas, including pollutant (i.e., nutrients and sediments) mitigation, the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions including carbon sequestration, the biodiversity of amphibian and native plant communities, and flood mitigation. All study activities are being carried-out along a wetland alteration gradient including prior converted croplands (historic wetlands), hydrologically restored wetlands, and relatively undisturbed wetlands with native vegetation at a total of forty-eight sites. The MIAR CEAP-Wetlands is an interdisciplinary study which brings together scientists from multiple federal agencies (NRCS, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Smithsonian Environmental Research Center), the University of Maryland, and a small veteran-owned business. The project was initated in 2009 with an extensive field campaign and is currently ongoing. This presentation will discuss preliminary results for several study components and study implications. The project encourages future inter-agency cooperation and is an important step towards producing a national integrated landscape model that can be used to support the adaptive management of wetland restoration and enhancement programs. Contact Information: Megan W. Lang, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Bldg 007, Rm 104, BARC-West, Beltsville, MD, USA, Phone: 301-504-5138, Email: [email protected]


206

A NEW APPROACH TO MITIGATION BANKING Eric McCleary

Greenhorne & O’Mara, Restoration Ecologist, Tionesta, PA, USA The use of a mitigation bank for ecosystem restoration is being developed as a pilot demonstration project in Western Pennsylvania to restore streams impacted by mine drainage. Mine drainage is a problem throughout Appalachia and in Pennsylvania alone over 5,000 miles of streams have been impacted by this source of pollution. Mine drainage affects ecosystem health by typically having a reduced pH, elevated acidity and metals (principally iron and aluminum). The task of restoring streams affected by mine drainage is daunting, especially with reduced state and Federal funding sources. The idea of employing mitigation banks, sponsored by private entities (i.e. industry, developers, etc…), to offset pollution sources (in this case mine drainage) has not yet been done through the Federal mitigation banking program developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Lyons Run in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania is the test site for this unique approach to mitigation banking and is receiving favorable support from the State of Pennsylvania, Federal agencies, and private parties. The use of private funding to establish mitigation banks (as ecosystem banks) to offset other unavoidable ecological impacts, through current state and Federal permitting programs, is attractive to all parties involved and can produce significant environmental gains. I will present the concept, the development of the pilot project, the concerns of the state and Federal agencies, the current status of the project (anticipated implementation of the project is the summer of 2013), and how it could be utilized throughout the USA as an ecosystem restoration tool. Contact Information: Eric C. McCleary, Restoration Ecologist, Greenhorne & O’Mara, PO Box 362, 214 German Hill Road, Tionesta, PA 16353, USA, Phone: 814-541-2798, Email: [email protected]


207

FUTURE RIVERINE NITROGEN EXPORT TO US COASTAL REGIONS: PROSPECTS FOR IMPROVING WATER QUALITY AMID POPULATION GROWTH Michelle L. McCrackin1,2, John A. Harrison2 and Jana E. Compton3

1National Research Council National Academies of Science Washington, DC, USA 2Washington State University, School of the Environment, Vancouver, WA, USA 3Western Ecology Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, USA

Excess nitrogen (N) in the environment degrades ecosystems and adversely affects human health. Here we examine predictions of contemporary (2000) and future (2030) coastal N loading in the continental US by the Nutrient Export from WaterSheds (NEWS) model. Future scenarios were based on storylines from the Millennium Assessment (MA) and assume a number of actions are taken to reduce environmental N losses. Modeled TN export remained largely unchanged between 2000 (2.5 Tg N y-1) and 2030 (2.4 - 2.6 Tg N y-1, depending on scenario) because over this period efforts to reduce environmental N losses are offset by increased food and energy demands associated with population growth. Agriculture is the largest source of N delivered to the coastal zone in both 2000 and 2030, (30-35%, depending on year and scenario), followed by atmospheric deposition (12-14%), and sewage (8-11%). Our analysis suggests that achieving substantial reductions in coastal N loading over the present day will require aggressive management actions. We estimate that coastal N export could be reduced 28-32% between 2000 and 2030 to 1.7 - 1.8 Tg N y-1 if currently available practices and technologies are fully implemented to control N originating in agriculture, smokestack emissions, and wastewater effluent. Contact Information: Michelle McCrackin, Washington State University, School of the Environment, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Ave., Vancouver, WA 98686, USA, Phone: 360-546-9462, Email: [email protected]


208

UNLOCKING DEMAND IN CALIFORNIA WATERSHED PILOT PROGRAM Kelli McCune1, Daniel Mountjoy1, Ann Hayden2, Linda Estelí-Méndez2, Jeremy Sokulsky3, Katie Riley3, David Edelson4, Kim Carr5, Nic Enstice5, Amanda Cundiff6 and Bruce Goines6

1Sustainable Conservation, San Francisco, CA, USA 2Environmental Defense Fund, San Francisco, CA, USA 3Environmental Incentives, LLC, South Lake Tahoe, CA, USA 4The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA, USA 5Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Auburn, CA, USA 6United States Forest Service, Vallejo, CA, USA

Purpose: Public expenditures in conservation are dwindling, and landowners and land managers are facing increased pressure to demonstrate measurable gains in environmental quality from the practices they implement. Stakeholders in central California have formed the Mokelumne Watershed Environmental Benefits Program to set up a voluntary performance-based approach to strategically target, leverage and attract demand for investments in watershed restoration activities. Scope: Our focus is on the direct beneficiaries of ecosystem services produced by the Mokelumne Watershed, which includes water users in the San Francisco East Bay, and other investors who may be motivated for other reasons. We use evaluation criteria to assess the viability of each potential investor as a way to prioritize outreach and engagement efforts. Examples include ecosystem services desired, drivers for investing, and geographic scope for ecosystem service production. Method: We have developed a 5-step method to identify and engage sources of demand for the Mokelumne Program. This approach, which should be started early in program development, can generally be applied to identify demand for any type of environmental market.

1. Identify and qualify sources of demand – internet research

2. Discover potential value – investment estimates via literature and market analyses/reports

3. Diagnose needs & explore solutions – initial interviews with company decisionmakers

4. Design solutions and define investment options for demand sources – follow-up interviews

5. Deliver and support contracting between supply and demand – transactions via pilot Program Results: Unlocking sources of demand beyond the public sector is possible by taking a strategic, analytical approach. This requires fully understanding what motivates investors through thoughtful research and outreach. This analysis identifies and tests value hypotheses to understand potential benefits for investors, synthesizes findings to create tailored solutions and develops an understanding of financial demand for environmental outcomes in the Mokelumne Watershed. Conclusions: Any successful environmental market, either regulatory or non-regulatory, depends on engaging and securing a sustainable stream of demand. In a time of limited public funding, thinking creatively about possible sources of demand is paramount. The approach we have outlined allows for casting a wide net to strategically capture a broad array of demand beyond public funding and to ensure potential investors are adaquately consulted throughout pilot program development. Recommendations: Take an iterative approach to identify demand sources and integrate what the demand sources value while developing ecosystem services quantification tools. Use this approach to understand their respective investment priorities and to educate and inspire investors on how environmental markets and quantification tools can help them efficiently reach their goals or improve their internal operations. Use a team approach to achieve a high-contact outreach effort focused on relationship building to elicit demand interest and participation. Contact Information: Kelli McCune, Sustainable Conservation, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA, Phone: 415-977-0380 ext. 336, Email: [email protected]


209

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES MESSAGING CONSIDERATIONS Amy Frykman1 and Brendan McLaughlin2

1Resource Media, Bozeman, MT, USA 2Resource Media, Seattle, WA, USA

Ecosystem Services champions struggle to convey their importance and value proposition to a range of audiences. The language surrounding ecosystem services projects is a jargon-rich, dense amalgam of scientific, financial, regulatory and conservation parlance. Those working to advance ecosystem services projects struggle to articulate what they are trying to do, and why their approach is valid. Resource Media will deliver a short presentation summarizing our recent research on ecosystem services messaging needs. We conducted in-depth interviews with ecosystem services practitioners, local government officials, scientists, academics and others. We also examined media and digital coverage of ecosystem services projects and reviewed a wide range of materials produced by practitioners, including public opinion research. The goal of the project is to conduct a broad assessment of the communications landscape and take a first step toward helping practitioners more effectively convey the value of their work. The research focused on the state of practice in the Pacific Northwest, yet is broadly relevant in the United States. In the context of ecosystem services messaging, a challenge at the outset is that there is no single goal – there are many goals. And for each goal there are many audiences. As a result, there is no single frame -- there are many frames. Within each frame are different stories – or messages. In light of the complex universe of ecosystem services projects, we created three project categories and developed messaging recommendations for each:

• Making the case projects focus on calculating the value of benefits, in dollar or non-dollar values, provided by natural systems.

• A second set of projects go beyond assigning value, attempting to create and encourage the use of mechanisms to pay land managers to manage land in a way that provides specific benefits.

• In a third set of projects, public resource managers and utilities seek to utilize the power of nature to solve or prevent problems that would otherwise require more expensive—and often intrusive—technological fixes.

While much of the work of ecosystem services is happening “below the radar” currently, more and more projects involving direct use of public dollars are coming online. And with the use of public funds comes the need to defend the work in the court of public opinion. We identified a list of “dos and don’ts” to guide practitioners seeking to communicate the benefits of their projects to various audiences, including regulatory agencies, elected officials, ratepayers and landowners. Resource Media is a nonprofit PR firm dedicated to helping our partners succeed in today’s dynamic media landscape. We develop and execute smart communications strategies for the environment and public health. Contact Information: Brendan McLaughlin, Program Director, Resource Media, 600 Stewart Street Suite 1201, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206.374.7795 x108, Email: [email protected]


210

BRIDGING THE INTERFACE BETWEEN ACADEMIA AND BUSINESS: METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES FOR AIDING DECISION MAKING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HEALTH AND WELLBEING BENEFITS OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Tim Taylor1, David McNeil1, Mat White1, Fernando Correia2 and Richard Owen2

1European Centre for the Environment and Human Health, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Exeter, Truro, UK

2Business School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK The direct and indirect health effects of exposure to different habitat types were discussed in Pretty et al (2011). These range from positive ecosystem services of places for physical activity, direct provisioning services for food and reduction in threats from pollutants and vector disease to negative impacts of direct threats to health from accidents and waterborne diseases. The knowledge base on health and wellbeing values of ecosystems is growing. To date, the main focus has been on integrating values into public policy – and the aim of this paper is to examine the extent to which there is disconnect between academia and “decision makers” in businesses. Business uptake offers great potential for the fast mainstreaming of the ecosystem services concept, with shorter timeframes for action and potential incentives for first movers. Value associated with health and wellbeing industries, as a dynamic cross-section of activities across multiple sectors, is predominantly knowledge-based (Kickbusch and Payne, 2003; Sloan, 2003; Adroit Economics, 2010). Knowledge transfer across sectors and disciplines may offer opportunities to maximise public and private benefits. This paper will examine the differences between evidence on health values stemming from both economics and psychology and evaluate potential practical methods to bridge the gap between academics and businesses. To date, we note that few business support systems account for a range of ecosystem services- with the predominant focus on pollution and associated health impacts in supply chains (e.g. WRI, 2012). We will evaluate a range of methods that could be used by businesses to incorporate health and wellbeing benefits into decision making – identifying gaps in knowledge where they exist. Formal tools such as cost-benefit analysis and other mechanisms will be evaluated. The use of knowledge exchange mechanisms to enable the creation of innovative products for revenue capture will be a particular focus. Social marketing approaches may be important in communicating benefits addressing health inequalities arising from market failure. The use of multi-criteria analysis methods for identifying opportunities whilst incorporating distributional concerns will also be examined. Contact Information: David McNeil, University of Exeter, Knowledge Spa, RCH Treliske, Truro, TR1 3HD UK, Phone: 4401872258131, Email: [email protected]


211

USING INVEST MODEL MAPPING AND VALUING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN POYANG LAKE, CHINA Chunping Mei, Dirk Vrebos and Patrick Meire

Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium There are several methods for mapping and assigning value to ecosystem services, each with its own advantages and limitations. The Natural Capital Project has developed a new tool designed to facilitate integrated decision-making, bringing together credible, useful models based on ecological production functions and economic valuation methods. The intention is to incorporate biophysical and economic information about ecosystem services into conversion and natural resource decisions at an appropriate scale. The tool is called InVEST , for integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs. Poyang lake is located in the north of Jiangxi Province to the south of the Yangtze River, is regarded as the largest freshwater lake in China, covering an area of 2,933 square kilometers. The lake depends on surface runoffs and rainfalls for water supply. Rivers flowing into the lake include the Ganjiang River, Fuhe River, Xinjiang River, Raohe River, Xiushui River, etc. As a famous scenic area, the Poyang Lake has numerous sights , and it is also a migratory birds conservation area with a reputation of Kingdom of Rare Birds. The general idea for this paper, is to use lookup tables of benefits per unit area of this habitat type, and thereby quantify overall natural capital of this area. And the results can be used to adjust the benefits . Contact Information: Chunping Mei, Biology Department, Ecosystem Management Research Group, University of Antwerp, Box 220, Universiteitsplein 1c, Wilrijk, B2610 Antwerpen, Belgium, tel: +32 (0)32652385, Phone: +32 (0)48-864-3048, Email: [email protected]


212

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES EVALUATION FRAMEWORK IN NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEMS Chris Miller1, Kawa Ng2 and Chinling Chen3

1U.S. Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 2U.S. Forest Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA 3U.S. Forest Service, Washington DC, USA

Consideration for ecosystem services is an important feature under the new National Forest System Land Management Planning rule (2012). A framework has been drafted by a Forest Service workgroup for characterizing the benefits of ecosystem services and evaluating ecosystem service tradeoffs among management alternatives. This framework is expected to offer a foundation to help Forest Service staff incorporate ecosystem service concepts in forest planning and project-level analysis and improve the degree to which ecosystem service tradeoffs and values are accounted for in decision making processes. The framework does not attempt to develop new processes or practices, but instead builds from existing literature and lists desirable attributes or capabilities that best practices should have to successfully complete the steps outlined in the framework. Those desirable attributes can be used as criteria to help analysts develop and evaluate suitable strategies for evaluating ecosystem services. The steps in this framework focus on identifying values for incremental changes or contributions that Forest Service lands make to ecosystem services within broader landscapes (i.e., marginal values), as well as clarifying how the provision of ecosystem services are linked (e.g., some ecosystem services are intermediate inputs to the production of other ecosystem services). Given the types of information that need to be collected before valuation can occur, this framework is built around three broad steps that should be implemented in an iterative and adaptive manner:

• Characterization of Ecosystem Services: Identify contributions by Forest Service lands to relevant and important ecosystem services and collect information about the factors affecting values for ecosystem services.

• Valuation of Ecosystem Services: Characterize values for changes in ecosystem services resulting from alternative management decisions. Values may described in monetary, quantitative, or qualitative terms.

• Application of Results: Use and communicate results in an iterative fashion to revise the valuation process, describe tradeoffs, and inform decision-making.

The applicability of the framework is being tested in a variety of decision-making contexts, at varying degrees of complexity or intensity. Pilot testing results will be presented that provide insight into the feasibility of using this type of framework to incorporate ecosystem services into public engagement/collaboration processes as well as interdisciplinary efforts to evaluate tradeoffs among land management alternatives. Pilot test results are expected to shed light on the advantages and disadvantages of using this framework to meet new requirements to consider ecosystem services during assessments and other phases of planning under the new National Forest System Land Management Planning rule (2012). Contact information: Dr. Chris Miller, US Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination/NEPA Services Group. 2222 West 2300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84119, USA, Phone: 801-975-3360, Email: [email protected]


213

ESTIMATION OF VALUE OF STREAM GAGE INFORMATION: AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT APPROACH TO EVALUATE IMPROVED ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FROM WATER RESOURCES. Shruti K . Mishra1, Ronald P. Raunikar2, William M. Forney2 and Richard L. Bernknopf3

1Western Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA 2Western Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA 3Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

The US Geologic Survey provides information on real time hydrologic condition data; daily, monthly or annual statistics on stream flow discharge data; and peak stream flow data for the thousands of stream gages stations in the conterminous US. Stream gage information (SGI) is used for watershed management decisions to improve ecosystem services derived from water resources including floods management, reservoir operations, water allocation, water quality management, managing aquatic ecosystems, and navigation. An integrated assessment framework that uses the principles of physical sciences and applied economics is developed to estimate the incremental societal benefits accrued to SGI. The value of stream gage information (stream gage VOI) is estimated as the incremental societal benefits from improved ecosystem services. A well functioning water market can address water resource management problems at large. A comprehensive understanding of hydrology, engineering, and institutional structure is necessary for efficient functioning of the water market. The water leasing market has gained popularity because water rights remain with owners and facilitates intermediate uses. Hydrology modeling using SGI provides information on spatiotemporal supply of water for water markets in a region. The value of water used for agricultural, urban, and conservation uses is estimated using environmental valuation techniques. The results inform water management decisions that provide incentive for water conservation and facilitate trade. These increase the efficiency of water market in the region. We compare the value of regional water resources using SGI with the status quo values to estimate the stream gage VOI. We will present the coupling of hydrologic condition models that use SGI and water market economic models for the region to estimate the stream gage VOI for Southwest U.S. water markets. Contact Information: Shruti K Mishra, Western Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025, Email:[email protected]


214

EVALUATION OF CHANGES IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES DUE TO ADOPTION OF BIOENERGY CROPS AT REGIONAL SCALE Shruti K Mishra

Naperville, IL, USA Sustainable energy security has been a growing focus in the US. Energy production from first and second generation bio-energy crops is documented to have their own sets of impacts on ecosystem services. A comprehensive study of impacts of bio-energy crops on water resources and quantification of changes in ecosystem services informs sustainable energy decisions. An integrated assessment approach (IAA) that couples bio-physical models with economics models is used to evaluate the changes in ecosystem services from bio-energy crops using spatiotemporal information on land use, environmental variables, hydrology, and environmental valuation techniques. Biophysical model ArcSWAT is used for estimating the stress on water resources. The resultant change in ecosystem services is quantified and monetized using environmental valuation techniques. The binding constraint in this research is the quantity of biomass required for bio-energy production as mandated by Energy Security and Independence Act 2007. The outputs from these models are used for sensitivity analyses of the changes in societal benefits from water resources. We will present the application of IAA for evaluating change in ecosystem services under possible bio-energy production scenarios in the upper Mississippi basin. Contact Information: Shruti Khadka Mishra, Shruti Mishra, 11 Huntington Cir., Naperville, IL 60540, Phone: 510-457-5166, Email: [email protected]


215

UPSTREAM RESOURCE MANAGERS’ PREFERENCES FOR WATER-RELATED ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE LAKE NAIVASHA BASIN, KENYA Dawit W. Mulatu, Anne van der Veen and Pieter R. Van Oel

Department of Urban and regional Planning, ITC-Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

This study explores the potential for the development of water-related ecosystem services in rural communities in the Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya. In particular, the preferences of upstream resource managers are analysed with regard to areas in which payment for water-related ecosystem services (PWES) is already implemented and areas in which it has not been implemented so far. Resource managers’ marginal willingness to accept (MWTA) compensation was estimated for three water-related ecosystem service attributes: reforestation of degraded forest, restoration of riparian land and implementation of environmentally-friendly agricultural practices. A household survey among 205 local farmers has been conducted through choice experiments, and analysed using a nested logit (NL) model. Findings indicate that environmentally-friendly agricultural practices and reforestation of degraded forest areas are important attributes for resource managers’ choice of water-related ecosystem services. For areas in which payment for water-related ecosystem service (PWES) was implemented, implementation of environmentally-friendly agricultural practices was the only significant water-related ecosystem attribute and the resource managers' MWTA compensation was Kenyan Shillings (KSH) 4978.37 per acreage/year. However, for areas in which PWES has not been implemented, the MWTA compensation for reforestation of degraded forest and for implementation of environmentally-friendly agricultural practices on their farm was KSH 869.66 per hectare/year and KSH 2426.49 per acreage/year, respectively. The results for all sample households reveal that implementation of environmentally-friendly agricultural practices and reforestation of degraded forest are significant water-related ecosystem attributes and their MWTA compensation was KSH 3360.85 per acreage/ year and KSH 290.13 per hectare/year, respectively. These findings suggest a high potential for the development of water-related ecosystem services in order to support the sustainable management of natural resources and the environment of the Lake Naivasha basin. Contact Address: Dawit W. Mulatu, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, ITC-Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente, P.O.Box: 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands, Phone: +31534874444, Fax: +31534874400, Email: [email protected]


216

ESTIMATING THE CHANGE IN THE PROVISION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES DUE TO NATURAL GAS EXTRACTION IN PENNSYLVANIA David J. Murphy1,2

1Environmental Systems and Policy Analyst, Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA 2Department of Geography and Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability and Energy, Northern Illinois University,

Dekalb, IL, USA Land-cover change resulting from gas extraction, including the construction of well-pads, access roads, water impoundments, pipelines, and other infrastructure, is an inevitable environmental impact of natural gas extraction. Natural gas extraction in the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania, for example, has already required drilling over 4,000 wells, and, if the full extent of the gas reserves are exploited, thousands more will be drilled over the coming years. The objective of this research is to estimate 1) how natural gas extraction is changing the land-cover in Pennsylvania, and 2) how that land cover is altering the provision of ecosystem services. To address these questions we used the 2006 National Land-Cover Database in conjunction with a drilling database provided by the PA-Department of Environmental Protection to draft maps of land-cover change in PA. These land-cover maps served as the base layers in the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model, which was used to calculate values for the following ecosystem services: carbon storage and sequestration, hydropower production, water purification, and sediment retention. Our preliminary results indicate that 45% of all well-pads were developed on forested lands, 36% of which were deciduous forests. The next largest land-cover changes occurred on pasture/hay (28%) and cropland (20%). In total, forests, pasture/hay, and cropland accounted for over 90% of the total land cover change that occurred in PA due to natural gas extraction. Using average estimates for each land-cover category for four carbon pools, including above ground, below ground, soil, and dead carbon, we estimated that the land-cover change due to natural gas extraction has resulted in the loss of almost 400,000 metric tons of stored carbon. Roughly 75% of that carbon loss occurred due to the clear-cutting of deciduous forests. Our estimates indicate also that the carbon debt created by deforestation could take upwards of 200 years to repay through atmospheric sequestration, since laws on remediation require only that drilling companies re-seed the land with native grasses once drilling is finished. Lastly, the financial cost of this carbon loss is, depending on the price of carbon, somewhere between 10 and 120 million dollars. Results for the other ecosystem services are forthcoming and will be presented at the conference. Accounting for even these few ecosystem services will provide a more comprehensive estimate of the full cost of gas extraction in PA and hopefully aid in the development of useful energy and land-use policies. Contact Information: David J. Murphy, Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Ave., Lemont, IL 60439 USA, Phone: 630-252-1166, Email: [email protected]


217

LOW-COST RESTORATION OF RANGELANDS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Jessica Musengezi1,3, Andrew P. Rayburn1, Heather Spaulding3, Toby A. O’Geen3 and Emilio A. Laca1

1Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA 2Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA, USA 3Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DC, USA

California valley and foothill rangelands are critically threatened by invasive weedy species such as medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solsticialis) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) that reduce agricultural productivity, increase fire risk and degrade the provision of ecosystem services. In order to reduce invasive species, managing these grasslands often requires restoration using desirable native species. In many instances, producers are undertaking restoration activities, both with and without direct financial support from government, to mitigate reductions in ecosystem services (e.g., biodiversity loss and weed invasion, increased runoff, and nutrient leaching, among others). An important conflict in restoration decisions in agricultural landscapes is that, while agriculture is the primary and ongoing land use responsible for income generation, restoration benefits are achievable only within this production context. Since the high cost of restoration can affect ecosystem service benefits, understanding the tradeoffs between restoration approaches, ecosystem service provision and agricultural production is essential for the efficient allocation of resources. Existing decision support systems typically capture environmental processes and features and often lack information on costs that inform tradeoffs between different services. The resulting innatention to costs prevents land-owners and managers from from maximizing their return when it comes to allocating funds for restoration. Although few analyses of cost effectiveness of ecological restoration have been undertaken to date, evidence suggests that restoration can be cost effective, particulary when lower-cost methods are used. We use a case-study approach to present preliminary results and experiences from an ongoing project designed to (a) use a cost:benefit framework to evaluate existing rangeland restoration projects in terms of ecosystem services, and (b) test novel cost-effective strip-seeding methods for rangeland restoration. Economic data are being gathered via producer and expert interviews, cost-accounting, and literature-based approximations, while ecological data on restoration effects on ecosystem services are being collected via long-term monitoring of plants, soils, and arthropods. An approach that evaluates restoration costs and potential ecosystem service benefits is appropriate for targeting incentives for best managment practices, controlling invasive species on rangelands and developing payments for ecosystem services. This is particularly relevant to rangeland managers, who are increasingly urged to manage their lands as intergrated sytems that produce livestock, while providing ecosystem services, including those derived from widlife habitat and hydrology. Contact Information: Jessica Musengezi, Defenders of Wildlife, 1303 J Street Suite 270 Sacramento, CA 95814, Phone: 916-313-5800 x108 Email: [email protected]


218

PAYMENTS FOR WATERSHED SERVICES ON CALIFORNIA RANGELANDS Jessica Musengezi1, Pelayo Alvarez1, 2, Michelle Bacon1, Molly Cheatum1 and Clayton Ogg1

1Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DC, USA 2California Rangeland Conservation Coalition, Sacramento, CA, USA

California has more than 34 million acres of rangelands, much of which are privately-owned and managed for livestock production. These rangelands provide a wide selection of ecosystem services including food, wildlife habitat, climate regulation, clean water, recreation and other cultural amenities that benefit landowners and society. The important role that California rangelands play as providers of watershed ecosystem services (water quality and quantity) is increasingly being recognized. Rangeland management has a direct impact on watershed health and function. By implementing rangeland conservation practices that restore and/or maintaining healthy grassland, oak woodlands and riparian areas, ranchers are able to ensure a supply of abundant and clean water for urban, recreational, and agricultural uses for all Californians. California’s rangelands are increasingly faced with conversion pressure from ex-urban expansion, agricultural intensification, and with each acre of rangeland converted the health of watersheds is compromised. Payments for watershed services (PWS) provide an alternative option to secure clean water supplies, while providing landowners with financial incentives to adopt conservation practices and protect rangeland working landscapes. We used literature review, stakeholder workshops and interviews to compare existing PWS programs in the U. S., identify successful program design features, and assess applicability to California rangelands. Several key factors are essential in designing successful PWS programs; including stakeholder participation, low transaction costs, science-based monitoring programs and the availability of technical assistance to land-owners. These lessons will serve to inform the development of PWS programs accessible to ranchers. Contact Information: Jessica Musengezi, Defenders of Wildlife, 1303 J Street, Suite 270, Sacramento, CA 95814. Phone: 916-313-5800 x 108. Email: [email protected]


219

EFFECTS OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON BIODIVERSITY AND CARBON STORES IN THE PRAIRIE POTHOLE REGION: MODEL SIMULATIONS USING INVEST Jordan L. Neau, M. David Mushet and N. Euliss

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, ND, USA Land-use and land-cover (LULC) across the Prairie Pothole Region of North America (PPR) are rapidly changing in response to social, political, and environmental influences. One major change occurring is the ever-increasing conversion of lands from traditional small grain production or conservation plantings associated with programs such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Conservation Reserve and Wetland Reserve Programs, to corn and soybean production. The changes in LULC and the rate of change vary across space and time producing a transformation of ecosystem services (ESS). Using relationships developed in our Conservation Evaluation and Assessment Project (CEAP—Wetlands) regional assessment and the open source Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model, amphibian habitat quality as a measure of biodiversity, and carbon sequestration were assessed across four Omernik Level III Ecoregions located within the boundary of the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region. Projected LULC scenarios focused on an increased loss of conservation lands and were used as a forecasting metric to assess future amphibian habitat quality and carbon sequestration across each ecoregion’s landscape. Comparisons under present LULC and projected LULC scenarios were used as an indication of the ESS value provided by conservation lands. The subsequent loss of quality amphibian habitat and stored carbon in conjunction with conservation land area loss was used to indicate changes in ESS across the landscape. Further modeling of biodiversity will include habitat quality assessments for grassland birds, native plants, waterfowl, and wetland birds. Future InVEST modeling will also focus on other ESS such as sediment retention and crop pollination. Modeling efforts will also expand from the PPR to the Playas Region of the U.S. in the near future. Contact Information: Jordan L. Neau, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 8711 37th ST. Southeast, Jamestown, ND, 58401, USA, Phone: 701-253-5527, Email: [email protected]


220

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANAGES 29 MILLION ACRES. IMPLICATIONS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Nancy Natoli

Department of Defense Sustainable Ranges Initiative, Arlington , VA, USA Purpose: To describe the Department of Defense (DoD) interest in ecosystem services. DoD manages 29 million acres of land in the US that are largely protected from development, represent diverse habitat types and contain a wealth of plant and animal life. They preserve ecologically important native habitats such as old-growth forests, tall-grass prairies, and vernal pool wetlands. In many cases, these lands are havens for rare and unique plant and animal species, including 420 federally-listed species and 523 species at-risk. The principal purpose of DoD lands, waters, airspace, and coastal resources is to support mission-related activities. Maintaining healthy ecosystems and biodiversity is important to ensuring DoD lands provide realistic and unrestricted training and testing for US forces. Scope: As a federal landholding agency, the DoD is responsible for managing endangered species habitat, and complying with other environmental laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act Section 404 which can restrict or limit the space available for test and training. It could also be cost-effective for DoD to invest in pre-listing mitigation, and DoD is exploring ways for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to provide credit proportionate to the investment in the event the species nonetheless gets listed. By collaborating and cost-sharing with partners across boundaries, DoD can leverage public and private investments towards landscape scale conservation. Methods: DoD currently has two authorities that allow it to fund conservation actions away from DoD lands. The Sikes Act recognizes the importance and value of military lands to natural resources. It seeks to ensure that these ecosystems are protected and enhanced while allowing the military lands to continue to meet the needs of military operations. It allows DoD to enter into agreements to support natural resource protection on non-DoD lands where there is nexus to DoD natural resources. The Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) authority allows DoD to enter into agreements to protect habitat or avoid incompatible land uses on land near or ecologically related to DoD lands, where such habitat detruction or incompatible land use would negatively affect the military mission. REPI is also specifically funded in the President’s Budget. Conclusions: DoD manages its 29 million acres of land to provide realistic test and training situations for Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force current and future mission requirements. To assist with its responsibility as a regulated federal agency required to comply with environmental laws and regulations, it has funding and authority to invest in ecosystem services on private property. In addition, DoD is working with other federal agencies to leverage programs and administrative priorities to encourage favorable market conditions. Recommendations: DoD is currently looking for pilot locations to test cross-boundary cooperation with DoD, state(s) and the private sector. This will need support from USFWS with assurances for funds invested. Key locations of strategic DoD importance include the Pacific Northwest, desert Southwest, longleaf pine region of the Southeast and mid-Atlantic. Contact Information: Nancy Natoli, Program Director, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) 1225 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500, Arlington, VA 22202, Phone: 703-604-1820, Email: [email protected]

http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/Sikes_Act_Statute_2003.pdf



221

THE NATIONAL ATLAS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: A TOUR FOR INFLUENCERS, ANALYZERS, AND DECISION MAKERS Anne Neale and Megan Mehaffey

US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Durham, NC, USA The intent of the National Atlas of Ecosystem Services is to provide access to data and tools to help inform and accelerate better decision-making. The Atlas was presented at both prior ACES conferences; this presentation provides an update for the tool which is available now in a limited capacity and will be widely publicly available in 2013. The Atlas, currently under development by the USEPA, USFS, USGS, NRCS, and other partner organizations, provides wall-to-wall, geographically-explicit data characterizing ecosystem services across the contiguous US. The Atlas provides a suite of interactive national maps showing indicators of supply and demand for ecosystem services and associated drivers of change. It also provides decision support tools, or widgets, to help the user interact with and analyze the data. Categories of ecosystem services include: clean water for drinking; clean water for recreation and aquatic habitat; adequate water supply; food, fuel and fiber; recreation, cultural and aesthetic amenities; climate stabilization; protection from hazardous weather; habitat and the maintenance of biodiversity; and clean air. In addition to ecosystem services data, the Atlas contains many ancillary data layers useful in a decision-making context; these include land cover, hydrography, soils, wetlands, boundaries, demographics, etc. Demographic data are included so that the user can view the information in context of the population make-up of beneficiary communities. In particular, equity of distribution and vulnerability of certain populations can be assessed. The Atlas is being constructed with an emphasis on interoperability and ease of use. The Atlas is an online application requiring no special software or expertise. All maps are being published as web services making them readily transportable to a user’s or user community’s desktop or online Geographic Information System (GIS). Widgets, tools that work interactively with the data, are structured to be “plug and play,” encouraging external users and organizations to build widgets that will work with Atlas data. The Atlas technology allows individuals or organizations to build their own applications using Atlas data. This presentation will demonstrate the Atlas including many of its datasets and will review the geospatial analysis methods used to develop the data. We will also give a preview of what to expect for the Atlas in the coming years. Contact Information: Anne Neale, US EPA, NERL, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA, Phone: 919-541-3832, Email: [email protected]


222

PLAYAS IN THE SOUTHERN HIGH PLAINS: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Ron Nelson1 and William Gascoigne2

1Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA 2United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

The Southern High Plains (SHP) of Texas and New Mexico are best known for their vast flat grasslands and intensive agriculture. However, a lesser well-known feature of the landscape, playas, provide many services that promote biodiversity and balanced ecological functions. Historically, there were as many as 25,000 playas dotting the landscape of the SHP. Over the last half century, there has been a physical loss of 17-60% of playas in the SHP, largely due to the conversion of land for intensive agricultural and grazing. The physical loss of playas has led to a decrease in the goods and services that society recieves from the ecosystem functions of these ephemeral wetlands. The purpose of this study is to construct conceptual frameworks for the valuation of ecosystem services provided by playas in the SHP. Specifically, we focus on the valuation of groundwater recharge and recreational activities, and discuss the difficulties of valuing the ecosystem services of flood attenuation, soil conservation, and improved water quality. The methods suggested within the conceptual frameworks use biophysical data combined with the hedonic price method, the production function method, and/or the value transfer method. Previous literature has found that property values within the SHP have decreased due to a greatly diminished groundwater supply. Our preliminary results indicate that the decline in groundwater supply, and therefore property value, is partially due to the diminished ecosystem service of groundwater recharge from playas. After considering the return on investment of playa conservation, recommendations are made for possible payment for ecosystem services programs and educating the current groundwater management districts about the values of ecosystem services. Contact Information: Ron Nelson, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State Univeristy, 415 Mason Court 9A, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, USA, Phone: 360.201.2827, Email: [email protected]


223

ESTIMATING THE ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF WATER ORIGINATING FROM COLORADO’S NATIONAL FORESTS Kawa Ng

U.S. Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, Planning and Analysis Group. Fort Collins, CO, USA National forests contribute a substantial portion of water to the public supply in western states. Although water supply is one of the most important provisioning ecosystem services, there has been little effort in estimating the economic contribution of water originating from the national forest system. My research used a customized value-added approach along with a state-wide input-output model to derive the marginal economic contributions to each economic sector in the state of Colorado. This approach differed from the traditionally applied method, in that it avoided over-estimating the value of water from implicitly assigning zero opportunity cost to all non-water inputs. Instead, the gross absorption coefficients for the water supply sector were used for adjusting the economic impacts. A method of calculating the economic contributions attributable Colorado’s national forest water to each sector in the state economy was demonstrated. Summing across all sectors, water originating from Colorado’s national forests contributed to a total of 4,738 jobs, $215,473,985 in labor income, and $264,485,290 in value-added for Colorado’s economy. Contact Information: Kawa Ng, Ecosystem Management Coordination, Planning and Analysis Group, 2150 Centre Ave, Bldg A, Suite 300, Fort Collins, CO 80526 USA, Phone: 970-690-9530, Email: [email protected]


224

THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING BASELINE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN NRDA, BY EXAMPLE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO Joseph Nicolette and Miranda Henning

ENVIRON International Corporation In evaluating the potential effect of a significant release of oil or hazardous substances on the environment, it is necessary to understand the baseline condition of the environment in the area potentially affected by the release. This understanding is necessary in order to accurately characterize the injury associated with the release. The baseline condition is the condition of the natural resources and services that would have existed had the incident not occurred -- that is, the condition of the natural resources and associated services “but for” the release. The authors have conducted significant research compiling environmental baseline information related to the Gulf of Mexico. Baseline conditions in the Gulf of Mexico are influenced by a variety of physical, chemical and biological stressors. The authors will discuss some of those stressors and their influence on the baseline level of natural resources and services in the Gulf of Mexico prior to the Deepwater Horizon release. The presentation will include a discussion of:

• Natural resources and services in the Gulf of Mexico a brief overview;

• Physical stressors such as wetland and shoreline losses associated with coastal development, shoreline modification, channelization, dredging, hurricane and storm events; and undersea energy extraction and utility siting;

• Chemical stressors such as the occurrence of natural oil seeps, other petroleum releases from pipelines, wells, bilge releases, and/or platforms, non-petroleum releases, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit discharges and exceedances, low dissolved oxygen concentrations; and

• Biological stressors such as fish kills associated with disease and low dissolved oxygen concentrations related to a variety of non-DWH events.

Contact Information: Joseph Nicolette, ENVIRON International Corporation, Phone: 678-388-1665, Email: [email protected]


225

PRESIDENTS CALL FOR FEDERAL POLICY ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: PRIVATE SECTOR INSIGHTS Joseph Nicolette

ENVIRON International Corporation The purpose of this session is to discuss the perspectives and insights from representatives of the private sector as to how the development of a Federal policy on ecosystem services may affect private corporations and business. The focus will relate to the PCAST report and information gleaned from the previous two sessions (Public and International Sectors). It should also be noted that following this session, a Town Hall Meeting is scheduled that will include representatives from the Public, Private and International sector to interactively discuss the development of Federal policy and potential considerations. Session Moderator: Joseph Nicolette, Principal, ENVIRON International Corporation The distinguished panel will consist of the following members:

1. Sarah Connick, Ph.D. - Manager, Biodiversity, Corporate Health, Environment and Safety, Chevron Services Company

2. Judy Gunderson, Ph.D. - Technical Director for the collaboration between The Dow Chemical Company and The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Technology Center, The Dow Chemical Company

3. Brian Israel, Esq. - Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP

4. Stephen Truchon - Shell Oil Products and Technology

5. Tom Campbell, Esq. - Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Contact Information: Joseph Nicolette, ENVIRON International Corporation, Phone: 678-388-1665, Email: [email protected]


226

MANAGING RANGELANDS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: RANCHER ATTITUDES AND ADOPTION OF “PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES” OPPORTUNITIES Max Nielsen-Pincus1 and Hannah Gosnell2

1Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA 2College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA

Concurrent with rising global concern about ecosystem degradation is a growing awareness of the valuable ecosystem services that agricultural landscapes can provide, and growing interest in devising ways to incentivize provision of such services by agricultural landowners. Ranchers are especially well-positioned to take advantage of growing demand for land management activities that protect and restore ecosystem services. Unlike intensive agricultural cropping systems, ranch operations tend to involve extensive management approaches that leave much of the land in a quasi-natural state, providing valuable ecosystem services like wildlife habitat, clean water, and carbon sequestration. Many ranchers are beginning to experiment with stewardship-based diversification schemes such as enrolling in cost-share and grant programs, participating in green certification schemes, and seeking conservation easements; but policy strategies for effectively engaging and supporting ranchers and other landowners in these endeavors are unattuned to current landowner experiences and needs. We suggest that ecosystem service management schemes (e.g., government-funded programs, voluntary and regulatory markets, green certification, etc.) may offer promise to landowners looking to diversify but that better information about landowners’ experiences and needs is required to accelarate adoption. Managing for ecosystem services may involve significant changes to existing rancher practices and mindsets. Policies and protocols surrounding emerging ecosystem service opportunities will fail to effectively engage landowners unless they – first – take into consideration the factors shaping landowner decisionmaking, and – second – address both perceived and real barriers and constraints. We employed a mixed methods approach to engage landowners and staff in a variety of institutions offering support for ecosystem service management in the Pacific Northwestern USA to explore landowner understanding of and attitudes towards various ecosystem service schemes, and the factors influencing their adoption of those schemes. We found that relatively few ranchers had participated in ecosystem service management schemes other than government-funded conservation programs, but that interest was relatively high for opportunities to protect existing high quality ecosystem services. Ranchers almost uniformly saw practicing conservation as a core value, but identied regulatory uncertainty, program complexity, and unintended consequences as key barriers to adoption. We also found that for ranchers that do participate, an important enabler is often a local service provider who helps connect them to the opportunities that best align with their specific needs and constraints. Our findings suggest that policies and programs aimed at incentivizing ranchers to manage for ecosystem services should attend to more than simply the price of ecosystem services by focusing on issues such as program delivery and contract mechanisms that provide clarity about legal and regulatory liabilities. Contact Information: Max Nielsen-Pincus, 5247 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA, Phone: 541-346-0676, Email: [email protected]


227

HYDROLOGICAL SERVICES REDUCE POVERTY AND STRENGTHEN SOCIAL CAPITAL? AN EXAMINATION OF HOUSEHOLD WELFARE AND COLLECTIVE ACTION IN A COMMON PROPERTY REGIME IN SIERRA NORTE OF OAXACA, MEXICO Lindsey Roland Nieratka, David Bray and Pallab Mozumder

Department of Earth and Environment, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA Payments for Environmental Services (PES) is a method of attaching market value to environmental benefits for the purpose of providing an incentive and economic rationale for conservation. One example of a large scale non-market based PES program comes from Mexico and the Payments for Hydrological Services program (PSAH). The PSAH has been operating since 2004 and pays land owners to maintain forest cover on their land, using forest cover as a proxy for hydrologic function. In Mexico, landowners are often not individuals but communities in the form of either ejidos or comunidades. This thesis investigates the impact of the PSAH in two indigenous communities in Oaxaca. Using informal interviews, semi structured and structured surveys, we investigated the effect participation in the PSAH has had in alleviating poverty and increasing social capital in the two communities as well as investigated willingness to accept a potential carbon payment program in the future. Results show that both of the communities have been lifted above national poverty levels as a result of the addition of the payments and individuals believe that they are economically better off than before participation. Social capital has been strengthened as evidenced by the formation and participation in a regional level organization and through participation in decision making processes within the community. Willingness to accept participation in a carbon capture program is lower if the proposed project land is owned communally and higher if the proposed land is owned individually. Willingness to accept is also based on risk related factors such as other sources of income. This information is valuable in determining the potential success and sustainability of proposed carbon payment programs in communities with similar social structure and history of government programs. Contact Information: Lindsey Roland Nieratka, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th St., Miami, FL 33199, Phone: 309-253-9220, Email: [email protected]


228

EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS FOR ALLEVIATING FARMERS’ POVERTY IN INDONESIA Keigo NODA1, Kazuo OKI1 , Nao ENDO2 and Gunardi SIGIT3

1Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 2Research and Education Faculty, Kochi University, Kochi, Japan 3Regional Office of Food Crops Service West Jawa Province, Indonesia

Recently, sedimentation and eutrophicaton in reservoirs have become a big problem in Citarum river basin, Indonesia. One of the main factors has been cultivation of forest and it’s leading soil erosion and nutrient runoff in farmland. There is farmers’ poverty problem in the background. Then, to propose some scenarios for alleviating farmers’ poverty, questionnaire of farmers and estimation of the impact of developing potential water resource and utilizing rice straw as a material for bio-ethanol were carried out. As a result of questionnaire, It was noted that farmers were not satisfied with the income from rice production but there was not enough employment opportunities to compensate for it. Furthermore, they don’t want to move to another place seeking for a job, and then it is needed that the existing paddy rice farming system should be improved in productivity. When the water resource in Cisokan river is developed and the surplus water in wet season is stored, the rice cropping can be made 3 times in a year, as is twice traditionally. Additionally, when the rice straw, which is mostly burn as a residue of grain, can be used as a material for bio-ethanol, it creates an extra income for farmers by selling it and employment opportunities to collect it. As a scenario, when potential water resource is developed and rice straw is utilized as a material for bio-ethanol, the income of farmers is estimated to increase by 1.7 times without land use change. Contact Information: Keigo NODA, Institute of Industrial Science, the University of Tokyo, Ce-405, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8505, Japan, Phone: +81-3-5452-6382, Email: [email protected]


229

BIOECONOMIC POTENTIALS OF BIOCHAR APPLICATION IN OIL SANDS ECOSYSTEM RECLAMATION Richard M. Petrone1, Jonathan S. Price2 and Felix C. Nwaishi1

1The Cold Regions Research Centre, Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo ON, Canada 2Department of Geography and Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Over the past decades, energy industries laboured hard to develop an economic means of mining the oil sands for crude oil production. The achievement of success in the late 1990s coincided with the high global demand for oil hence making the oil sand industry a viable business. As the production challenges were overcome, the environmental impacts of the production have proved much more difficult to resolve. In northeastern Alberta, oil sands mining operations perpetrate a huge footprint on natural landscapes by scraping the surface vegetation and removing the intact peat overburden which store about one third of the world’s carbon reserve. These organic materials are left to decompose on mine dumps, releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Recent studies have suggested that utilising the biomass from mining extraction as feedstock for biochar production will help reduce climate change impacts by curbing greenhouse gas emission from the mine dumps. Biochar is a fine-grained charcoal produced by burning organic materials in the absence of oxygen (pyrolysis) at a very high temperature. This carbon negative technology is believed to remove carbon from the atmosphere by storing the charred biomass in the soil for hundreds of years which aids in boosting soil quality and some ecosystem functions. In addition to the latter benefits, biochar technology has also created a new economic opportunity which is driving business innovations in the bioenergy industry. Thus, an evaluation of the biological and economic potentials of biochar technology in the reclamation of abandoned mined sites of the Alberta oil sands is conducted. The study focused on the ecological and carbon credits-related benefits of biochar for mitigating the carbon footprint of the oil sands industry while ensuring ecological sustainability of reclaimed ecosystems. Evaluation results indicate that adoption of biochar technology in oil sands reclamation might have essential ecological and economic potentials. The study recommended the adoption biochar technology for future oil sands reclamation and identified the need for further research on designing soil and condition specific biochar as one size does not suite all. Contact Information: Felix C. Nwaishi, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON. Canada N2L 3C5, Phone: (+1519) 884-1970 Ext. 6032, Email: [email protected]


230

POLICY OPTIONS FOR ACHIEVING MULTIPLE SPECIES PROTECTION BENEFITS Clay Ogg

Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, USA Markets for ecosystem services offer economic efficiencies where there are many practice choices and where trading leads to a single, environmental outcome. However, traditional government incentives focused on a specific enrollment goal for only one practice offer efficiencies if several desirable outcomes can occur simultaneously. This latter situation is highly typical for programs restoring biodiversity. Southeastern states’ partnerships with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) deliver several thousand miles of riparian buffer habitats which benefit the region’s roughly 400 vulnerable freshwater species. This example and others will be used to illustrate advantages of non market approaches in the many real world situations where several desirable outcomes, or even hundreds of such outcomes, can be advanced through simple government programs that restore cropland to a natural state. The Conservation Reserve Program’s (CRP) Riparian buffers in the Southeast provide a hardwood habitat that directly benefits many freshwater species that reside in riparian areas, as well as providing a very cost effective sediment reduction practice that generally reduces sediment delivery to streams by about 45%. Sediment and turbidity constitute the main threat for U.S. aquatic species, including the 98% of our vulnerable, freshwater mussel species that reside in the Southeast. About half of southeastern states are way ahead of the rest of the U.S. in exploiting USDA’s buffer tool. Analyzing USDA enrollment data, we find that well over a third of USDA’s total riparian buffer acreage enrollment in Conservation Reserve Programs (CRP) occurs in five of the region’s states. However, four southeastern states have missed the buffer enrollment opportunity almost entirely. Because of the richness of biodiversity in the Southeast, and because of its challenges from sediment and loss of riparian habitat, implementing an efficient riparian restoration remedy throughout the region must be regarded as one of the nation’s top biodiversity priorities involving private lands. The above option for using a CRP habitat restoration tool represents an important example regarding opportunities to achieve multiple biodiversity benefits from a single CRP tool. Analysis emphasizes the importance of considering multiple benefits, as well as indirect costs. For many years, models of international carbon trading options focused on efficient achievement a single carbon outcome, ignoring co-benefits and indirect costs. Yet, recent analysis finds that a popular carbon trading option would raise world crop prices by about 80%. The tendency to regard ecosystem trading as the most efficient remedy for environmental problems needs to be tempered by policy research that considers the many co-benefits and indirect costs that are not addressed in ecosystem services trading schemes. For restoring biodiversity, it is often very efficient to implement very simple habitat restoration practices, such as those offered by the CRP. Contact Informatin: Clay Ogg, Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036-4604, USA, Phone: 202-772-3262, Email: [email protected] and [email protected]


231

EPA APPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Sara Ohrel1, Gregory Latta2, Bruce McCarl3, Brent Sohngen4 and Robert Beach 5

1Climate Economics Branch, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA 2Department of Forest Engineering, Resources, and Management, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA 3Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA 4Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA 5Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

EPA has a long history of utilizing economic models for estimating potential climate change policy impacts and related GHG mitigation outcomes. When evaluating potential impacts from climate or energy policies, EPA’s Climate Change Division (CCD) has employed the Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model - Greenhouse Gas Version (FASOM-GHG) and Global Timber Model (GTM) to simulate GHG, land use and market outcomes in the land use sector. These models work at different spatial scales, with FASOM-GHG having more detail at the US national and regional level and GTM with global detail on forestry. They both utilize an intertemporal optimization approach to welfare maximization allowing EPA to evaluate policies that other economic models or engineering approaches cannot to date. First, we present details on how these models interact within a suite of models utilized by CCD to evaluate climate policies. We focus briefly on previous cap and trade analyses and related results. We also will present new results from recent preliminary analyses. Finally we present forthcoming policy questions and related research and model development directions. Contact Information: Sara Ohrel, US EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (6207-J), Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202-343-9712, Email: [email protected]


232

GUIDEBOOK FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES: ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN NATURAL RESOURCE PLANNING, MANAGEMENT AND POLICY Lydia Olander1, Lynn Scarlett2 and Sally Collins3

1Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham NC, USA 2 Resources for the Future, Washington DC, USA 3 Rights Resources Initiative, Colorado, USA

In early May 2012, the National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP) and A Community on Ecosystem Services (ACES), with support and engagement from numerous federal agencies and other partners, hosted a forum for federal decision makers to discuss the use of ecosystem services accounting and valuation in natural resource management and planning. Participants from across a wide range of agencies shared experiences from their own efforts to consider ecosystem services and discussed ways to draw from these experiences to inform future resource management planning and decisions. The group agreed on the need for guidance to make ecosystem services approaches to planning and management more routine and tractable for resource managers. Another common theme was participants’ general desire to have more consistent and comparable frameworks and methods for applying ecosystem services approaches across agencies and activities. Building on this discussion, the NESP is working with its partners to develop a guidebook that will help federal agencies meet these goals. At the core of this work will be real examples from across the agencies, which will engage broad expertise and experience from agencies, the academic and research communities, and practitioners. We hope to link together and build on the work already underway within agencies. This is an opportunity to coordinate tools, frameworks, and terminology across these ongoing efforts. The guidebook needs to be relevant and viable across agencies and activities and should provide some consistency at national levels. However, different agency missions, natural resource management contexts, and legal authorities necessitate guidance that can be scaled to specific agency circumstances and regional and local applications. We also hope to work in parallel with a number of academics and regional ecosystem services leaders to test the development of a multi-criteria decision framework that can be used to account for ecosystem services outcomes, values and trade-offs of various management options. This framework would use nationally available metrics for consistency and would be scalable to local uses and needs. Ideally this work will lead to a flexible framework that will allow comparability and transparency for accounting and assessment of the ecosystem services outcomes of natural resource management and planning across agencies and activities. Contact Information: Lydia Olander, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, 2117 Campus Drive, Durham, NC, 27708, Phone: 919-613-8713, Email: [email protected]


233

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION IN SOUTH FLORIDA Kayla J. Ouellette1, John Capece2, Kamal Alsherif1 and Ed Hanlon3

1Department of Geography, Environment & Planning, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA 2 Intelligentsia International, Inc., LaBelle, FL, USA 3Soil & Water Science Department, University of Florida- IFAS, Southwest Florida Research & Education Center,

Immokalee, FL, USA

Agriculture is a vital part of the south Florida economy and it has much opportunity to provide ecosystem services. Ecosystem services through agricultural lands not only aids in the environmental restoration efforts of the region but, also diversifies farm incomes. Agricultural lands are being explored for increased water storage and delivery of other ecosystem services. Recent research is aimed at producing more flood-tolerant sugar cane varieties that can help meet the demand for increased water storage in agriculture. However, modifying traditional farming systems to achieve ecosystem services can have a negative impact on agricultural production and profitability when viewed in terms of traditional farming business models. This project will integrate optimization and ecosystem valuation techniques using General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) software to evaluate new farming systems proposals, including the use of sugarcane, biofuel feedstocks, and other crops to meet the dual challenges of environmental restoration and maintaining an economically productive agriculture in south Florida. The research proposed here aims to update and expand upon the methods used in 2001 by economist Marcel Aillery and others of USDA ARS in the following ways: (1) produce an ecosystem services valuation of water storage, soil subsidence, carbon output/sequestration and agricultural production, (2) apply new flood-tolerant sugarcane yield and current soil depth data to optimization models, (3) verify the land retirement predictions, (4) verify the subsidence/depth of water-table predictions of the models, (5) include a carbon component in the optimization models, (6) expand the geographic area of the analysis and (7) apply a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of data. By applying these new flood-tolerant sugarcane varieties to the analysis used by USDA, this research aims to show that more water-retention on croplands is an economically viable option within certain constraints. Expanding these optimization models to other ecosystem services (carbon emissions, etc.) can also demonstrate how new revenue models can be justified, benefitting both agricultural producers and natural resource management goals. Contact Information: Kayla J. Ouellette, Department of Geography, Environment & Planning, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Ave. NES 311 Tampa, FL, 33620 USA, Phone: 601-307-4252, Email: [email protected]


234

QUANTIFYING AND MANAGING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN URBAN LANDSCAPES Suzanne Ozment

People and Ecosystems Program, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA Even in densely populated and highly developed areas, nature provides a range of important benefits to people. Residential and commercial lawns, for example, provide ecosystem services such as stormwater infiltration, local climate control, and recreational opportunities. There is growing public and private sector interest in managing urban and suburban landscapes to achieve multiple environmental goals related to water, climate, habitat, and public health. Managing and investing in ecosystem services is a promising approach to meet these environmental goals, while also underpinning economic and societal well being. Despite the concept’s utility, quantifying and valuing ecosystem services is a challenge. The ecosystem service costs and benefits relevant to urban and suburban landscapes are largely unknown, and measuring these costs and benefits can be complex, variable, and time consuming. Therefore, it is difficult for decision makers to address the array of ecosystem service trade-offs inherent in landscape management. As a first step to surmounting this challenge, the World Resources Institute, John Deere, Syngenta, and Cardno ENTRIX have collaboratively developed a conceptual framework for quantifying and valuing ecosystem services in managed landscapes. Intended to support policy and business decision making, the framework helps to identify ecosystem services potentially affected by landscape management, and also provides guidance on how to quantify and value these ecosystem services. The framework is applicable across landscape types, but we have illustrated its application focusing on turfgrass landscapes (i.e., lawns, golf courses, sports fields). Turfgrass landscapes are a dominant land cover in populated and developed areas, and turfgrass management is a $40 billion national industry. This presentation will review the key ecosystem services related to turfgrass landscapes as identified by the framework, along with findings about these services’ public and private costs and benefits. The results of the test case indicate that turfgrass landscape managers could attain value from managing ecosystem services. Ecosystem stewardship in turgrass landscapes provides significant benefits to communities and helps achieve operational efficiency in landscape management. Contact Information: Suzanne Ozment, People and Ecosystems Program, World Resources Institute. 10 G Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202-729-7835, Email: [email protected]


235

VALUING U.S. WATER QUALITY AT REGIONAL AND NATIONAL SCALES Michael Papenfus

US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR, USA Assessing and monetizing the benefits of water quality at a regional and/or national scale is a challenging problem. One of the biggest problems is a lack of consistency in the monitoring and assessment methods used by states to assess water quality. Despite this inconsistency, most economic valuation studies examining water quality benefits at these coarser scales assume consistency in the statewide measures. In this research, we address this issue by matching economic benefits measures estimated in the valuation literature with water quality measures that are formulated from the national aquatic resource surveys (NARS) of lakes, streams, and rivers. The NARS surveys provide a set of scientifically valid assessments of water quality conditions that are measured using standardized and consistent methodologies across the U.S. This data provides an unbiased sample that can be used to assess water quality at a scale useful for regional water management decision making. To use NARS data for economic benefits assessment at a scale useful for regional water management decision making, the largest challenge is to associate the biophysical monitoring data collected in the NARS program to measures used in the economic valuation literature. Economists typically associate benefits with attainment of particular human uses and water quality criteria. In this paper, we report on plans and progress for using the National Lakes Assessment data from the NARS program to construct water quality measures that link biophysical measures of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds to the indicators of water quality used in the economic literature. With this bridge from physical to economic measures of water quality, it will be possible to construct improved regional and national assessments of water quality trends and economic value in the US. This problem of matching consistently measured ecosystem goods and services (such as water quality) with valid estimates of economic benefits is prevalent throughout the ecosystem services literature. Without further work to illustrate how to circumvent these mismatches, the promise of incorporating valid measures of nature's value into decision making will remain elusive. Contact Information: Michael Papenfus, Western Ecology Division, US EPA, 200 SW 35th, Corvallis, OR 97333 USA, Phone: 541-754-4703, Email: [email protected]


236

WORKING WOODLANDS – PROMOTING HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS Josh Parrish

Nature Conservancy, Harrisburg, PA, USA The majority of forest lands in the Eastern United States are owned by private landowers. Many of these owners play key roles in high conservation value landscapes because they border protected areas or they provide essential connectivity between high value forest areas. They are also highly threatened by sub-division and poor management practices. This gap will likely accelerate in the decades to come. Conservation options for forest owners have always faced several major constraints. The first is identification and establishing conservation partnerships that cumulatively add up to landscape-scale conservation. The second is the lack of incentives to encourage landowners to sustainably manage and protect their lands. A third constraint is the cost of developing and implementing conservation strategies on these lands. With a unique and powerful new program called Working Woodlands, the Nature Conservancy is helping forest owners manage their lands for ecological health, productivity and better economic return. Working Woodlands provides an innovative new way for landowners to gain access to markets that will help them sustain healthy, diverse, rich forests for the long term. Landowners who qualify for Working Woodlands sign on for working forest conservation easements. The Nature Conservancy is a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified Resource Manager, allowing the Conservancy to provide FSC certification for private landowners. The carbon sequestered as a result of improved forest management practices is marketed as offsets by Blue Source LLC, providing a additional revenue to the landowner. To date, the Conservancy has enrolled 22,000 acres into the program. The project represented the largest private conservation deal in Pennsylvania history. Working with Blue Source LLC, the Conservancy sold the first 4 years worth of Verified Carbon Standard, VCS, carbon credits to a Fortune 500 company with interests in the project area and beyond. The Conservancy continues to receive inquiries from interested landowners and currently has 25 projects in varying stages of development. Through June 2013, the Conservancy expects to close 3-4 additional projects. Going forward, the Conservancy expects to grow the Working Woodlands program inside and outside of Pennsylvania. This combination of forest easements, certification, and carbon monetization has broad appeal from many landowner market segments. Contact Information: Josh Parrish, Director of Land Conservation, Nature Conservancy, 2101 N. Front St, Bldg. 1, Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17110, Phone: 717-232-6001 ext. 110, Email: [email protected]


237

A PRIMER ON ADAPTATION: DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR AN ADAPTATION RESERVE PROGRAM Doug Parsons

Department Climate Change Response Program, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., USA The National Park Service is currently looking at developing processes for valuing park resources as part of their park planning process. The goal of this presentation is to provide background information on the issue of adaptation and to begin exploring opportunities for putting economic value on existing and future adaptation ecosystem functions. This is an emerging field and very little work has been done on even identifying adaptation in the context of ecosystem services. Significant work needs to be done to identify these functions and to begin developing baselines on how the public values these functions. With such potential impacts as rising temperatures, sea level rise, precipitation changes, among others, ecosystems will play a vital role to society trying to lessen these impacts. Developing funding mechanisms will provide land managers, private landowners and policy makers the tools necessary in targeting conservation as the climate shifts. Also, there is considerable confusion over the topics of climate change adaptation versus climate change mitigation. This presentation will clarify the differences over economic opportunities associated with carbon markets versus what we are proposing, valuing adaptation function. This presentation will cover the following topics: 1) background on the issue of adaptation; 2) briefly describe adaptation activities at the National Park Service; 3) discuss defining ecosystem service valuation for adaptation; 4) and propose several scenarios on how this process might work. Specifically, the presentation will discuss using NPS National Heritage Areas as a vehicle for engaging the public on this topic. The presentation will provide the background material for the following speakers as they share information on various tools and processes that will help with this valuation. By the end of the presentation, participants will be familiar with the concepts of adaptation and also potential opportunities associated with valuation of ecosystem services associated with adaptation. Contact Information: Doug Parsons, Climate Change Response Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA, Phone: 202-513-7165, Email: [email protected]


238

THE EFFECT OF HYDROLOGIC MANAGEMENT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN AN IMPOUNDED LAKE Derek M. Pelletier1, Marlene Meaders2 and Greg Reub3

1ENVIRON International Corporation, Portland, ME, USA 2ENVIRON International Corporation, Seattle, WA, USA 3ENVIRON International Corporation, Olympia, WA, USA

Lake Roosevelt is an 80,000 acre (124 square mile) impoundment of the Columbia River created by the Grand Coulee Dam in northeastern Washington State. Water levels within the reservoir are drawn down annually, primarily, to make room for increased flows that occur during snow-melt. The average annual drawdown is approximately 40 feet, but can be as much as 70 feet in some years. Such decreases in water level in the reservoir correspond to approximately 18,000 acres to 32,000 acres, respectively, of littoral habitat exposed for several months at a time each year. The prolonged periods of exposure prohibit the development of emergent and aquatic bed vegetation, and severely limit the stability and quality of benthic invertebrate and fisheries habitat within the reservoir. The purpose of this presentation is to summarize the best available science to provide a reliable estimate of the influence that water-level management in Lake Roosevelt has on ecosystem services provided by the reservoir. The impacts to those services provided by benthic invertebrate and fish communities are compared to potential impacts from metals in sediment associated with smelting and mining activities upstream. This presentation considers 1) the potential ecosystem service impacts related to reservoir drawdown compared to metals concentrations in sediments, 2) documented shifts in fish feeding ecology from benthic invertebrates to pelagic sources related to reservoir drawdown operations, and 3) critical data gaps in determining the relative effect of the multiple stressors on ecosystem services provided by the reservoir. In nearly all sites within Lake Roosevelt, the benthic invertebrate community is dominated by aquatic worms and midges – both species indicative of highly disturbed aquatic systems. In this case, the dominant species include fast colonizers, mobile organisms, and larvae that do not require a well-developed littoral habitat, and the patterns in benthic invertebrate species abundance and composition within the reservoir are consistent with the stress of the annual dewatering of the littoral zone. These impacts to the benthic community are also manifested in the fish community within Lake Roosevelt where there is evidence that fish have changed feeding behavior to rely on pelagic resources (e.g., zooplankton and fish in the water column) rather than benthic resources. This dietary switch, even for typically benthic species (e.g., sculpin, burbot), was observed by both carbon tracking and stomach content analysis. However, the extent to which these observations are directly related to the annual drawdown rather than metals concentrations in sediments is uncertain due to some critical data gaps. Some of the available data are more than 10 years old and robust data on the benthic invertebrate community along gradients of dewatering frequency and metals concentrations are not available. Although not conclusive, the available data suggest that the physical disturbance resulting from water-level management is a significant factor affecting the level of ecosystem services provided by Lake Roosevelt. Contact Information: Derek M. Pelletier, ENVIRON International Corporation, 136 Commercial Street, Suite 402, Portland, ME 04101, USA, Phone: 207-347-4413 (x226), Email: [email protected]


239

WHAT SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES OF COASTAL AND MARINE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ARE NEEDED FOR EFFECTIVE DECISION-MAKING? Linwood Pendleton, Yannick Beaudoin and Peter Edwards

Duke University, Durham, NC, USA The use of ecosystem valuation in coastal and marine management is moving forward rapidly at the U.S. Federal and international levels. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is in the midst of an agency-wide response to the specific recommendations of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology’s report on Sustaining Environmental Capital. This report has specific recommendations for how agencies should approach ecosystem service valuations and its application to decision-making, especially prioritizing investments in ecosystem services. On a broader scale, the United Nation’s Environment Program is moving ahead with a TEEB (the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) for the Ocean’s initiative that will provide guidance for how to capture and use socio-economic values for coastal and marine policy making, worldwide. In their paper, “Why Value the Oceans,” Beaudoin and Pendleton (2012) addressed many of the policymaking issues that would benefit from a better understanding of coastal and marine values. In this presentation, we will discuss the ways in which both NOAA and the TEEB for Oceans processes are identifying and prioritizing what socio-economic values to focus on. We will present the basic conceptual framework we used to determine what values are most important to coastal and marine decision-makers. We will also discuss on-going efforts to implement this framework in order o begin to quantify and incorporate these values directly in policy. Contact Information: Linwood Pendleton, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, Email: [email protected]


240

NUTRIENT TRADING MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE FOR REDUCING GULF HYPOXIA: RESULTS FROM A FEASIBILITY STUDY USING USDA CEAP DATA & MODELING Michelle R. Perez, Sara Walker and Cy Jones

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC Purpose - This presentation will share findings from a feasibility study which asked: “Is Interstate Nutrient Trading in the Mississippi River Basin an Economically and Environmentally Feasible Approach to Address Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico?” Scope - The study examined two wastewater treatment utilities in the upper Mississippi River Basin (MRB) as potential credit buyers and six eight-digit HUC watersheds in the lower MRB in Arkansas and Mississippi as credit sellers in a hypothetical trading market. Methods - The World Resources Institute, in collaboration with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); the engineering firm, Symbiont; and the water quality modeling firm, HydroQual, recently completed this feasibility study. The study’s water quality goal was set at the 2007 EPA Science Advisory Board recommendation of a 45% reduction in delivered nutrient loads to the Gulf. For the credit demand analysis, the team determined the total pounds of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) reductions needed to meet utility nutrient limits reflecting the project’s Gulf goal, the average cost per pound of N and P reduced, and the volume of potential credit demand. For the credit supply analysis, the team used the output data from the NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) farmer surveys and scientific models as well as two economic models (cost-minimization and profit-maximization). The team identified the most cost-effective conservation practice treatments to first achieve the 45% “trading eligibility standard” and then generate credits. For the water quality analysis, the team modeled the effect that (a) current local water quality conditions and policies and (b) potential future numeric nutrient criteria would have on nutrient trading for Gulf hypoxia reduction. Results - We found that by offering credit prices significantly below on-site upgrade costs, the project utilities would be able to satisfy all of their nitrogen credit needs and a portion of their phosphorus needs to meet potential future nutrient limits through trading with the project agricultural area. We also found that the volume of credit supply and cost depend on the: (a) trading eligibility standard, (b) additionality rule, and (c) credit prices available. Current local water quality conditions and policies in the utility watersheds do not constrain trading for Gulf goals but future in-stream nutrient criteria, might. Conclusions - Nutrient trading is an economically and environmentally feasible policy option for helping to achieve potential future nutrient pollution reduction goals in the Gulf of Mexico. Recommendations - We recommend that policy stakeholders in the Mississippi River Basin consider including nutrient trading in their strategies for reducing nutrient pollution to the Gulf of Mexico. Contact Information: Michelle Perez, World Resources Institute, 10 G Street NE, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202-729-7908, Email: [email protected]


241

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN NATIONAL FOREST PLANNING Spencer R. Phillips and Vera Smith

The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC, USA The USDA Forest Service has recently published a final rule (“NFMA Rule”) to govern planning for the stewardship and management of the 193 million acres in the U.S. National Forest System (NFS) (36 CFR Part 219). The purpose of these plans is “to maintain and restore NFS land and water ecosystems while providing for ecosystem services and multiple uses (Federal Register 77(68):21162).” Beyond directing that these plans provide for ecosystem services, however, the rule itself gives little guidance regarding how agency officials are to do so meet this goal. The treatment of ecosystem services in the rule, moreover, could induce confusion in that ecosystem services are described as something in addition to or along side of “multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish… (36 CFR §219.10).” Clearly these multiple uses are themselves ecosystem goods and services that may be, rather than add to or compete with, ecosystem services in general. To increase clarity in the planning for and delivery of ecosystem services from NFS lands, we provide a consistent ecosystem-service-based framework for assessing National Forest conditions and the impacts of various plan alternatives (developed as part of the planning process for each national forest) on the flow of ecosystem goods and services. We also present a means of translating between this framework and the more traditional and familiar “multiple use” framework that underpins past national forest management as well as portions of the new planning rule. In this way, the agency will be abe to employ the required “best available scientific information (Federal Register 77(68):21162)” related to ecosystem services while maintaining a familiar handle for managers charged with ensuring the provision of multiple uses. This framework is tested, prospectively for two National Forests selected as “early adopters” (test cases) for the new planning rule. Contact Information: Spencer Phillips, Ecology & Economics Research, The Wilderness Society, 1615 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA: Phone: 202-556-2921; Email: [email protected]


242

THE IMPORTANCE TO BUSINESS OF THE TRUE VALUE OF WATER -- THE WBCSD PROJECT Edwin Pinero1 and Jessica McGlyn2

1Veolia Water North America, Chicago, IL, USA 2World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Washington, DC, USA

Water is becoming a major global issue, not only for society in general, but for business as well. Specifically, increasing global demand, diminishing supplies, climate change extremes, potential conflicts, and more stringent government regulation will all increasingly threaten business continuity. A recent World Economic Forum survey indicates companies list water as one of the top five risks they are facing. Related to this, those responsible for managing water are increasingly considering both assessing its true value and charging the full cost for use. This too will have serious implications for business – both in terms of risks and opportunities; epsecially if businesses themselves do not also consider the value aspect. A key approach being globally advocated to improve water resource management is ‘water valuation’ coupled with charging the ‘full cost’ of using water through better pricing policies. With this comes changing government regulations that may enforce, or at least encourage, valuation of water. In addition, growing stakeholder and supply chain demands are likely to grow as perceptions evolve in relation to growing sustainability awareness. This movement towards better understanding and pricing the true value of water will have significant implications for all businesses. The WBCSD is interested in making the business case for companies to recognize the importance of the true value of water and to undertake water valuation studies that will help inform decision-making. In addition, WBCSD intends to provide case studies and guidance to assist companies in doing so. Veolia Water, a global water services provider and active member of the WBCSD Water Group effort on Corporate Ecosystem Valuation, provides an overview of the group's effort as well as describe one of the case studies. A very important element of this effort is building capacity in the business sector on how to value ecosytems services, specfically, water. The Business Ecosystems Training (BET) course is a freely-available capacity building program to increase the knowledge and understanding of the links between ecosystems and business. The objective of BET course is to equip companies with the skills they need to better manage their impacts and dependencies on ecosystems and the services that they provide. The program draws on the wealth of WBCSD materials, methodologies and tools that have been developed over the past 10 years. BET has been designed to get employees from different functions and business units thinking not only about ecosystems and the services they provide, but also how their organization can impact or depend on them. It is structured as four modules, which gradually go into more detail on the topic, depending on the needs of the learner. BET has been developed by the WBCSD in collaboration with KPMG and an advisory committee that brings together some of the world’s largest companies, NGOs, UN related organizations, and academic institutions. WBCSD provides addtional information on the training course. Contact Information: E. Pinero, Veolia Water North America, 200 East Randolph St, Suite 7900, Chicago, IL, USA, Phone: 312-552-2839, Email: [email protected]


243

FOREST CARBON AND NUTRIENT TRADING TRANSACTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES T. M. Potter

Streamline Consulting Group, Washington, DC, USA North America, particularly the USA, is poised to host the largest environmental market of its kind and credits produced could offer the highest return on investment in global alternative asset classes based on expected growth and demand for supply. That growth, however, is tethered by a variety of uncertainties including rapidly evolving state, regional, and federal policies, volatile financial markets, strict market oversight, and critical stakeholders and voices of environmental groups. Environmental markets cover a variety of new asset classes that include, but are not limited to, emissions trading, mitigation banking, nutrient trading, water trading, and endangered species banking. The purpose of this presentation is to review geographical distribution of an established and nascent eco-asset type in the United States and review a range of landmark transactions types (e.g. value and volume) and styles for established forest carbon markets and nascent nutrient trading programs. Streamline performs transaction surveys on premium transactions. “Premium” credits are those associated with Climate Action Reserve; Verified Carbon Standard; Climate, Conservation, and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA); Social Carbon, or state approved programs. Streamline assesses total credit issuance from projects registered through market intelligence gathered or questions asked by phone or email regarding price, demand, and supply of credits. The main conclusions from pricing surveys are: Most registered credits are sold through forward contracts via Payment on Delivery (POD) transaction types and registered credits sell at above market prices. In addition, lessons learned from voluntary forest carbon offset trading programs can be applied to nutrient trading strategies. Contact Information: T. M. Potter, Streamline Consulting Group, 1536 D Street SE, Washington, DC 20003, Phone: 203-500-555, Email: [email protected]


244

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & NEPA: USFS FAMILIARITY AND PERCEPTIONS Carrie Presnall1, 2, Laura López-Hoffman1,2 and Marc Miller3

1School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA 2Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA 3James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

The concept of ecosystem services – the benefits humans receive from functioning ecosystems - is touted as a tool for communicating to the public and decision makers about environmental trade-offs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has included the ecosystem services concept in guidance for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and suggests, but does not require, consideration of ecosystem services. More recently, the US Forest Service (FS) approved a new Planning Rule, which requires consideration of ecosystem services in Forest Plans and related NEPA documents. To assess the extent to which FS staff are currently familiar with and considering ecosystem services in NEPA, we sent an online survey to 1230 U.S. Forest Service staff - Interdisciplinary Team members and decision makers – who had worked on an environmental assessment (EA) or impact statement (EIS) completed during a two year period (1/1/10-12/31/11). Questions assessed familiarity with the ecosystem services concept, solicited opinions about its usefulness in NEPA, and what instructions or information FS staff refer to when completing NEPA documents. Results indicate a majority of participants think ecosystem services can be helpful in NEPA; a large number of respondents are unfamiliar with ecosystem services; and familiarity with EPA guidance documents was higher than expected, based on the assumption that internal direction is used predominantly. The most commonly perceived advantages of using ecosystem services in NEPA include a better-informed public and decision makers. The most commonly reported obstacles include, first, perceptions that ecosystem services are already considered in NEPA; and second, concerns about increased time to complete NEPA documents with limited funding and resources. This study highlights areas of support and challenges involved with incorporating the ecosystem services concept in the NEPA process. We recommend staff training, public outreach, and clarification of ecosystem service metrics, quantification, and valuation. Contact Information: Carrie Presnall, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, 325 Biological Sciences East, 1311 E 4th St, Tucson, AZ, USA, Phone: 520-626-9868, Fax: 520-626-3664, Email: [email protected]


245

MAKING SENSE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR DECISION MAKERS Susan Preston1, Terre Satterfield2, Kai M. Chan2, Ciarra Raudsepp-Hearne3, Michael Bordt4 and Franz Gatzweiler5

1Biodiversity Unit, Canada Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 3Nature Conservancy of Canada 4Environmental Accounts and Statistics, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Canada 5Centre for Development Research, University of Bonn, Germany

This paper updates on current efforts in Canada to develop and communicate a flexible approach to ecosystem services (ES) assessment that fully integrates ecological, economic and other social measures of ES significance using diverse metrics. The approach is being developed under the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Value of Nature to Canadians Study, through collaboration among government analysts, academics, and consultants. The product of this work will be a guidance document, or “toolkit” containing the specifics of this approach, and just as importantly, it will contain clear support for managers on how to understand and appropriately use diverse kinds of values information in decision-making. The subject of valuing in this approach will be the change in ecosystem services expected to result from a given management decision, for example in the contexts of land use, impact assessments, and protected area planning, among other application domains. We are also exploring the application of this approach to expanding the System of National Accounts beyond conventional natural resources stocks and flows. The work is motivated by the need to strengthen the role of interdisciplinarity – especially the use of non-monetary measures alongside monetary measures where each is most logically defensible. This is important both at the case-specific project level, and for linking to Systems of National Accounts. The work is further motivated by the urgent need to communicate in a practical manner accessible to non-experts who are increasingly tasked to produce ES assessments: 1. how to determine appropriate methods for analysis of ES values; 2. how to report results; 3. how to understand results; and finally, 4. how to appropriately use those results in decision-making. Contact Information: Susan Preston, Biodiversity Unit, Canada Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 351 St. Joseph Blvd., Gatineau, QC, K1A 0H3, Canada. Phone: 819-953-4531, Email: [email protected]


246

ACCESS TO CAPITAL AND USING LOCAL CAPACITIES AT SCALE David Primozich

The Freshwater Trust, Portland, OR, USA The Freshwater Trust’s success working with regulated entities and the public to secure permits for credit trading programs in the Pacific NW has depended on rigorous standards for quality and transparency and the abilty to secure the financial resources and local work force needed to develop compliance-grade offset credits. For restoration alternatives to work for compliance at scale, at least three things are needed 1) secure regulatory permitting 2) low risk credit purchasing, and 3) the ability to mobilize local implementation capacity.

• Secure Regulatory Permitting – Regulatory certainty increases with clear standards for quality. One-off transactions that involve activities and credit documentation methods that fall outside of well defined parameters are risky for regulators, regulated entities, and the public. Well defined quality standards make it possible for regulators to confidently issue permits and give the public assurances about what to expect.

• Low Risk Credit Purchasing – Projects that produce credits are often outside the core technical and resource capacity of utility managers. For credit trading programs to be a viable alternative to traditional technologies, managers need credible third parties who can take the financial and performance risk of generating credits. Managers need to be able to confidently purchase fully certified credits without the need to be engaged in every element of the credit production cycle.

• Mobilization of Local Capacity – Credit projects are distributed throughout watersheds. They typically involve many production and supply steps that must be managed. Systems that enable credit producers to use local restoration professionals and suppliers for each element of the supply chain and production cycle requires sophisticated management capacity.

Contact Information: David Primozich, Senior Ecosystem Services Director, The Freshwater Trust, 65 SW Yamhill St, Suite 200, Portland OR 97204 (USA), Phone: 503-434-8033, Email: [email protected]


247

SEA LEVEL RISE AND COASTAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND VALUES Laila A. Racevskis

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Global sea levels are rising, but the magnitude and future impacts of sea level rise remain uncertain. Florida is particularly vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise because of its extensive coastline and importance of coastal areas for human and ecological needs. The vulnerability of coastal estuaries and continuing commercial and residential development increase the urgency of creating incentives for the protection of coastal ecosystems. As we face increases in sea level and continued coastal development, improved information on stakeholder and public perceptions and awareness of these issues is needed as a key input to equip decision makers with information that can be used to create innovative, incentive-based conservation and restoration programs. The objectives of this work are: 1)To improve understanding of the current state of sea level rise policy and planning at the local level in Florida; 2) To develop incentive-based policy scenarios for mitigating the ecosystem effects of sea level rise; and 3) To assess the perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and values of Florida residents with respect to sea level rise and its potential effects on ecosystem services in four coastal regions: Apalachicola Bay (Franklin and Gulf counties), Pensacola Bay (Escambia and Santa Rosa counties), Charlotte Harbor (Charlotte and Lee counties), and the Treasure Coast region (Palm Beach and Martin counties). Objectives are achieved through focus groups, stakeholder surveys, and a mail survey of the general public. Three focus groups with general public and 27 stakeholder surveys were conducted to contribute to the design of the public survey. Some examples of question categories included in the public survey include: How You Use the Coast, Local Coastal Economy, Coastal Storm Impacts, Coastal Ecosystem Services, Sea Level Rise, Environmental Attitudes, Economic Trade-offs, and Demographic Information. The first survey was implemented in the Apalachicola Bay region to a random sample of 1,000 residents, and 120 usable surveys were returned, for a 12% response rate. Three thousand surveys are being administered by mail to a random sample of the population in the three remaining study regions. Analysis of survey results provides information on public awareness of sea level rise and associated coastal ecosystem services, as well as information on public acceptability of alternative sea level rise adaptation policy scenarios. Analysis allows statistical estimation of monetary and other trade-offs the public is willing to make in order to protect specific coastal ecosystem services. By collecting data from a representative sample of Florida residents in the study area, as well as information from key stakeholders, this study provides information on how the Florida public perceives the ecological, economic, and social effects of sea level rise as well as the trade-offs they are willing to make to protect coastal ecosystem services. Contact Information: Laila A. Racevskis, Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida, PO Box 110240, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA, Phone: 352.392.1826 ext.324, Fax: 352.392.3646, Email: [email protected]


248

INTEGRATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INTO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR DECISIONS Janet Ranganathan

World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA

Human well-being and nature are inextricably linked. Yet policies and practices related to human development and ecosystem protection are typically developed separately or even viewed as in opposition. As a result, human activities have driven widespread degradation of ecosystem services. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that two-thirds of the ecosystems services they assessed had been degraded globally. By considering nature in terms of ecosystem services, decision makers can see and value the environment as a series of assets or benefits that humans in fact depend upon. Such an approach, referred to as an ecosystem services approach, can be used by a variety of decision maker’s including a city mayor, a local planning commission member, an international development agency official, and a national minister of finance or agriculture, or a manager in a global company. Drawing on experience from the World Resources Institute and its partners mainstreaming ecosystem services in public and private sector decisions, this presentation will explore the following questions:

1. What are promising applications of using an ecosystem services approach in decision making?

2. What barriers exist to integrating ecosystem services in decisions?

3. What practical guidance exists to help decision makers apply an ecosystem services approach?

4. What opportunities exist to scale an ecosystem services approach? By offering decision makers the conceptual and practical guidance for choosing policies that better attend to ecosystem services, we hold the hope of helping to unite nature and human development and reverse ecosystem degradation. Instead of solely working to protect nature from development, we may also begin to invest in nature for development. Contact Information: Janet Ranganathan, Vice President, Science and Research, World Resources Institute, 10 G Street, NE, Washington DC 20002 USA, Phone: +1 202 729 7656, Email: [email protected]


249

APPLIED USE VALUE OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION FOR MANAGEMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Ronald P. Raunikar1, William M. Forney1, Richard L. Bernknopf2 and Shruti K. Mishra3

1Western Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, USA 2Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA 3Contractor, Western Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, USA

The U.S. Geological Survey has developed and applied methods for quantifying the value of scientific information (VOI) that are based on the applied use value of the information. In particular the applied use value of U.S. Geological Survey information often includes efficient management of ecosystem services. The economic nature of U.S. Geological Survey scientific information is largely equivalent to that of any information, but we focus application of our VOI quantification methods on the information products provided freely to the public by the U.S. Geological Survey. We describe VOI economics in general and illustrate by referring to previous studies that use the evolving applied use value methods, which includes examples of the siting of landfills in Louden County, the mineral exploration efficiencies of finer resolution geologic maps in Canada, and improved agricultural production and groundwater protection in Eastern Iowa possible with Landsat moderate resolution satellite imagery. Finally, we describe the adaptation of the applied use value method to the case of streamgage information used to improve the efficiency of water markets in New Mexico.

Contact Information: Ronald P. Raunikar, Western Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, MS-531, Menlo Park, CA 94025, Phone: 650-329-4261, Email: [email protected]


250

COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: THE ROLE OF INHERENTLY AGGREGATIVE LANDSCAPE SCALE INDICES Ronald P. Raunikar

Western Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, USA

One approach to the complete analysis of regional ecosystem services involves separating the ecosystem services into either market sector services or nonmarket sector services. The value of market ecosystem services can be observed in the prices they command as they are bought and sold. Nonmarket ecosystem services can be proxied by a measure of the ecological function of the region referred to as landscape level ecological integrity indices (LEII). The development of these LEII measures is the subject of ongoing research connecting biogeophysical environmental data to regional or landscape level ecological function through ecological production functions. I describe the state of this research and an example of an early generation LEII named the forest naturalness index that is calculated using the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) database of the USDA Forest Service. This naturalness index quantifies the closeness of a forested region to a reference “natural” state. This index was based on the diversity of native tree species and sizes for ecological subregions in a seral condition. The calculation procedure was applied to the 70 survey units of the southern U.S. for dates when survey data were available between 1961 and 2005. The index exhibited a significant trend increasing with time, per capita personal income and population; and was used to calculate the nonmarket amenity value of forested lands.

Contact Information: Ronald P. Raunikar, Western Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, MS-531, Menlo Park, CA 94025, Phone: 650-329-4261, Email: [email protected]


251

THE POLITICS OF CONSERVATION BANKING: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF CONSERVATION BANKING (OR NOT) IN CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND FLORIDA Christopher Rea

University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Since the mid-1990s ecological entrepreneurs and government regulators in California have busied themselves with dozens of conservation banking projects, fighting for the approval of their bank or the preservation of the habitat most important to their organizational goals. During this time little systematic effort has been dedicated to understanding the social and political construction of conservation banking as an industry and as a new method for environmental governance. Statistical models, historical data, and 40-plus in-depth interviews with principle and founding bankers, regulators, and landowners reveal that developmental pressures, species concentrations, and pre-existing legal frameworks only partially explain the development and concentration of conservation banks in California. Rather, politics of contention and conflict between interested parties seem to drive market development, commodity formation, and institutional stabilization, mediated but not determined by ecology and economic development. Important considerations, cautions, and opportunities for bankers and regulators in other states and in California are discussed. Please note that this presentation abstract has also been submitted as part of a graduate student fellowship application for the ACES conference. Contact Information: Christopher Rea, UCLA, 264 Haines Hall, 375 Portola Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095, Phone: 508-320-7618, Email: [email protected]


252

USING INFORMATION ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN CORPS PLANNING: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Denise J. Reed1 and Lynn A. Martin2

1Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA 2Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA, USA

A review of existing authorities, policy and guidance that can influence use of ecosystem good and services information in Corps planning found that an ecosystem services approach may provide value-added to the Corps by fostering collaboration in pursuing integrated water resources management and problem solving. This is achieved by taking a multi-faceted view of the benefits and clarifying how the Corps mission intersects with those of other agencies. One of the issues that frequently arises in discussion of ecosystem services in the context of Corps project planning is whether ecosystem services requires the monetization of outputs. Corps guidance already provides for planning in circumstances when some projects include both monetized and non-monetized outputs. In planning a Corps project existing policy and guidance allows use of a range of information about project effects in plan formulation, i.e., those outcomes which are essential to the success of the project, and other in accounting for the broader effects of the project. Taking an ecosystem goods and services approach allows for identification of potential ecosystem services problems and effects that are within the purview of other agencies. Consideration of more than one ecosystem services can lead to the challenge of combining potentially incommensurate output metrics, a problem which monetization might address, but this challenge often exists already within Corps project planning process if the full effects of the project are considered. The potential advantages of an ecosystem services approach, e.g., providing a broader, more accurate view of project benefits, more directly illustrating the societal value of ecosystem restoration actions, and ensuring consideration of a wide array of project benefits and dis-benefits in ecosystem restoration and management, have been recognized by a wide array of other federal and state agencies, and by governments outside the US. In general, federal ecosystem policies and guidance developed within the last few years acknowledge ecosystem services explicitly; however, experience with implementation is limited except that progress is being made in the development of “markets”. In contrast, at the local level there are a growing number of examples of “payment for ecosystem or watershed services”. Many agencies are interested in using ecosystem services as a more central component of decision-making on ecosystem restoration and stewardship, but few comparative studies or assessments of the value-added provided are yet available. Contact Information: Denise J. Reed, The Water Institute of the Gulf, 301 N. Main St., Ste. 2000, Baton Rouge LA 70825, USA, Phone: 225-448-2813, Email: [email protected]


253

DELIVERING THE PRODUCT: PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CONSERVATION INVESTMENT NOTE PROGRAM Chris Larson1, Patrick Coady2, James R. Remuzzi3 and Logan Yonavjak4

1New Island Capital Management, San Francisco, CA, USA 2Coady Diemar Partners, Washington, DC, USA 3Sustainable Solutions, LLC; Nature Returns, L3C, Shepherdstown, WV, USA 4Conservation Private Capital Group, Washington, DC, USA

Purpose: In recent decades, land conservation is increasingly being recognized not only for wilderness and wildlife habitat, but for its essential value to community economic resilience and health, particularly in rural communities. Recognizing this, members of the Conservation Private Capital Group (CPCG) were inspired by the Calvert Foundation’s successful Community Investment Note program and set out to develop a similar concept to attract conservation investment to capitalize land conservation. Recognizing the mutual objectives of land conservation and community development particularly in rural America, in May 2012, as a result of ongoing discussions and a comprehensive feasibility analysis, the CPCG reached an agreement with the Calvert Foundation in principle to sponsor a 2-3 year pilot CIN program if seed funding could be raised. Thus, CPCG is in the process of developing an implementation plan and a pipeline of transactions with recognizable conservation and rural economic development value. This presentation will provide an overview of how this new investment vehicle can catalyze a greater number of on the ground conservation and restoration projects and provide lessons learned from several initial CIN pipeline deals. Scope: The CIN is uniquely designed with conservation borrowers in mind. Given TCF’s current capital model, and based on the 2010 feasibility study (which demonstrated that borrowers are looking for longer maturity loans (at least 3-5 years) and customized, flexible loan packages than are currently available), the initial focus was on finding organizations seeking loans that were longer maturity, willing to tolerate a 3.5% interest rate, and willing to be first in a program like this. The loan size was initially no greater than $1M. The program will aim to diversify its borrowers by number, type, and geography over time. Challenges: To test the model, the CPCG is focused on securitizing initial conservation projects that can show successful repayment track records and successfully execute a natural resource development project that can deliver economic, ecologic, and social returns. Results: Drawing from experiences from Nature Returns, L3C, a natural resource development company, the presentation will provide an overview of how to deliver credible, high quality investment products. The presentation will draw global supply chain analogies to illustrate the steps needed to locate, evaluate, purchase, deliver, monitor, and maintain a conservation product from the cradle to grave. The presentation will also highlight several projects that Nature Returns is developing for the CIN. Conclusions/recommendations: The speaker will provide an overview of lessons learned in developing several initial deals for the CIN program. These lessons will help inform the next steps of the pilot program. Initially, the Calvert Foundation is slated to market the CIN program to its existing investors and work with the CPCG to market loans to conservation borrowers. Loan underwriting will follow the CF’s existing model, with support from the CPCG and and likely an advisory/credit committee to oversee the incorporation of land conservation and land conservation-based rural economic development into the CF’s existing community development framework. If the pilot is successful, CINs will be integrated into the Calvert Foundation’s investment platform. Contact Information: James Remuzzi, President & Founder, Sustainable Solutions, LLC, 385 Edgewood School Road, Shepherdstown, WV 25443. Phone: 202-746-1649, [email protected]


254

NUTRIENT MARKETS RELATED TO AGRICULTURE AND WATER POLICY Marc O. Ribaudo

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA Nitrogen is a critically important nutrient for food production, and the health of the world’s population. Farmers worldwide rely on synthetic fertilizers and animal manures to boost yields. However, even well-managed agricultural lands lose a substantial portion of their nitrogen inputs to the environment. Human-induced increases in reactive nitrogen contribute to a wide variety of harmful changes to ecosystems, including: acidification effects on forests, soils, and freshwater aquatic ecosystems; eutrophication and hypoxia in coastal ecosystems; biodiversity losses in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; regional haze; global climate change. Agriculture uses more Nr and accounts for more Nr losses to the environmental than any other economic sector. Ecosystem services are often valued by society, but because they are public goods producers may not benefit from voluntarily providing them. A variety of policy instruments are available for addressing nitrogen problems from agriculture, including education, financial assistance, compliance, regulation, and markets. Emission trading is a market-based alternative to command and control policies for meeting water quality goals. A trading program creates a market for pollution discharge reductions for the purpose of achieving an environmental goal at a lower cost than traditional command-and-control policies. Point/nonpoint trading and greenhouse gas cap-and-trade are policies that have been or could be used to improve nutrient management in agriculture. However, existing programs have resulted in very few trades between agriculture and regulated sources. Supply side and demand side impediments seem to be preventing trades from occurring in most trading programs. These include uncertainty over the number of discharge allowances different management practices can produce, high transactions costs of identifying trading partners, baseline requirements that eliminate low-cost credits, the reluctance of point sources to trade with unfamiliar agents, and the perception of some farmers that entering contracts with regulated point sources leads to greater scrutiny and potential future regulation. Many of these problems can be addressed through research and program design. Contact Information: Marc O. Ribaudo, Economic Research Service-USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Mailstop 1800, Washington, DC 20520-1800, Phone: 202-694-5488, Email: [email protected]


255

ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES VALUES FOR THE CENTRAL EVERGLADES Leslie Richardson1, Kelly Keefe2, Laila Racevskis3 and Kevin Wittmann2

1Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO, USA 2Central Everglades Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, USA 3Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Southern Florida’s Everglades represent a unique and complex system of interdependent ecosystems, a region of subtropical wetlands that have been significantly altered from their natural state over the course of more than a century. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan of 2000 provides a framework to restore, protect and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida. However, most efforts under this plan have occurred outside of the central Everglades. As a result, the Central Everglades Planning Project, initiated in 2011 and led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will utilize updated science and technical information to identify a Tentatively Selected Plan for restoration in the Everglades specifically. Efforts will focus on restoration of more natural flows of water into and through the central and southern Everglades, which will impact a variety of ecosystem services provided by this unique ecosystem. These services, integral to human well-being, have not historically been explicitly accounted for in decision-making and have therefore frequently been subjected to degradation. Calculating the monetary value of ecosystem services is a means of expressing the value of a natural or restored ecosystem. These values play a critical role in decision-making processes that affect ecosystem service quality and quantity, and can be incorporated into both public and private decision-making to better inform management of natural capital and ecosystems.

The Central Everglades Planning Project team has partnered with the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Florida to conduct an assessment of the economic value of ecosystem services associated with various restoration scenarios in the central Everglades. Comprised of an interdisciplinary team of biologists and economists, this assessment quantifies and compares the economic value of ecosystem services associated with three central Everglades conditions: existing conditions; the future without the restoration project conditions; and the conditions associated with the Tentatively Selected Plan for restoration. Both RSM Basins and RSM Glades-LECSA models are used to project future ecosystem conditions in areas of restoration. The output from these models determines the ecosystem services that can be valued monetarily and described with existing data sources. The economic value of many of the ecological endpoints that result from these models are quantified using the benefit transfer method, and specifically, a web-based Toolkit developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, Defenders of Wildlife, and Colorado State University (see http://dare.colostate.edu/tools/benefittransfer.aspx for a description of the Tookit). In addition, primary survey data collected by the University of Florida facilitates economic valuation of ecosystem services associated with climate change as they relate to the central Everglades.

This ecosystem services assessment of Everglades restoration is unique in that it results in an estimate of the future value of a restored ecosystem, with model output providing the basis for estimating the value of changes in ecosystem services. It is anticipated that the results of this interdisciplinary assessment will be used to help justify the restoration project to Congress and a complex array of sophisticated stakeholders. The results will be extremely relevant to others who may want to use ecosystem services as a means of choosing among restoration options.

Contact Information: Leslie Richardson, Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 2150 Centre Ave. Building C, Fort Collins, CO, 80526 USA, Phone: 970-226-9181, E-mail: [email protected]

http://dare.colostate.edu/tools/benefittransfer.aspx


256

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE CREDIT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT FROM THE GROUND UP: HOW DO YOU BUILD IT? Katie Riley1, Jeremy Sokulsky1, Bobby Cochran2 and Carrie Sanneman2

1Environmental Incentives, South Lake Tahoe, CA, USA 2Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, USA

There is growing interest and recognition that market-based approaches are attractive solutions to many environmental programs, both in terms of regulation and the investment of public and private funds. However, many program developers get stuck trying to answer the question “How do we do this?” This workshop will explore how people, policies, and the environment intersect in program development and the design of an ecosystem service accounting system. The workshop will introduce a four stage process for efficiently developing a market-based program for any geographic region or specific environmental issue:

1) Exploration & Situation Analysis – If you build it, will they come? Analyzing feasibility is the first step in catalyzing investment in ecosystems through effective market-based programs. This stage identifies the ecosystem services linked to human needs, type of credits, demand for credits, necessary tools, related policies and programs, and the primary participants needed to successfully implement a program to achieve goals.

2) Convening & Program Design – Who should be there and how do we efficiently build the products to support an ongoing program? Bringing the right people together to answer the right questions sets a clear path for program development. This stage develops specific tools and protocols that will be used to 1) estimate environmental improvement from projects and relate the results across broad geographies, 2) verify, track and report results from implemented projects, and 3) support multi-entity collaboration on projects to fulfill multiple regulatory and restoration program needs.

3) Pilot Test & Program Build Out –Pilot testing is where the rubber meets the road. Putting a program on the ground gives developers a chance to test assumptions, build out needed tools and procedures to increase ease of use, conduct outreach to potential buyers, sellers, and other market participants, and streamline program administration to minimize ongoing administrative costs.

4) Ongoing Operations – Once the value of the program is demonstrated, stakeholders and policy makers efficiently implement the program, minimizing ongoing operational costs by utilizing a combination of regional and local service providers. Ongoing roles are filled by stable institutions and the program operates to drive accountability and achieve stated goals over time.

Workshop presenters will bring hands-on experience from developing over a dozen market-based ecosystem service programs that work in both regulated and non-regulated context. Participants will be engaged in activities to identify how they can move through the necessary steps to develop a program, using interactive templates and worksheets to demonstrate the essential components of developing a program. Contact Information: Katie Riley, Environmental Incentives, South Lake Tahoe, CA, 96150, Phone: 503-541-2980, Email: [email protected]


257

GAPS BETWEEN WHAT WE MEASURE AND WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW TO VALUE STREAMS Paul Ringold1, Matt Weber1, Jim Boyd2, Dixon Landers1 and Amanda Nahlik1

1US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR, USA

2Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA We have found the concept “Final Ecosystem Goods and Services” (FEGS) useful in linking ecosystems and human well-being. We define FEGS as ecological features people perceive to be directly relevant to their welfare, as opposed to the larger set of essential intermediate ecological processes and features on which the FEGS depend. This conceptual construct presents ecosystems as systems of production. A “production function” then links changes in stressors to changes in FEGS. As the first step in our examination of FEGS, we identified metrics of FEGS for streams, wetlands and estuaries in two interdisciplinary workshops (www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/streameco/index.html). Reports from these workshops not only identify sets of metrics, and transferable principles useful for identifying metrics of FEGS more generally. As a second step in our evaluation, we consider the gaps between required FEGS information and the capacity to provide this information at national and regional scales. Here we focus on national stream monitoring. We compare the workshop listing of FEGS to the available stream metrics at a national scale. Our gap analysis first specifies uses of FEGS information. We identify four general uses – 1) general communication, 2) reporting of status and trends, 3) providing information for analyses of human well being and 4) providing the biophysical information that might be included in a Green GDP. Each of these uses has requirements not only with regard to the biophysical measurement, but also with regard to its temporal and spatial attributes. In addition, some uses depend upon the capacity to predict changes in FEGS with changes in stressors. We present a specific example of our gap analysis for recreational anglers, and provide general conclusions examining other beneficiaries. Contact Information: Paul L. Ringold, Western Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA, Phone 541-754-4565, Email: [email protected]

http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/streameco/index.html


258

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ADVOCACY: GETTING OUT OF THE BUBBLE Morgan Robertson

Department of Geography, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA In the last two years, the ‘ecosystem services’ world has seen two analyses conducted by the marketing and media world that tell us we’re doing it wrong: messages relating to ‘ecosystem services’ are not reasonating. The first analysis was a 2010 national opinion poll commissioned by the Nature Conservancy. The second analysis was conducted by Resource Media and will be discussed in detail in the second session. The purpose of this presentation is to draw lessons for advocacy by paying attention to the wide variety of contexts in which the term “ecosystem services” has to work. Regulators and policy-makers need the term to assist in acheiving the statutory goals of state and federal laws. Scientists use it assuming that it bears some meaningful relation to ecosystem processes. Economists of certain persuasions deny that it can bear such a relation, while other economists insist that it must. In the end, the use of the term must be sensitive to the fact that it will always mean different things to different stakeholders, and so the strategy of insisting that in constitutes a coherent paradigm shift that all must follow is unlikely to succeed as a rhetorical strategy. Contact Information: Morgan Robertson, Department of Geography, University of Kentucky, 849 Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY 40506, USA, Phone: 859-257-0591, Email: [email protected]


259

BUILDING EFFECTIVE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS FOR TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS Nicole Robinson-Maness

Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, USA With the emergence of ecosystem service markets and an increasing focus on the outcomes of conservation incentive programs, measurement of the benefits produced by conservation activity is fundamental. Much work has been done throughout the U.S. on developing and applying aquatic and terrestrial habitat and biodiversity metrics. Lessons from that work have been harnessed to create frameworks for building metrics that are useful at the site scale within the context of regulatory programs or outcome-based payments for ecosystem services. As part of their mandate to encourage landowner participation in markets, the USDA’s Office of Environmental Markets have supported the development of principles for designing more effective measurement systems for both terrestrial and aquatic environments as well as a standard process for building high quality measurement systems to operationalize those principles. The Willamette Partnership’s Counting on the Environment program is an example of implementing these frameworks at a regional scale. Measurement systems have been built for both terrestrial and aquatic habitat types and are applied within a program that promotes a consistent, transparent and science-based approach to measurement of for quantifying and verifying ecosystem credits from project impacts and improvements. Anticipated benefits of standardized approaches to conservation measurement include more rapid development and uptake of measurement tools and potentially compatible datasets across regions and the country that lend to thinking about multiple species and landscape-scale conservation. Contact Information: Nicole Robinson-Maness, Willamette Partnership, 2550 SW Hillsboro Hgwy, Hillsboro, OR 97123, Phone: 541-681-5112, Email: [email protected]


260

LANDOWNER PREFERENCES FOR PARTICIPATING IN CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IN NORTH CAROLINA Shari Rodriguez1, Nils Peterson and Chester Lowder2

1Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA 2North Carolina Farm Bureau, Raleigh, NC, USA

Global privatization and land tenure trends are making private lands more critical for conservation. For instance, over 90% of ES in the U.S. rely on private lands for habitat, yet tools available for conservation on private lands remain limited. Short-term conservation contract programs are being applied in the U.S., but little is known about landowner interest in such contracts or how landowner interest varies between contracts and easements of set lengths. We addressed this need with a survey of North Carolina Farm Bureau members (n = 735). Approximately half of respondents were interested in contracts to restrict development, develop endangered species habitat, grow energy crops and grow trees for carbon credits. Only 34% were interests in an easement that restricted development and 18% were interested in contracts to allow military training on their property. We compared competing models for predicting landowner interest in conservation contracts, and found a 6 variable model including social responsibility orientation (SRO), acres owned and past enrollment in conservation programs best (wi = 0.66). Analysis of β coefficients suggested landowners with stronger SRO were less interested in contracts, while those with past enrollment in a conservation program were more interested. Landowners ranked endangered species conservation significantly lower in importance than other conservation activities. Contracts were preferred over easements for short durations (<20 years), while easements were preferred for longer durations (≥20 years). These results suggest conservation contracts hold promise in contexts requiring short term solutions, but that more traditional easements are equally acceptable or even preferable for time scales >20 years. Contact Information: Nils Peterson, Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA , Phone: 919-515-7588, Email: [email protected]


261

EVALUATING WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE Shannon H. Rogers1, Joseph N. Boyer1, Richard B. Howarth2 and Kevin H. Gardner3

1Center for the Environment, Plymouth State University, Plymouth, NH, USA 2 Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA 3Environmental Research Group, University of New Hampshire, NH, USA

The state of New Hampshire is well known for its high quality of life. The services provided by our natural resources make a large contribution to the wellbeing of the state’s economy and society. However, NH is facing a growing population that has doubled from 1950 and is expected to triple by 2020. Land use changes associated with population growth are already affecting ecosystem services, including water supply and water quality. Watershed Ecosystem Services in New Hampshire are one of the main foci of a new state wide collaborative research and educational endeavor: the National Science Foundation (NSF) supported New Hampshire Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (NH EPSCoR) project “Interactions Among Climate, Land Use, Ecosystem Services and Society.” We will describe research efforts to evaluate aquatic ecosystem services at the watershed scale and to characterize tradeoffs that often exist among terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem services. Our scope is the State of New Hampshire and adjacent locations that interact with NH watersheds. However, we are beginning with several smaller river pilot studies and will then scale up. To understand the value of ecosystem services (both for market and non-market goods), researchers and citizens across the state are collaborating in a participatory and community based research approach that combines social science tools (such as interviews, focus groups, surveys) with natural science data collected from a large network of aquatic sensors and newly collected and refined geospatial land cover data. We are utilizing the framework of multicritierai decision analysis to explore the coupling between forest management practices and their downstream impacts on aquatic ecosystem services as well as the various tradeoffs that exist among competing demands for different types of ecosystem services. Our work is in the preliminary planning stages and we look forward to a lively discussion around some of the existing and developing best practices for measuring and characterizing watershed ecosystem services and the tradeoffs inherent in the interactions among ecosystems and society. Contact Information: Shannon H. Rogers Center for the Environment, Plymouth State University, Russell House, MSC #63, 17 High Street, Plymouth, NH 03264, Phone: 603-817-4847, Email: [email protected]


262

U.S. EPA: RESOURCES AND TOOLS TO INCREASE COLLABORATION Robert J. Rose

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC, USA U.S. EPA is working towards a proposed methodology for defining and classifying ecosystem services. Such a classification system could standardize how we categorize ecosystem services, as doing so harmonizes research, program and market development, and methodologies to measurement, report and verify (MRV) ecosystem services from "input" to "output." EPA is also working towards educational products for policy makers, expressing the interaction between MRV and policy choices, geared towards more "output" based policies that adopt market approaches. Contact Information: Robert J. Rose, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mail Code 4101M Washington, DC, 20460 USA, Phone: 202-564-0322, Email: [email protected]


263

OPERATIONALISING THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICE CONCEPT Mark D. A. Rounsevell1, Marc J. Metzger1, Paula A. Harrison2 and the OPERAs partners2

1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh, UK 2Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Human use and exploitation of the biosphere is increasing at such a pace and scale that the sustainability of major ecosystems is threatened, and may not be able to continue to function in ways that are vital to the existence of humanity. Re-framing environmental resource use has led to the emergence of the concept of ecosystem services (ES). This discourse indicates not only a change in our understanding of planetary functions at the ecosystem scale, but also a fundamental shift in how we perceive the relationship between people and the ecosystems on which they depend. Although the ES and NC concepts have been adopted in high-level policy frameworks, e.g. the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the European Union biodiversity strategy, a mismatch still exists between the wealth of conceptual understanding in science, the diversity of different academic approaches, and the practical application of this knowledge in policy and decision-making practice. New research is required to explore whether, how and under what conditions these concepts and currently disparate lines of research can move beyond the academic domain towards practical implementation in support of sustainable ecosystem management. OPERAs (Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications) is a project newly funded by the European Commission that aims to improve understanding of how ES contribute to human well-being in different social-ecological systems in inland and coastal zones, in rural and urban areas, related to different ecosystems including forests and fresh water resources. OPERAs will advance understanding of ecosystem functioning and its relationship with ES provision, by testing and further developing methods that assign values to the flow of ES from the stock of natural capital, and by establishing what constitutes good ES governance and associated ecosystem management. Our analyses, including a meta-analysis (systematic review) of existing ES practice, are leading to the development of new instruments to operationalise the ES/NC concepts, which are being constructed in direct partnership with relevant policymakers and stakeholders and tested in exemplar case studies. The exemplars cover a range of socio-ecological systems across locales, sectors, scales and time. The project communicates to ecosystem practitioners through a web-based Resource Hub (RH) and an associated Community of Excellence (CoE) that will ensure the perennity of the project outcomes. The RH provides the main interface between the 27 OPERAs project partners and the CoE for continued practice that will benefit from the OPERAs research outcomes. Through ground-breaking science, a systematic approach to stakeholder and user engagement and the development of new policy relevant tools and instruments, OPERAS seeks to contribute to the effective and efficient management of ES and the underlying stock of natural capital while preserving their ecological value and biological diversity. This paper will present the main principles of the OPERAs research and the approach to the operationalisation of the ES concept in the development of novel implementation tools including policy instruments. It will also outline links to another EU research project known as OPENNESS (see Harrison et al, abstract submitted to this conference) that is exploring tailored solutions that integrate ecosystem services into land, water and urban management and decision-making in case studies. Contact Information: Mark D.A. Rounsevell, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh, UK, Phone: 0044-131 6514468, Email: [email protected]


264

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF A COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY VISUALIZATION TOOL Marc J. Russell, Lisa M. Smith and Richard Fulford

US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL, USA Maintaining a harmonious balance between economic, social, and environmental well-being is paramount to community sustainability. Communities need a practical/usable suite of measures to assess their current position on a "surface" of sustainability created from the interaction of these three pillars of human well-being. By developing “practical measures” of the relative levels of each of these three pillars we will enable communities at national, regional, state, and possibly neighborhood scales to assess their current location on this sustainability triumvirate, where their community has been in the past, and estimate future directions either towards a more or less sustainable state given upcoming decisions. Thus, "practical measures” of community sustainability are those that are easily interpreted and readily available to any community, and can be integrated into a three-domain system for assessing communities past, present, and future sustainability. We combined multiple components of an ongoing integrative research program in USEPA’s Office of Research and Development into a functional community sustainability visualization and assessment tool. Components included a US Human Wellbeing Index, a National Ecosystem Services Classification System, final ecosystem goods and services, an ecosystem services production function library, example modeling efforts linking management alternatives to ecological production functions, geospatial datasets from national atlas and community-scale mapping, and a national community typology. These components were integrated to develop a surface of community sustainability, based on the Economic, Social, and Environmental pillars. This will enable any community to place themselves on a “surface” of sustainability in a simplified, visual manner. A community’s current state of well-being quantified by an eight domain scoring system and combined into a US index, can be compared to predicted future scores from modeling well-being trajectories based on alternative management scenarios and their consequences for the sustained production of ecosystem goods and services. Value hierarchies are adjustable to refine score weighting for different community types identified in our typology. Visualization includes a “surface” of sustainability zones derived from potential combinations of economic, social, and environmental elements. Each community’s current well-being index score will be represented by a symbol superimposed over this surface. The comparison between a community’s current score and its location over a zone represents how resilient or vulnerable that community is to changes in their well-being state. We present examples from Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean coastal communities. Contact Information: Marc J. Russell, USEPA, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561, USA, Phone: 850-934-9344, Email: [email protected]


265

NUTRIENT TRACKING TOOL* – A USER-FRIENDLY TOOL FOR CALCULATING NUTRIENT LOSSES UNDER VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Ali Saleh, Edward Osei and Oscar Gallego

Texas Intitute for Applied Environmental Research, Tarleton State University The Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT) is an enhanced version of Nitrogen Trading Tool, a user-friendly web-based computer program originally developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). NTT estimates nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediment losses from fields managed under a variety of cropping patterns and management practices through its user-friendly web-based linkage to the Agricultural Policy Environmental eXtender (APEX). It also accesses USDA-NRCS’s Web Soil Survey to utilize their GIS interface for field, weather, and soi information. NTT provides producers, government officials, and other users with a fast and efficient method of estimating the nitrogen and phosphorus credits generated from implemented conservation practices at the farm-level for water quality trading, as well as other water quality and quantity programs. Recently, NTT has been modified to evaluate the effects of forestry, as compared to other landuse including fallow and agricultural lands, on water quantity and quality. The information obtained from the tool can help producers to determine the most cost-effective conservation practice alternatives for their individual operations and provide them with more advantageous options in a water quality credit trading and similar programs. During this presentation NTT will be described and demonstrated. *Previously known as Nutrient Trading Tool. Key Words: Nutrient Tracking Tool, nitrogen, phosphorus, credits, forestry, farm, NTT, water quality trading, nutrient management, conservation practices Contact Information: Ali Saleh, TIAER, Tarleton State Universitysis, PO Box T410, Stephenville, Texas 76402, USA, Phone: 254-968-9799, Email: [email protected]


266

CARBON MARKETS & THE RESTORATION OF OVERHARVESTED FORESTLANDS IN THE NORTHEAST: A CASE STUDY FROM VERMONT Laury E. Saligman1, Emily Russell-Roy2, William S. Keeton2, Cecilia M. Danks2, John S. Gunn3 and Ben Machin4

1Conservation Collaboratives, Montpelier, VT, USA 2Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA 3Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Brunswick, ME, USA 4Redstart Forestry, Corinth, VT, USA

Forests provide an array of benefits including air and water purification, nutrient cycling, soil conservation, and wildlife habitat. However, many former industrial timberlands in northern New England experienced decades of heavy cutting as well as the non-scientific removal of only the most valuable trees with little thought given to regeneration (termed “high-grading”). Heavily logged and high-graded lands are also at risk from fragmentation and conversion because they provide limited opportunities for income generation as working forests. Finding economically viable methods of restoring these forestlands is critical to help reverse the cycle of forestland degradation and conversion. Our study examined 1,073 acres of overharvested, privately owned forest in Vermont to determine optimal combinations of rehabilitative silvicultural prescriptions and carbon market participation. We modeled and compared 13 different management prescriptions designed to increase carbon storage and improve forest productivity. We analyzed results in accordance with the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) and American Carbon Registry (ACR) protocols. Similarly, we assessed market interest for locally-generated forest based carbon offset programs through one-on-one interviews with potential offset purchasers. Finally, we investigated the compatibility of carbon market participation with existing government policies and landowner incentive programs. We found several silvicultural options that would increase carbon storage and create revenue for landowners through timber management and carbon offset sales. In some cases these involved dramatic manipulation of poorly stocked stands in order to restore species composition and long-term development potential. We also noted that the local benefits from forest restoration and conservation appear to be more enticing to voluntary offset purchasers than the climate benefits. By addressing the scientific, market, and policy issues involved with forest restoration in the Northeastern United States, our results have immediate application to hundreds of thousands of acres of overharvested and high-graded timberlands, and can inform the development of voluntary carbon markets and help ensure the success of forest ecosystem restoration more broadly. Contact Information: Laury E. Saligman, Conservation Collaboratives, 3 Dunpatrick Circle, Montpelier, VT 05602, USA, Phone: 802-505-0582, Email: [email protected]


267

ECOSYSTEM CREDITING PLATFORM: AUTOMATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICE MARKET OPERATIONS Carrie Sanneman

Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, USA The Ecosystem Crediting Platform (ECP) is online software that helps market and payment for ecosystem service programs streamline and automate the workflow of program operations. The ECP is designed to steer project developers through the process of translating restoration and conservation actions into ecosystem service credits using Willamette Partnership’s Ecosystem Credit Accounting System. Project developers use the ECP to determine eligibility, quantify ecosystem services, submit necessary forms and documents, and initiate verification. For program managers, it provides an interface for project specific communications, eases document management, and organizes program activity. Features include:

• Intuitive design and instructions to guide new users

• Electronic forms to reduce paperwork and autofill for convenience

• Mapping interface to define project boundaries and accounting areas

• Downloads of necessary user guidance and forms

• Uploads for user submissions

• Notifications to the Administrator when projects require approval The ECP was built in a way that could be easily adapated to new geographies and new ecosystem service currencies. It works in Mexico as easily as Oregon and for conserving prairie as easily as tracking water quality credits. It was built by the Willamette Partnership and Pinchot Institute for Conservation with The Other Firm. Contact Information: Carrie Sanneman, Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, 97123, Phone: 503-681-5112, Email: [email protected].


268

MARKETS 101: WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? Carrie Sanneman1, Bobby Cochran1, Jeremy Sokulsky2 and Katie Riley2

1Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, USA 2Environmental Incentives, South Lake Tahoe, CA, USA

Increasing pressure on natural systems reduces their ability to provide the services that people rely on - like clean air, clean water, and natural places to play. Emerging incentive programs for ecosystem services provide a mechanism to rebuild resilient ecological systems by building innovative connections between people who manage land and water and those who can invest in environmental improvement. These incentive programs range from markets, to payment structures, to an array of other options. The Markets 101 workshop will provide a thorough and interactive introduction to environmental markets – what they are, where they are, and how they work on the ground. The workshop begins with background and overview of regulatory markets, voluntary markets and payment for ecosystem service (PES) programs followed by a tangible and interactive introduction to the performance-based environmental accounting systems that are utilized by all three program types. Participants will leave Markets 101 with an understanding of how ecosystem markets provide the mechanism for:

• Crossing Jurisdictional Boundaries: Addressing environmental challenges by bringing people together to work towards common goals, all within the same framework.

• Increasing Transparency & Accountability: Quantifying and tracking the benefits of restoration in a credible, rigorous and transparent manner.

• Effective & Efficient Regulatory Implementation: Focusing on outcomes to bring investment for regulatory compliance into natural systems over engineered ones.

• Creating New Investment Opportunities: Bringing together different sources of funds in creative and innovative ways to multiply the benefits of investing in the environment.

• Reporting Achievements: Communicating the benefits of conservation to the public, policy makers, and funding organizations spurs additional investment in restoration.

Markets 101 will illustrate the fundamental steps of creating ecosystem currencies for habitat and water quality markets in the United States, outlined in Willamette Partnership’s Ecosystem Credit Accounting System and Environmental Incentive’s Operational Protocol for Regional Environmental Accounting. This framework can guide multiple streams of investment using different funding approaches within a single accounting system to generate and track benefits, all working towards broader environmental goals. Contact Information: Carrie Sanneman, Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR, 97123, Phone: 503-681-5112, Email: [email protected]


269

INCORPORATING SEDIMENTATION AND WATER STORAGE INTO ECOSYSTEM SERVICE MODELS Eric J. Scherff, Ned H. Euliss, Jr. and David M. Mushet

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, ND, USA In wetland catchments of the Prairie Pothole Region and Southern High Plains of the United States, the provisioning of ecosystem services depends largely on hydrologic processes of sediment transport and surface runoff. These two important physical processes affect the amount of water and its distribution in wetland basins at any given time, influencing the delivery of such diverse services as the retention of flood water and the availability of habitat for wildlife. We present a methodology that accounts for the movement of water and sediment across the landscape, with emphasis on creating a quantitative and spatially-explicit representation appropriate for areal assessments of ecosystem services. This model is designed to align the Integrated Landscape Modeling (ILM) efforts of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP – Wetlands) with the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI), and specifically it will advance efforts to measure benefits derived from conservation programs implemented across these two regions. Transferability of this technique to sites throughout these large areas is essential, and will be facilitated by our use of widely available climate and soil data, as well as soil loss and runoff equations that have been calibrated for an extensive set of agricultural tillage practices and schedules. The initial application presented here is for a wetland site in the Prairie Pothole Region that has been chosen for model calibration because of its long-term hydrologic record. Tools used to refine the lidar-based elevation model for use in the hydrologic model are described, along with ongoing efforts to use model output to predict changes in biological communities. Results to date show good agreement with the historical record of water surface elevations in these shallow wetland ponds, despite dynamic seasonal and inter-annual variation in climate. Contact Information: Eric Scherff, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, United States Geological Survey, 8711 37th St. SE, Jamestown, ND 58401, USA, Phone: (701) 253-5539, Fax: (701) 253-5553, Email: [email protected]


270

ENVISIONING A 21ST CENTURY NATURAL CAPITAL UTILITY David Batker1, Jennifer Harrison-Cox1, Rowan Schmidt1 and Todd Rydstrom2

1Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA, USA 2San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Watershed-filtered water utilities like Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) contribute billions of dollars to local and regional economies by managing lands that provide ecosystem services such as fresh water filtration, storage and supply, flood protection, habitat and recreation. However, 20th century accounting and management standards are focused on “built” solutions to water management such as filtration plants, pipes and storage tanks. SPU acquired the Cedar River Watershed more than a century ago, and to replace the work of this watershed with a filtration plant would cost $200 million and a new plant every 40 years. Under national rules set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the watershed is not counted as a capital asset on SPU’s books, though it is intuitively one of their most valuable assets. Consider one big advantage of a valued economic asset: you can invest in it. If SPU needed a filtration plant, they could borrow money through the issue of municipal bonds, invest in the plant, and pay back the loans. In addition, since a filtration plant is an acknowledged asset, a sufficient budget for maintenance and operations is justified. Thus, one problem with not recognizing the watershed as an economic asset is that the utility cannot have a capital improvement project (borrow money against that asset to pay for improvements) to accomplish needed maintenance and restoration. In addition, because the watershed is not measured as an economic asset (beyond the market value of the raw land plus the timber value of the trees), the operations and management budget does not have the same financial justification and therefore risks being inadequate. Earth Economics, SPU and five other major water utilities (representing over two million acres in managed lands and 16 million water consumers) have formed a working group, called the Watershed Economics Workgroup, to lead a national effort to explore the implications of a change in national accounting standards. The working group was formed to explore the implications of changes to GASB rules for natural capital accounting, look at rate structures, review asset management plans, and to identify funding mechanisms for watershed management activities. A change in national accounting rules would apply to government assets at all levels and shift needed investment towards green infrastructure. The case of water utilities presents a clear and definitive case of the need for better natural capital accounting. Contact Information: Rowan Schmidt, Research Analyst, Earth Economics, 107 N. Tacoma Ave, Tacoma, WA 98403, Phone: 253-539-4801, Email: [email protected]


271

COMPARABILITY OF MONETARY VALUED ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND THE INFLUENCE OF SPATIALLY VARYING SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS Stefan Schmidt

Department Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Saxony, Germany In recent years, the holistic approach of the ecosystem service concept (ESC) has become the paradigm of ecosystem management. Efforts are underway to help governments, business and multilateral development banks to include the ESC into policy planning and decision making to improve human well-being while maintaining nature resources. The translation of complex socio-ecological processes in nature into simplified and implementable outcomes for management and planning discourses increasingly occur in monetary terms. This study investigates databases dealing with case studies of valued ecosystem services (ES) with the aim to identify how socio-ecological indicators influence the monetary value of ES. To compare globally scattered, monetary values of ES data heterogeneity is the mayor concern and one of the underlying causes of the considerable range of values. The heterogeneity can be attributed to various socio-ecological variables. In this study a path analysis was performed on the type of ES across different scales and for various socio-ecological indicators. Therefore, in Seppelt et al. (2010), we reviewed recent literature based on a meta-analysis and joined these data with the Ecosystem Service Valuation Database (van der Ploeg et al. 2010). GIS was used to georeference the databases and combine them with other socio-ecological datasets to identify spatio-explicite indicators that effect the range of monetary values of ES. This gives insights into which kinds of indicators are crucial to consider for ES valuation efforts and how humans experience the value of both social and biological processes behind the price tag. Finally, the study provides insights into strengthens and weaknesses of above mentioned databases and future steps concerning ecosystem service valuation. Contact Information: Stefan Schmidt, Department Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany, Phone: 0049-341-235-1056, Email: [email protected]


272

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: MOVING FROM STRATEGIC PLAN TO ACTIONABLE IMPACTS? Jodi L. Schoenen


The term “Ecosystem Services” (ES) is being written into strategic planning documents for organizations and agencies across the country and worldwide, yet, determining how ES might be applied in an actionable way to forested landscapes remains unclear. ES has the potential to shift ecological, economic, and social priorities, assist with tradeoff assessment, and refocus management strategies in natural resource planning and conservation. At the same time, practitioners, researchers, and stakeholders are struggling with how the term as used in strategic planning documents translates to their work on the ground. This paper will summarize the history and inclusion of ES into planning documents in the United States, and will focus on the ways in which the concept is currently being applied to forested landscapes in both countries. Future trajectories of ES concepts for action in natural resource planning and management will be considered. Contact Information: Jodi L. Schoenen, ESUR IGERT Program, Institute for Sustainable Solutions (ISS), Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, USA , Phone: 503-729-3929, Email: [email protected]


273

THE POTENTIAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY INITIATIVES TO INCREASE ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS DURING PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (PES) IMPLEMENTATION Sarah Schomers

Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e.V., Muencheberg, Germany

In the European Union (EU) payments for ecosystem services (PES) are most generally public payment schemes that are developed and executed in a complex legal and institutional environment. The overall framework for PES is set by the EU, policy design of PES measures are worked out at the individual member state level. In Germany, precise regulations and measures are executed at the federal state level, i.e. the Länder. Funding for those public PES schemes comes from the EU and the individual member states. Participation in public PES schemes is voluntary for ecosystem service providers. For an efficient and effective implementation of PES a high degree of understanding, acceptance, participation and commitment on the provider side is thus required. This paper assesses the potential of German Landcare Associations (LCAs) to increase effectiveness and efficiency during PES implementation. In this context German LCAs can be understood as an intermediary between governmental PES contractors and private ecosystem service providers. LCAs are collaboratives, combining equally local stakeholders of 3 societal actors (state, market and civil society). Efficiency refers to the cost-effectiveness of PES implementation, i.e. the cost of managing PES and will be assessed via the transaction cost approach. Effectiveness means efficacy and refers to the extent to which the objective of the PES scheme is pursued. The paper thus compares two discrete institutional alternatives, i.e. it contrasts governance structures for PES implementation with and without LCA involvement as a civil society intermediary. LCAs exhibit certain prominent characteristics and features that influence Williamson’s determinants of transaction costs. Based on expert interviews and an expert workshop the paper depicts the outstanding characteristics and features of LCAs and elaborates how these affect the behaviour of actors and the attributes of the transaction and hence the relative level of transaction costs. Subsequently and based on Dahlman’s functional taxonomy of transaction costs these findings are related to factual actions during PES implementation. Governance structures embracing LCAs for PES implementation produce social capital and exploit local time and place information (Ostrom). The paper finally elaborates how this helps to increase effectiveness. References: Dahlman, C.J., 1979. The problem of externality. Journal of Law and Economics 22, 141-162.

Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., Wynne, S., 1993. Institutional incentives and sustainable development: Infrastructure policies in perspective.

Williamson, O.E., 2003. Transaction cost economics and agriculture: An excursion. In: Van Huylenbroeck, G., Verbeke, W., Lauwers, L. (Eds), Role of Institutions in Rural Policies and Agriculture. Contact Information: Sarah Schomers, Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e.V., Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Muencheberg, Germany, Phone +493343282131, Email: [email protected]


274

CAPTURING THE FULL VALUE OF NATURE: THE POTENTIAL OF FOREST-BASED PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (PES) TO CONTRIBUTE TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE Mary Schorse

Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA Over the past two decades, payment for ecosystem services (PES) mechanisms have succeeded in achieving a wide range of objectives. Securing conservation finance, increasing forest cover, improving soil and water resources, and ensuring environmental amenities tend to top the list. Given these successes, PES initiatives are now being turned to as a cost effective means to address global climate change by providing economic incentives to increase forest carbon stocks, proposed by the IPCC and supported by the international forest conservation community as an essential and cost-effective climate change mitigation strategy. A global incentive program to increase values for carbon sequestration ecosystem services (REDD+ - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is high on the agenda of the international climate change policy negotiations. REDD+ is expected to deliver measurable forest based emissions reductions at national and global levels while simultaneously delivering important social and ecological “co-benefits”. While many PES initiatives have delivered narrowly defined ecosystem service goals, few have been adequately evaluated to understand the range of intended and unintended social, economic and environmental impacts. A meta-analysis of the most prominent forest-based PES initiatives in Costa Rica, Ecuador and Brazil reveals that the narrow focus of objective and evalution scope for these types of initiatives limits their ability to deliver co-benefits. The analysis further reveals that socio-political context, output identification, and assessment methodology impact project outcomes. The research proposes a new approach to evaluation which captures local context through a participatory approach to monitoring and evaluation. Contact Information: Mary Schorse, Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. J. Mark Genesis, Soil & Water Science Department, University of Florida, PO Box 000, Gainesville, FL 11111, USA, Phone: 000-555-5555, Email: [email protected]


275

INTEGRATING SOCIAL SCIENCE INTO OCEAN AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT: INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON OCEAN SOCIAL SCIENCE Tom Fish1, Marilyn Buchholtz ten Brink2 and Rudy M. Schuster3

1CESU National Coordinator, National Park Service, Washington DC, USA 2Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA 3United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins CO, USA

The Interagency Working Group on Ocean Social Science (IWG-OSS) comprises social scientists representing U.S. federal agencies with ocean-related responsibilities. The IWG-OSS provides input on how agencies can enhance current policy, management, and research activities through incorporation of social science, and thereby better inform ocean- and coastal-related decision-making. The working group’s efforts are focused on three key areas: (1) coastal and marine spatial planning, (2) resiliency and adaptation to climate change and ocean acidification, and (3) informed decision-making and improved understanding of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes governance. Current efforts include addressing gaps in agency social science capacity; coordinating across scientific and management communities to identify priority data needs; providing input on best practices for incorporating social science in planning and management actions; developing guidance for evaluating site-based and program effectiveness; and fostering a robust community of practice for ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes social science. Contact Information: Tom Fish, National Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior / Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units Network, 1849 C Street NW, Room 2737, Washington, DC 20240, USA, Phone: 202-208-5972, Email: [email protected]


276

STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: A PILOT STUDY IN BC CANADA Bessie Schwarz1, Heather Tallis2 and Kai Chan3

1Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT, USA 2Natural Capital Project and Woods Institute in the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA 3Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Despite the auspicious utility of ecosystem services (ES), the approach’s current assessment methods are inordinately deficient of one particular ingredient: the non-expert stakeholder. This limitation effects ES assessments, leaving the approach without important sociocultural data, and restricts the application of the approach, as it is less accessible and usable by non-scientific audiences. Using Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia as a case example, this exploratory study used semi-structured interviews to generate lists of services recognized a priori by participants (n=17) and uncover their general understanding of the concept. Across all categories, participants and expert scientists (The Natural Capital Project scientists as the case example) described services and the general concept of ES with different language and at different levels of specificity. For example, participants identified cultural services with greater detail and frequency than services in any other category and recognized more cultural services than the Natural Capital Project experts. The overall divergence between these experts and the participants in this study indicates a communication barrier between the two groups that may inevitably hinder ES-based conservation initiatives. Moreover, these results demonstrate that underutilized cultural services may be more effective tools for messaging ES to the public in some instances. In conclusion, the social science method tested in this study could help better represent non-expert stakeholders in land management and more accurately analyze cultural ecosystem services in future ES work.

Contact Information: Bessie Schwarz, Yale School Forestry & Environmental Studies, 195 Prospect Street, G11, New Haven, CT 06511, Phone: 973-493-5647, Email: [email protected]


277

VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF REGULATION Valerie Sexton

Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division, Economic Analysis Directorate, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

This presentation will demonstrate how valuation of ecosystem services has played an important role in informing cost benefit analyses required for substantial changes to environmental regulation in Canada. Examples of different types of valuations of ecosystems services that have been, or will be, undertaken by the Economic Analysis Directorate will be given, ranging from valuation to help determine boundaries of proposed protected areas, to examination of the environmental benefits of reduced criteria air contaminants, to comparison of policy instruments to protect water quality. The main challenge faced in this work is access to data, specifically primary data from surveys, which leads to a reliance on benefits transfer. The importance of benefits transfer and use of the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI) will be highlighted, along with in-house methods developed for the valuation of ecosystem services such as changes in carbon storage, migratory waterfowl population and water quality. The result of inclusion of ecosystem service values in cost benefit analyses have been shown in some cases to reverse the cost- benefit equation, resulting in sometimes unexpected and improved information for decision-making as relates to environmental management. Our conclusion therefore is that valuation of ecosystem services plays a vital role in providing additional information that will help decision makers weigh not just the visible, market-related costs and benefits of decisions, but to include the often unseen, but no less important, non-market values that are often neglected in decision making. In support of valuation, we recommend that central government decision-making bodies continue to demand valuation of ecosystem services as part of their decision processes, and that support for primary data collection and methodological development and implementation be extended. Contact Information: Valerie Sexton, Senior Economist, Regulatory Analysis and Valuation Division, Economic Analysis Directorate, Environment Canada, Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, 10 Wellington St., 25th Floor, Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H3 Canada, Phone: 819-994-7834, Email: [email protected]


278

CAN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES VALUATION CONTRIBUTE TO WATER RESOURCE INVESTMENT DECISION-MAKING? Leonard Shabman

Resources for the Future, Washington DC, USA The recent focus on ecosystem services is again drawing attention to the long-standing challenge of evaluating the "benefits" and "costs" of Corps of Engineers investments in, and operations of, water resources projects that alter watershed hydrology and geomorphology. This presentation will review recent criticisms of the Corps of Engineers procedures for evaluating the environmental effects of its projects. Following these review two arguments will be presented. First, introducing the concept of ecosystem services, as typically defined, into Corps of Engineers planning would do little to address the criticisms. The recommendation is that a distinction be drawn between "ecosystem services", as currently defined, and "watershed services" and the concept of watershed services is more relevant to Corps of Engineers planning and decision-making. Second, with this as background the presentation will critique the often-made argument that unless environmental effects, however defined, are reported in monetary terms those effects will carry zero value in water resources decision making. The presentation will show by logical argument and real world examples that placing monetary values on all environmental services is neither necessary nor sufficient for assuring their consideration in public investment decision-making. Contact Information: Leonard Shabman, Resident Scholar, Resources for the Future, 1616 P St. NW., Washington, DC 20036,Phone: 202-328-5139, Email: [email protected]


279

DESIGNING A PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAM ON WORKING RANCHES IN THE NORTHERN EVERGLADES Leonard Shabman1 and Sarah Lynch2

1Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA 2World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA

The Northern Everglades Payment for Environmental Services (NE-PES) Program was launched in 2011 by the state of Florida. The NE-PES program was developed through the Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project (FRESP), a 6 year collaborative effort (2005-2011) that engaged ranchers, government agencies, research scientists, and environmental NGOs. Through FRESP, 8 water management projects were implemented on cattle ranches. The projects demonstrated how ranch land owners, as a service seller, could enter into contracts with a state agency buyer to provide the buyer-desired services of water retention (acre-feet) and/or nutrient load retention (lbs of phosphorus or nitrogen). Additional key elements of a PES program were developed through FRESP including operational definitions of the environmental services, methods for estimating service provision for purposes of establishing a contract, and cost-effective methods needed to document that services were being provided, as a condition of receiving payment. As a contract based program, existing regulatory rules had to be adapted to the design of the contracts and for expediting the contract agreement process between rancher sellers and the agency buyer. These and other innovative contract elements developed by FRESP collaboration partners made the now operating NE-PES program possible. Contact Information: Resources for the Future, 1616 P Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA, Phone: 202-328-5139, Email: [email protected]


280

ORGANIZED FORUM: USING AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FRAMEWORK IN AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESS Carl Shapiro1 , James Boyd2, Becky Epanchin-Neill2, Dianna Hogan1 , Molly Macauley2 and Byron K. Williams1

1U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 21Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

Resources for the Future and the USGS Science and Decisions Center are examining the connections between ecosystem services and adaptive management. Ecosystem services provide an analytical framework that informs an adaptive decision process and adaptive management provides an opportunity to learn and improve our understanding of ecosystem services and their values. This session will report on initial findings in this integrative effort and will discuss key research opportunities and challenges in combining these two powerful concepts. Moderator James Boyd will introduce the topic and establish the context for this effort. Byron K. Williams will introduce adaptive management and the concept of learning-based decision making. He will discuss the components and processes of adaptive decision making, and highlight some important linkages between adaptive management and ecosystem services. Becky Epanchin-Neill will introduce a bi-directional framework for integrating adaptive management and ecosystem services. She will discuss how application of ecosystem service analysis within an adaptive decision-making process can improve the outcomes of management as well as advance the understanding of ecosystem service identification, production, and valuation. Molly Macauley will address challenges and opportunities in integrating these concepts and will introduce an institutional perspective. Dianna Hogan will consider a case study on urban stormwater management in Clarksburg, MD in which ecosystem services are being identified, measured, and valued for use in an adaptive decision process. Carl Shapiro will summarize key findings and conclusions from this effort and will open the issue for discussion. Contact Information: Carl D. Shapiro, U.S. Geological Survey Center for Science, Decisions, and Resource Management, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 913, Reston, VA, 20192-0002 USA, Phone: 703-648-4446, Email: [email protected]


281

USGS: APPLYING SCIENCE AND MONITORING IN SUPPORT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Carl D. Shapiro

U.S. Geological Survey Center for Science, Decisions, and Resource Management, Reston, VA, USA For over 100 years, the USGS has provided scientific information to inform management of natural resources. The development of the concept of ecosystem services and the implementation of an ecosystem services framework provide new needs and opportunities for scientific information in decision making. USGS science is important to identifying ecosystem services, understanding their production, and estimating their values to society. This scientific information, the understanding of ecosystem services, and partnerships with resource management and regulatory agencies are critical to efficient, informed, adaptive, and expanding environmental markets. The success of these markets depends, in part, on the availability, dissemination, and use of relevant scientific information. Contact Information: Carl D. Shapiro, U.S. Geological Survey Center for Science, Decisions, and Resource Management, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 913, Reston, VA, 20192-0002 USA, Phone: 703-648-4446, Email: [email protected]


282

EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF A GIS TOOL IN ASSESSING THE SOCIAL VALUES OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Benson C. Sherrouse1 and Darius J. Semmens2

1U.S. Geological Survey, Baltimore, MD, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, USA

Ecological and economic values are commonly accounted for within the scope of ecosystem services assessments; however, a notable deficiency exists regarding the inclusion of nonmarket values perceived by ecosystem stakeholders in the analysis of tradeoffs among ecosystem services. These perceived social values, often corresponding to cultural ecosystem services such as aesthetics and recreation, can improve assessments when they are presented in a quantitative and spatially explicit manner. The Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center addressed this need by developing Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES), a GIS tool to assess, map, and quantify social values attributed to ecosystem services (http://solves.cr.usgs.gov). SolVES allows users to generate social values maps for various stakeholder groups as derived from a combination of their spatial and nonspatial responses to attitude and preference surveys, model the relationship between identified value locations and underlying environmental characteristics, and apply these models through a value-transfer methodology in similar areas where survey data are unavailable. The current version, SolVES 2.0, has been integrated with Maxent maximum entropy modeling software to enhance these core functions. To evaluate how SolVES’ quantitative results compare to other forms of survey data analysis, it was applied to social survey data collected for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests in Colorado and the Bridger-Teton and Shoshone National Forests in Wyoming. The original survey administrators subjected these data to a series of statistical analyses including ANOVA tests, discriminant function analysis, and correlation analysis to determine how values, attitudes, and preferences varied among stakeholders of each forest as well as which social values might better predict stakeholder attitudes and preferences regarding forest uses such as motorized recreation, oil and gas drilling, or logging for wood products. While results from the statistical analyses indicate general agreement across the three forests regarding the most highly rated social value types, SolVES identifies most, although not all, of these same social values. Additionally, the statistical results, which reveal certain social values as consistent indicators of positive or negative attitudes regarding specific forest uses, were reflected in SolVES’ results demonstrating corresponding relative value intensities between stakeholders falling on opposing sides of a use (e.g., those who favor versus those who oppose oil and gas drilling). The general consistency between both sets of results suggests the potential effectiveness of SolVES as a tool for examining differences in values, attitudes, and preferences among various stakeholder groups. Coupled with SolVES’ capabilities to spatially model social values in terms of the underlying environment, it was also possible to evaluate the transferability of social values across the forests by using each forest’s survey data to validate social value maps predicted for it by survey data from the others. Contact Information: Benson C. Sherrouse, U.S. Geological Survey, 5522 Research Park Drive, Baltimore, MD 21228, USA, Phone: 443-498-5606, Email: [email protected]

http://solves.cr.usgs.gov/


283

AN INVESTOR’S VIEW ON OPPORTUNITIES FOR LANDOWNERS IN THE CALIFORNIA CARBON MARKET Brian Shillinglaw

New Forests Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA The California regulatory carbon market is now a reality. It is the first large-scale, liquid market for ecosystem services provided by forests, and it creates a new commodity market for forest owners in the United States. New Forests, an investment company that manages more than $1.3 billion in capital for investments in sustainably managed timberland and environmental markets, has been an active investor in the California carbon market for years through its joint-venture Eco Products Fund, which has financed some of the largest forest carbon projects being developed for the California market, and Forest Carbon Partners, a New Forests fund vehicle that finances and aggregates projects with family forest owners. I will discuss the opportunities and risks facing forest owners who participate in the California market, citing examples from New Forests’ offset project investment portfolio. I will outline the value that investors can provide to landowners and conclude with a discussion of what investors look for when deciding whether or not to finance a forest carbon offset project. Contact Information: Brian Shillinglaw, Manager Carbon Investments and Policy, New Forests Inc., 735 Montgomery St #400, San Francisco CA 94111, Email: [email protected]


284

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF 2ND GENERATION BIOFUEL DEVELOPMENT IN INDONESIA – A CASE STUDY OF BIOETHANOL PRODUCTION FROM RICE STRAW IN THE CITARUM RIVER BASIN Hiroaki Shirakawa and Patricia San Miguel

Graduate School of Environmental Sudy, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

In order to reduce imported fuel, poverty ratio and GHG emission, the Government of Indonesia is attempting to find alternative renewable energy, particularly in the form of biofuel. However, it is afraid that promotion of 1st generation biofuel produced primarily from food crops may cause deforestation or compete with food. It is increasingly understood that 1st-generation biofuels are limited in their ability to achieve targets for oil-product substitution. The cumulative impacts of these concerns have increased the interest in developing biofuels produced from non-food biomass, such as agricultural residues. These "2nd-generation biofuels" could avoid many of the concerns facing 1st-generation biofuels. Some studies estimate potential of agricultural residuals, such as rice straw, for ethanol production However little is known about economic impacts of 2nd generation biofuel. The purpose of this study is to estimate potential production of rice straw for ethanol production and economic impacts in Indonesia. The case study is done in Citarum River Basin. The results show that annual rice straw production potential is 4.7 million t. And maximum ethanol production potential from rice straw is from 795,600KL to 1,193,400 KL. This is equal to 13% ~ 19% of national target in 2025. If we assume price of rice straw is 100Rp/kg, a cultivator’s income will increase about 5% by selling rice straw. Contact Information: Hiroaki Shirakawa, Graduate School of Environmental Study, Nagoya University, Furo-cho Chikusa-ku Nagoya, 464-8601, Japan, Phone: +81-52-789-4654, Email: [email protected]


285

ENGAGING THE OUTDOOR RECREATION SECTOR AND WATER CONSUMERS AS MARKETS FOR LOCAL CARBON OFFSETS: THE NORTHERN FOREST CARBON EXCHANGE AND THE CLEAR WATER CARBON FUND Joseph Short1, Laury Saligman2, Ethel Wilkerson3 and John Gunn3

1Northern Forest Center, Concord, NH, USA 2Conservation Collaboratives, Montpelier, VT, USA 3Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, ME, USA

The Northern Forest Carbon Exchange is piloting a new approach to carbon finance in Vermont focusing on recreation customers and the co-benefits of forest carbon projects—clean air and water, rural livelihoods, scenic beauty, recreational opportunities, etc. Through ski resorts, conference centers, and other facililities, the program is offering customers offsets derived from local forest projects through a “retail” approach. Visitors pay a small surcharge on top of their lift ticket, facility pass, or hotel bill to offset their travel to the resort while simultaneously investing in local forest conservation. This session will explore the lessons learned from this approach to marketing and selling carbon offsets, including the power of “the story,” matching projects with client interests, balancing carbon with other co-benefits, and financial mechanisms. Session participants will gain insight to an approach that could be replicated in other parts of the country to help smaller land owners access carbon market opportunities at prices as high as $35/ton. The Clear Water Carbon Fund (www.clearwatercarbonfund.org) is a new program that uses the sale of voluntary carbon offsets to finance riparian afforestation projects in New England. Planting trees near streams achieves multiple benefits including sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, improving water quality, protecting recreational opportunities, and creating wildlife habitat. This novel conservation approach utilizes the voluntary carbon market to finance water quality protection efforts and seeks to support ecosystem service benefits (e.g. clean water, habitat, recreation opportunities) with private investments. We will provide an overview of the Clear Water Carbon Fund and summarize key lessons learned during the development and administration of this project including how to verify and ensure legitimacy of carbon sequestration and water quality protection. We will emphasize the importance of local watershed restoration groups to connect with willing landowners. Business and individual buyer engagement strategies will be highlighted. Contact Information: Joseph Short, Northern Forest Center, PO Box 210, Concord, NH, USA, Phone: 603-229-0679 x104, Email: [email protected]

http://www.clearwatercarbonfund.org/


286

INCENTING RESPONSIBLE FOREST MANAGEMENT AMONG SMALL FOREST OWNERSHIPS IN CENTRAL APPALACHIA USING MANAGED FOREST CARBON OFFSETS Scott Shouse

Mountain Association for Community Economic Development, Berea, KY, USA This presentation will outline the history, current status, and future challenges of using managed forest carbon offsets to incent forest management among owners of small forest tracts under the Appalachian Carbon Partnership (ACP) which operates it the Appalachian counties (as defined by the ARC) of KY, OH, WV, VA, and TN. The ACP aggregates managed forest carbon offsets among small landowners through the major carbon standards using a long term contract between the ACP and the landowner, a professional forest inventory to ACP specifications for use with a growth and yield model and requisite forest management certification and annual reporting. These offsets are marketed to various sectors through a frame of co-benefits and context of the region in conjunction with the offset value. Currently, we have 48 landowners enrolled, 29,000 acres under management, more than $140,000 dollars paid to landowners, and $500,000 dollars paid to foresters for inventory. Most landowners are very happy with the inventory and professional consultation. They are somewhat less happy with the limited offset sales due to fluctuations in the carbon market and the lack of legislation that favors the development of managed forest offsets. While it is clear that most forest landowners are looking for options that will allow them regular income from their forested properties, it is also clear that current incentives, such as government programs, are not effective in generating mass adoption of management practices. The ACP results indicate that landowners are willing to sign long term contracts, engage in forest certification, and invest their own money into programs that will have meaningful annual benefits. While this model is expensive to devlop and maintain, it is certainly capapble of driving landowners into the hands of professionals at scale. The long term trend in the U.S. among non industrial private forests of frequent ownership change, decreasing tract size, and very low level of management makes it imperitive that programs are developed that not only engage these landowners but also provide with them with the resources to implement responsible forest management. Contact Information: Scott Shouse, Forestry Program Manager, Mountain Association for Community Economic Development, 433 Chestnut St., Berea ,KY 40403, USA, Phone: (859) 986-2373, Email: [email protected]



287

WATER AND NUTRIENT RETENTION FROM A PES PROGRAM IN FLORIDA RANCHLANDS S. Shukla1, A. C. Guzha1, P. Bohlen2, M. Clark3, S. Lynch4, L. Shabman4 and H. Swain5

1University of Florida, Immokalee, FL, USA 2University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA 3Unversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 4World Wildlife Fund and Resources for Future, Washington DC, USA 5Archbold Biological Station, Venice, FL, USA

The Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project (FRESP) is a program for Florida state agencies to pay cattle ranchers who provide environmental services of water retention and nutrient treatment (kg of P or N) that benefit the Lake Okeechobee-Everglades ecosystem. The program is “market-like” because i) rancher-sellers determine how much service to produce and how, ii) payments require documentation of the services and, iii) payments are a profit opportunity for working cattle ranches and are not limited to the cost for installing water control structures. During the design phase, eight ranches built projects and made ranch operation changes expected to provide the services. Each ranch project was instrumented to monitor water and nutrient fluxes. We present the hydrologic and water quality results from two sites, one each for nutrient (P and N) removal and water retention services, to illustrate the process. The nutrient treatment site is a 2500-ac impoundment site where water is pumped from an adjacent public canal into the impoundment for P and N treatment and outflow is measured at the downstream end before being redirected back into the canal. Inflows, outflow, and storage (surface and ground water) were measured along with nutrient concentrations. Analysis of data for three years (2008-2011) showed that services were 78% and 44% retention of total inflow P and N, respectively. The P retention varied from 58% for the first year to 95% for the third year. Results showed that agricultural impoundments can treat nutrient from public waters and reduce the P and N loads to lakes and rivers in the Northern Everglades region. At the water retention site, flows and concentrations during pre (1 year) and post (2 years) implementation of the water management alternative (WMA), were monitored. The WMA involved installation of culverts with adjustable boards, distributed within a ranch, to raise the discharge level and increase storage. Results showed that flow increased (less than pre-WMA water retention) during first post-WMA period while it decreased (more than pre-WMA water retention) during the second post-WMA period. Subsurface storage increased during the post-WMA period and may have partly caused the increase in flow. Results for August-October period, when the watershed storage is relatively full, showed water retention (reduced flows) for both post-WMA years. Uncertainty in quantification of water retention was mainly due to rainfall variability. Another source of uncertainty was variations in discharge levels during the project as part of normal ranch operations. Long-term monitoring and hydrologic modeling will be needed for improved verification of water retention. Preliminary modeling results show water retention. Several measurement alternatives that reduce the number of hydrologic instruments and frequency of monitoring, that use different approaches for measuring water fluxes, and/or that use alternative nutrient sampling strategies were also evaluated for the scale-up of the PES program. We also discuss the development of a decision matrix that displays different documentation strategies, the mean and variance of water and P retention estimates and cost, and management needs to allow agency-buyers and rancher-sellers to identify cost effective documentation approaches. Contact Information: Sanjay Shukla, University of Florida, 2685 State Road 29 N, Immokalee, FL 34142. USA. Phone: (239) 658-3425, Email: [email protected]


288

COST EFFECTIVE NUTRIENT REDUCTIONS IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS – HOLISTIC STRATEGIES FOR PROVIDING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES H. David Stensel1 and James Barnard2 -- Presented by: Heather Simmons-Rigdon3

1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA 2Global Practice and Technology Leader for Advanced Biological Treatment, Black & Veatch, Overland Park, KS, USA 3South Central Washington RC&D Council, Yakima, WA, USA

The purpose of this project was to identify cost effective strategies for reducing phosphorous loading at 18 municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) across the Yakima River Basin in Washington State. Drs. Stensel and Barnard, with help from a local project team, gathered information on each facility regarding their current treatment processes, made site visits at many of the facilities, and then conducted 3 workshops for facility operators and other interested stakeholders. A draft report of all findings and recommendations is due to be released in mid-November, 2012, the results of which will be further discussed in the poster presented at the December 2012 ACES conference. This project assessed baseline conditions of each facility and identified several potential cost effective methods to increase phosphorous removal, specifically focusing on Enhanced Biological Nutrient Removal. WWTPs vary in their design, layout, capacity, and processes currently used – so recommendations were customized for a few categories of facilities. Oftentimes modifications to facility design or operations, which could result in significant phosphorous reductions, were identified as implementable at little or no cost. One of the goals of this project was to provide education and outreach to cities to enable them to make more informed decisions in future investments. A second goal was to enhance current discussions with state and federal regulatory agencies on how to make better investments in ecosystem services, such as water quality, throughout the basin by working with both point and non-point sources. By identifying a baseline of “reasonable measures” that should be taken by point sources to reduce phosphorous in their effluents, we can develop a plan to help cities achieve that baseline. We could then work toward an agreeable point where point sources could participate in an Ecosystem Services Market that would enable them to invest in restoration or improvement of ecosystem services at a watershed level by working with non-point sources. So far both participation in workshops and responses to the study have been very positive. Clearly cities want to find affordable ways to reduce nutrients in their effluents, but are concerned that voluntary improvements will lead to increased regulation tied to nutrient limits that could not be met without making technological and chemical upgrades that would be prohibitevly expensive and have a significantly higher environmental footprint. This project is one of many efforts being made by the Yakima Basin Clean Water Partnership that are working to identify more collaborative and holistic ways to make better investments of limited conservation dollars that will result in real improvements in water quality in the future. Contact Information: Heather Simmons-Rigdon, Executive Director, South Central Washington RC&D Council, 1606 Perry St., Suite E, Yakima, WA, 98902, USA, Phone: 509-452-8392, Email: [email protected], Website: www.scwrcd.org.


289

"STACKING" ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE PANAMA CANAL WATERSHED Silvio Simonit and Charles Perrings

ecoSERVICE Group, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA Amongst the ecosystem services the regulation of water supplies is thought to be most at risk from deforestation. Nevertheless, while considerable progress has been made in the spatially explicit modeling of ecosystem services, the impact of afforestation on the regulation of seasonal water flows has yet to be addressed. The Panama Canal watershed is currently being reforested. The reforestation program is based on the belief, supported by some experimental evidence, that reforestation will have a positive impact on the annual and dry season flows needed to support water supply for Canal navigation and other uses. Other studies, however, found no evidence for a significant impact, either positive or negative, between land use and the low flow response. This at least raises a question about the impact of reforestation on dry season flows. We develop a spatially explicit model of ecosystem service flows to evaluate the implications of reforestation both for water flows and other services. We then identified the trade--‐offs and synergies between water flow regulation and other watershed services, and tested the efficiency of alternative reforestation options. Dry season hydrological flows were modeled as a function of groundwater recharge, evapotranspiration and rainfall runoff. Surface runoff is estimated using the SCS curve number method, groundwater recharge using a water balance methodology, while evapotranspiration applies a leaf area index approach. The impact of changes in land cover on carbon stocks was modeled using estimates obtained from local studies. Production of timber from teak plantations and livestock products from grassland were similarly modeled using estimates from local studies, based on sustainable forest management and cattle production models. We found that the potential impact of land cover change on dry season risks to Canal operations varies significantly across the watershed. It follows that the efficiency of grassland conversion within the watershed depends entirely on the bundle of ecosystem services that are at issue. If the only service at issue is the regulation of dry season water flows, then the proportion of grassland that would be optimally converted to natural forest is only 4.3%. On the other hand we found that water flow costs plus forgone livestock revenue could be balanced by carbon sequestration gains at a level of conversion to natural forest equal to 60% of existing grassland. However, if we include the value of timber production we found that water flow lossesF could be offset by the gains from carbon sequestration plus teak production at a level of conversion to natural forest equal to 100% of existing grassland. Our research shows that if only water flows are considered reforestation is not warranted, but this changes if water flows are ‘stacked’ with carbon sequestration and timber production. Thus, understanding the trade--‐offs and synergies between distinct services is critical to identification of the ‘optimal’ structure of any landscape. Contact Information: Silvio Simonit, ecoSERVICES Group, Arizona State University, PO Box 874501, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA, Phone: 480 727 0472, Email: [email protected]


290

APPLYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO COLLABORATIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Nikola Smith

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR, USA The Pacific Northwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service is applying an ecosystem services framework to project planning and implementation on two National Forests, the Deschutes and the Willamette. The aim of this work is to more clearly articulate the goods and services provided by forests, to encourage integrated program delivery across resource areas, and to support cooperation with partners, with an ultimate goal of sustaining healthy and resilient forested landscapes. This process includes workshops with stakeholders aimed at identifying key values associated with the ecological, economic and social benefits provided by the planning areas. Partners include state and federal agencies, Native American tribes, county and city governments, the forest products industry, non-governmental organizations, recreation user groups, economic development organizations, watershed councils and local community members. This collaborative process is being used to define management objectives in terms of ecosystem services and inform project design. Impacts of project alternatives on a subset of ecosystem service benefits are being considered quantitatively and/or qualitatively. A pilot project on the Willamette National Forest is particularly focused on a partnership with the manager of private lands in a checkerboard ownership pattern with the Sweet Home Ranger District in Oregon. A working group has been formed to (1) determine the inherent capacity of the planning area to produce a variety of ecosystem services, (2) understand changes to that capacity based on historic land uses and existing conditions, and (3) develop a plan to restore those services at a level that is ecologically sustainable, economically viable and socially acceptable. An ecosystem service assessment, including analysis of trade-offs, is being used to guide management decision-making and achieve restoration objectives at a landscape scale across ownerships. Contact Information: Nikola Smith, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503-808-2270, Email: [email protected]


291

EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA MARKET BASED CONSERVATION INITIATIVE: A PARTNERSHIP TO PROTECT A MILITARY TRAINING ROUTE AND CONSERVE RURAL WORKING LANDS R. Todd Snelgrove1, Frederick Cubbage2 and Paul Friday3

1Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA 2Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA 3Marine Corps Installations East, United States Marine Corps, Camp Lejeune, NC, USA

Sustained population growth and the subsequent loss of rural working lands (farms, ranches, and forests) have combined to create ever increasing constraints on current and future military training operations in the southeastern United States. In partnership with MCIEAST, North Carolina Farm Bureau, North Carolina State University, North Carolina Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation, North Carolina Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, several state agencies, and other stake holders, a program to engage private landowners, promote conservation, and sustain military readiness through the implementation of a market-based conservation pilot project in eastern North Carolina has been developed. Based on the model of the Conservation Reserve Program and Recovery Credit System, through performance based contracts, this program provides economic incentives for landowners to maintain their land underlying a military training route in military training compatible land uses and to implement good land stewardship practices. This effort has multiple benefits: 1) It will preserve the military’s ability to maintain mission readiness by preserving the integrity of a military training route; 2) it will build the capacity of North Carolina Foundation for Soil and Water Conservation to deliver extension programs to landowners; 3) it will promote the adoption of good land stewardship through technical assistance and extension outreach on ~400,000 acres of land across 16 counties in eastern North Carolina; and 4) it will establish new Department of Defense policy for promoting conservation throughout the landscape that will be transferable to other systems and regions. Contact Information: R. Todd Snelgrove, Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, 1500 Research Parkway, Suite 110A, College Station, TX 77843-2260, USA, Phone: 979-862-1510, Email: [email protected]


292

CHALLENGES OF INCORPORATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INTO A DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Natalie Snider1, Mandy Green1, David Groves2, Alaina Owens3, Denise Reed4, Kirk Rhinehart1 and Carol Parsons Richards1

1Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, USA 2RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA 3Brown and Caldwell, Baton Rouge, LA, USA 4The Water Institute of the Gulf, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

The Louisiana Legislature recently unanimously approved Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Plan, a $50 billion plan outlining 109 restoration and protection projects and a coastwide nonstructural program. The purpose of the 2012 Coastal Master Plan is to prioritize projects that will make a difference for the communities and ecosystems of south Louisiana, while considering the constraints of limited funding and resources. The Master Plan strives to achieve 5 overall objectives: (1) reduce storm surge flooding, (2) use natural processes, (3) provide habitats for a wide array of activities, (4) sustain cultural heritage, and (5) promote a working coast. A system of linked models was developed to estimate the effects of hundreds of projects that have the potential to meet our objectives. While the most obvious symptoms of coastal degradation are wetland loss and increased damage from coastal storms, it is important to consider an array of potential changes including ecosystem services.

In total, 19 ecosystem service models were developed to capture the changes over a 50-year period as a result of no action, individual project effects, or groups of projects. The models included 13 fish and wildlife species, storm surge attenuation, agriculture, carbon sequestration, freshwater availability, nature-based tourism, and nitrogen uptake. The models ranged in complexity from simple Habitat Suitability Index models to predict various wildlife and fisheries species, to spatial statistical models to predict nitrogen uptake, to more complex models to predict carbon sequestration.

The 2012 Coastal Master Plan initially developed a decision-making process that was driven by ecosystem services, targeting specific levels of services in various regions of the coast. However, during the planning process, challenges forced the adaptation of the decision-making process to focus primarily on land area, and consider ecosystem services as secondary inputs or additional insights into how selected projects would effect the landscape.

One challenge faced was developing targets to meet a wide array of ecosystem services under the same objective function. The nature of ecosystem services and the data available to develop the metrics for the ecosystem services required the use of targets to normalize the ecosystem service metrics to a common scale. This required an assumption that meeting each target was equally valuable (or to provide weighting for each metric). Given the newness of many of the metrics and the complexity of the coastal environment, it became clear that the targets could not credibly be assumed to be representative of relative values between the metrics. In addition to the technical challenges of setting targets, it was difficult to translate this complex process for public understanding and acceptance.

A model uncertainty analysis and additional model runs suggested a lower uncertianty level and more reasonable assumptions in the land building model than in the ecosystem service models. Ultimately, using land area as the primary decision drivers made the most sense based on the technical information available, the complexity of ecosystem service analysis, and transparency to the public.

Contact Information: Natalie Snider, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, 450 Laurel Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70801 USA, Phone: (225) 342-8786, Email: [email protected]


293

GOPHER TORTOISE HABITAT CREDITS: BUILDING A VOLUNTARY TRADING SYSTEM Mary Snieckus1, Josh Donlan2, Todd Gartner3, Rhett Johnson4 and Mike Sorice5

1American Forest Foundation, DC, USA 2Advanced Conservation Strategies, UT, USA 3World Resources Institute, DC, USA 4Longleaf Alliance, AL, USA 5Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, VA, USA

Project partners collaborated to develop and test a pre-compliance, voluntary habitat credit bank for the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) on family forestlands in the unlisted eastern portion of its range in areas of Georgia and Alabama. Creating the bank framework involved several stages:

- working with experts to develop, field test and verify the criteria to evaluate and rank potential habitat.

- surveying landowners in the area to determine their interest in participating in such a system. Factors assessed included contract length, payment schedule, and degree of control over land management decisions in the habitat areas.

- working with federal agencies to ensure that the proposed habitat credit banking framework met their needs and guidelines.

- determining transaction costs for landowners.

- determining operational costs for habitat credit brokers to approximate credit valuation. Developing the framework for a voluntary habitat credit framework has highlighted information gaps about gopher tortoise biology, the roles of risk and uncertainty in shaping and implementing policy for agencies and landowners when a species population is declining, and the difficulty in balancing benefits and costs so that entrepreneurs have incentives to conserve species and their habitats. Project stages will be described and lessons learned presented. Information and experience gained on this project has already been used to respond to the USFWS Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking ways to change regulations and create pilot projects to expand incentives for voluntary conservation actions under the Endangered Species Act. Project partners are optimistic that this approach will result in net conservation benefits for the eastern population of the gopher tortoise, and that this work will inform developing market-based management systems for other conservation-reliant species including the sage grouse and lesser prairie chicken. Contact Information: Mary Snieckus, American Forest Foundation, 1111 19th St NW, Suite 780, Washington DC 20036, Phone: 202-463-5181, Email: [email protected]


294

TESTING INNOVATIVE CONSERVATION FINANCE: A TALE OF TWO WATERSHEDS Mary Snieckus1, Wayne Barstad2, Lee Dassler3, Todd Gartner4, John Gunn5, Mary Russ6, David Sleeper7 and Ethel Wilkerson5

1American Forest Foundation, DC, USA 2Dartmouth College, NH, USA 3Western Foothills Land Trust, ME, USA 4World Resources Institute, DC, USA 5Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, ME, USA 6White River Partnership, VT, USA 7Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, NH, USA

Clean, reliable water is becoming increasingly scarce in many parts of the country as development pressures and climate change affect water quantity, quality, timing and distribution (USDA Forest Service 2008). Market-based approaches are proven to be effective incentives for sustainable forest management and the protection of their important watershed services (Echeverria and Lochman 1999) This project was designed to develop and compare innovative approaches to financing source water protection and forest restoration, and identify lessons learned that can be adapted for use in other watersheds. This project took place in two New England watersheds: the Upper Connecticut River watershed of New Hampshire and Vermont, and in Maine’s Crooked River Watershed which supplies water to about 200,000 people around Portland. Project teams in each watershed had three goals:

a. Develop an innovative, self-sustaining and replicable market-based model that facilitates transactions between ecosystem buyers and sellers to protect and enhance watershed services.

b. Create a partnership including landowners, foresters, conservation groups, policymakers and other members of the public focused on the conservation and management of private forests and the links among sustainable forest management, clean water and the provision of other critical ecosystem services.

c. Make tangible contributions toward the conservation of private forests by increasing the use of best management practices and the number of forested areas protected and/or managed for watershed and other ecosystem services.

Project partners have implemented several financing strategies:

a. Completed a Landscape Auction that raised $20,000 for more than 30 conservation projects in the Upper Connecticut River watershed.

b. Launched The Clear Water Carbon Fund (http://www.clearwatercarbonfund.org/) that uses revenue from the sale of voluntary carbon credits to protect Crooked River water quality. So far, the Fund has raised almost $13,000 and resulted in over 500 feet of riparian buffers planted.

c. Launched The Clean Water Future Fund (http://www.cleanwaterfuture.org/) a virtual marketplace that links buyers wishing to improve water quality with woodland owners implementing forest practices to do just that. The team is testing ways to attract people to specific conservation projects on the website using social marketing and traditional media strategies and has brought in more than $11,000 from donors to complete 5 projects.

A few broad insights have already emerged, with additional analysis to be done and conclusions drawn and recommendations made as the grant closes before the ACES/EM conference. Contact Information: Mary Snieckus, American Forest Foundation, 1111 19th St NW, Suite 780, Washington DC 20036, Phone: 202-463-5181, Email: [email protected]


295

THE COMPLETION OF FOUR SPATIALLY EXPLICIT LAND-USE AND LAND-COVER SCENARIOS FOR THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES Terry Sohl1, Benjamin Sleeter2, Kristi Sayler1, Michelle Bouchard3, Ryan Reker3, Tamara Wilson2, Rachel Sleeter2, Christopher Soulard2, Michelle Knuppe1 and Kari Beckendorf3

1U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, SD, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, Western Geographic Science Center, Menlo Park, CA, USA 3ARTS, contractor to USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, SD, USA

Changes in land-use and land-cover (LULC) can have a strong influence on the capacity of ecosystems to provide crucial services including the production of food, fiber, and energy from biological sources, preservation of biodiversity, access to water resources, nutrient cycling, and the biological sequestration of carbon. Planning for future availability and quality of ecosystem services requires an understanding of potential future LULC conditions. With future LULC conditions potentially impacted by a wide array of socioeconomic and biophysical driving forces, a scenario-based approach is needed in order to represent a range of future possible landscape conditions. Spatially explicit representations of potential future LULC distributions are required to assist in the development of regionally specific adaptation plans for changes to future ecosystem services. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has completed production of a unique set of spatially explicit LULC scenarios for the conterminous United States. The work stems from USGS research into analyzing future biological carbon sequestration potential in the Nation’s ecosystems. As part of this work, the USGS has produced qualitative and quantitative scenarios of future LULC change, and spatially explicit maps consistent with the scenario storylines. Coarse-scale global change scenarios have played an important role in the analysis of potential climate change, but the treatment of LULC change under these scenarios has typically been greatly simplified and only represented at very coarse spatial scales. With this work, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) were qualitatively and quantitatively downscaled using regional LULC histories, a spreadsheet downscaling model, and expert workshops. The results were qualitative storylines and quantitative proportions of future LULC change at 5-year intervals for each of 84 ecoregions in the conterminous U.S., and for each of four IPCC SRES scenarios. Spatially explicit LULC projections of the scenarios were produced using the USGS Forecasting Scenarios of Land-use Change (FORE-SCE) model. FORE-SCE uses a patch-based spatial allocation procedure to produce spatially explicit maps of future LULC change at annual intervals. The model is parameterized to produce individual landscape patches of a realistic size and location for each LULC type and for each ecoregion, with patch placement continuing until scenario-specified LULC proportions are met for an annual iteration. FORE-SCE also models forest stand age through time, with ecoregion-based model parameterization that ensures realistic cutting patterns and forest age structures for a given region. The net result of the scenario and spatial modeling were spatially explicit LULC scenarios for the conterminous U.S. from 2006 through 2100 for each of four IPCC SRES scenarios, with 18 LULC classes and forest stand age mapped at a spatial resolution of 250m. The qualitative and quantitative storylines, in conjunction with the spatially explicit LULC maps, provide a basis from which to judge the potential effects of LULC change on the provision of future ecosystem services. Contact Information: T.L. Sohl, U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, 47914 252nd Street, Sioux Falls, SD 57198, USA, Phone: 605-594-6537, Email: [email protected]


296

FOREST CARBON EMISSION ABATEMENT AND SEQUESTRATION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT Brent Sohngen1, Sara Ohrel2 and Sukwon Choi1

1AED Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA 2Climate Economics Branch, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA

Forestry sector models have been widely used to illustrate a number of important results that have influenced the policy debate over efficient responses to greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere. In the 1980s, foresters provided overly optimistic estimates of the costs of carbon sequestration in forests. These low cost estimates potentially lead the Clinton administration to rely heavily on forest offsets in their analysis of the economic impacts of signing the Kyoto Protocol. By the 1990s, dynamic models of the forest sector were being developed and used to assess carbon sequestration costs. These studies indicated relatively abundant carbon, both domestically and interntionally, but at much higher costs. The models continue to improve in sophistication and market representation. Current estimates indicate that avoided deforestation and forest management can contribute about 30% of total greenhouse gas abatement effort this century. Besides illustrating overall potential and cost, economic studies have provided a number of additional policy relevant results. First, they have shown that a large portion of the carbon gain can be obtained via forest management on existing forestlands. Second, they have shown that there are important market implications associated with carbon sequestration policies, including short-term increases in timber prices. Third, they have shown that efficient carbon gains are distributed relatively equally across the globe, that is, all forested regions can play some role in climate mitigation using forests. While models have provided critical insights to date, work is ongoing to improve these models for future analysis, including consideration of additional sectors (e.g., biomass demand in different regions of the world), inclusion and analysis of transactions costs, assessment of uncertainty, and other factors. Contact Information: Brent Sohngen, AED Economics, Ohio State University, 322 Agr. Admin, 2120 Fyffe Rd., Columbus, OH 43210, USA, Phone: 614-688-4640, Email: [email protected]


297

BACK IN THE USA - BRINGING PRIVATE MONEY TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. WHERE DO WE STAND? DISCUSSION OF VARIOUS BUSINESS MODELS Jeremy Sokulsky

Environmental Incentives, LLC, South Lake Tahoe, CA, USA Purpose: To identify the risks and potential rewards of participating in emerging ecosystem service markets. Scope: Nationally, new ecosystem service “markets” are being developed. Some require private capatial to succeed, yet the developers may not understand the concept of return on investment for the perspective of an entrepreneur or investor. Methods: Provide a market development framework and identify the risks and rewards from engaging in the market at different stages. Identify the incentives and concerns influencing the decisions of policymakers and those involved in developing the markets so that investors can efficiently use time and capital to stimulate markets and make attractive returns. Conclusions: Investors are essential to the success of emerging ecosystem service markets. By understanding the market development process they can strategically support markets and make attractive returns. Without this understanding they are likely to become frustrated and lose interest in ecosystem markets just at the time the markets are ripe for investment. Recommendations: Investors should send signals that influence the direction of markets to ensure they are viable from the perspective of investors. Investors should be ready to invest in emerging markets – at the right time and in the right manner. Contact Information: Jeremy Sokulsky, Environmental Incentives, LLC, 3351 Lake Tahoe Blvd, Suite 2, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, USA, Phone: 530-541-2980, Email: [email protected]


298

ENVIRONMENTAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT: USING QUANTIFIED ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO COMPARE EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE POLICIES AND INVESTMENT APPROACHES Jeremy Sokulsky and K. Riley

Environmental Incentives, LLC, South Lake Tahoe, CA, USA Federal agencies spend $10 billion annually, with states and private companies spending billions more, to protect and restore ecosystem services. However, there is rarely an understanding of the environmental improvement that results from these investments. Thus, it is not possible for grant managers, regulators or in-lieu fee mitigation fund administrators to meaningfully report how funded projects achieve stated goals. The resulting lack of focus on outcomes from projects results in a lack of accountability in project selection and project execution that significantly reduces the effectiveness of investments. Quantified ecosystem service credits, that integrate both quantity and quality of environmental conditions, can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of projects and investments. The knowledge that all projects within a region or program will be compared based on effectiveness and cost increases the rigor of project selection and drives accountability in execution. Futher, performance-based contracts are typical in most industries. However, lacking clear measures of performance, environmental projects are typically funded with little recourse for modifications during project execution that may significantly reduce the environmental benefit of the project. Quantified ecosystem service credits enable investment approaches that share the risk between investors and producers. Direct purchase of verified credits and contracts that define a fixed-price per credit upon delivery can 1) ensure that public and private investors receive defined environmental returns for their investments, and 2) reward high quality producers of environmental benefits with price premiums. As new programs that quantify ecosystem services are implemented, they provide the opportunity for natural experiments. The effectiveness of recent past projects – selected and implemented before the credit-based programs were in place – can be compared to investment approaches that require delivery of ecosystem service credits. Credits can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of different policy approaches to determine if the environmental return on investment is greater for hand-picked projects on public lands, on-site mitigation, off-site mitigation, competitive grant funding or in-lieu fee programs. They can also be used to determine if mitigation projects are offsetting impacts. Initial results from the Lake Tahoe Basin show a significant increase in effectiveness when credits are considered in project selection and implementation. Additional results will be presented from water quality and habitat improvement programs as they are available. Specific recommendations identify how to evaluation the environmental return on investment from alternative investment approaches, including identifying limitation of comparability between regions with different environmental needs. Participants will be invited to collaborate on analyses over the coming year to develop a full body of data that can support rigorous analysis that will inform private investor decisions and public policy. Contact Information: Jeremy Sokulsky, Environmental Incentives, LLC, 3351 Lake Tahoe Blvd, Suite 2, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, USA, Phone: 530-541-2980, Email: [email protected]


299

GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS OF HUMAN NITROGEN INPUTS AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT TO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Leesa A. Souto1 and Claudia M. Listopad2

1Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA 2Applied Ecology, Inc., Indialantic, FL, USA

Nitrogen (N) retention by soils and vegetation in the residential landscape provides the ecosystem service of reducing negative impacts to ground and surface waters. Nitrate concentrations in Florida’s springs have increased with increasing land development over the past fifty years with some groundwater wells consistenty exceeding drinking water standards for nitrate (SJRWMD 2007; USGS 2010). Since the Floridan aquifer spring source is also the primary source of residential drinking water, increasing groundwater nitrate concentrations present a public health issue that will be challenging and costly to remediate. With cleanup estimates in the billions of dollars statewide, drinking water at risk, and Florida’s important fisheries and tourism industries at stake, actionable research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of ecosystem services that retain nitrogen in the residential landscape. There is little doubt that residential fertilizer is a significant source of excessive nitrogen, (Law et al 2004, Driscoll et al 2003, Boyer et al 2002, Zhu et al 2004), with measures estimating it contributes at least 25% of nitrogen loads to aquatic systems (Howarth et al 1996). Research shows that land use and human structures can influence the function of nitrogen retention in urban-ecosystems (Groffman et al 2004, Zhu et al 2004), but little research has focused at the subdivision scale to understand household and community variables that predict the excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers. To address this, we spatially relate household behavioral data to socio-economic, property, and environmental variables. Patterns emerged to clarify hot and cold spots of fertilizer use in a growing suburban area in Central Florida. Our results indicated that the year of development and property values predicted fertilizer frequency, but that at higher property values, fertilizer frequency decreased. Homeowner behaviors that predicted high fertilizer frequency included having an in-ground irrigation system, hiring a professional maintenance contractor, and irrigating the lawn more frequently. Attitudes that predicted fertilizer frequency included community importance, preferring a monoculture lawn, and caring what the neighbors think. People who never fertilize were significantly less likely to live in a Homeowners Association (HOA) governed community. This research contributed the household level information often missing from human-natural system linkages. It continued to build onto the body of geospatial tools for integrating human and environmental data and initiated an interdisciplinary approach to develop a modeling tool to predict and mitigate the impact of future land use changes. Surface water pollutant load models assume that more recent residential developments are less likely to pollute than older developments due to improved stormwater management and infrastructure. Our results suggest that although more recent developments have infrastructure in place to address stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution, they are more likely to contribute more nitrogen inputs through landscape fertilizers. Load coefficients should be developed for different residential land uses that consider predictive socio-demographics such as housing development date, property values, and presence of a HOA. Contact Information: Leesa Souto, Biology Department, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando, FL 32816, USA, Phone: 321-722-2123, Email: [email protected]


300

SCALLING UP: HIGHLIGHTING DIFFERENCES AND COMMONALITIES FROM ACROSS THE GLOBE Tracy Stanton

Environmental Policy Consultant, Seattle, WA, USA This presentation will describe the early stage work in the four county region of King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap Counties in the Puget Sound Basin as a scoping study to develop a Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS). Through a stakeholder driven process involving local and regional partners, the process aims to identify conservation strategies that contribute to the ecological, economic, recreational and aesthetic vitality of the region. One of the focal points of the exercise is to look at open space as an ecosystem service and to identify methodologies to define and value the ecosystem service benefits of the open space network in the study area. This effort will highlight what is known about how regional planning processes are using ecosystem valuation as part of the overall planning exercise and where there are opportunities to highlight key ecosystem values to policy and decision makers and to the general public. Contact Information: Tracy Stanton, The Freshwater Trust, 1534 Madrona Drive, Seattle, WA 98122, Phone: 301-520-0668, Email: [email protected]


301

VALUING OPEN SPACE AS AN ECOSYSTM SERVICE IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL LAND-USE PLANS Tracy Stanton

Environmental Policy Consultant, Seattle, WA, USA This presentation will describe the early stage work in the four county region of King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap Counties in the Puget Sound Basin as a scoping study to develop a Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS). Through a stakeholder driven process involving local and regional partners, the process aims to identify conservation strategies that contribute to the ecological, economic, recreational and aesthetic vitality of the region. One of the focal points of the exercise is to look at open space as an ecosystem service and to identify methodologies to define and value the ecosystem service benefits of the open space network in the study area. This effort will highlight what is known about how regional planning processes are using ecosystem valuation as part of the overall planning exercise and where there are opportunities to highlight key ecosystem values to policy and decision makers and to the general public. Contact Information: Tracy Stanton, The Freshwater Trust, 1534 Madrona Drive, Seattle, WA 98122, Phone: 301-520-0668, Email: [email protected]


302

CLEAN UP HITTER - THE FINANCING HORIZONG FROM 30,000 F Peter R. Stein

Managing Director, The Lyme Timber Company, Hanover, NH, USA The author/presenter in collaboration with Pat Coady of Coady-Dietmar Partners and Carl Palmer of Beartooth Capital Partners will explore the current use of private capital investment strategies in forestland, ranchland and wetlands mitigation banking investments where monetizing conservation and ecosystem values are key elements of the investment strategy. Sale of agricultural preservation restrictions, sale of species credits, sale of wetland mitigation banking credits, sale of working forest conservation easements and recreational leasing schemes are all components to the investment thesis undertaken by The Lyme Timber Company as it deploys private investment capital in the arena of sustainable natural resources. An exploration of the underwriting components of specific investment transactions will be examined. Specifically, the approariate risk adjusted discount rates for various ecosystem service monetization schemes will be explored through an interactive discussion amongst the presenters as part of this workshop. Over the last 20 years, The Lyme Timber Company has completed more than 100 rural real estate and forestland investments using the sale of ecosystem services as part of the structure for generating returns for each of these investments. Contact Information: Peter R. Stein, The Lyme Timber Company, 23 S. Main Street, Hanover, NH, 03755 USA, Phone: 603-643-3300, Email: [email protected]


303

ECOVAL™ ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY EVALUATION SYSTEM (EES) Harry J. Stone, Stephanie A. Hines and Daniel J. Chappie

Environmental Assessment and Exposure, Battelle, Cincinnati, OH, USA Functioning ecosystems provides services that are valued by people. Human activities, particularly economic activities, may impair ecosystem functioning in a non-linear way such that by the time damage to ecosystem services is observed, the cost, time and effort to reverse the process may make restoration infeasible. Gaps typically exist between our understanding of incremental changes in ecosystem functioning, losses of ecosystem services, and the value of lost services. The purpose of this presentation is present a case study using the EcoVal™ EES method for assessing the condition of a watershed, linking the assessment to the likelihood of changes in ecosystems services, and assessing the relative change in value of ecosystem services that may result. This presentation will illustrate the EcoVal™ EES methodology by demonstrating its application to two Ohio watersheds: one that meets Ohio’s biotic water quality standard and one that is impaired. EcoVal™ EES is a watershed based, hierarchical, multi-parameter analytical methodology for objective determination of environmental quality. The EES comprises empirically-based heuristics to interpret how human (or natural) changes in 20 ecosystem-specific parameters may impact ecosystem functioning, services, and values. The parameters fall into three categories of environmental quality: ecological integrity; intrinsic value; and utilitarian value. Further, the parameters operate at various scales from watershed impervious surface to in-stream, location specific water chemistry. The method is adaptable to include factors, such as climate change, that are operating at greater geographic scales. Depending on the availability of data, time, and expertise, various ecological models may be substituted for one or more of the key heuristics to reduce uncertainty associated with the heuristic approach. The results of the case study show that the methodology:

• Successfully ranks the relative environmental quality of the streams in terms of biotic outcomes and ecosystem services values

• Provides indicators that a tipping point likely to result in significant changes in ecosystem functioning is being approached or has been exceeded

• Provides insight into conditions where change would be necessary to increase the likelihood that desired biotic outcomes and/or ecosystem services will be restored or maintained.

EcoVal™ EES provides a methodology that can be objectively calibrated to a given ecoregion. The EES can be broadly used in the “heuristic” mode in the ecoregion to provide a relatively low-cost evaluation of existing water quality, to provide indicators of change in key parameters that impact water quality, and to provide warnings that tipping points likely to impact ecosystem functioning and/or services are being approached. Further, the EES supports identification of ecosystem services that can be valued using published methods or benefits transfer. Next steps for the method involve application in new ecosystems to validate the overall methodology. Contact Information: Harry Stone, Battelle, 10300 Alliance Rd. Suite 155, Cincinnati, OH 45242, Phone: 513-362-2600 ext.12, Email: [email protected]


304

THE COMPLEXITY OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE NORTHERN EVERGLADES Hilary M. Swain1, Paul N. Gray2 and Roberta L. Pickert1

1Archbold Biological Station, Venus, FL, USA 2Audubon of Florida, Lorida, FL, USA

The Everglades ecosystem extends from the uplands of central Florida, through the “liquid heart” of Lake Okeechobee, south to the “River of Grass”, and beyond to Florida Bay. The iconic images of the Everglades are of endless sawgrass marsh, dotted with tree islands, extending to coastal mangrove swamps. But ever-increasing attention is being paid to ecosystem drivers in the headwaters of the Everglades. This area, recently named as part of the Northern Everglades, encompasses all the lands and waters that flow into Lake Okeechobee from the north, west, and east. Here is a complex and heterogeneous patchwork of rural land uses, including farms, ranches, military lands, and parks and preserves. Although there has been a large-scale manipulation of nutrient dynamics, widespread modification of species distributions, and transformation of landscape structure, this region continues to provide innumerable ecosystem services for the people of Florida. Extensive remaining areas of native habitat, much of it still on private lands, are home to many of Florida’s rare species. Vast open space is available to recharge aquifers, and to feed the marshes, lakes, and rivers upon which we all rely. But the ecosystem services derived from the Northern Everglades have to be set in the context of a critical “ecosystem disservice” from this watershed; the cumulative impacts of too much nutrient-laden water, particularly excessive phosphorus, being delivered to Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades downstream. The Northern Everglades includes a series of sub watersheds draining into Lake Okeechobee. The largest are the Upper and Lower Kissimmee, transporting water from Orlando southwards through what is the largest river restoration project in the world. Indian Prairie and Lake Istokpoga also convey water from the north. Fisheating Creek/Nicodemus Slough gathers water from the north and west. Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough, drains from the north and east. Seepage flow from the ancient dune system of the Lake Wales Ridge charges several of these subwatersheds. This talk presents a conceptual model of the array of ecosystem services provided by these Northern Everglades watersheds, and the trade-offs among these services and disservices. We review the extent to which the public as well as private landowners have invested in ecosystem services. Existing public land acquisition and easement purchases, as well as new proposals to protect and restore more land in this watershed are examined. We introduce the public programs designed to further offset the rate at which phosphorus is entering Lake Okeechobee, still averaging more than three times the desired level, including a new “payment for ecosystem services program” for private landowners. We discuss how strategic gains can be made from targeting lands that provide multiple ecosystem services. Finally we consider the impacts of potential land use change and climate variability on the future of the ecological, hydrological, and socio-economic services derived from this important watershed. Contact Information: Hilary M. Swain, Archbold Biological Station, 123 Main Drive, Venus, FL 33960, USA, Phone: 863-465-2571, Email: [email protected]


305

ECOSYSTEM AUCTIONS FOR DECISION SUPPORT FOR INVASIVE PLANTS MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Achyut Kafle1 and Stephen K. Swallow2

1Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (ENRE), University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA 2Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ARE), University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

This presentation concerns an effort to develop a decision support tool for land managers to consider in prioritizing future ecosystem restoration decisions for managing invasive plants in the Nature Reserve of Orange County (NROC), California. We utilized a real-money discrete choice experiment method involving binding choices to assess public values and priorities for ecosystem restoration attributes. Participants in the economics experiment were asked to evaluate alternative ecosystem restoration projects described in terms of various restoration attributes such as restoration effort, size (acreage), native habitat and bird species focus, etc. In the choice task, participants were asked to identify their preferred alternative among those available. Economics experiments were designed to measure marginal values for restoration attributes and the tradeoffs between restoration attributes. A proportion of such choice tasks presented to participants were feasible projects to implement restoration on the ground immediately (starting in 2012). A rule by which participants’ responses to choice tasks will lead to the provision of ecosysterm restoration projects on the ground is a provision rule and provides a connection between participants’ responses and actual outcomes. We explored whether participants respond consistently to the choice tasks under alternative provision rules- majority vote and single decision-maker’s choice rules. The investigation on alternative provision rules will provide useful information regarding whether participants hold equivalent marginal values and tradeoffs between restoration attibutes under various rules conveying different incentives structures to truthfully reveal their values. We utilized a split-sample approach to investigate different provision rules using both hypothetical and binding choices with voluntarily recruited individuals affiliated with local environmental organizations in southern California. Binding choices involved actual ecosystem restoration projects and actual payment of money from participants. A conditional logit model was utilized to estimate a statistical model of values for ecosystem restoration attributes. Preliminary results suggest that participants hold significant marginal values for ecosystem restoration attributes except the type of native habitat for restoration. Results also suggest that there is no significant difference in marginal values and tradeoffs between ecosystem restoration attributes under alternative provision rules. Only preliminary results are shared in this abstract as a rigorous analysis will be conducted to test alternative provision rules using advanced econometric models, such as latent class models to address heterogeneity in preferences for ecosystem restoration attributes, enabling a detailed report at the conference. A statistical model of public values and priorities will help land managers incorporate such values in prioritizing future restoration decisions. Statistically equivalent marginal values and tradeoffs between ecosystem restoration attributes under alternative provision rules suggest an important conclusion for methodological aspects of discrete choice experiments, meaning participants respond consistently to valuation choice tasks irrespective of provision rules used; this preliminary result supports use of the model for benefit-cost analysis as well. This study demonstrates an approach by which public values and priorities, as one input to consider, are incorporated to develop decision support tools to assist relevant environmental managers to prioritize future ecosystem restoration decisions. Contact Information: Stephen K. Swallow, Agricultural and Resource Economics (ARE), 1376 Storrs Road, Unit 4021, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4021, USA. Phone: 860-486-1917, Email: [email protected]


306

CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING A COORDINATED NUTRIENT TRADING STRATEGY FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY Ann Swanson

Chesapeake Bay Commission, Annapolis, MD, USA The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is particularly vulnerable to the effects of nutrient enrichment and eutrophication because it drains an area of over 64,000 square miles. Including parts of six states – Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virgina – plus the District of Columbia (DC), it is the largest coastal watershed on the eastern seaboard of the United States. Consequently, developing successful policies to protect and restore the Bay requires not only a detailed understanding of the stressors, impacts, and technological options for reducing nutrient loads in the watershed, but also close collaboration between the affected states (and DC) and with the federal government. The Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC) was created in 1980 precisely for this purpose. As a tri-state legislative assembly representing Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, its mission is to coordinate Bay-related policy across state lines and to develop shared solutions. Differing state approaches are respected by the CBC, provided that commonly-held, desired results are achieved. Over the decade, four Bay states– Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia – have developed their own nutrient trading programs to provide more flexible and cost-effective approaches for reducing loads to the watershed (and to other parts of the states). Despite many similarities, these programs each have their own set of rules and are not designed to allow trading across states. With the recent adoption of the Chesapeaek Bay TMDL, there is increasing interest in using, expanding, and perhaps integrating nutrient trading programs across the Bay. This presentation will provide a “frontline” view of the issues and challenges associated with developing a coordinated nutrient trading strategy for the Bay watershed. As the CBC’s executive director for the past 24 years, Ms. Swanson offers a unique perspective on the realities of environmental policy development and implementation in the Chesapeake region. Using historical examples, such as regulation of the blue crab fishery, she will illustrate how ideas become policy, the short-term barriers and setbacks that may occur, and the implications for nutrient trading and their role in supporting achievement of the Bay TMDL. Contact Information: Ann Swanson, Executive Director, Chesapeake Bay Commission, 60 West Street, Suite 406, Annapolis, MD, 21401, USA., Phone: 410-263-3420, Email: [email protected]


307

LESSONS LEARNED FROM TWO FOREST CARBON PROJECTS IN THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS Paula Swedeen

Swedeen Consulting and Dogwood Alliance, Olympia, WA, USA We are developing several projects in the southern Appalachian Mountains in the southern United States under a program called Carbon Canopy. Carbon Canopy seeks to join high quality forest carbon offsets using the California Air Resources Board Offset Protocol for U.S. Forests with Forest Stewardship Council certification in order to provide 1) an increased flow of FSC certified wood and paper products to companies with sustainable procurement policies and 2) to provide an alternative source of income for landowners in the South other than conversion to real estate or short rotation pine plantations. Both projects involve small non-industrial landowners. The first project involves 1,400 acres in southwest Virginia whose starting carbon stocks are below the Common Practice Indicator. It has the potential to create approximately 100,000 offset credits over a 30-year period. The second project is on 2,600 acres in western North Carolina that starts above the Common Practice Indicator and has the potential to create 220,000 offset credits over a 30-year period. Lessons include: the use of a two-stage inventory method to get adequate date for a relatively accurate assessment of starting carbon stocks and therefore income generating potential of the project to help landowners decide whether to commit to full project development; the importance of upfront project development financing for small forest landowners and the use a revolving fund structures to provide that finance; the limitation of the 40% slope eligibility criterion for avoided conversion projects in mountainous areas with high development pressure; the need for more complete species lists and equations for assessment areas in the Appalachian hardwood region; the need for more clarity around invalidation risk for forest projects; the need to subsidize buy-out costs for small forest landowners in the event of extreme economic duress; and finally the desirability of developing remote sensing techniques to reduce the costs for monitoring and verification. Contact Information: Paula Swedeen, Swedeen Consulting and Dogwood Alliance 510 Brownell Ln SW, Olympia, WA 98512, Phone: 360-791-8224, Email: [email protected]


308

TEEB BRAZIL INITIATIVE Antonio Tafuri, Lidio Coradin and Luana Duarte

Department of Biodiversity Conservation, Secretariat of Biodiversity and Forests, Ministry of the Environment, Brasilia, Brazil TEEB Brazil is a joint initiative between the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Finance, UNEP Brazil, Institute of Applied Economic Research (Ipea), Conservation International (CI-Brasil), German Cooperation Agency (GIZ), National Confederation of Industries (CNI) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN Brasil). The purpose of TEEB Brazil is to identify and highlight the economic benefits derived from the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the country, as to evaluate the costs of their losses. TEEB Brazil aims to disseminate tools to comprise these benefits and costs to the processes of decision making in the public, private and civil society. TEEB Brazil comprehends on four components: (1st) TEEB for National Policymakers attempts to demonstrate the value of ecosystems and biodiversity to selected sectors of the economy, hence to recommend a set of federal policy actions. (2nd) TEEB for Business Sector aims to assess the risks and costs of biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and opportunities associated with its conservation and sustainable use, for Brazilian companies and business sectors. (3rd) TEEB for citizens aims to transmit didactically the main results of the studies to the society through multimedia strategy. (4th) TEEB for Regional and Local Policy Makers aims to provide practical guidance on how to deal with the challenge of biodiversity loss in the local and regional levels. The results achieved to date have been: (i) Translation into Portuguese of TEEB Global reports (Interim, Business, Synthesis, Local and Regional Policy Makers), through a partnership with the CNI and the World Bank; (ii) TEEB Gap Analysis research through a partnership with Ipea; (iii) TEEB Business was launched on October, 2011 by CI-Brasil and UNEP Brasil. First interim report was launched at Rio+20, during the side event - The Brazilian Industry on the Way to Sustainability: Industry Meeting for Sustainability - promoted by the CNI; (iv) Proposal of TEEB Brazil for Regional and Local Policy Makers in partnership with GIZ. It is a 4 year project, with a Є3.5 million budget support from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) and an additional counterpart of Є2.0 million. This project is to be formally executed from the 2nd semester, 2012. The TEEB national agenda is challenging. Despite we have reached advances regarding TEEB for Regional and Local Policies and TEEB for Business, we are presently discussing a proposal for a ministerial order to establish the governance for the TEEB Brazil iniciative. This is important, especially in order to establish a framework and to coordinate the different processes and their goals. On the short term we are looking forward to fostering the preliminar study of TEEB Brazil gap analysis, according to UNEP´s guidelines and their financial support, as well. One of the reasons of success of TEEB Global was the collaborative framework all over the world. TEEB Brazil initiative must be aware of exchanging and sharing expertises concerned.

Contact Information: Antonio Tafuri, Ministry of the Environment of Brazil, SEPN 505 Norte, Bloco B, 4° andar, sala 418, Brasilia 70.730-542, Brasil, Phone: 556120282095, Email: [email protected]


309

THE CARROT AND STICK: LINKING REWARDS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO A WATER CAP-AND-TRADE SCHEME IN SOUTH AFRICA. Andrew T. Knight1 and Maura J. Talbot2

1Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa & ARC Centre of Excellence in Environmental Decisions (CEED), The University of Queensland, Australia

2Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa and Research Associate in the Environmental Science Department, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

Government and non-government organisations in South Africa with interests in conservation are advocating payments or rewards to land managers in priority upper catchments who adopt restoration, conservation and sustainable land uses. The improved water flows generated by these activities provide opportunities for “Payments for Ecosystem Services” (PES) from downstream water-users that could provide land managers with the financial resources to transition to sustainable land uses in the long term. However, such proposals have not been well received by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) who, since 1998, has become the legal ‘owner’ of all water in South Africa. Rewarding “privileged” (e.g., mostly white and wealthy) private land and water entitlement holders for restoration, runs contrary to the policy of redistributing their water-use entitlements to other more productive and disadvantaged sectors, and to curb water use by all water users in stressed catchments so as to accommodate the ecological and social reserves. This is a particular problem in heavily utilised catchments, such as those in the Algoa water management area in South Africa where water demand already outstrips supply, and supply is severely affected by droughts and floods. There are also concerns about the potential impact of climate change on these water systems. We are investigating the use of a “Cap and Trade” system to reduce and redistribute water-use rights, and to link this to a PES scheme for landscape restoration that has the potential to increase the water available for redistribution and to encourage marginal landowners and managers to reduce their water use and transition to sustainable agricultural land uses. Using socio-economic and spatial data on three catchments in the Algoa water management area that supply 70% of the water requirements for the city of Port Elizabeth, we propose to use water and restoration auction experiments to investigate the potential of these regulated market mechanisms to reduce and redistribute water use entitlements, and at the same time increase the volume and security of water supply within these river systems through restoration activities in the upper catchment areas. We are currently preparing auction experiments and will report on the legal, policy and practical issues of relevance to the design of these experiments for the Algoa water management area. We also show why it is necessary to link PES and water cap-and-trade market mechanisms, the carrot and the stick, to effectively ensure the sustainable use of water and land resources. Contact Information: Maura J. Talbot, Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6139, South Africa, Phone: +27 (0)72 386 0537, Email: [email protected]


310

SPATIAL APPRAISAL AND VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENT AND ECOSYSTEMS (SAVEE) Sasathorn Tapaneeyakul

Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA An ecosystem has value associated with its services. Though tremendous services are rendered by ecosystems, their values in monetary terms seem to be elusive. This shortcoming hinders the ability of stakeholders to comprehend the worth of an ecosystem and the services it provides. Monetary terms are “common currencies” people are accustomed to in valuing an object of interest. The lack of common currencies handicaps the device of effective management plans for environment and ecosystems. There is thus a need to address this outstanding issue of attaching monetary value to an ecosystem. An opportunity to address the issue lies in linking ecosystem values equitably to that of lands on the development side of the spectrum. The linkage is justified on the solid ground of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Sustainable Development by 172 nations at the Earth Summit. This Declaration calls for the equitability of development and environment and has since become the norm for the ensuing pursuits by all countries in the world. On the developmental side, people have long been looking into using monetary land values as a proxy for development. In reference to property prices, values on lands for development can be conveniently normalized into a range of (0, 1) to serve as an index of Developmental Intensity or DI. By the same token, ecosystems could and should have a similar and corresponding indexing scale as a measurement of Ecosystem Sustainability (ES). Mapping between DI and ES leads to one plausible way to assess equitable monetary values to ecosystems. To implement the idea of equitable mapping between development and sustainability, a Spatial Appraisal and Valuation of Environment and Ecosystems (SAVEE) methodology is proposed herewith. SAVEE is an endeavor to incorporate spatially explicit measures into valuation of ecosystem that is equitable to its developmental counterpart. The goal of this research is to define “spatial acre” that attaches monetary values to a geographic span of interest. Specific objectives are: 1) To develop a SAVEE framework that links development and environment on the principle of sustainability; and 2) To develop an empirical model of spatial acre that enables mapping of values of environment and ecosystems to their developmental counterparts. SAVEE framework will primarily be constructed through an economic valuation model and applications in Geographic Information System (GIS). ES will be developed from attributes relevant to ecosystem services. Significant attributes of ES will be combined using fuzzy logic to produce unified and easy-to-compare spatially explicit indices that are locale-specific at any intended resolutions. Empirical models will be constructed to determine the correlation between ES and the corresponding DI derived from underlying established and known land values. This provides the ground for mapping of the two indices. Spatial acres or the monetary values of ecosystems can then be established by cross-referencing prices of comparable lands. Applications of the model will be addressed through case studies of lands in Grayson County, Texas and wetlands in Galveston County, Texas with extensive collection of data from the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge and Texas Sustainable Coastal Initiative project respectively. Contact Information: Sasathorn Tapaneeyakul, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, 2138 TAMU, College Station, TX 77840-2138, USA, Phone: 979-845-1551, Email: [email protected]


311

INNOVATING A CORPORATE APPROACH TO ACCOUNT FOR AND ADDRESS ECOSYSTEM SERVICE THREATS M.S. Berry Kennedy1, Daniel J. Gerding1, Makely F. Lyon1, Joshua A. Rego1 and Emily S. L. Taylor1, Sheila M. Walsh2

1School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 2Sustainability Science Program, The Nature Conservancy, Durham, NC, USA

With uncertainty surrounding the specific impacts of global climate change, it is increasingly important for corporations to fully incorporate the value of services nature provides into strategic decisions. Working closely with The Dow Chemical Company, our team of five Masters of Science students from the University of Michigan researched emerging tools and strategies to support and sustainably leverage ecosystem value to one of the world’s largest chemical manufacturing companies. Specifically, our project focuses on fresh water provisioning and impending scarcity. Implementing ecosystem service valuation techniques that more accurately capture the true value of water resources is an important first step towards changing private sector water consumption practices. Corporations must then develop innovative systems that allow for nimble adaptation to changing ecosystem conditions. Based on lessons from energy efficiency financing, carbon pricing, and community collaboration, we established a framework for preemptive corporate response to changes in freshwater availability. Our research on systems and tools for corporate response was grounded in analysis of water institutions, potential future water-related policy and research into the socio-political context surrounding each of Dow’s largest manufacturing facilities. Analysis of these case studies was used to provide a framework for deciding which of these financial, institutional or operational responses might be appropriate for a given context. The framework is intended to be policy-agnostic; in other words, the goal is to facilitate useful action that responds to inevitable changes in policy rather than relying on specific institutional environments. Our final recommendation establishes a methodology for Dow to shift water-related policies, practices and technologies to those that support corporate growth while promoting positive environmental and social impacts. Once the case study with Dow has been completed, the framework will be retooled so as to be applicable in a range of corporate environments. Contact Information: Masters Project Team 228. c/o Emily Taylor, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA, Phone: 734.604.6861, Email: [email protected]


312

LINKING YARD CARE TO PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS AND HOMEOWNER VALUES K. Tenneson

Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA In coupled human-natural systems, vegetation simultaneously provides ecological function (e.g., carbon storage) and human services (e.g.,microclimate regulation). Collectively, homeowners play one of the largest roles in designing and managing the urban forest since residential lands are the dominant use of urban regions. Furthermore, the influence of single family residential lands on ecological processes in urban areas will only increase over time according to growth projections of many U.S. metropolitan areas, where new development is largely attributed to single family residences at the edges of the city. Therefore understanding the factors that motivate households to plant and/or remove trees on their properties is a critical piece in understanding urban forest dynamics and designing successful urban forestry initiatives. While we know a great deal about vegetation patterns and functions in urbanizing environments, there are few studies that assess the role of land manager values, attitudes and preferences in the care of their yard. In this study, I assessed the relationship between homeowner management practices (tree removal and planting history), homeowner values and preferences, vegetation characteristics (e.g. tree density) of the respondent’s property, and adjacent development patterns (building density, etc). The single family residential parcel, my unit of analysis, provides a direct link between land managers (homeowners) and vegetation patterns. I randomly selected 100 owner occupied single-family residential homes in King County, WA, with a stratified sampling scheme using land cover data across an urban gradient. Vegetation characteristics (tree type, size, etc) were recorded at each property and homeowners submitted information via a mailed yard care survey. Survey questions included tree care history, landscape and yard use preferences, and perceptions regarding the benefits and challenges of trees. T-tests and multivariate logistic regressions were used to test the role urban form, household demographic makeup, landscape attitudes, yard use and activities play in explaining household tree planting and removal activities. Preliminary results indicate that homeowners are planting more trees than they are removing. The patterns of tree planting and removal across the urban environment are complex and vary depending on the amount of vegetation on the property, available planting space/lot size and degree of urbanization in the surrounding region. While most people value the many benefits that trees provide, these benefits play a small role in explaining tree planting and removal history. This work begins to describe the coupled relationship between the urban forest and homeowners. This information can assist urban forest managers design outreach programs and policies that are sensitive to the constraints, values, and preferences surrounding homeowners yard care decisions. Contact Information: K. Tenneson, Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Box 355740, Seattle, WA 98195, USA, Phone: 206-200-7739, Email: [email protected]


313

SPATIAL TRANSFER OF VALUE BY MIGRATING BIRDS: THE CASE OF THE NORTHERN PINTAIL Wayne E. Thogmartin 1, James A. Dubovsky2 and Brady J. Mattsson3

1United States Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, WI, USA 2United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Denver, CO, USA 2United States Geological Survey, Western Ecological Science Center, Sacramento, CA, USA

North America’s wetlands support a rich abundance and diversity of migratory waterfowl. Migratory bird treaties and conventions signed between Canada and the United States in 1916, and in 1946 with Mexico, requires a continental perspective for managing these birds. Management includes coordination of harvest effort and habitat protection, restoration and enhancement. Habitat management occurs according to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan via various governmental and non-governmental sources. For instance, since 1991, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act has led to the investment of approximately US1$ billion in federal funds, matched with nearly US$3 billion in partner funds in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The value of waterfowl harvest over this same period is at least $20 billion. Much of the investment in waterfowl habitat occurs on the breeding grounds, whereas a considerable amount of the value derived from harvest occurs while the species are in migration or at their wintering grounds. Migrating waterfowl transfer value from the breeding ground to the wintering ground and back again as they complete their life history.

Northern pintails (Anas acuta, hereafter pintail) are the focal species for our understanding of this migrational subsidization. Pintail occur throughout North America, but are most abundant in 5 main areas of the continent. The breeding grounds are comprised of the Prairie Pothole Region, also known as the Duck Factory of North America, Alaska, and northern Canada. The wintering grounds are principally in California and the Gulf Coast. We show how much a particular location, such as the breeding grouds, supports the provisioning of ecosystem services in other locations, such as where birds are harvested. We estimate the net payment, or subsidy, owed among locations that balances benefits received and support provided by locations throughout the migratory range of the northern pintail.

Our methods are as follows. Based upon a synthesis of harvest reports and valuation studies conducted for waterfowl harvest, we determined the value (V) associated with pintail harvest in California and the Gulf Coast. From information gleaned from valuation estimates associated with bird watching, we also determined the value associated with pintail viewing. Lastly, we conducted a meta-analysis of studies describing the subsistence harvest of pintails by Arctic peoples, and then determined the value of that harvest through principles of cost replacement. With a metapopulation model integrating harvest and habitat management actions at local and regional scales, we determined the proportional dependency (D) of pintails to each of the 5 population centers. From these data, we then calculated migration support as Mi = Vi(1-Di), for the i = 1-5 population centers.

Most of the economic value associated with pintails is obtained during harvest in California and the Gulf Coast. Maintenance of that value, however, requires continued investment into the species’ breeding habitat, especially the Prairie Pothole Region where the majority of pintails originate. Our studies continue, by examining the value associated with NAWCA and other habitat management investments associated with pintail conservation. We also seek to estimate change in total system value and proportional dependency as the Prairie Pothole Region is influenced by a changing climate.

Contact Information: W. E. Thogmartin, USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, 2630 Fanta Reed Road, La Crosse, WI 54603, Phone: 608-781-6309, E-mail: [email protected]


314

THE PUYALLUP TRIBAL HOMELANDS & ECO-CULTURAL CONCEPTS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE Jeffrey P. Thomas

Puyallup Tribal Timber, Fish & Wildlife Program – Tacoma, WA, USA The Puyallup Tribal Timber, Fish & Wildlife (PTFW) Program has nurtured and used the concept of eco-cultural restoration since Autumn 1994, and the end-result today has been an interesting array of general successes along with other unfortunate disappointments. The Puyallup tribal homelands are generally located within the greater Pierce County area of south-central Puget Sound, especially the Puyallup-White Rivers drainage system (which originates upon the northern 2/3 of world renowned Mount Rainier - overlooking the City of Tacoma). The PTFW program has used eco-cultural restoration as both an overarching environmental education paradigm and as a fundamental local natural and cultural resource management systems analysis (as well as guidance) tool. The PTFW eco-cultural restoration paradigm offers a fundamental concept through which other more specific aspects of the PTFW eco-cultural restoration philosophy and approach can be highlighted for local appreciation (as well as hopeful use). The PTFW program has nurtured eco-cultural restoration locally through use of the “Eco-Centric Subsistence: An Environmental Education Tool” Model (Apr 1994), the “Cultural Resource Management Foundations” Model (Oct 1994), the “Eco-Cultural Systems Management” Model (Apr 1995), the “Eco-Cultural Restoration Realm” Model/incl. eco-cultural restoration plan (May 2001), the “Eco-Cultural Resources Protection & Management Components Constellation” Model (Feb 2002), and the “Eco-Cultural Restoration Systems Universe” Model (May 2001). The PTFW program focus has been to apply eco-cultural restoration concepts locally, as well as merge eco-cultural restoration concepts with statewide tribal/non-tribal cultural resource protection and management systems and approaches as opportunities arise. The local efforts have focused on research activity and public educational presentations, and the broad-scale work has highlighted forest resource protection provisions and/or national-level cultural resource stewardship presentations. Key challenges are the inability to determine the effectiveness of PTFW local or statewide eco-cultural restoration advocacy tools or efforts, the inability to collect and manage all relevant data and information, and /or the inability to solicit the interest-commitment of the particular stakeholders that are needed for ensuring that the PTFW local and/or statewide eco-cultural restoration efforts will actually work. Recent work refers to “Eco-Cultural Concepts” as stewardship paradigms that recognize that cultural standards are richer than ecological alone, that subsistence management and traditional social economy concepts are especially useful (but rarely utilized), and that tribal natural resource management and recovery programs are a vital component of tribal community/behavioral health services. “Eco-cultural Concepts (ECC)” were developed to provide local, state and federal-level decision-makers with specific tools that link ecosystem services science, practice and decision-making - e.g. ECCs promote key core principles and management concepts, ECCs highlight restoring ecosystem health and ensuring tribal access (for cultural interactions or uses), ECCs highlight key relationships via symbolic model representations, and ECC uses can be either programmatic or ground-based. Contact Information: Jeffrey P. Thomas, Timber, Fish & Wildlife Program, Puyallup Tribe of Indians/6824 Pioneer Way East, Tacoma, WA 98371 USA, Phone: 253-680-5565, Email: [email protected]


315

ENERGY SECTOR MARKET DEMAND FOR HABITAT CREDIT TRADING IN THE WESTERN US Ted Toombs1 and J. Sokulsky2

1Environmental Defense Fund, Boulder, Colorado, USA 2 Environmental Incentives, S. Lake Tahoe, California, USA

The greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and the lesser prairie chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) have been in decline across their combined 17 state range due in part to the extensive loss and fragmentation of their sage brush habitat. In recent years, a primary source of habitat fragmentation and loss has been extensive and expanding energy development, primarily oil, gas, and wind. The US Fish and Wildlife Service must make a determination on their listing status by late 2013 for the chicken and late 2015 for the grouse. Until then, both species are official candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act, and their management is primarily under the jurisdiction of the states. Environmental Defense Fund is currently working closely with Environmental Incentives and many local stakeholders in Colorado and Wyoming to develop regional markets for habitat credit trading for greater sage grouse and lesser prairie chicken habitat. These markets will be designed to offset energy impacts with tradable units of environmental benefit, called credits. However, in most cases states do not require compensatory mitigation through law. Thus, a major challenge to the success of these markets, is to encourage a high standard of compensatory mitigation in a “pre-compliance” context, in other words, prior to the federal requirement to do so. A key goal of the markets is to incentivize substantial near-term investments by energy companies in conservation actions that benefit the birds (i.e. credits) by providing regulatory certainty that the credits purchased now will retain their value even if the species is listed in the future. We believe that this assurance will provide substantial motivation for companies to proactively invest in conservation actions. But, this is only one potential “value driver” of demand for these markets. What are other value drivers, and how will these drivers affect the design of our markets? We developed an approach to examine and test the full range of “value drivers” of demand in the energy sector for these types of markets across the Western US. The steps in our approach were: 1) to develop company interview targets, 2) develop and evaluate initial potential value hypotheses using expert advisors, 3) develop an interview template and questionnaire, 4) test our value hypotheses by conducting energy executive interviews, and 5) synthesize our findings. We report on our initial findings that identify the primary value drivers of energy company demand for pre-compliance habitat credits for energy companies. These findings identify the environmental, policy and business context that combine to make habitat credits sufficiently valuable to support investment by energy companies and ensure net environmental benefits from transactions. Contact Information: Ted Toombs, Center for Conservation Incentives Regional Director, Environmental Defense Fund, 2060 Broadway, Suite 300, Boulder, Colorado, USA, Phone: 970-290-2031, Email: [email protected]


316

AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSESSMENT FOR DRYLANDS AGROECOSYSTEMS: DEVELOPING TOOLS FOR DECISION MAKERS Mohamad Traboulsi

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Dryland ecosystems are at risk of further degradation and the populations dependent on them at risk of malnutrition. Resource poverty may limit farmers’ ability to take advantage of agricultural practices that increase their potential yield and income. The main aim of this research project was to provide an ecosystem services assessment for dryland agroecosystems. One of the main impetuses for this project was to develop an ecosystem services assessment platform to engage decision makers (from policy makers to independent agencies to small farmers) in issues of ecosystem quality indicators (e.g., soil carbon) and food security. To fulfill the objective of the study, a cost benefit analysis was developed for the three main dryland ecosystems cropping systems: cotton-, sorghum- and maize-based cropping systems. The preliminary results showed that the cost of production for the three crops was lower if ecosystem services were accounted for. Furthermore, the benefit cost ratio was increased after accounting for the ecosystem services. Given these preliminary results, an ecosystem services platform with the key ecosystem services indicators used in this assessment will be used to engage decision makers. Contact Information: Mohamad Traboulsi, University of Florida, 355 Newins-Ziegler Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611, Phone: 352-846-0872, Email: [email protected]


317

INCORPORATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INTO PUBLIC PLANNING AND PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION Will Travis

Bay Area Joint Policy Committee, Berkeley, CA, USA

San Francisco Bay is the most urbanized estuary in the United States. Over seven million people live in the nine counties and 101 cities surrounding the bay. The region is also prosperous with an increasingly knowledge-based economy, especially in Silicon Valley. Despite the national economic downturn, large-scale development projects are moving ahead, some at closed military bases, and others mostly within the urban core of the region. The region remains attractive and livable, in large part because of pioneering environmental protection initiatives, including the creation of a massive network of federal, state and regional parks, and the “save the bay” movement in the 1960s that lead to the establishment of the nation’s first state coastal management agency. Active citizens’ organizations have launched aggressive campaigns to protect open space and farmland. Progressive government planning advances smart growth principles and works to concentrate new development around one of the most extensive public transportation networks in the western United States. The public purchase of two large properties formerly used for salt-making are resulting in over 26,000 acres of natural habitat enhancement as part of the nation’s largest wetland restoration project outside the Everglades. Like other metropolitan regions, the Bay Area is beginning to deal with threats posed by global climate change, including higher temperatures, water and energy shortages, more wildfires, and most acutely flooding from sea level rise. Before 1960, hundreds of square miles of shoreline land was reclaimed from the Bay by filling it just high enough to be above past sea level, but not above future sea level. Also because of subsidence, parts of the South Bay, where a number of high-profile Silicon Valley companies are located, are below current sea level. Approximately 330 square miles of low-lying land around the Bay may be vulnerable to sea level rise over the next century. Numerous critical regional assets are located with these areas vulnerable to flooding. Some of these assets include San Francisco’s financial district, Mission Bay, Treasure Island, San Francisco International Airport, Oakland International Airport, parts of Silicon Valley, highways, railroads, numerous communities, and hundreds of square miles of wetlands. A regional climate adaptation strategy is being formulated to determine how best to protect existing economic assets, address the trade-off between development and habitat enhancement, and enhance economic prosperity in the decades ahead. The recognition of the intrinsic value of ecosystem services and increasingly robust ecosystem service-based markets are playing important roles in land use planning and large-scale property acquisition and restoration projects. Yet ecosystem services are not typically considered in the regional planning for the Bay Area, are seldom incorporated into the planning for large projects, and rarely part of the public discussion as the Bay Area deals with climate change. This presentation explores the reasons for this situation and suggests how ecosystem services can be introduced more fully into the regional public dialogue. Contact Information: Will Travis, Bay Area Joint Policy Committee, 1704 Vine Street, Berkeley, CA 94703, Phone: 415-601-7140, Email: [email protected]


318

A GENERAL DECISION FRAMEWORK AND TOOLKIT FOR EVALUATING SITES FOR THE PROVISION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES John Fay1, Dean Urban1 and Lydia Olander2

1Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA 2Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

This is a sample of the body of the abstract. Please pay strict attention to the preparation of your abstract. The abstract should be as informative as possible and cover six key areas: 1) purpose, 2) scope, 3) methods used, 4) the results, 5) conclusions, and 6) recommendations. A recurring theme in recent discussions about ecosystem services is the need for a coherent logical and empirical framework for evaluating sites according to the relative value in providing such services. Ideally, such a framework could be implemented nationally, while still being adaptable to regional ecological issues, the mandates of various resource management agencies, and the values of local stakeholders. This need invites the application of a multicriteria decision framework, articulated in terms of an objectives hierarchy and associated valuation, and implemented in a robust but versatile analytic framework. Here we present an example of such a framework, focusing initially on biodiversity support but extendable to watershed protection and other ecosystem services. The objectives hierarchy recognizes several categories of ecological criteria to be considered (actual or potential biodiversity, habitat geometry, habitat connectivity, vulnerability, and management feasibility) and a larger set of empirical indicators by which these criteria can be indexed. The framework is implemented as a toolbox for ArcGIS, an industry-standard geographic information system, using standardized geospatial datasets that are freely available at the national scale. The tools provide the means to evaluate alternative management scenarios in terms of user-specified objectives and values for site prioritization, in a rigorous and transparent way. While illustrated with examples from North Carolina, the tools can be extended to any region of the country using these same national data; the tools can also be modified for more region- or agency-specific objectives. We offer this framework and toolkit as an example of what is feasible at the national scale using readily available data. Contact Information: Dean Urban, Nicholas School of the Environment, Box 90328, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA, Phone: 919-613-8076, Email: [email protected]


319

DO ECOSYSTEM SERVICES MARKETS BUILD RELATIONSHIPS? Mattijs J. Van Maasakkers

Environmental Policy and Planning group, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

The creation of ecosystem services markets at the watershed scale has been theorized and analyzed from a variety of theoretical perspectives. One aspect that has received attention in the literature is the ability and necessity of these new institutional frameworks to create, improve and foster relationships between key stakeholders in the locations in which they operate. This research analyzes the ways in which collaboration and communication practices between policy-makers, advocates, scientists, restoration professionals and landowners change in relation to the creation of an ecosystem services market. In theory, these new forms of collaboration and interaction can take the form of the creation of new organizations, new tasks within existing organizations and new or altered modes of interaction between organizations. This study empirically examines this claim by describing how government officials, non-profit employees and scientists in the Willamette River and Chesapeake Bay Watersheds have worked together to develop ecosystem services markets. This research is based on approximately 50 interviews with participants in the two cases, as well as extensive document-analysis, and is part of dissertation research. The two efforts have both been the object of active participation by state agencies, as well as grant funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and involvement from a range of non-governmental organizations. Besides active governmental participation, the successful inclusion of environmental activists and agricultural interest groups can be regarded as an important change in practice for some participants. In the Willamette Basin, most of the participants point to the design and implementation of a participatory process as a key reason for the creation of a market, whereas the actors in the Chesapeake Bay watershed do not point to a single forum in which decisions about the market are made, given the range of processes and procedures involved in this multi-state effort. In both places, some actors lament the lack of more widespread implementation of innovative restoration and conservation practices, but participants in the market creation process describe the reasons for this in different terms. Contact Information: Mattijs J. Van Maasakkers, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue 9-316, Cambridge, MA, 02139 USA. Phone: 617-324-5681 Email: [email protected]


320

INTEGRATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS Joke van Wensem

Soil Protection Technical Committee, The Hague, The Netherlands There is an increasing awareness within the environmental and social science communities that improved environmental management can be achieved by considering more explicitly the benefits that humans receive from ecosystems. Guidance, for instance from The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project (UNEP) and from the World Resources Institute, aims at integrating the ecosystem services concept into decision making by governments, businesses, NGOs and citizens. The purpose of the presentation is to review the integration of ecosystem service considerations into environmental regulations and decision support tools. Much of the existing environmental regulation focuses on specific threats and specific environmental compartments or is limited to protecting species, land or ecosystems with high value. It does not match with the integrative nature of the ecosystem services concept. A major strength of the ecosystem services concept is that it relates environmental issues to the meaning for human society and thus is thought to be more convincing for people to strive for sustainable solutions in decision making concerning natural resources, biodiversity, ecosystems or landscapes. For this reason the concept is widely used to communicate about the importance of environmental regulations. There is however much resistance against changed or new regulations, thereby preventing integration of the ecosystem services concept in regulatory frameworks. Examples of integration, although limited, are the proposal to use ecosystem services as specific protection goals in the European regulatory framework for risk assessment for pesticides, the implicit use of ecosystem services in several national and international agri-environment schemes (payments for ecosystem services avant la lettre) and other governmental payments for ecosystem services programs. In tools used to support decisions the ecosystem services concept is increasingly used. For instance in decision support systems, impact assessments, life-cycle-assessments, cost-benefit analyses and governance guidelines etcetera, to improve and inform decision making. For these tools quantification and valuation of ecosystem services, as well as location specific data, are often necessary, which leads to a multitude of different approaches. The strength of the concept here is in communication and integration, and it seems to be particularly successful in identifying stakeholders and creating multi-sectoral partnerships. Unknown is how frequently these decision support systems are actually used in the final decision making. It is also unclear whether decision making with ecosystem services is leading to better – more sustainable – decisions, as in most cases the monitoring of the impact of decisions on ecosystems and ecosystem services provision is neglected. In the presentation the above will be illustrated with examples from mainly the European and the national level. Contact Information: Joke van Wensem, Soil Protection Technical Committee, PO Box 30947, 2500 GX The Hague, The Netherlands, Phone +31652740034, Email: [email protected]


321

MEASUREMENT OF FOREST ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AS A TOOL TO MANAGE FINANCIAL DEVOLUTION FROM CENTRE TO STATES Madhu Verma1 and Shweta Bhagwat2

1Professor, Environment and Development Economics, Indian Institute of Forest Management (An Organisation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt of India) Bhopal, India

2 Shweta Bhagwat, Research Associate, Centre for Development Finance, Institute of Financial Management and Research, Chennai, India

The decision making process on India has been based on narrow knowledge base which many a times lead to policy failures. Though the policies have good intentions but they result in bad outcomes due to insufficient information on which they have been formulated. The paper is thus an attempt to equip the policy makers with the information regarding value of various ecosystem services of forests such that the system of compensation and rewards can be institutionalised to compensate the states conserving large forest areas due to policy directive and incentivise the stakeholders who are engaged on conservation process. These states have been practising green growth approach but on account lack of its reflection in accounting system, are devoid of their due recognition. The paper thus provides a connect between measurement of forest ecosystem services and management of financial devolution mechanism from centre to states based upon their contribution to forest resource conservation effort and promotion of green growth. On account of absence of Total Economic Value (TEV) estimate for various ecosystem services from Indian forests, various ecological services provided by forest are used as free gifts of nature. No price tag is attached to such services for their use currently due to poor or absent markets for them. Such practices not only led to use but overuse, misuse and abuse of forest resources of the country. Further as per the mandate of the 1988 Forest Policy of the country, many states are directed to keep large part of their geographical areas under forest leaving limited land for high revenue raising activities like agriculture, industry and services. There has also been a ban on green felling on extraction of other forest produces by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various forest-rich states. On account of both the interventions, these forest-rich states, despite providing significant amount of ecosystem services in the form of public goods, are incurring revenue losses and lagging behind in developmental processes.These states have neither been adequately compensated nor have any incentive-based mechanisms been set up in the fiscal transfer process of the country for conserving forest capital in perpetuity. Moreover, fiscal devolution pattern in Indian planning process has been overwhelmed with centripetal biases, vertical and horizontal imbalances and inadequate equity and efficiency concerns. The main reason for this has been narrow knowledge base regarding value of forest ecosystem services to the economy due to inadequate methodology to generate complete set of information for both marketed and non marketed; priced and unpriced ; provisioning, regulating, cultural and supportive services from forest ecosystem. In light of the above arguments, the paper attempts to build a case of Environmental & Conservation Finance by internalizinge environmental externalities of forest ecosystem and proposes policy intervention for increased devolution of grant-in-aid from the Central government agency of Finance commission to the forest rich states. To demonstrate the value of ecosystem cervices it uses the measurement tools of (i) Total Economic Valuation for estimating direct and indirect forest ecosystem services; (ii) Opportunity Cost approach to value alternate use of forest land and (iii) Correction Cost approach to estimate the expenditure required for restocking the degraded forest land. It also throws light on perception of various stakeholders for the use of various economic instruments like incentive based mechanisms for sustainable forest management so as to generate supplementary sources of finance. Contact Information : Dr. (Mrs) Madhu Verma,Environmental Economist, Professor, Area of Environment and Developmental Economics, Coordinator, Centre for Ecological Services Management, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Box 357, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal, Pin - 462 003. M.P. India. Phone (Office): 91+755+2775716/2773799 (Extn. 334) , Fax (Office): 91+755+2772878 , Phone(Residence):91+755+2480283, Cell: 91+930080-3479. Email : [email protected], [email protected]


322

USE OF INDICATORS TO REDUCE UNCERTAINTIES IN MODELLING AND VALUATION OF REGULATING SERVICES Madhu Verma1 and Dhaval Negandhi2

1Professor, Environment and Development Economics, Indian Institute of Forest Management (An Organisation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt of India) Bhopal, India

2Masters in Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management (MESPOM)Central European University. While the field of ecosystem valuation has been rapidly developing, the progress in valuation of regulating services has not kept pace with it. This is mainly due to the difficulty in valuing regulating services which in turn requires good understanding of ecosystem’s dynamics and trans-disciplinary approach. Ecological Economics being an eclectic discipline requires integrated approach of combining together people, processes and products i.e. modelling framework, which in turn require considerable amount of information and baselines. This paper is an attempt to bring into light some of these issues. Use of indicators and data hungriness of valuation methodologies of regulating services would be main focus of the paper, indicating the potential and limitation of using indicators for valuation. Few of the limitations such as spatial and temporal data availability may be seen as institutional weaknesses and this paper may be useful from that regard too.While the discourse of ecosystem valuation has been developing very rapidly for the past couple of decades, valuation of regulating services has still been its Achilles heel. Various uncertainties build up during the valuation process of regulating services on account of their indirect nature, lack of complete understanding of how ecosystem work, lack of models to exhibit the dynamics of such flows, lack of tools and understanding to estimate changes in flow of services among many others. Although few of these problems may always be inherent to the process of valuing regulating services, use of indicators provides some promise. While indicators have been used widely for environmental management, their use in modelling ecosystems dynamics and valuing regulating services has been regarded as making the process of modelling and valuation more scientific. Because of advantages such as easy to measure and compare, easy to monitor over long term, effectiveness in communicating the situation to policy-makers. This paper is an attempt to review literature related to indicators for environmental management in general and regulating services in particular. Major indicators (that can be) used for modelling and valuing regulating services are analyzed through the lenses of data availability (both spatially and temporally), easiness of measurement, and their effectiveness in communicating the message in time (leading or lagging indicators). Detailed analysis reveals that although some indicators have been used, there is a general lack of robust set of indicators which has been agreed upon at a global level for valuing regulating services. In addition, data for many of the indicators are not collected at all or not collected at the required spatial and temporal scale to make them usable. It has also been found that many indicators for regulating services such as frequency of fires in the case of natural hazard regulation are lagging indicators which may provide a picture of changes in flow of regulating services but are of limited use to the delay in conveying information. Contact Information : Dr. (Mrs) Madhu Verma,Environmental Economist, Professor, Area of Environment and Developmental Economics, Coordinator, Centre for Ecological Services Management, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Box 357, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal, Pin - 462 003. M.P. India. Phone (Office): 91+755+2775716/2773799 (Extn. 334) , Fax (Office): 91+755+2772878 , Phone(Residence):91+755+2480283, Cell: 91+930080-3479. Email : [email protected], [email protected]


323

DEMONSTRATION OF INVEST: A DECISION-SUPPORT TOOL FOR VALUING NATURE Gregg M. Verutes1,2, Elizabeth Rauer1 and Michael Anderson2

1The Natural Capital Project, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford, CA, USA 2Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA

Mapping and modeling ecosystem services can help uncover hidden costs and benefits of different natural resource management options, providing key information to improve the relationship between humans and the ecosystems on which we depend. InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) is a decision-support tool, developed by the Natural Capital Project (www.naturalcapitalproject.org) that allows nature’s benefits to be incorporated into decision-making. InVEST models have been used in over a dozen significant policy applications worldwide—from the designation of ecosystem function conservation areas in China, to the establishment of water funds in Latin America, to marine spatial planning in Belize. In this workshop, we will introduce InVEST and provide a hands-on training. The goal for this workshop is to allow participants (20 maximum) the opportunity to learn in-depth about a few of our ecosystem service modeling approaches and build capacity through small group support. We will focus on data preparation for multiple scenarios, implementation in ArcGIS (computer mapping software) and interpretation of model results. We believe that the ACES community is a perfect venue to reach assembled leaders in this field who might benefit from having another tool at their disposal. Participants should come away from the training with an understanding of how to install the tool and run several models, and the confidence to take InVEST home with them, run it with sample data and share with their colleagues. The workshop will begin with an introduction to the Natural Capital Project and a general overview of the diverse decision-making contexts in which InVEST has been applied. Then we will demonstrate the concept of exploring trade-offs in ecosystem services by playing an interactive mapping game called ‘Best Coast Belize’. Next, we will walk-through a typical InVEST model (e.g. Renewable energy from waves) using sample data to generate outputs (e.g. suitability maps for siting a wave energy facility and analyzing tradeoffs among other ocean uses). The training will also include small breakout groups to introduce two additional models of interest to participants, including but not limited to Sediment Retention, Coastal Protection, and Carbon Sequestration. In the final segment of the workshop, participants will have the opportunity to put it all together by choosing from two actual InVEST case studies. We will provide background, ecosystem service maps, and step-by-step guidance on how to compare scenarios and assess tradeoffs. The training will be particularly appropriate for scientists, practitioners and graduate students from academic institutions, agencies and NGOs who are interested in mapping, modeling and valuation of ecosystem services. Some GIS experience is useful but not required. Contact Information: Gregg Verutes, Stanford University, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, Phone: 202-709-3457, Email: [email protected]


324

A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH FOR BUILDING BIODIVERSITY MEASURES ACROSS SCALES AND JURISDICTIONS Sara Vickerman

Defenders of Wildlife, West Linn, Oregon, USA Biodiversity, defined generally as the variety of life and its processes, provides the underpinning for all other ecosystem services. Although sometimes absent from ecosystem service frameworks, most practitioners agree that biodiversity, along with water and carbon, constitute the most common ecosystem service markets and payment programs. Our collective inability to consistently measure biodiversity values across scales and jurisdictions makes these transactions exceptionally difficult. In the Spring of 2012, Defenders of Wildlife and the United States Geological Survey hosted meetings in Washington D.C. and Portland, Oregon to engage a diverse group of public and private resource professionals in a conversation about a collaborative approach to the development and application of more consistent biodiversity measures for use in ecosystem service programs and to facilitate conservation more broadly. Some consistent themes emerged from the meetings. Ecological context is important to ensure that ecosystem service or market-based projects are located in the right places, at the right scale, and use effective conservation and restoration techniques to be viable long-term. Agencies and the private sector collect voluminous amounts of data on the distribution and status of individual resources and/or processes like vegetation, species, fire, hydrology, etc. but it is rarely synthesized, coordinated, or integrated in a manner that is useful for landscape scale conservation planning. Credible natural resources information is essential for addressing development threats, climate change, planning adaptation projects, and implementing adaptive management. Effective techniques for engaging diverse constituencies in developing shared visions are available, but not effectively employed. A framework has been developed for building habitat and biodiversity metrics that are useful at the site scale within the context of regulatory programs or outcome-based payments for ecosystem services. However, in order to be widely applied, additional work is needed in habitats and ecosystems for which no metrics are available. Beginning with a short list of major habitat types, a more comprehensive suite of measures could be developed within a short time for a reasonable cost. Broad scale measures of landscape and ecological integrity are also available from Nature Serve, Forest Service, and several other agencies and data developers but are not typically used to shape natural resources policies. A partnership project was proposed and discussed in which public and private interests would work together to align and refine these ecosystem measures, and to apply them in situations where biodiversity conservation outcomes need to be quantified. The critical questions involve project leadership, long-term funding and management, and degree of participation by major federal agencies, states and national conservation, business and landowner groups. Contact Information: Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife, 1880 Willamette Falls Drive, #200, West Linn, Oregon 97068, USA, Phone: 503-697-3222, Email: [email protected]


325

A LANDSCAPE SCALE APPROACH TO HABITAT CONSERVATON Sara Vickerman

Defenders of Wildlife, West Linn, Oregon, USA Biodiversity includes fish, wildlife, habitat and the underlying ecological processes that sustain them. It has intrinsic value while providing a variety of tangible ecosystem services to human communities: plant pollination, food, shelter, recreation and aesthetic and other benefits. Many of the market-based programs and payments for services include the conservation of biodiversity as a primary goal. However, many mitigation-type programs, like wetland or conservation banks tend to focus on “offsetting” adverse impacts to a specific resource by attempting to replicate the ecological values on-site or nearby. Research has shown that many of these projects are not viable long term because they are too small, in the wrong place, or do not include a long-term commitment to site management and protection. Program rules designed to replace adversely impacted resources may cause unintended consequences by forcing investments in artificially constrained geographies or addressing one problem while exacerbating another. Well-accepted principles of conservation biology address the importance of understanding and addressing scale and ecological context in planning projects. For example, large areas of contiguous habitat are more likely to support native species than small ones. Connected or permeable natural areas may contribute positively to seasonal migration and/or response to climate change. Natural disturbances like fire and seasonal flooding support regeneration of plant and animal communities. Water flows across the landscape, so addressing quality and quantity issues requires a watershed scale approach. The next generation of ecosystem service projects, market-based and otherwise, needs to be fully nested and integrated within larger landscapes for which a certain level of conservation planning has taken place. These landscape scale plans should address multiple jurisdictions across public and private lands. They need to identify areas most suitable for development, and those lands and waters with the most valuable ecological attributes to be managed for conservation including water quality, carbon sequestration, fish and wildlife habitat and other values. Priority conservation lands need to be mapped, and goals identified. Each landscape will be different, but in each one, a variety of strategies may be appropriate, including traditional approaches like land acquisition, easements and incentives along with payments for ecosystem services and market-based programs. The challenge ahead is for the resource management, development and conservation communities to learn how to break down traditional silos and work together to decide what conservation priorities are, and to find the most cost effective approaches to achieving measurable conservation outcomes. Using the best available social and ecological science to make decisions, and implementing ongoing strategic monitoring programs will help inform adaptive management and contribute to learning about the most effective approaches. Contact Information: Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife, 1880 Willamette Falls Drive, #200, West Linn, Oregon 97068, USA, Phone: 503-697-3222, Email: [email protected]


326

OPTIMIZING INVESTMENTS IN NATURAL CAPITAL: RIOS TOOL FOR WATER FUNDS Adrian L. Vogl and Heather Tallis

Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, CA Water funds are a specialized conservation financing scheme to protect upstream habitat in order to reap the downstream ecosystem service benefits of clean, flowing water. There has been a lot of experience in developing and investing in water funds in Latin America. These exciting developments have opened up many new possibilities for investments in ecosystem services, but are also presenting new challenges for providing guidance, using resources efficiently, and ensuring that investment decisions are based on a unified, science-driven approach. In a recent workshop in the Dominican Republic, a group of practitioners and scientists found that their experiences aligned around the need to be able to answer these investment questions with a rigorous, yet flexible, return on investment approach. The Natural Capital Project (NatCap) and the Latin America Water Funds Platform (a partnership among TNC, the Inter-American Development Bank, GEF and FEMSA) are collecting lessons learned and best practices from across the region to answer these questions and turn that experience into a standardized, science-based approach to designing water fund investments. The Resource Investment Optimization System (RIOS) is a tool to standardize water fund investment design and provide water fund managers with answers to three core questions: (1) What set of investments will give the greatest returns towards multiple objectives? (2) How much improvement in objectives can we expect from making the set of investments identified through a scientific analysis? and (3) How much better are the estimated returns than what we would have achieved under ‘business as usual’ investments? RIOS uses biophysical data (i.e. topography, soils, and land uses) and simple representations of demand (i.e. where are the people that depend on the resource?) to identify places where activities like protection or restoration are likely to give the biggest returns for water fund objectives. InVEST models (Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs) are incorporated in the RIOS framework to estimate the ecosystem service returns from the set of investments identified by the prioritization algorithm. RIOS has been tested in water funds in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Brazil, and Peru through a series of workshops that have brought together conservationists, water funds managers, and technical users with a vision of improving returns from conservation investments, presenting scientific information in a way that is useful for managers, and creating a tool that is flexible enough to be applied in many different environmental, social, and legal contexts. This talk will present a beta version of the RIOS tool, its underlying assumptions and modeling functions. In addition, we will demonstrate the tool’s utility with a case study from the Cauca Valley in Colombia, where the RIOS return on investment appraoch is used to identify areas for water fund activities and demonstrate the increased ES benefits of this targeted appraoch over more ad hoc approaches to conservation. Contact Information: Adrian L. Vogl, Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, Phone: 512-965-4104, Email: [email protected]


327

HOW TO USE MODELING TOOLS TO DESIGN SUCCESSFUL PES? Brian Voigt1 and Achim Schäfer2

1Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA 2University of Greifswald / MoorFutures / Duene e.V., Germany

At this station of the world café session the discussion will center on the contributions of ecosystem service (ES) modeling, quantification and valuation techniques towards the successful implementation of PES schemes. In particular, the following aspects will be addressed: What types of modeling tools are currently used in practice? Are there specific ES for which the usage of modeling approaches is particularly helpful? What is the motivation to use the different approaches, e.g. to identify suitable ES providers and sellers, quantify, value and price ES, connect ES buyers and sellers in markets, verify ES delivery, increase transparency, or to support communication? At which point in PES planning, design and implementation are modeling tools most useful or essential? What factors are most important when considering the needs of different actors involved in PES schemes, e.g. demand and supply side? And what can be learned from each other when comparing different approaches from different countries? Contact Information: Brian Voigt, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, VT 05405, USA, Phone: +1 (802) 656 4094, E-Mail: [email protected]


328

INCORPORATING RECREATION-BASED ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INTO A BLM MASTER LEASING PLAN FOR THE GREATER MOAB REGION, UTAH Brian Voigt1, Darius Semmens2, Rob Winthrop3, Joel Larson3 and Sarah Howell3

1Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA 2Rocky Mountain Geoscience Center, US Geological Survey, Denver, CO, USA 3Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA (WO-210), USDI Bureau of Land Management Washington, DC, USA

Land-use planning and resource management protocols are increasingly considering the value of ecosystem services (ES) to regional economies as part of the overall decision making process. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Vermont are engaged in the second phase of a pilot project to assess the feasibility of incorporating ES valuation into BLM’s planning and decision-making frameworks. Whereas the first phase of the project sought to identify and test a range of available methods and technologies for valuing ES, the second phase is designed to evaluate the transferability of ES valuation tools to areas with limited data availability and to explicitly link to routine BLM planning and decision making functions. To that end, this presentation details the collaborative effort aimed at quantifying changes in the provision of recreation-based ES under alternative management proposals regarding the development of oil, gas, and potash resources in east-central Utah as part of the BLM’s Moab Field Office Master Leasing Plan (MLP). The Moab region supports a large and diverse tourist economy that draws visitors from around the globe and provides both direct (e.g. guides) and indirect (e.g. hotel and restaurant employees) impacts on regional employment. The number, location and scale of energy and mineral development sites are a primary concern in the region because inappropriate development may lead to visual impacts that have adverse effects on recreational resources and the industries they support. Stakeholders, including local employers and a broad range of recreationists (e.g. hikers, mountain bikers, OHV drivers, campers, and boaters) are considered in this analysis. Simulation modeling and scenario analysis, using the Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) modeling platform, are coupled with spatial analytical techniques to lend support for the development of management alternatives and the identification of minimally intrusive resource development sites through the MLP process. This project assembled a database of spatial, quantitative and qualitative data to: 1) identify landscape features and viewscapes that contribute to the overall scenic beauty of the region; 2) identify landscape features that detract or interrupt scenic viewsheds; 3) identify locations such as trails, campgrounds and roads sought by recreationists (i.e. users or beneficiaries) for their iconic views and sweeping panoramic landscapes; and 4) model and map the spatially explicit pathways that link the source, sink and use locations (i.e. ES flows). The results of this analysis were used to identify scenic locations and corridors that are integral for maintaining the iconic views of the region and to prioritize sites for mineral resource development that minimize impacts on the visual resources of the region, and will be included in the formal MLP document that defines the leasing and resource development priorities for the region. Contact Information: Brian Voigt, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, VT 05405, USA, Phone: 802-656-4094, Email: [email protected]


329

URBAN DEPENDENCE ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: A SPATIALLY EXPLICIT ANALYSIS OF A MEGACITY RIVERSIDE SETTLEMENT Derek Vollmer1 and Adrienne Grêt-Regamey2

1Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH Centre for Global Environmental Sustainability, Singapore 2Chair of Planning of Landscape and Urban Systems, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Cities typically provide environmental infrastructure (municipal water supply, waste & sanitation removal, parks & open space) as public goods that either replace or more efficiently harness ecosystem services. In many developing-world cities, where municipal infrastructure lags urban growth, lower-income communities might rely more directly on hydrologic ecosystem services to meet basic needs. We examine this dependence in riverside settlements in the densely populated urban neighborhoods of Bukit Duri and Kampung Melayu on the Ciliwung River in Jakarta, Indonesia. Based on primary data collected from fieldwork, including a spatially-referenced household survey, we analyze and map the patterns of use of hydrologic ecosystem services (which may be generated in upstream areas), including water supply, groundwater recharge, waste assimilation, and recreation. We use indicator kriging to develop probability maps showing where individual services are most likely to be used. Using a spatial autoregressive logit model we identify relationships between location and dependence on ecosystem services. Preliminary results show a clear relationship between service use and distance to the river. Certain sub-neighborhoods rely on the river more intensively than others. These results indicate that a substantial portion of the population under study rely on a “bundle” of hydrologic ecosystem services. But it also highlights residents’ vulnerability to changes in the levels of these services, which are primarily affected by changes to terrestrial ecosystems upstream. While the neighborhoods under study are just one part of a larger and more complex river catchment area, analyzing hydrologic service dependence at the local urban-scale can be of use to planners, development authorities, and other stakeholders within the catchment. This pattern of riverside development is prevalent in much of the rapidly urbanizing world, and the concept of ecosystem services can be used to assess vulnerabilities and inform more sustainable courses of development. Contact information: Derek Vollmer, Futures Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH Centre for Global Environmental Sustainability, 1 CREATE Way, #06-01 CREATE Tower, Singapore 138602, Phone: +65 8198 2124, Email: [email protected]


330

PAYMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN NORTHERN ILLINOIS Carl N. von Ende1,2 and Sarah L. Nelson2

1Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Il, USA 2Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability, and Energy, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Il, USA

Modern large-scale agricultural systems are managed ecosystems that depend on certain ecosystems services to function, and, in turn, provide ecosystem services to the public. Services for agricultural production include climate/air regulation, soil structure, nutrient cycling, water provision, genetic diversity. Services provided by agricultural production systems include food, fiber, carbon sequestration, water storage/regulation. Ecosystems “disservices” can decrease agricultural production (e.g., pest damage, competition for water/nutrients) and be produced by agricultural production (e.g., habitat loss, nutrient runoff, pesticide effects on native species). About 92% of the land area of DeKalb Co. IL is an agricultural ecosystem devoted to corn and soybean production (2007). Illinois received approximately $125, 800,000 in CRP payments in 2011 (6.9%, 2nd after Iowa), of which DeKalb Co. received $949, 000 (0.8% of state total, ranked 59/99 in state). Although the CRP program is well-known by agricultural producers in the U.S., Payments for Ecosystem/Environmental Services (PES) is a newer market-based concept that also is being applied to agricultural ecosystems, but potentially spans a wider range of ecological and environmental processes than the CRP. Such programs offer agricultural producers the possibility of receiving payment for services provided “naturally” by their agriecosystems, as well as perhaps increased revenue by modifications of cultivation and land-use or land-cover practices that ultimately benefit the adjacent rural or urban landscapes. In many regions of the U.S., producers are unfamiliar with such opportunities, especially in terms of the potential development in the future of markets for these payments. Additionally, the basic data quantifying the ecosystem services is lacking for many agricultural areas of the U.S. All of these factors lead to low participation in PES programs. This topic is of special importance in DeKalb County, IL, where demand for the dominant crop, corn, and is projected to increase in the near future, discouraging farmers from exploring alternative opportunities, such as PES. With the National Land-Cover Database maps as a base layer, we are using the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) to spatially estimate a variety of ecosystem services and their value on agricultural land in DeKalb Co. IL. We are exploring different land-use scenarios to compare current farming practices with alternatives based on the ecosystem services that potentially could be incorporated into conservation and PES programs in the future. The goal of this study is to develop a local spatial database on ecosystem services to increase the awareness by agricultural producers and landowners of ecosystem services, and to increase participation in ecosystem service conservation and PES programs in the future. Contact Information: Carl N. von Ende, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115 USA, Phone: 815-753-7826, Email: [email protected]


331

THE QUIET (R)EVOLUTION IN CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS & ACTIONS Sissel Waage

BSR’s Ecosystem Services Working Group; San Francisco, CA, USA Companies face a wide and growing range of issues, from labor through environmental impacts in supply chains, manufacturing, product use, and end of life. The challenge for corporate managers is to assess the relevance of a specific issue, prioritize among issues, and recommend pathways forward. Ecosystem services is a relatively new issue facing companies today, as it is ratcheting up on stakeholder agendas—most notably in pockets of government and the financial services’ lending sector. For companies, the implication of an ecosystem services analytical approach would likely require expanding the analytical focus from simply the upward or downward direction of individual metrics. Rather, companies will likely need to consider not just the individual parts but how their actions affect the functioning of the whole—that is, how multiple parameters together contribute to (or undercut) the ability of a broader ecological system to produce the goods and services that people have come to expect and enjoy. Based on interviews with corporate decision-makers around the world, this presentation will detail the range of ways in which companies are exploring ecosystem services and testing decision-making aids. While corporate work on ecosystem services issues is greater than it has ever been before, it is often occurring primarily as pilot testing with a focus on a wide range of questions, including:

• How would an ecosystem services-informed approach differ from business as usual and current corporate environmental management processes?

• What is the added value of an ecosystem services perspective relative to existing corporate environmental management practices?

• What ecosystem services metrics should be monitored within corporate management processes? Why and how?

• How would these new ecosystem services indicators and concepts be integrated into existing processes and protocols (e.g., environmental and social impact assessments and life cycle assessments)? At what cost?

Overall, while ecosystem services concepts and approaches are gaining advocates, the challenge for companies pivots around if, when, and how to take action. The aim of this presentation is to provide a better understanding of the uptake of ecosystem services concepts and the emerging business case for action related to ecosystem services. Contact Information: Sissel Waage, Ph.D.; BSR’s Ecosystem Services Working Group; 88 Kearny Street, 12th Floor; San Francisco, CA 94108, USA; Cell: 510 206 9006; Email: [email protected]


332

APPROACHES FOR INCORPORATING ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES IN CORPS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS EVALUATION Lisa A. Wainger1, Elizabeth Murray2, Janet A. Cushing3 and Hannah Griscom1

1University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, USA 2Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA 3US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA, USA

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is considering how a consistent framework for quantifying ecosystem goods and services might inform planning and alternatives evaluation. Although a variety of conceptual and analytical approaches have been investigated for assessing ecosystem goods and services, none have become generally accepted for use in quantifying environmental benefits and impacts. The goal of the research project is to develop practical guidelines for Corps Districts in considering and analyzing ecosystem goods and services to promote the effectiveness of activities and streamline the comparison of alternatives. The talk will summarize the following aspects of the approach: necessary and desirable elements of an analysis framework, policy and technical challenges addressed, and suggestions for streamlining approaches and tools while maintaining sufficient rigor. The presentation will cover progress to date on developing an ecosystem services classification system and tools inventory that is relevant to the Corps’ mission and also incorporates broad interests of project partners. In addition, the methods discussion will address some of the approaches being considered to manage the challenges of data limitations while maintaining a focus on the overarching goal of demonstrating benefits and/or harms of actions to people. The framework and tools will be designed to link specific restoration outcomes to quantitative measures of ecosystem goods and services that reflect potential benefits of actions. Methods will be evaluated to link the potential benefits of changes to the expected benefits using benefit indictors or monetary values. Expected benefits depend on factors such as restoration performance risk and relative importance of a change in a service flow by location, given its level of use, significance, or relative scarcity and substitutability. Due to new Corps guidance aimed at shortening the project planning process, any proposed tool must be cost-effective to implement, if it is to be used. As a result, the framework being developed will integrate existing Corps approaches to ecosystem assessment and economic benefit evaluation with methods and tools being developed by other federal agencies and researchers to leverage complementary databases and tools. Contact Information: Lisa A. Wainger, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, CBL, PO Box 38, Solomons, MD 20688. [email protected]


333

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE TRADEOFFS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAY TMDL Lisa A. Wainger1 and Jay Messer2

1University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, USA 2Retired; formerly of US EPA Office of Research and Development, USA

The Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is one of the most complex nutrient and sediment control plans ever implemented and the program details will affect the quantity and type of ecosystem service benefits produced. The TMDL is designed to fulfill a legal mandate to improve estuarine ecosystems but the program also has the potential to generate substantial co-benefits from terrestrial or non-tidal freshwater ecosystem services – depending on how nutrient and sediment reductions are achieved. Since management practices have different abilities to create co-benefits, net restoration outcomes depend on the specific mix of practices used and their performance. The mix of practices adopted depends, in turn, on TMDL program aspects such as source sector allocations and the degree of trading and offsets that occur between PS and NPS sectors. Using an optimization framework for a sub-estuary of the Chesapeake Bay (Potomac River Basin), we explore the effects of policy choices on: 1) costs of TMDL compliance while holding constant the benefits from water quality improvements; and 2) value of ecosystem services that are not directly or solely related to water quality changes. The model includes extensive data on practice costs and a spatial analysis to evaluate costs, effectiveness and capacity of practice implementation by location. Ecological production functions, developed from literature sources, are used to link practice implementation to ecosystem service outcomes and benefit transfer was used to estimate values. Our scenarios reveal that a key decision tradeoff when seeking to maximize a bundle of ecosystem services within a TMDL program is whether to allow reduced costs and co-benefits to compensate for the risk of less certain water quality outcomes. Non-point source (NPS) management practices appear to be some of the most cost-efficient methods to both reduce nutrients and produce ecosystem service co-benefits, and can dramatically reduce costs of TMDL compliance. However, using NPS practices to offset point sources carries the risk of reducing the certainty of water quality outcomes. Alternative approaches to managing this risk, such as applying trading or offset ratios, have the potential to increase the production of ecosystem services, while still managing costs, according to scenario results. However, being highly precautionary diminishes the potential for cost-savings. Further, we find that allocating specific reductions to stormwater source sectors restricts the ability to achieve the least-cost mix of practices relative to a system that allows open trading or offsets among all sectors. This framework assumes perfect ability to substitute the lowest cost practices for the highest cost practices – something that is never achieved in real programs – but demonstrates the drivers and constraints imposed by alternative policies. Contact Information: Lisa A. Wainger, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, CBL, PO Box 38, Solomons, MD 20688, Phone: 410-326-7401, Email: [email protected]


334

VALUING GREEN AND GREY INFRASTRUCTURE: COASTAL PROTECTION ANALYSIS Sheila M. Walsh1, Tim Boucher2

, Jorge Brenner3, Rob Griffin4, Greg Guannel5 and Anne Guerry5 1Sustainability Science, The Nature Conservancy, Durham, NC, USA 2Sustainability Science, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, USA 3The Nature Conservancy- Texas, Corpus Christi, TX, USA 4The Natural Capital Project, Stanford, CA, USA 5The Natural Capital Project, Seattle, WA, USA

Over the last three decades, financial losses from natural hazards, including coastal storms and flooding, have been increasing worldwide. This presents real risks to businesses. But coastal habitats— which play an important role in reducing waves and flooding — may offer businesses a new strategy for risk mitigation. To address this opportunity, The Nature Conservancy-Dow Collaboration is developing methods to assess the value of green infrastructure at Dow’s operations in Freeport, TX. Dow’s Freeport facility lies along the Gulf of Mexico and is threatened by hurricanes and sea level rise. However, the facility is also surrounded by extensive marshes, including two National Wildlife Refuges that are important stop-over sites for migratory birds. To inform risk mitigation planning at Freeport, we assessed the costs and benefits of green and gray infrastructure options under sea level rise and development scenarios in the coastal zone of Brazoria County over the next 100 years. This assessment involved six steps. First, we developed scenarios for external drivers using global climate and regional development forecasts. Second, we identified management options (e.g., building levees and/or restoring/protecting habitat) based on their expected benefits. Third, we modeled coastal habitats under the sea level rise and development scenarios as well as the management options. Fourth, we translated changes in habitats into changes in natural hazard mitigation services to Dow and the local communities. Fifth, we estimated changes in other coastal ecosystem services and biodiversity. Lastly, we used the forecasts of benefits to Dow, local communities, and biodiversity and costs in a multicriterion analysis to identify the best green and gray infrastructure options. Future sea level rise and development is projected to reduce the area of protective habitat. However, enabling marsh migration through restoration may increase coastal ecosystem services. Maintaining coastal habitats may also be critical to the functioning of existing and future gray infrastructure. Importantly, the best options for green and gray infrastructure depend not only on future conditions but on the weighting of private and public values, as well as biodiversity indicators. These results suggest that in some cases it may make business sense to invest in coastal habitat protection based on private benefits alone. However, if a business also accounts for progress toward sustainability goals for public ecosystem services and biodiversity, a broader set of green infrastructure options may be viable. By assessing the value of green infrastructure, businesses may be able to improve their own risk mitigation planning and lead multi-sectoral investments in nature that benefit themselves, the public, and nature. Contact Information: Sheila M. Walsh, Sustainability Science, The Nature Conservancy, 6114 Fayetteville Rd, Suite 109, Durham, NC 27713-6284 USA, Phone: (919) 484-7857, Email: [email protected]


335

LAKE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: AN INVEST MODEL FOR THE NATURAL CAPITAL PROJECT Martha Campbell, Kirsten Howard, Kevin Le, John Shriver and Lisa Wan

School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church St, Ann Arbor, MI, USA This abstract to is to introduce the ongoing research project to develop a decision making tool to quantify the economic impact of eutrophication of inland lakes. This research project is to develop a simple, Tier 1 model for the Natural Capital Project that 1) predicts the likelihood of eutrophication in freshwater inland lakes and 2) connect the economic value provided by the lake to eutrophication levels present in the ecosystem. The Tier 1 model is the most basic predictive model within the InVEST toolset. It requires minimal resources and data inputs and provides scientific guidance to a non-scientific audience. The model will focus on the sub watershed level, specifically looking at the impacts of phosphorus on eutrophication. The intended users of the model include policy makers, sub watershed level stakeholders, environmental practitioners, and the private sector. Experts argue that if they can calculate the tangible goods and social values that ecosystem services provide to human beings, decision makers and managers can use this scientific knowledge to make better decisions to sustain healthy ecosystems. These methods and tools are being developed carefully to account for the complexities of ecological processes and the difficulties in valuation. The aim of the research team is to provide the client and local environmental practitioners with a simple, practical model that will allow them to initially scope the economic and ecological impacts of land use projects such as lake front developments, the expansion or development of recreational areas/activities, lake restoration, and land use planning. The project is divided into and guided by five research questions. The first and second research questions relate to the science and existing literature of eutrophication and valuing anthropocentric ecosystem services of inland lakes. The third research question is to ascertain from relevant stakeholders how this model could be used effectively to improve decision-making. The fourth and fifth research questions look at the relationship between the economic and ecological model and dataset. The project is currently underway. Results, conclusions, and recommendations will be completed in April 2013. Contact Information: Lisa Wan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church St, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA, Phone: 917-526-2356, Email: [email protected]


336

PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AS CONSERVATION AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION MECHANISM IN CHINA Pu Wang1, Steven A. Wolf1, James P. Lassoie1, Stephen J. Morreale1 and Shikui Dong2

1Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA 2College of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is considered by many researchers as a promising approach to leverage government and private funding and improve efficiency for environmental conservation. Its effectiveness in poverty alleviation has been less widely explored. This study analyzes natural, socioeconomic, and institutional circumstances of China, and argues that it is possible to integrate PES and poverty alleviation projects to achieve both goals simultaneously. Comparison between the spatial distribution of socioeconomic index and potential for provision of key ecosystem services, including water resources, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration, shows that the economically backward regions in China coincide with those with high potential for providing ecosystem services. An institutional analysis of China’s political structure and policy schemes in environmental protection and poverty alleviation also indicates that China has high potential to implement PES to address ecological and poverty problems. Challenges for applying PES in China include the gap of perceptions of ecosystem services between policy makers and the public, and the gap between policy objectives and their actual realization. Contact Information: Pu Wang, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 122 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA, Phone: 607-793-0811, Email: [email protected]


337

MOVIE: WE LIVE BY THE RIVER Jon Waterhouse

Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, Anchorage, AK, USA I. In this 1.5 hour session the award winning internationally acclaimed documentary “We Live By The

River” will be shown followed by an inspiring talk and question and answer period with Jon Waterhouse, Executive Director, Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council (and Presidential Appointee to the Joint Public Advisory Committee and National Geographic Education Fellow) The documentary brings the voices of the People of the Yukon to life and show how a small Native grassroots effort blossomed into an international effort to preserve and protect the planet. Jon’s talk afterward will link the importance of reconnecting to nature to this success and help the audience understand how they can be a part the answer to the environmental challenges we face today.

II. This session is both educational and inspiration, It is of interest to all conference attendees. The documentary was selected as an “All Roads Film Festival” winner. “The Denali Award” winner in 2011, selected for the Toronto Film Festival 2011, played at the United Nations and COP-15 in Copenhagen. It has also been sub-titled in Spanish and Italian to participate in festivals around the world.

III. Session organizer: Jon Waterhouse, 1200 I Street #610, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 907-830-9263, Email [email protected]

IV. Qualifications: Jon Waterhouse, Executive Director, Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, Presidential Appointee, National Geographic Education Fellow

Contact Information: Jon Waterhouse, Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council, 725 Christensen Drive Suite 3, Anchorage, AK 99501, Phone: 907-258-3337, Email: [email protected]



338

LESSONS FROM GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION FOR IDENTIFYING CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Roy Watters


The ecosystem services framework holds the promise of recognizing the full spectrum of benefits humans derive from the environment yet cultural services have often received less attention. New approaches to ecosystem services assessments may learn much from examining the existing regulatory framework that provides for the consideration of Native American cultural interests in certain decision-making processes. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) are two key federal laws that require federal agencies to conduct government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Tribes in many undertakings that impact ecosystem services. This paper reviews recent cultural and natural resource conservation and management projects in the northern Oregon Cascade Range and Willamette Valley that have incorporated Native American traditional ecological knowledge, values (e.g. traditional human-ecological relationships, culturally significant places) and interests (e.g. managing for first foods, preservation of cultural landscapes). Using the existing regulatory process as a starting point, each of these projects have engaged Tribes to identify cultural services and values of key ecosystems by recognizing that significance ecological knowledge is held by Tribal members accumulated incrementally through thousands of years of lived experience. Through numerous collaborations with federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations and private landowners, Tribes have protected culturally significant resources while making significant contributions to the conservation and management of culturally significant ecosystems across the region. The government-to-government consultation process provides insights for developing methodologies to identify and include cultural services within the application of the ecosystem services framework in general. Contact Information: Roy Watters, ESUR IGERT Program, Institute for Sustainable Solutions - SUST, Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, USA , Phone: (503)957-5401, Email: [email protected]


339

MARYLAND FARMERS AND TREE FARMERS ATTITUDES TOWARDS A PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROGRAM Bob Tjaden¹ and R. Pritzlaff² -- Presented by: Seth Wechsler

¹Department of Environmental Science & Technology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA ²Prescott College and Biophilia Foundation, Easton, MD, USA

An analysis of Maryland Farmers and Tree Farmer’s Knowledge, Attitudes and Entry Point into a Maryland Payment for Ecosystem Service Program. A contingent valuation and conjoint analysis study was developed and a mail survey was designed. A mail survey was sent to 1,000 MD farmers and 800 MD tree farmers April 2012. Focus groups, expert consultants, and pretests were used to develop the final mail survey following Dillman’s Tailored Design Method. This survey was modeled after two similar studies: “A Survey on Conservation Payments on California Rangelands” performed by Defenders of Wildlife, Duke University, California Rangeland Trust and California Cattlemen Association, 2008; and “Conservation Programs on Private Land: Eastern North Carolina Survey” performed by Defenders of Wildlife and The Nicholas School of the Environment-Duke University, 2008. This survey will serve as a foundation for future research and educational grants and policy recommendations. As of the posting of this abstract, results are in the process of being tabulated. However, initial results indicated a 29% response rate. Project funding made available through grants from The Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station and The Biophilia Foundation. Contact Information: Bob Tjaden, Department of Environmental Science & Technology, University of Maryland, 1433 Animal Science/Ag. Engineering Building, College Park, MD 20742-2315, Phone: 410-827-8056, Email: [email protected]

Richard Pritzlaff, The Biophilia Foundation, P.O. Box 1753, Easton, MD 21601, Phone: 410-507-2117, Email: [email protected]


340

THE NEED, DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTHERN EVERGLADES - PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAM Benita M. Whalen

Agriclultural Water Programs, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL, USA In January 2011, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) launched the Northern Everglades– Payment for Environmental Services (NE-PES) program. Payment for services is an innovative approach to help achieve water resource improvement goals. Under the NE-PES program, eligible cattle ranchers were encouraged to propose water management alternatives in response to a formal solicitation that would provide either acre feet of water retention or pounds of phosphorus removed over a ten-year contract period. With an investment of $7 million, the eight approved projects will collectively provide 4,800 additional acre-feet of water retention on an annual average basis. The SFWMD expects to invest a total of $36 million in its Dispersed Water Management Program through fiscal year 2016 to keep more water on the watershed landscape. Dispersed water management offers many environmental and economic benefits to the region, including reducing excess water flowing into Lake Okeechobee during the wet season; reducing the amount of water discharged to coastal estuaries for flood protection; providing valuable shallow groundwater recharge for water supply; improving water quality and rehydration of drained systems; enhancing plant and wildlife habitat; and helping sustain the local economy by incentivizing landowners to provide greater environmental stewardship. The SFWMD Dispersed Water Management Program investment includes the release of a second NE-PES solicitation in late 2012. Changes to components of the solicitation program will be provided and discussed. Contact Information: Benita M. Whalen P.E., Director, Agricultural Water Programs, South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Fl 33406 Phone: 561-682-2957, Email: [email protected]


341

CREDIT STACKING NOT DOUBLE DIPPING: CAN WE UNSTACK AND SELL SEPARATE LAYERS? Wayne S. White1 and Jemma Denny2

1Director of Business Development, Wildlands, Rocklin, CA, USA 2Consultant, W-Squared Consulting, Citrus Heights, CA, USA

Stacking of ecosystem service payments and markets has become an issue because 1) regulatory markets are expanding, creating more opportunities to generate income off ecosystem service provision, and 2) landowners are seeing potential to diversity the economic opportunities for the ecosystem services they provide. Current regulations and policy do not explicitly address whether the landowner or ‘credit banker’ can stack credits or not, but to date, most clearly do not allow multiple types of credits to be sold individually from the same acre. Stacking means providing multiple ecosystem services on one specific unit of land, and arguably the two major markets - CWA 404 mitigation and ESA species conservation - already incorporate multiple ecosystem services into credits created and traded. But do the ecosystem services provided by that credit exceed the services lost at the impact site or is the result double dipping or unstacking? In the stacking debate, unstacking refers to selling these different services as different credits to different buyers. Without robust scientific study of this topic, and considering the various regulatory drivers for ecosystem markets that complicate integration of regulations and policies, it is contentious to decide if it is possible to ‘un-stack’ different credits types and how to sell them separately from one unit of land. If a diversity of ecosystem services is stacked in a single bank then unstacking proponents argue that where there are multiple credit types, customers can purchase a multi-credit ‘stack’, or a single credit layer according to needs and impacts. This ability to ‘unstack’ the layers without realizing a loss of ecosystem services could be a major economic boon for ecosystem service market with additional influx of private sector funding. It could encourage landowners to conserve multiple ecosystem services, not just those for a single market. One approach to encompass more comprehensive crediting of ecosystem services is to establish an ecosystem credit. Efforts were made in Oregon to better account for the stacked layers, but it had difficulty gaining support from all the regulatory agencies. Alternatively, another approach is to separate layers by regulations that do not overlap, such as carbon market from ESA. By looking at each authority under existing regulations driving ecosystem service markets and defining which are already incorporated into the current regulatory credit ‘stack’ may more explicitly identify additional services that can be preserved in credit banks and sold on another regulatory market. With a more considered understanding of ecosystem service markets and their regulatory underpinnings, the stacking and un-stacking debate can progress from earlier fear of ‘double dipping’, to a more sophisticated delivery of ecosystem services and ecological and economic benefits inherent in them, and all the possibilities that credits trading can have for natural resource management. Contact Information: Wayne White, Director of Business Development, Wildlands Inc. 3855 Atherton Road, Rocklin CA, 95765. Phone: 916 541-0091. Email: [email protected]


342

SPATIAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF MEXICAN FREE-TAILED BATS Laura López-Hoffman1, Ruscena P. Wiederholt1, Darius J. Semmens2 and Jay E. Diffendorfer2

1School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA 2USGS Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center, Denver, CO, USA

We present a theoretical approach for quantifying spatial ecosystem subsidies for a migratory bat species, the Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasilliensis). Throughout the yearly cycle of migration, many migratory species depend on different habitats for food, shelter, and breeding. Often migratory species provide ecosystem services to people in locations far from the species’ most critical habitats. As a result, habitats where the species receives the most support may not be the same habitats, or locations, where the species provides the most benefits to humans. The mismatch between the habitat areas where a species receives support, and locations where it provides most benefits to society, may create situations where certain areas are subsidizing the delivery of ecosystem services in other locations. Decision-makers may want the people who receive benefits from a migratory species to share the cost of protecting the species’ critical habitats in other areas. Here we present a method for estimating these mismatches or spatial ecosystem subsidies using a migratory bat species. Mexican free-tailed bats, which overwinter in southern Mexico and migrate to summer breeding sites in northern Mexico and the southwestern U.S., provide important pest control services for agricultural crops. Further, conservation efforts are needed as migratory species pose challenges for management and the Mexican free-tailed bat population may be declining. We used a migratory network model to simulate bat migration between winter sites and summer maternity sites. This modeling approach assessed the migratory linkages and estimated the relative contribution of different regions to the maintenance of migratory bat populations. We then calculated the value of pest control bats provided to cotton farmers through reduced crop damage and avoided pesticide costs. Finally, we estimated the spatial subsidy values (i.e. spatial mismatches between locations that most support the viability of migratory populations and the locations where they provide the most ecosystem services) between Mexico and the U.S. Northern Mexico and Texas were important regions for maintaining the viability of the migratory bat population, and received the largest flows of migrants. We recommend that conservation efforts be focused on these influential areas for bat populations, and that efforts be made to harmonize management and conservation strategies across the U.S. - Mexico border. Finally, we suggest this quantitative approach for spatial ecosystem subsides be applied to other migratory species to facilitate transboundary conservation. Contact Information: Ruscena Wiederholt, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, 1311 E. 4th St., University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 85712, Phone: 520- 626-9868, email: [email protected]


343

OVERCOMING CONSTRAINTS TO VIABLE MARKETS Randy Wilgis

Environmental Banc & Exchange, Camden, SC, USA This discussion will focus on constraints to viable markets and how to overcome them. When good market design is present, private capital availability is not the constraint to conservation and restoration. However, while the concept of markets and private investment in public benefits is appealing, the details required for good design and the political will required for effective implementation is often lacking. For private capital to participate in creating conservation and restoration outcomes, what’s needed is: 1) Clear credit definition for both sides of the ledger (i.e. calculating credits for impacts and restoration) 2) Fair competition (i.e. equivalency between forms of offsets and offset providers, whether they be public or private entities) 3) Consistent implementation of requirements for market participation (i.e. no “special deals” that violate #2) 4) Singular definition of a credit (i.e. not many different credit definitions as in carbon market) 5) Consistent enforcement of environmental laws Contact Information: Randy Wilgis, Environmental Banc & Exchange, 604 Greene Street, Suite 100, Camden, SC 29020, Phone: 803-432-4890, Email: [email protected]


344

PRIORITIZATION OF THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL EASEMENTS TO PROMOTE FLOODPLAIN CONSERVATION STRATEGIES ALONG THE SANTA CLARA RIVER Whitney Wilkinson, Jon Lawrence Montgomery, Lili Prahl and Peter Shellenbarger

Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA The goal of this project is to prevent structural flood control along the lower Santa Clara River by strategically purchasing agricultural easements that provide flood control benefits within the 500-year floodplain. The lower Santa Clara River is one of the last major rivers in southern California without significant human alteration and channelization. This lack of alteration can largely be attributed to the agriculture industry that occupies the floodplain. In addition, the Santa Clara River’s floodplain, which includes these agricultural lands, provides habitat for several threatened and endangered species. Population growth and urban sprawl, however, are increasing pressure to develop these agricultural lands on the river’s floodplain that currently provide flood control without extensive use of levees. A study of the flood control ecosystem services found that protecting the 500-year floodplain from development and levee construction could result in the reduction of over $1 billion in flood damages during a 500-year flood event. This indicates that the agricultural lands on the 500-year floodplain are providing over $1 billion in flood protection damage to the County of Ventura during a 500-year flood event and $204 million during a 100-year flood event. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), with assistance from a variety of stakeholders and interest groups, has secured funding to implement the Natural Floodplain Protection Program (NFPP). The goal of the NFPP is to acquire agricultural easements on key parcels within the Santa Clara River’s 500-year floodplain to ensure the continuation of flood protection benefits that these agricultural lands provide, while also discouraging future development and levee construction. The project’s approach will include a literature review, conceptual model development, and a multi-criteria decision analysis. Since agricultural easement programs are a relatively new floodplain conservation strategy, an extensive literature review of related programs will be conducted. Parcel prioritization will be achieved using a multi-criteria decision analysis to score parcels within the 500-year floodplain for easement purchase, and will incorporate land value, floodplain benefits, and other hydrological, ecological, political, and socioeconomic factors. A key element in developing a robust prioritization model will be determining the value of each agriculture parcel in its contribution to flood control ecosystem services. This framework will help TNC use their funds most effectively in their goal of conserving the floodplain. Results and recommendations are pending. Contact Information: Whitney Wilkinson, Jon Lawrence Montgomery, Lili Prahl, and Peter Shellenbarger, Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA, Phone: 805-252-7122, Email: [email protected]


345

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Byron K. Williams

USGS Cooperative Research Units and the USGS Science and Decisions Center, Reston VA The challenges currently facing resource managers are large-scale, complex, and demand new approaches to balance development and conservation needs and goals. Now more than ever, it is important for resource managers to acquire and use information and knowledge to promote sound management of natural resources. One approach that shows considerable promise is adaptive management, which by now is broadly seen as a natural, intuitive, and effective way to address decision making in the face of uncertainties. In general terms, adaptive decision making involves the use of management itself to simultaneously pursue management objectives and learn about the consequences of management. The literature on adaptive management is truly huge, so much so that it sometimes is difficult to recognize the important attributes of adaptive decision making. Nevertheless, the potential of an adaptive approach is broadly recognized for natural resource systems that are responsive to management interventions but there is uncertainty about the impacts. The general approach involves iterations of decision making and learning through time, with the goal of reducing uncertainty and thereby improving management. An adaptive process incorporates management objectives and intervention alternatives, along with models that can project the future consequences of present actions and monitoring protocols for evaluating progress toward achieving objectives, facilitating learning, and aiding in decision making. Given its focus of (human) management with ecological consequences, adaptive management is almost always framed in terms of social-ecological systems, recognizing and often focusing on the potential for social as well as technical learning. It thus can be imbedded in a larger framework of decision making that links adaptive decision making with ecosystem services, whereby the identification, production, and valuation of ecosystem services can play critical roles in delineating the architecture and processes of an adaptive approach. In this presentation I will describe the context and focus of adaptive management, discuss the components and processes of adaptive decision making, and highlight some important linkages between adaptive management and ecosystem services. Contact Information: Byron K. Williams, USGS Cooperative Research Units and the USGS Science and Decisions Center, 122012 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston VA 20192


346

A CASE FOR NATIVE SOIL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BMP’S Karla G. Wilson

EcoWorks Unlimited and Deer Creek Watershed Alliance, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO, USA The engineered bioretention system relies primarily on changing soil texture to reduce and delay peak flow and/or increase water infiltration into the soil. By contrast, the native soil landscaping approach relies primarily on improving soil structure to increase soil water retention and thus improve stormwater management. Although further study is needed, there is significant evidence to support the latter approach, even in those regions where high clay sub-soil content predominates. This paper draws from scientific literature, Best Management Practice Standards, and local data from monitoring Deer Creek Watershed bioretention systems in order to build a case for the relative value of pursuing native soil vs engineered soil stormwater management practices. The use of engineered soil relies primarily on changing soil texture to increase pore space in the soil and therefore improve the management of stormwater. The amendment of native soils approach, in contrast, relies primarily on improving soil structure to achieve a similar result. Native soil Best Management Practices (BMP’s) may include preserving site topsoil and vegetation, reducing soil compaction, amending disturbed soils with compost, mulching, mychorryzal inoculation, turf reduction by planting beds with diverse fibrous and deep root structures, and/or woodland restoration. Engineered Soil BMP’s by contrast, typically center around the removal of existing soil and replacing it with a 60-80% sandy soil bioretention mix, often paired with an underdrain where indications are that infiltration rates in the surrounding soil are low. A comparison of the two approaches indicates a number of relative benefits of the native soil stormwater management approach, including significantly reduced risks and costs related to installation as well as to maintenance, decreased likelihood of phosphorus run-off from the system, and decreased likelihood of compromising nearby river systems from sand and topsoil extraction in the process of creating the engineered soil mix. Recommendations include further study with side by side comparisons of the two methods that include analyses of the cost per inch retained per area of drainage. The costs, risks, and relative effectiveness of current green infrastructure stormwater management practices need to be thoroughly vetted so that entities responsible for their implementation and management can receive the best bang for the buck for their efforts, and also so that the ecosystem services that our soils aready provide for free as nature’s pipeline are maximized in the process. Contact Information: Karla G. Wilson, EcoWorks Unlimited, 322 Camellia Drive, St. Louis, MO 63119, Phone: 314-471-1323, Email: [email protected]


347

CALCULATING SUPPLY CURVES FOR GREENHOUSE GAS OFFSET AND WATER QUALITY CREDITS FROM AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN Jonathan Winsten1, Peter Ingraham2, Michael Netzer1, William Salas2, Nancy Harris1 and Alex Echols3

1Winrock International, Arlington, VA, USA 2 Applied GeoSolutions, Portsmouth, NH, USA 3Sand County Foundation, Madison, WI, USA

Agriculture is a significant source of water quality impairments as well as greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. The nitrogen cycle is crucially important at the nexus of water quality and climate change concerns. The goal of this work was to identify agricultural management practices that could address both nitrate losses to water and nitrous oxide emissions to the atmosphere from farming in the upper Midwest region of the United States, as well estimate the supply of these ecosystem services at various prices on a fine spatial resolution. This paper has used the Denitrification and Decomposition (DNDC) Model to estimate the nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide (N2O) flux resulting from 18 pre-defined practices on each of 19 selected farms in south-central Wisconsin. The DNDC model is a biogeochemical process model that has been widely used and validated at numerous sites in the U.S. and around the world. Economic analyses were performed to identify the total costs associated with each management practice and the resulting cost-effectiveness of each. Monte Carlo analyses using DNDC were performed on the practices showing the greatest reduction potential for both nitrate and N2O reductions to understand the variability of response across different soil characteristics. Regression analyses were then performed using the Monte Carlo output to generate statistically significant prediction equations for the selected practices. The SSURGO database was used to populate the pixel-level soil characteristics across the Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 95B, which is approximately 28,000 square kilometers in southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois. The prediction equations were then applied spatially across MLRA 95B to identify specific areas of greatest reduction potential. The use of winter cover crops shows the greatest potential for mitigating nitrate (22.3%) and N2O (6.5%) losses, but is a relatively costly practice. No-till production has a much smaller average impact, but often reduces production costs. This analysis shows that a payment of $5/KG N could induce farmers in this region to reduce 21.7 million KG of N loss to ground and surface water through a combination of winter cover cropping and no-till. The ancillary reduction in GHG emissions from these actions is estimated to be 840,000 MT CO2e. It is important to understand that there is great variability in the cost-effectiveness of these actions across the landscape; This analysis has identified the specific locations where producers are most likely to supply these ecosystem services at the least cost. The outcomes of this analysis will be useful for the development of water quality and/or carbon offset credits to be transacted in environmental markets. Contact Information: Jonathan Winsten, Environment Group, Winrock International, 2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA. Phone: 1-802-343-3037, Email: [email protected]


348

DESIGN SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE-BASED PES PROGRAMS Jonathan Winsten1 and Bettina Matzdorf2

1Winrock International, Arlington, VA, USA 2Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Germany

Performance-based Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs can be more effective than practice-based approaches because the financial incentives are linked directly to the ecosystem services. However, designing and implementing performance-based PES programs requires more effort and presents greater challenges. At this station of the world café the discussion will use the experiences of several implemented performance-based PES programs in the US and Germany and center on the question of what are the main issues regarding the design of such PES programs. In particular, the following questions will be addressed:

• Are performance-based approaches suitable for all PES applications?

• What characteristics indicate the suitability of a performance-based approach?

• How to determine if technical efficiencies outweigh the transaction costs? Contact Information: Jonathan Winsten, Environment Group, Winrock International, 2121 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA. Tel: 1-802-343-3037. Email: [email protected]



349

ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ACCOUNTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE Robert Winthrop

Socioeconomics Program, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC , USA What is nature worth? In experiencing and appropriating our biophysical environment, we recognize human values associated with places, landscapes, and resources, part of the spectrum of ecosystem services. There are multiple frameworks for describing these values: informal and formal, qualitative and quantitative. In the context of western law and public policy, the dominant methods for valuation are economic, with the assumption that environmental values reflect human benefits. There are major analytic gains from using a common monetary metric to estimate such values. Nonetheless, economic methods and metrics appear poorly suited for assessing certain categories of value. These include sacred sites (e.g., the Gettysburg battlefield) and resource practices significant for maintaining a way of life (e.g., the native subsistence fisheries damaged by the Exxon Valdez oil spill). American Indian narratives of place, rituals with environmental themes, and responses to proposed resource development are used to illustrate an alternative approach, cultural accounts of environmental value. While monetizing environmental values results in a loss of complexity, the analytic richness preserved in cultural accounts can help expand the decision space for managing resource conflicts, increasing the likelihood of finding a solution that satisfies the interests and requirements of multiple parties. Economic and cultural accounts of environmental value reflect distinct epistemologies. Cultural rather than economic accounts appear more effective at capturing environmental value when three factors are present: the experience is inherently social, environmental knowledge has a symbolic dimension, and interests transcend consumption. Economic and cultural accounts offer alternative and potentially complementary frameworks. The potential contributions of a cultural account are considered for three issues: framing environmental decisions, characterizing existence values, and fostering environmental stewardship. Contact information: Robert Winthrop, Socioeconomics Program, Division of Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, USA, Phone 202- 912-7287; Email: [email protected]


350

IMPROVING FEDERAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS: THE USE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUATION Robert Winthrop

Socioeconomics Program, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC, USA The inventory and valuation of ecosystem services can provide a powerful tool for decision-making in the management of energy and other natural resources. This presentation describes a multi-phase study to assess the feasibility and usefulness of incorporating tools for assessing ecosystem services in the resource allocation decisions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM is responsible for over 245 m acres (99 m ha) of public lands and 700 m acres (283 m ha) of mineral estate across the United States, from the Arctic Ocean to the Mexican border. This portfolio of lands and resources includes extensive supplies of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, oil shale, and tar sands) and abundant sources of renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass). While the development of energy resources is a significant mandate for the BLM, these compete with a wide range of other uses of the public lands, including habitat conservation, recreation, wilderness, archaeological heritage protection, and the production of non-energy commodities. The BLM and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are partnering to assess the potential for incorporating ecosystem service valuation tools into the BLM’s decision-making process. Phase 1 of the study focused on the feasibility of operationalizing the analysis of ecosystem services across the BLM. This involved a comparative assessment of multiple ecosystem services tools, applied to four services and three management scenarios for the San Pedro watershed in southeast Arizona. The tools were evaluated against several criteria, including time requirements, current level of development, incorporation of uncertainty, and scalability. Phase 2, begun in 2012, focuses on the utility of ecosystem services information for resource management decisions. The Phase 2 study will analyze water availability and scenic values for an oil and gas master leasing plan in eastern Utah, using tools identified as most suitable in Phase 1. Here oil and gas development potentially competes with a wide range of recreational and scenic values as well as proposed potash mining, a water-intensive activity. Contact information: Robert Winthrop, Socioeconomics Program, Division of Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, USA, Phone: 202- 912-7287, Email: [email protected]


351

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN HEALTH: METRO NATURE AS PROVIDER OF CULTURAL SERVICES Kathleen L. Wolf

College of the Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA The current knowledge structure of ecosystem services (ES) includes classifications and economic valuations. For instance, the widely referenced classification of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment included supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. There is extensive research about the first three categories of services as derived from ecosystems around the world, with associated estimates of economic values using market and non-market approaches. There are two notable patterns as one reads across the ES literature – the paucity of attention to cultural services, and the focus on rural and wildland ecosystems, with little attention to urban ES. The purpose of this presentation, as part of a panel focusing on urban settings, is to consider the range of benefits and nature functions that should be included in an expanded treatment of cultural services. Evolving theory and practice should recognize the variability of services across the entire wildland to urban landscape gradient. Variability is partially dependent on socio-cultural context. For instance forest-generated services differ in kind and extent between rural, managed forest tracts and the small patch forests, or even individual trees, within cities. This presentation will first offer a framework for visualizing ES types and extent along the entire landscape gradient. Metro nature services, those provided by nearby nature and urban ecosystems within high-density built environments, will be emphasized. Metro nature includes all the ecological, cultural, and engineered green spaces within cities and towns, such as (but not limited to) parks, open spaces, community gardens, and the urban forest. Urban green systems provide environmental services, including cleaner air, reduced stormwater, and energy savings. Additionally, nearly 40 years of research across social disciplines (such as psychology, sociology, urban planning, and public health) demonstrates a broad array of health and well-being benefits associated with the human experience of nature in cities. Evidence indicates that urban landscapes provide extensive cultural services, yet the full potential of such services are largely not acknowledged by current ES classifications. The second purpose is to expand discourse about ES provided by metro nature, with a focus on public health and well being as cultural services. A team at the University of Washington (supported by the USDA Forest Service) has collected published research and synthesized the evidence into key topics. A web site (www.greenhealth.washington.edu) presents concise summaries representing more than 2,100 (mostly peer reviewed) publications. This knowledge is profoundly important, as benefits include stress reduction, healing and therapy, better learning and work productivity, and improved social dynamics in communities. All of these findings have broad implications, from support of individuals, to community cohesion, to economic costs and benefits. In the next phase of the project methods for economic valuation of human health and well-being services will be developed. Finally, the presentation will turn to translating the health and well-being evidence into community planning guidelines.The functions and services provided by metro nature can be the basis for better partnerships and collaborations with urban planners and public health professionals. Suggestions will be provided for ways to plan, design, and manage metro nature to optimize human health benefits. Contact Information: Kathleen L. Wolf, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195, USA, Phone: 206-780-0530, Email: [email protected]


352

DESIGN AND METRICS: ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND HABITAT CREDIT TRADING IN THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS David W. Wolfe1 and K. Halsey2

1Environmental Defense Fund, Austin, Texas, USA 2Parametrix, Portland, Oregon, USA

The lesser prairie chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) has been in decline throughout most of its range for decades due to the usual panoply of threats: habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation. In recent years, the primary source of these threats can be attributed to energy development (in the form of oil, gas and wind) and transmission. The persistence of these threats, along with the requirements of a recent lawsuit settlement, will result in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule to list the chicken (which is currently a candidate species) as threatened or endangered in September 2012. In the absence of a near-term substantial increase in sustained conservation action benefitting the chicken, this listing process will likely be finalized in late 2013. The resulting effects of such a listing on energy development and operations will likely be profound. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Parametrix and a wide variety of stakeholders are working collaboratively to substantially engage energy industries and other development interests in pro-active conservation measures benefitting the chicken through the development and implementation of a Southern Great Plains Habitat Credit Trading Market. A key goal of the market is to incentivize substantial near-term investments by energy companies in conservation actions benefitting the chicken (i.e., credits) by providing certainty that credits purchased now will retain their value even if the species is listed. This certaintly serves as a powerful incentive for participation as it reduces risk and provides operational certainty for energy companies. We began development of the Southern Great Plains Habitat Credit Trading Market in July 2012 and our goal is to initiate transactions in fall 2013. We describe our progress in developing the market, including details on the process of creating quantitative tools for determining credits and debits, the stakeholder-driven process for designing the market, and the innovative use of existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance and policies to create the regulatory certainty necessary to fully-engage the participation of energy companies and private landowners. Contact Information: David W. Wolfe, Texas Regional Wildlife Director, Environmental Defense Fund, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78701, USA, Phone: 512-691-3415, Email: [email protected]


353

MEASURING THE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES USING AVOIDED COSTS: A CASE STUDY IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Jay Yingling1, Rush Childs2 and Stuart Norvell2

1Planning Section, Public Affairs Bureau, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL, USA 2Cardno ENTRIX, Raleigh, NC and Riverview, FL, USA

The Southwest Florida Water Management District is estimating the economic value of its land holdings. The estimates will help the District prioritize its future land acquisition and disposition programs and enable the District to effectively communicate with the public about the value of the land it manages. The economic value includes ecosystem services related to water quality, water supply, and flood control. The District and Cardno ENTRIX developed a customized tool, ESValue-SWF, which provides the District a cost-effective approach for estimating the benefits and costs of these ecosystem services using the avoided cost approach. This presentation describes the methods and results of the tool. Drawing on basic GIS datasets and long-standing procedures in watershed hydrology, ESValue-SWF estimates the water quality, flood control, and water supply costs that are avoided by retaining conservation lands under District ownership. The resulting values will be presented for an example District property. The presentation will focus on four critical steps for practical, applied ecosystem services valuation that are addressed by the tool:

• strengths and limitations of an avoided cost approach;

• impact of data availability on tool design;

• the analytical and cost trade-offs between providing site-specific vs. generic ecosystem services values;

• a model refinement process that focuses on the role of uncertainty and the value of additional information.

Contact Information: Jay Yingling, Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, FL 34604-6899, USA, Phone: 352-796-7211, ext. 4406, Email: [email protected]


354

CONSERVATION INVESTMENT NOTE PROGRAM–STRUCTURE, BENEFITS, GOALS Chris Larson1, Patrick Coady2, James R. Remuzzi3 and Logan Yonavjak4

1New Island Capital Management, San Francisco, CA, USA 2Coady Diemar Partners, Washington, DC, USA 3Sustainable Solutions, LLC; Nature Returns, L3C, Shepherdstown, WV, USA 4Conservation Private Capital Group, Washington, DC, USA

Purpose: A Conservation Investment Note (CIN) is an innovative financing instrument, similar to a bank certificate of deposit, which offers small and large investors a publicly offered, nationally available, fixed-term, fixed-rate social investment. By creating a safe, conservation investment opportunity available to the public, the CIN can unlock a new, large, and untapped source of private capital for working lands conservation across the U.S. while, at the same time, creating new financing opportunities for the land conservation community nationwide. Scope (benefits to borrowers and investors): Uniquely designed with conservation borrowers in mind, this investment instrument creates flexible capital with potentially longer maturities, and greater flexibility in security, repayment and geographies than is currently available. Closely pre-screened, low-risk conservation organizations, such as land trusts will have access to CIN capital to fund important conservation and associated rural development projects. (More specific benefits to borrowers will be discussed in the presentation.) In the past, there have been generally two means of supporting conservation: through charitable gifts and by volunteering. With the CIN, a safe and profitable conservation investment will be widely available to a diverse range of investors from small depositors to larger investors, including foundations, to make triple bottom line investments while leveraging their capital for conservation. The CIN program will report these social/environmental, as well as financial returns in its annual report. Methods Used: Members of the Conservation Private Capital Group (CPCG) were initially inspired by the Calvert Foundation’s successful Community Investment Note program to develop a similar concept to attract conservation investment to capitalize land conservation. The Calvert Foundation Community Investment Note has over $28M in security enhancements on its $200M portfolio, and has incurred losses of less than 1 percent over its 15-year history with no losses to any investors. CPCG proposed the CIN concept to the Calvert Foundation as a way for the Foundation to expand its existing program, which exclusively supports domestic and international community development and poverty alleviation projects. To assure demand, CPCG undertook a market feasibility study funded by the California-based Resources Legacy Fund Foundation; the study surveyed potential conservation investors and borrowers, existing conservation lenders, and potential funders of a CIN program. Results: The feasibility study strongly supported the formation of a CIN program. The study also outlined a viable financial structure for the program. Conclusions/recommendations: In May 2012, CPCG’s ongoing discussions with the Calvert Foundation resulted in an agreement in principle to sponsor a pilot CIN program if seed funding could be raised. In coordination with the Calvert Foundation and using its community development model as a guide, CPCG has since been developing an implementation plan and a pipeline of transactions to present to funders. Contact Information: Chris Larson, Director of Real Assets and Sustainable Agriculture, New Island Capital Management, San Francisco, CA, 505 Sansome St., Suite 1925, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-692-5757, Email: [email protected]


355

THE VALUATION OF OFF-SITE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FLOWS: THE IMPACT OF DEFORESTATION ON LAKE-SEDIMENTATION IN PRESCOTT, ARIZONA James Yoo1,2, Silvio Simonit1,2, John P. Connor2, , Ann Kinzig1,2 and Charles Perrings1,2

1Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA 2ecoSERVICES Group, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA 3School of Geographical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

The value of the quality of water bodies in urban and peri-urban areas is frequently capitalized into the price of residential properties. This value can therefore be recovered by estimating a hedonic price function. There exists a body of research that uses the value of lake front residential properties to obtain estimates of the value of water quality, proxied by a variety of water quality measures including bacteria concentration, water clarity and water turbidity. However, no study has yet used the value of water quality obtained in this way to derive the buffering value of watersheds. In this paper we derive the value of watershed characteristics that affect the sedimentation of water bodies. Specifically, we estimate the impact of landscape characteristics such as topography and vegetation on water quality, whose value is estimated from a hedonic price function for nearby residential properties. Proximity to the water body is measured by a slope-related increment on horizontal distance. We also consider spatial heterogeneity in the implicit price of water quality. This paper accordingly extends the existing literature by [1] exploring the impact of watershed-level sedimentation on lake-front residential properties, [2] modeling the impact of land cover characteristics on sediment delivery to the lakes, [3] accounting for slope which increases the physical distance when calculating lake-front buffers and [4] estimating property-level willingness-to-pay for a marginal change in lake's sedimentation, leading to the value of a marginal change in land use /land cover in the lake's watershed. Using 11,741 single-family residential property transactions that occurred between 2002 and 2004 in Yavapai County, Arizona, we estimated a spatial hedonic model in which the log of property prices was modeled as a function of sediment load, lake size, lake distance from the property, and interactions between all of these terms. We found that the disamenity value of sediment varied significantly within the county. We also found that lake access was valued above lake size, but that increasing sediment loads in lakes of all sizes decreased nearby property values. We then considered two interactions. First, we found the interaction between lake size and sediment levels to be positive, implying that the dilution effect of larger lakes mitigates the disamenity value of sedimentation. Second, we found the interaction between lake sediment and land cover (measured by a slope-adjusted Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) to be negative, implying that the disamenity value of sedimentation diminishes with the ‘greenness’ of the lake buffer. Finally, we used the property-level willingness-to-pay for a marginal change in sediment loads to derive the marginal sediment buffering value of land use/land cover change that are contributing sediment to each lake. Our results have important implications for water quality and landscape management in Yavapai County. They show the value of land cover near to and upslope from lakefront areas in managing water quality. We do, however, recommend further exploration of the factors lying behind spatial variation in the value of lake access within the county. Incorporating the recreational value of water quality, which is not capitalized into property values, will be useful in identifying the full buffering value of land use and land cover in lake catchments. Contact Information: James Yoo, Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, PO Box 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA, Phone: 602-705-7311, Email: [email protected]


356

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE ON WATER RESOURCES IN CITARUM RIVER BASIN, INDONESIA Koshi Yoshida and Issaku Azechi

College of Agriculture, Ibaraki University, Ibaraki, Japan Recently, severe flood or drought, which was caused by global climate change, occurred in the world. In Asia monsoon region having clear rainy and dry season, water cycle will be accelerated as global warming, and it leads more intense rainfall and long term drought. In Indonesia, more increase of food production is needed as growing population. However, such floods or droughts affect agricultural production directly and indirectly through soil erosion or changes of carbon and nutrient dynamics in soil. It is difficult to develop more agricultural land in JAWA because high populated island, and so an irrigation system is necessary to stabilize and increase the production of rice. Citarum river is the largest river in West Java, having a length of 350km and catchment area of 6000 km2. Annual mean precipitation vary from 1800 to 2800 mm/year. In this basin, 70％ of annual precipitation fall in the rainy season from November to March. Bandung city is located at upstream and there are 3 large dams (Saguling dam at upstream, Cirata dam at middle, Jatiluhur dam at downstream).Citarum river is most important river in West JAWA, supplying water for Bandung and Jakarta City, especially 80% of domestic water in Jakarta was withdrawn from Citarum river at the point of Jatiluhur dam. And in the future, climate change may cause undesirable impact on water availability in this basin. Therefore, evaluation of spatial and temporal distribution of available water is quite necessary to manage water resources effectively. In this study, agricultural water use was focused. To evaluate the potential of irrigation supply, distributed water cycling model were developed. For the rainfall -runoff analysis, TOPMODEL, which was one of the distributed type model, was employed in this study. Distributed model can be included spatial distribution of geography, land use and soil characteristics. Therefore, it is widely used for hydrological characteristics analysis, water management, water quality analysis, and future forecasting. Dam operation model was combined with TOPMODEL to evaluate the validation of water storage in the reservoir and applied to analyze the water balance in Citarum river basin. Calculated discharge showed a good agreement with a trend of seasonal flow variation from 1996 to 2005. By inputting GCM prediction data (MIROC5) to this model, river discharge, which change year to year, region to region was calculated during 2021 to 2030, 2046 to 2055 and evaluated potential of irrigation water supply in each grid area. Contact Information: Koshi Yoshida, College of Agriculture, Ibaraki University, 3-21-1 Chuo, Ami-machi, Ibaraki 300-0393, Japan, Phone +81-29-888-8600, Email: [email protected]


357

ASSESSMENT OF CHANGING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY TIMBALIER ISLAND HABITATS Cristina Carollo1, David Yoskowitz1 and Syed Khalil2

1Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX, USA 2Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

The research question that drove this project is: “as Timbalier Island is undergoing northwestward migration, area loss, and narrowing, what is the potential change in the value of the ecosystem services provided by the barrier island habitats”? By assessing the value of the prominent ecosystem services we demonstrate the vulnerability of those services as a result of changes in habitat structure and distribution. Due to a number of natural and anthropogenic phenomena such as erosion, subsidence, sea level rise, wave processes, storm passage, inadequate sediment supply, and intense human disturbance among others, barrier islands in Louisiana have been subjected to narrowing and landward migration. Thus, during the past 100 years, total barrier island area has declined approximately 55% at the rate of about 155 acres per year. To inform the decision-making process that would allow restoring barrier island shoreline and habitats, we analyzed changes in habitats on Timbalier Island between 1996 and 2005 and subsequent changes in ecosystem services and their values. Habitat maps were compiled from historical maps, satellite images, and aerial photographs and the change were documented for 4 time periods: 1855-2005 (historical term), 1920’s-2005 (long term), 1996-2005 (short term), and 2004-2005 (near term) by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana under the aegis of Barrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring (BICM) Program. The study area of Timbalier Island is a part of the larger Barrier Island System of Louisiana, which stretches for almost 100 miles from Raccoon Point to Sandy Point, west of the Mississippi River. Also Timbalier Island is one of the islands which suffered the highest rate of erosion/degradation during the hurricanes/storms of 2005. The uniqueness of the Barrier Islands of Louisiana lies in the fact that several diverse habitats are found to occur in a comparatively small geographical area. Based upon the list produced at the first Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Services Workshop, held in Bay St. Louis, MS, we linked the ecological function of identified habitats with the ecosystem services they provide. The monetary valuation was conducted through value transfer using a meta-regression analysis. This is an intensive exercise and produces the socio-economic information necessary to strengthen habitat restoration decisions by making them more complete and justifiable. The cost of Barrier Island restoration is pretty high as compared to acreage of land created if we do not consider the extremely valuable ecosystem services it provides. It is thus expected that the results of this study could also create a supportive case for the use of dedicated dredged sediment in restoration projects that factor in the prevailing ecosystem services. Contact Information: Syed Khalil, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, 450 Laurel Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70801, USA, Phone: 225-342-1641, Email: [email protected]


358

A NEW ESTIMATE FOR CHANGBAI MOUNTAIN NATURAL RESERVE IN ECOSYSTEM SUPPORTING SERVICES AND HUMAN WELL-BEING Dan Yu

Institute of Applied Ecology, Shenyang, China Supporting services including ecosystem functions of primary production, decomposition and nutrient cycling, water cycling and the formation of soils, are those that are required for the production of all other ecosystem services (i.e. regulating, provisioning and cultural services), but previous studies have shown contrasting the supporting service, in particular, the role of species traits on ecosystem functioning under the background of the global change. Based on data of the seventh national investigation of forest resource and multiple-years consecutive observation by the long-term Ecological Research Station affiliated to the Chinese Ecosystem Research Network (CERN). We provide an overview of the trends, past, present and future, which are evident in supporting services of primary production, nutrient cycling, water cycling and the formation of soils, provided by Changbai Mountain, and appraise the change of different vegetation type ecosystem service values over the past three decades. We also consider what the main drivers are for these trends of supporting services. This suggests that the contribution relative to abiotic factors as drivers of supporting services at the landscape scale. There are also indications that the influence of biotic drivers on ecosystem processes varies along environmental gradients of climate, nutrient availability and topography. This research could identify knowledge gaps regarding the delivery of supporting services in the development and construction of natural reserve. Contact Information: Dan Yu, Institute of Applied Ecology, 72 Wenhua Road, Shenyang 110016, China, Phone: 02483970443, Email: [email protected]


359

THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL NATURAL HABITAT TO URBAN AGRICULTURE John G. Zahina-Ramos

Department of Geosciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Urban sustainability initiatives recognize the importance of local and urban agriculture in meeting the food needs of residents and mitigating the negative effects of food deserts. Community gardens, which can be found on public or private greenspace, are perhaps the most visible form of urban agriculture. However, backyard food gardening holds the greatest potential for producing large quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables within cities. Food plant pollination and pest control are concerns with most forms of agriculture. Because of the high density of people living in the city setting, the use of potentially toxic agricultural pesticides is undesirable. Adequate numbers of insect pollinators are essential for successful fruit and vegetable production. Food plant pollination is often viewed as a rural agricultural issue, but the importance of insect pollinators to urban agriculture has received little consideration. In order to support a growing community of urban food growers, a robust insect population that includes pollinators, pest predators and pest parasites is required. Natural and recreated habitats within developed areas are typically viewed as having aesthetic, hydrologic and wildlife value. However, they may also support a number of organisms that are important to urban agricultural production. Vacant lots, waste areas and wildflower gardens may also provide habitat for the production and dispersion of beneficial food plant pollinators in cities. Results from a backyard food production case study in South Florida will be used to demonstrate the importance of and interdependence between pollinator habitat and urban food production. Contact Information: John G. Zahina-Ramos, Department of Geosciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA, Phone: 561-281-7982, Email: [email protected]


360

CLIMATE CHANGE AND MANAGEMENT OF CARBON AND OTHER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES WITHIN A GREEN ECONOMY CONTEXT – STUDY CASE GREEN FARM CO2FREE, ITAQUIRAÍ, MS, BRAZIL Ederson Zanetti

Green Farm CO2FREE, Itaquiraí, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Green Economy signalizes major opportunities for products and services holding environmental and social benefits, at the same time this creates a movement towards valorization of Ecosystem Services. With the aim of mainstreaming ecosystem services at production and service chains and increasing overall competitiveness for this new era of sustainable development, the Mato Grosso Industry and Agriculture Federations inaugurated in 2010 a Unity for Environmental and Ecosystem Services. In this study case a property of 4,630 ha, located at the south of Mato Grosso do Sul, in Brazil, was accessed to determine the amount and quality of ecosystem services. A list of 40 possible ecosystem services was used to identify 31 provided by the referred property. From those, 7 are currently being managed to supply ecosystem services of Carbon, Water, Biodiversity, Habitat, Scenic Beauty, Recreation and Research & Development. Carbon assessment resulted on a potential to generate up to 14 to 40,000 tCO2eq / year. Biodiversity bank has been divided in two groups: Genetic Variability Bank and Biodiversity Species Bank, from 5 different species of animals, 37 individuals are located at the first and 225 individuals at the second, a total of 267 credits available on the period between 2012-2020. The Platform of Business on Environmental and Ecosystem Goods and Services - PNBSAE of Mato Grosso, in Cuiaba, Mato Grosso, has the goal of facilitating trade on ecosystem services credits and certifying environmental goods and services. It allows for registering of negative and positive impacts on ecosystem services as carbon, water and biodiversity, providing a stamp for companies investing on neutralizing their impacts by acquiring environmental credits from rural landscapes. There are two law proposals at the national congress, from the 18 under discussion, providing for this system to become officially recognized. Contact Information: Ederson Zanetti, Green Farm CO2FREE, Itaquiraí, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil, Phone: 554133625722, Email: [email protected]


361

INTEGRATING BIOENERGY OPTIONS INTO THE GLOBAL FOREST PRODUCTS MARKET FOR CLIMATE BENEFITS Sijia Zhang1,2, J. Keith Gilless1 and William C. Stewart1

1College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA 2Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Efficiently produced forest products such as building materials, packaging, and bioenergy provide many climate benefits compared to fossil-fuel intensive substitute products. Forest based energy releases carbon that has been absorbed by plants from the atmosphere in the recent past, therefore reduces the amount of geologic carbon released into the atmosphere. This study provides evidence that much of the projected demand for bioenergy could be met from sustainably managed forests that produce products and energy for a globally integrated market. In addition to building products, paper, packaging products, and renewable energy, sustainably managed forests also provide carbon storage and many other valuable ecosystem services such as water quality enhancements, wildlife habitats, and a broad range of biodiversity. Unlike the complicated markets needed to value and sell pure ecosystem services, forest based products combine traditional product roles with the ecosystem service benefits of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Market efficiencies and technological change are key factors in accommodating the increased demand for forest-based biomass. The object of this study is to model how increased use of wood-based bioenergy, in the forms of fuelwood, cellulosic ethanol from woody biomass, electricity and industrial heat produced from wood, will interact with global markets for wood products; liquid, solid, and gaseous fuels; and electricity. We endogenously modeled demand for wood-based bioenergy by modifying the U.S. Forest Products Module of the Global Forest Products Model (USFPM/GFPM). We then defined and integrated sustainable regional wood supply models (US West, US South, US North, Canada, South American plantations) into our revised version of USFPM/GFPM. Our preliminary results project a substantial increase in demand for wood-based cellulosic ethanol in the U.S. for the next 20-30 years, under a high oil price scenario. Contact information: Sijia Zhang, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA, Phone: (608)957-6612, Email: [email protected]


362

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN DECISION AND POLICY APPLICATIONS IN CHINA Ouyang Zhiyun and Zheng Hua

Research center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences Last decades, Chinese ecologists have made efforts to push ecosystem services in decision and policy application in national and local scales. In this presentation, I will introduce the progresses of ecosystem services in policy applications by cases in China.

(1) Ecosystem services were mapped at national and regional scale.

(2) Ecological function conservation areas (EFCAs) were identified based on critical ecosystem service areas of China, and the EFCAs are applied in determining the benefited counties in the national ecological financial transfer policy.

(3) In Chinese new regional development strategy, constrain development regions were identified based on ecosystem service spatial pattern.

(4) Ecosystem service assessment were widely applied in urban planning, and played an essential role in defining spatial pattern of urban development.

(5) In land use management, ecosystem service assessment was applied in identified the ecological land (the land protected from development for providing ecosystem services, and

(6) Impacts of different ecosystem restoration approaches on ecosystem services were monitored and evaluated.

Contact Information: Ouyang Zhiyun, State key lab of urban and regional ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China, Phone: (86-10) 62849191, Email: [email protected]


363

PHOSPHORUS CREDIT DEMAND IN ONTARIO’S FASTEST GROWING REGION George Zukovs

XCG Consultants Ltd., Oakville, Ontario, CANADA This presentation focuses on the various stakeholders on the demand side of the water quality trading credit market that is being developed in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. Lake Simcoe is one of the largest inland water bodies in southern Ontario with a surface area of 72,500 hectares. Phosphorus loads from historic watershed development and agriculture from within the more than 260,000 hectare drainage have resulted in diminished water quality. The Province of Ontario has been charged with establishing a protection plan for the Lake and developing a phosphorus reduction strategy (PRS). Similar to TMDLs in the U.S., the PRS will have the regulatory backing to require reductions from existing and upgraded municipal sewage treatment plants (STPs) as well as future development. Commissioned by the Ontario Ministry of Environment, a WQT feasibility study determined that this type of market-based program would be a valuable tool to help achieve an aggressive 10-year load reduction goal of over 30 million pounds per year of total phosphorus to the lake. The study considered how water quality trading of phosphorus in the Lake Simcoe watershed could be implemented, and estimated the potential volume of credit demand. The two primary sources of phosphorus credits in the Lake Simcoe watershed include: (1) loading reductions from agricultural sources resulting from agricultural row cropping BMPs and from treatment of agricultural return water, and (2) loading reductions resulting from retrofitting existing urban stormwater sources. Agricultural row cropping BMPs could provide up to 5 tonnes per year in credits at an estimated unit cost of $170 per kilogram of phosphorus, and the treatment of return water could provide up to 2.6 tonnes per year in credits at an estimated unit cost of $480 per kilogram of phosphorus. The retrofit of urban stormwater discharging from existing areas could produce up to 4.3 tonnes per year of credits at a unit cost of $1,700 per kilogram of phosphorus. The urban stormwater retrofit credits are more expensive than the agricultural credits, but could still provide economically viable trades in many, but not all, cases. Based on the analysis carried out under the Feasibility Study, demand for phosphorus credits would come from STPs and new growth urban stormwater. For purposes of assessing trading opportunities, thirteen (13) municipal STPs and one (1) industrial STP, were considered. The STPs are regulated and represent potential buyers of phosphorus credits for requirements beyond the draft PRS tiered baseline loadings. Based on draft requirements the maximum STP demand would be about 3.7 tonnes per year. New growth urban stormwater is expected to generate an additional demand for credits of about 13 tonnes per year. This assessment examined whether the trades against credit supply from either agricultural or urban stormwater retrofit sources were economically justifiable and whether the supply and demand for credits was in balance. The analysis of trading opportunities supported the possibility of an economically viable market where demand could actually exceed the supply of available credits. Feasibility study recommendations are now being implemented to develop a basin-wide trading program. Municipalities and developers facing required load reductions are now aligning to purchase credits. Once developed, this program will be the largest of its kind in Canada. The presentation will discuss the process that has been developed to identify potential credit demand. The engagement of buyers also will be discussed. Contact Information: George Zukovs, President, XCG Consultants Ltd., 2620 Bristol Circle, Suite 300, Oakville, Ontario, CAN, Phone: 866-285-5827, Email: [email protected]


364


365

Author Index Bold numbers indicate presenting authors.

Abd-Elrahman, Amr ..................................... 43, 90, 91 Adams, Damian C. ........................... 3, 4, 91, 143, 144 Adams, Darius ....................................................... 172 Adewopo, Julius B. .................................................... 5 Aguilar-González, Bernardo ....................................... 6 Almeter, Andrew L. .................................................... 7 Alsharif, Kamal ................................................. 97, 233 Alvarez, Pelayo ...................................................... 218 Amponsah, Nana Y. ........................................... 8, 136 Anderson, Michael ................................................. 323 Arabi, Mazdak ........................................................ 149 Asquith, Nigel ........................................................... 78 Atkins, Dave ........................................................... 187 Ator, Scott .............................................................. 205 Azechi, Issaku ........................................................ 356 Bacon, Michelle ...................................................... 218 Bagstad, Kenneth J. ......................... 9, 10, 80, 81, 111 Baker, Justin S. ................................................ 18, 182 Baldwin, Andrew .................................................... 205 Ballance, Lisa T. .................................................... 200 Bani, Aida............................................................... 164 Bark, Rosalind H. ............................................... 11, 12 Barnard, James ...................................................... 288 Barry, Sheila .............................................. 13, 19, 170 Barstad, Wayne ..................................................... 294 Batker, David ......................... 14, 15, 32, 51, 162, 270 Bauer, Dana Marie ................................................... 16 Bayon, Ricardo ........................................................ 17 Beach, Alyssa M. ................................................... 165 Beach, Robert H. ............................. 18, 182, 204, 231 Beadle, Stephanie .................................................. 116 Beaudoin, Yannick ................................................. 239 Becchetti, Theresa ..................................... 13, 19, 170 Beckendorf, Kari .................................................... 295 BenDor, Todd K. ...................................................... 20 Benini, Kathy ............................................................ 21 Bennett, Drew E. ...................................................... 22 Bennett, Genevieve ......................................... 23, 131 Bernasconi, Paula .................................................... 24 Bernknopf, Richard L. .................. 25, 26, 95, 213, 249 Bernstein, Scott ........................................................ 27 Besedin, Elena ....................................................... 145 Bhagwat, Shweta ................................................... 321

Biddinger, Gregory R. ....................................... 28, 174 Birch, Eugenie L. ...................................................... 29 Bisson, Henri R. ....................................................... 30 Bohlen, Patrick ........................................... 31, 53, 287 Bonaparte, Kate ....................................................... 32 Booth, Pieter ...................................................... 33, 34 Bordt, Michael ........................................................ 245 Borisova, Tatiana ................................................. 4, 91 Bouchard, Michelle ................................................. 295 Boucher, Timothy ............................................. 35, 334 Boughton, Elizabeth H. ....................................... 36, 53 Boyd, James ...................................... 34, 37, 257, 280 Boyd, Jessica ........................................................... 34 Boyer, Joseph N. .................................................... 261 Boykin, Kenneth G. .................................................. 38 Bradford, David F. .................................................... 38 Branosky, Evan ........................................................ 58 Brasil, Marta M. ........................................................ 92 Bray, David ............................................................. 227 Brenner, Jorge ................................................. 35, 334 Broadbent, Craig ...................................................... 39 Brookshire, David ............................................. 40, 199 Browning, Z. ............................................................. 93 Brownscombe, Brett ................................................. 41 Bryan, R. .................................................................. 93 Buchholz, Thomas.................................................. 118 Burke, Lauretta ......................................................... 42 Butterfield, B. ............................................................ 81 Cademus, Ronald..................................................... 43 Cadman, James ..................................................... 163 Cailing, Guo ........................................................... 140 Campbell, Kym Rouse .............................................. 44 Campbell, Martha ........................................... 173, 335 Campbell, Tom ......................................................... 45 Campos, Eneida ....................................................... 46 Capece, John C. ............................ 8, 47, 97, 136, 233 Carollo, Cristina ................................................ 48, 357 Carr, Kim ................................................................ 208 Carrere, Leslie ........................................................ 191 Carroll, Nathaniel...................................................... 23 Casey, Frank .......................................................... 107 Chaker, A. ................................................................ 49 Chakour, Said C. ...................................................... 49


366

Chan, Kai M. .................................................. 245, 276 Chappie, Daniel J. .................................................. 303 Chaubey, Indrajeet ......................................... 179, 180 Cheatum, Molly ...................................................... 218 Chen, Chinling .................................................. 50, 212 Cheng, Anthony ..................................................... 131 Childs, Rush ........................................................... 353 Chivoiu, Bogdan ....................................................... 95 Choi, Sukwon ......................................................... 296 Christin, Zachary ...................................................... 51 Chung, Jae ............................................................... 52 Church, Clinton ...................................................... 205 Churchill, John B. ..................................................... 95 Clark, Mark ................................................. 36, 53, 287 Coady, Patrick .................................... 54, 55, 253, 354 Cochran, Bobby ........................... 56, 57, 58, 256, 268 Coffin, Alisa W. ......................................................... 59 Cohen, Matthew J. ................................................... 43 Cole, Richard A. ....................................................... 60 Cole, Zachary D. .............................................. 59, 178 Collins, Sally ..................................................... 61, 232 Colloff, Matthew ....................................................... 11 Compton, Jana E.............................................. 62, 207 Connick, Sarah ......................................................... 63 Connor, John P. ..................................................... 355 Cook, Geoffrey ....................................................... 152 Cooley, Corinne ..................................................... 161 Cooper, Emily E. .................................................... 165 Copas, Kyle .............................................................. 64 Coradin, Lidio ......................................................... 308 Corbin, Chris .......................................................... 189 Correia, Fernando .................................................. 210 Cosmas Kombat, Lambini ........................................ 65 Coursey, Don ........................................................... 66 Coutts, Christopher ................................................ 100 Cox, Llael M. .............................................................. 7 Cranford, Matthew .............................................. 67, 68 Crimian, Robert L. .................................................... 69 Cropper, W. .............................................................. 90 Crossman, Neville D. .......................................... 11, 12 Cubbage, Frederick .......................................... 70, 291 Cullinane Thomas, Cathy ......................................... 71 Cundiff, Amanda .................................................... 208 Cushing, Janet A. ................................................... 332 da Silva, Paula Lopes............................................. 113 Danks, Cecilia M. ................................................... 266

Dassler, Lee .......................................................... 294 Davies, Brent ..................................................... 72, 73 Davis, Adam ............................................................ 74 Davis, Christine ..................................................... 185 Davis, Frank .......................................................... 148 de Groot, Rudolf S. .................................................. 75 de Sousa, W. C., Jr. ................................................ 76 Deal, Robert L. ........................................................ 77 Deegan, Michael ...................................................... 20 Delphin, Sonia ................................................... 90, 91 Demers, Chris .......................................................... 91 Dennis, Robin L. .................................................... 185 Denny, Jemma ...................................................... 341 Denver, Judy ......................................................... 205 Devereaux, Shelley ............................................... 205 DeWan, Amielle A. .................................................. 78 Dias, Goretty M. ....................................................... 79 DiDonato, Eva ......................................................... 10 Diffendorfer, Jay E. .....................................80, 81, 342 DiMuro, Johnathan ............................................ 82, 83 Doering, Otto ........................................................... 62 Doiron, Kate............................................................. 99 Dong, Shikui .......................................................... 336 Donlan, Josh.......................................................... 293 Doran, Morgan ....................................................... 170 Dow, John................................................................ 10 Duarte, Luana ........................................................ 308 Dubovsky, James A. .............................................. 313 Duffy, Walter G. ..................................................... 149 Duke, Esther ............................................................ 84 Duncan, Sally .......................................................... 22 Dunn, Helen............................................................. 85 Duxbury, Craig ......................................................... 86 Eason, Thomas ....................................................... 87 East, N. Forrest ....................................................... 38 Echols, Alex ........................................................... 347 Edelson, David ...................................................... 208 Edwards, Peter ...................................................... 239 Ellison, Michael ........................................................ 88 Endo, Nao.............................................................. 228 Engel, Bernard A. .................................................. 180 Ensor, Robert ........................................................ 199 Enstice, Nic............................................................ 208 Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca ................................. 89, 280 Escobedo, Francisco ................................4, 43, 90, 91 Estelí-Méndez, Linda ............................................. 208


367

Euliss, Ned H., Jr. .................................... 93, 219, 269 Evans, E................................................................... 93 Eviner, Valerie ........................................................ 170 Fankhauser, Terry R. ............................................... 94 Fassnacht, Steven ................................................. 149 Faulkner, Stephen P. ............................................... 95 Fay, John ............................................................... 318 Fenstermacher, Daniel ........................................... 205 Festa, David ............................................................. 96 Fidler, Michal ............................................................ 97 Fiegener, Rob ........................................................ 189 Fish, Tom ............................................................... 275 Flaxman, Michael ..................................................... 98 Fletcher, Pamela .................................................... 152 Flight, Maura ............................................................ 99 Fogarty, Scott ........................................................... 27 Forero, Larry .......................................................... 170 Forkink, Annet ........................................................ 100 Forney, William M. ......................................... 213, 249 Fowler, David C. .................................................... 101 Fox, Jessica ................................................... 102, 103 Frankenberger, Jane R. ......................................... 179 Friday, Paul ............................................................ 291 Frykman, Amy ........................................................ 209 Fulford, Richard ..................................................... 264 Furukawa, Takaaki ................................................. 127 Gallant, A. L. ............................................................ 93 Gallego, Oscar ....................................................... 265 Galloway, James ...................................................... 62 Gard, Nicholas ......................................................... 33 Gardner, Kevin H. .................................................. 261 Gartner, Todd ......................... 104, 105, 106, 293, 294 Gascoigne, William .................................. 71, 107, 222 Gatzweiler, Franz ................................................... 245 Gengenbach, Marianne S. ..................................... 108 George, Holly ......................................................... 170 George, Mel ........................................................... 170 Gerding, Daniel J. .......................................... 109, 311 Gergely, Kevin J. ...................................................... 38 Gieseke, Timothy ................................................... 110 Gilless, J. Keith ...................................................... 361 Gilvesy, Bryan .......................................................... 79 Giovannini, Karen .................................................. 170 Glenn, Viola ............................................................. 70 Goines, Bruce ........................................................ 208 Gold, Arthur J. ........................................................ 177

Goldstein, J. ............................................................. 81 Goldstein, Joshua H. .............................. 111, 114, 131 Gomes, Rita Catarina ..................................... 112, 113 Gonzalez, Lisa A. ................................................... 174 Goodtimes, Art ....................................................... 114 Gosnell, Hannah .................................................... 226 Gramig, Benjamin M. .............................................. 180 Gray, Gerry ............................................................ 115 Gray, Paul N. .......................................................... 304 Greaver, Tara L. ..................................................... 185 Green, Kevin ............................................................ 78 Green, Mandy ........................................................ 292 Greene, Gretchen................................................... 116 Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne ....................................... 329 Grey, Erin ............................................................... 106 Grice, Lisa Nelowet ........................................ 116, 117 Griffin, Rob ....................................................... 35, 334 Griffiths, James ...................................................... 163 Griscom, Hannah ................................................... 332 Groves, David ........................................................ 292 Groves, Theodore .................................................. 200 Guannel, Greg .................................................. 35, 334 Guerry, Anne .................................................... 35, 334 Gunn, John S. ................................ 118, 266, 285, 294 Guy, Rachel K. ......................................................... 38 Guzha, A. C. ........................................................... 287 Halsey, Kevin ................................................. 119, 352 Hamilton, Katherine E. ..................................... 23, 120 Hanlon, Edward A. ......................... 8, 47, 97, 136, 233 Hansen, Kristiana ..................................................... 84 Harris, Nancy ......................................................... 347 Harrison, John A..................................................... 207 Harrison, Paula A. .......................................... 121, 263 Harrison-Cox, Jennifer ....................... 15, 51, 162, 270 Hartley, Christopher G. ................................... 107, 122 Hasburgh, C. .......................................................... 123 Hayden, Ann .......................................................... 208 Hays, K. Brian ........................................................ 124 Heilman, Philip ....................................................... 181 Helm, Erik ............................................................... 145 Henning, Miranda ................................................... 224 Herman-Mercer, N.................................................. 123 Higuchi, Niro ............................................................. 92 Hines, Stephanie A................................................. 303 Hogan, Dianna M. .......................................... 125, 280 Homma, Koki .......................................................... 126


368

Hongo, Chiharu ...................................................... 127 Hook, Abby ............................................................. 128 Houghton, David .................................................... 129 Howard, George ..................................................... 130 Howard, Kirsten .............................................. 173, 335 Howarth, Richard B. ............................................... 261 Howell, Sarah ......................................................... 328 Hua, Zheng ............................................................ 362 Huber-Stearns, Heidi .............................................. 131 Hunt, Patrick ................................................... 132, 205 Huppman, Reed ..................................................... 133 Ingraham, Peter ..................................................... 347 Ingram, Roger ........................................................ 170 Inouye, C. E. N. ........................................................ 76 Insignares-Santos, Julie ......................................... 134 Islam, Shafi Noor .................................................... 135 Izursa, Jose-Luis .................................................... 136 Jackson, Laura E.................................................... 137 Jenkins, Shonté M. ................................................. 138 Jessup, David M. .................................................... 139 Jing, Li .................................................................... 140 Johns, Grace .......................................................... 141 Johnson, Alex ......................................................... 142 Johnson, Rhett ....................................................... 293 Johnson, Shelly A........................................... 143, 144 Johnston, Robert J. ................................................ 145 Jones, Cy ............................................................... 240 Jordan, Stephen J. ........................................... 62, 146 Joshi, Surabhi ........................................................ 147 Kafle, Achyut .......................................................... 305 Kagan, Jimmy ........................................................ 148 Kahara, Sharon N................................................... 149 Kalcic, Margaret M. ................................................ 179 Kamińska, Ilona ...................................................... 150 Kealy, Mary Jo ....................................................... 151 Keefe, Kelly ............................................................ 255 Keeton, William S. .......................................... 153, 266 Kelble, Christopher R. ............................................ 152 Kellogg, Dorothy Q. ................................................ 177 Kennedy, Christina ................................................. 155 Kennedy, M.S. Berry ...................................... 109, 311 Kepner, William G. ................................................... 38 Kerchner, Charles D. .............................................. 153 Khalil, Syed ............................................................ 357 Khan, Fareed A. ..................................................... 201 Kidd, Sarah A. ........................................................ 154

Kiesecker, Joseph M. ............................................ 155 Kieser, Mark S. .......................................156, 157, 158 Kinzig, Ann ............................................................ 355 Kittler, Brian ............................................................. 58 Klang, James A. .................................................... 159 Klein, Mary............................................................. 148 Kline, Jeffrey D. ..................................................... 160 Knight, Andrew T. .................................................. 309 Knuppe, Michelle ................................................... 295 Kochmer, Jonathan ............................................... 161 Kocian, Maya ..................................................... 6, 162 Kohno, Ayako ........................................................ 163 Koontz, Lynne.................................................. 71, 107 Kopp, Darin A. ......................................................... 38 Koto, Romina ......................................................... 164 Krause, Paul R. ..................................................... 165 Kreye, Melissa M. ................................................ 4, 91 Kroeger, Timm ..........................................91, 166, 167 Kushner, Benjamin .................................................. 42 Laca, Emilio A. ....................................................... 217 LaCivita, Lisa ......................................................... 168 Landers, Dixon H. .......................................... 169, 257 Lang, Megan.......................................................... 205 Larson, Chris ............................................54, 253, 354 Larson, Joel ........................................................... 328 Larson, Stephanie ........................................... 13, 170 LaSharr, Kelsie ...................................................... 171 Lassoie, James P. ................................................. 336 Latta, Gregory S. ......................................18, 172, 231 Law, Sheryl ........................................................ 33, 34 Le, Kevin ....................................................... 173, 335 Lee, Donna J. ........................................................ 141 Leeworthy, Vernon R. ............................................ 141 Leimer, Allison K. ..................................................... 38 Lester, L. James .................................................... 174 Levitt, James N. ..................................................... 175 Lewandrowski, Jan ................................................ 176 Listopad, Claudia M. .............................................. 299 Liu, Tingting ........................................................... 177 Loerzel, Jarrod L. ................................................... 178 Logsdon, Rebecca A. .................................... 179, 180 Lohani, Sapana ..................................................... 181 Loomis, David ........................................................ 141 Loomis, John ................................................... 81, 111 Loomis, Ross ......................................................... 182 Loperfido, J. V. ...................................................... 125


369

López-Hoffman, Laura ..................... 81, 171, 244, 342 Lorenz, Jerry .......................................................... 152 Lowder, Chester ..................................................... 260 Lucero, Carl ........................................................... 183 Luis-Izursa, Jose ........................................................ 8 Lurie, Sue................................................................. 22 Lynch, Amy J. ........................................................ 184 Lynch, Jason A. ..................................................... 185 Lynch, Sarah .................................... 53, 186, 279, 287 Lyon, Makely F. .............................................. 109, 311 Lyon, Peggy ........................................................... 114 Macauley, Molly ..................................................... 280 MacDonald, Darla Hatton ......................................... 11 MacFarland, Kate ................................................... 187 Machin, Ben ........................................................... 266 Mackey, L. M. ......................................................... 123 MacNair, Doug ....................................................... 188 Madsen, Becca .............................................. 189, 190 Maki, Masayasu ..................................................... 126 Malizzi, Lawrence D. .............................................. 191 Maness, Nicole Robinson ................................ 58, 192 Manson, Paul ................................................. 193, 194 Marais, Christo ............................................... 195, 196 Marchetti, Paul K. ................................................... 197 Marshal, Marvin ..................................................... 191 Marshall, John Arthur ............................................. 198 Marshall, P.J. ......................................................... 191 Marshall, Steve ...................................................... 199 Martin, Lynn A. ....................................................... 252 Martin, Summer L. ................................................. 200 Masoodi, Ather ....................................................... 201 Matsler, Marissa ..................................................... 202 Mattsson, Brady J. ................................................. 313 Matzdorf, Bettina .................................................... 348 Maynard, Simone ................................................... 203 Mazzotta, Marisa J. ................................................ 160 McCarl, Bruce A. ...................................... 18, 204, 231 McCarty, Greg ........................................................ 205 McCleary, Eric ........................................................ 206 McCrackin, Michelle L. ........................................... 207 McCune, Kelli ......................................................... 208 McFarland, Liza ..................................................... 205 McGlyn, Jessica ..................................................... 242 McLaughlin, Brendan ..................................... 189, 209 McNeil, David ......................................................... 210 McPherson, Greg ................................................... 115

Meaders, Marlene .................................................. 238 Mehaffey, Megan ................................................... 221 Mei, Chunping ........................................................ 211 Meire, Patrick ......................................................... 211 Mello, A. Y .I. ............................................................ 76 Merrill, Nathaniel H. ................................................ 177 Messer, Jay ............................................................ 333 Metzger, Marc J...................................................... 263 Miller, Chris ............................................................ 212 Miller, Jarrod .................................................... 93, 205 Miller, Marc ............................................................. 244 Mishra, Shruti K ...................................... 213, 214, 249 Mitchell, Joseph ..................................................... 205 Monroe, Vance ....................................................... 205 Montgomery, Jon Lawrence ................................... 344 Moomaw, William ..................................................... 62 Morgenstern, Karl ..................................................... 14 Morreale, Stephen J. .............................................. 336 Moss, Margo D. ...................................................... 191 Moulaert, Azur ........................................................ 161 Mountjoy, Daniel .................................................... 208 Mourato, Susana ................................................ 67, 68 Mozumder, Pallab .................................................. 227 Mulatu, Dawit W. .................................................... 215 Murphy, David J. .................................................... 216 Murray, Elizabeth ................................................... 332 Musengezi, Jessica ........................................ 217, 218 Mushet, M. David ..................................... 93, 219, 269 Myers, Ron ............................................................... 70 Nahlik, Amanda M. ......................................... 169, 257 Nascimento, Claudete C. ......................................... 92 Natoli, Nancy .......................................................... 220 Neale, Anne C. ......................................... 38, 137, 221 Neau, Jordan L. ...................................................... 219 Negandhi, Dhaval ................................................... 322 Nelson, Ron ........................................................... 222 Nelson, Sarah L. .................................................... 330 Netzer, Michael ...................................................... 347 Ng, Kawa ........................................................ 212, 223 Nicolette, Joseph ...................................... 44, 224, 225 Nielsen-Pincus, Max............................................... 226 Nieratka, Lindsey Roland ....................................... 227 Noda, Keigo ........................................................... 228 Norvell, Stuart ................................................ 188, 353 Nuttle, William ................................................ 141, 152 Nwaishi, Felix C...................................................... 229


370

O’Donoughue, Patrick ............................................ 144 O’Geen, Toby A. .................................................... 217 Ober, Holly K. ......................................................... 143 Oberhauser, Karen ............................................. 80, 81 Ogg, Clayton .................................................. 218, 230 Ohrel, Sara B. .......................... 18, 172, 204, 231, 296 Oki, Kazuo .............................................................. 228 Olander, Lydia ................................................ 232, 318 Osei, Edward .......................................................... 265 Osterburg, Bernhard............................................... 183 Ouellette, Kayla J. .................................................. 233 Owen, Richard ....................................................... 210 Owens, Alaina ........................................................ 292 Ozment, Suzanne................................................... 234 Palardy, Chris ......................................................... 205 Pape, D. ................................................................. 176 Papenfus, Michael .................................................. 235 Parrish, Josh .......................................................... 236 Parsons, Alan ......................................................... 191 Parsons, Doug ....................................................... 237 Paterson, Robert ...................................................... 99 Pavani, B. F. ............................................................. 76 Peeters, Luk ............................................................. 12 Pelletier, Derek M. .................................................. 238 Pendleton, Linwood ................................................ 239 Perez, Michelle R. .................................................. 240 Perrings, Charles............................................ 289, 355 Perry, Janet ............................................................ 107 Peterson, Nils ......................................................... 260 Peters-Stanley, Molly ............................................. 120 Petrone, Richard M. ............................................... 229 Pettis, J. S. ............................................................... 93 Pharist, Mark .......................................................... 116 Phillips, Spencer R. ................................................ 241 Pickert, Roberta L................................................... 304 Pilant, Andrew ........................................................ 137 Pillay, Rajeev ......................................................... 144 Pinero, Edwin ......................................................... 242 Pollino, Carmel ......................................................... 12 Potter, T. M. ........................................................... 243 Powers, John ......................................................... 169 Prahl, Lili ................................................................ 344 Presnall, Carrie ...................................................... 244 Preston, Susan ....................................................... 245 Price, Jonathan S. .................................................. 229 Primozich, David ............................................ 142, 246

Pritchard, Jodie ........................................................ 11 Pritzlaff, R. ............................................................. 339 Puga, Bruno P. ........................................................ 24 Rabenhorst, Martin ................................................ 205 Racevskis, Laila A. ........................................ 247, 255 Ranganathan, Janet .............................................. 248 Raudsepp-Hearne, Ciarra ..................................... 245 Rauer, Elizabeth .................................................... 323 Raunikar, Ronald P. ...............................213, 249, 250 Rayburn, Andrew P. .............................................. 217 Rea, Anne................................................................ 62 Rea, Christopher ................................................... 251 Records, Rosemary M. .......................................... 149 Reed, Denise J. ............................................. 252, 292 Rego, Joshua A. ............................................ 109, 311 Reker, Ryan........................................................... 295 Remuzzi, James R. ..................................54, 253, 354 Reub, Greg ............................................................ 238 Rhinehart, Kirk ....................................................... 292 Ribaudo, Marc O. .................................................. 254 Rice, N. .................................................................... 93 Richards, Carol Parsons ........................................ 292 Richardson, Leslie ................................................. 255 Ries, L. .................................................................... 81 Ries, Leslie .............................................................. 80 Riley, Katie ..................................... 208, 256, 268, 298 Ringold, Paul L. ............................................. 169, 257 Risien, Julie ........................................................... 189 Robards, Timothy .................................................. 118 Robertson, Morgan ................................................ 258 Robinson-Maness, Nicole ...................................... 259 Rockel, Mark............................................................ 44 Rodriguez, Shari .................................................... 260 Rogers, Shannon H. .............................................. 261 Romeiro, Ademar R. ................................................ 24 Rose, Robert J. ...................................................... 262 Rose, Steven K. ....................................................... 18 Rounsevell, Mark D. A. .................................. 121, 263 Russ, Mary ............................................................ 294 Russell, Marc J. ..................................................... 264 Russell-Roy, Emily ................................................ 266 Rydstrom, Todd ..................................................... 270 Saah, David ........................................................... 118 Salas, William ........................................................ 347 Saleh, Ali ............................................................... 265 Saligman, Laury E. ........................................ 266, 285


371

Samson, Elizabeth A. ............................................... 38 San Miguel, Patricia ............................................... 284 Sanneman, Carrie ............................ 57, 256, 267, 268 Santos, Carlota ........................................................ 48 Saterson, Kathryn A. .................................................. 7 Satterfield, Terre .................................................... 245 Sayler, Kristi ........................................................... 295 Scarlett, Lynn ......................................................... 232 Schäfer, Achim ....................................................... 327 Scherff, Eric J. ........................................................ 269 Schmidt, Rowan ............................................... 14, 270 Schmidt, Stefan ...................................................... 271 Schoenen, Jodi L. .................................................. 272 Schomers, Sarah ................................................... 273 Schöne, Florian ...................................................... 186 Schorse, Mary ........................................................ 274 Schuster, P. F. ....................................................... 123 Schuster, Rudy M. ................................................. 275 Schwarz, Bessie .................................................... 276 Selman, Mindy ......................................................... 58 Semmens, Darius J. ............. 10, 80, 81, 282, 328, 342 Sengupta, Anand ................................................... 201 Sexton, Valerie ....................................................... 277 Shabman, Leonard .......................... 53, 278, 279, 287 Shapiro, Carl D. ............................................. 280, 281 Sharma, Gyan P .................................................... 201 Sharma, Pritee ....................................................... 147 Shellenbarger, Peter .............................................. 344 Sherrouse, Benson C. ...................................... 59, 282 Shillinglaw, Brian .................................................... 283 Shirakawa, Hiroaki ................................................. 284 Short, Joseph ......................................................... 285 Shouse, Scott ......................................................... 286 Shriver, John .................................................. 173, 335 Shukla, S.......................................................... 53, 287 Sigit, Gunardi ................................................. 127, 228 Silva, Claudia E. ....................................................... 92 Simmons-Rigdon, Heather ..................................... 288 Simonit, Silvio ................................................ 289, 355 Skrabis, Kristin ......................................................... 71 Sleeper, David ....................................................... 294 Sleeter, Benjamin ................................................... 295 Sleeter, Rachel ...................................................... 295 Smart, M. ................................................................. 93 Smith, Lisa M. ........................................................ 264 Smith, Nikola .......................................................... 290

Smith, Vera ............................................................ 241 Snelgrove, R. Todd ................................................ 291 Snider, Natalie ........................................................ 292 Snieckus, Mary ............................................... 293, 294 Sobota, Daniel .......................................................... 62 Sohl, Terry .............................................................. 295 Sohngen, Brent .............................................. 231, 296 Sokulsky, Jeremy ........... 208, 256, 268, 297, 298, 315 Sorice, Mike ........................................................... 293 Soto, J. R. .................................................................. 3 Soulard, Christopher .............................................. 295 Sousa, Lucas ........................................................... 46 Souto, Leesa A. ...................................................... 299 Spaulding, Heather................................................. 217 Spivak, M. ................................................................ 93 Sprague, Eric ........................................................... 58 Spurgeon, James ................................................... 163 Stanton, Tracy ................................................ 300, 301 Stapler, Ryan ......................................................... 145 Steele, Jessica ....................................................... 144 Stein, Peter R. ........................................................ 302 Stein, Taylor ............................................................. 91 Stensel, H. David.................................................... 288 Stewart, William C. ................................................. 361 Stone, Harry J. ....................................................... 303 Swain, Hilary M. ....................................... 53, 287, 304 Swallow, Stephen K. .............................................. 305 Swanson, Ann ........................................................ 306 Swedeen, Paula ..................................................... 307 Swett, Robert A. ....................................................... 59 Tafuri, Antonio ........................................................ 308 Talberth, John ........................................................ 106 Talbot, Maura J. ..................................................... 309 Tallis, Heather ................................................ 276, 326 Tapaneeyakul, Sasathorn ...................................... 310 Tatum, Justin .......................................................... 124 Taylor, Emily S. L. .......................................... 109, 311 Taylor, Tim ............................................................. 210 ten Brink, Marilyn Buchholtz ................................... 275 Tenneson, K. .......................................................... 312 Theis, Thomas ......................................................... 62 Thogmartin, Wayne E. ............................................ 313 Thomas, Jeffrey P. ................................................. 314 Timilsina, Nilesh ....................................................... 91 Tjaden, Bob ............................................................ 339 Toohey, R. .............................................................. 123


372

Toombs, Theodore ................................... 94, 131, 315 Traboulsi, Mohamad............................................... 316 Travis, Will .............................................................. 317 Trybula, Elizabeth................................................... 179 Uchida, Emi .................................................... 134, 177 Urban, Dean ........................................................... 318 van der Veen, Anne................................................ 215 Van Houtven, George............................................. 182 Van Maasakkers, Mattijs J. .................................... 319 Van Oel, Pieter R. .................................................. 215 van Wensem, Joke ................................................. 320 Verma, Madhu ................................................ 321, 322 Verutes, Gregg M. .................................................. 323 Vickerman, Sara ............................................. 324, 325 Vieira, S. A. .............................................................. 76 Vogl, Adrian L. ........................................................ 326 Voigt, Brian ..................................................... 327, 328 Vollmer, Derek ....................................................... 329 von Ende, Carl N. ................................................... 330 Vrebos, Dirk ........................................................... 211 Waage, Sissel ........................................................ 331 Wade, Timothy ....................................................... 137 Wainger, Lisa A. ............................................. 332, 333 Waite, Randy .......................................................... 185 Waite, Richard .......................................................... 42 Walbridge, Mark ..................................................... 205 Walker, Sara .......................................................... 240 Walsh, Sheila M. ...................................... 35, 311, 334 Wan, Lisa ....................................................... 173, 335 Wang, Jun ................................................................ 95 Wang, Pu ............................................................... 336 Waterhouse, Jon .................................................... 337 Watson, Tom .......................................................... 199 Watters, Roy .......................................................... 338 Weber, George C. .................................................. 165 Weber, Matt ............................................................ 257

Wechsler, Seth ...................................................... 339 Whalen, Benita M. ................................................. 340 Whigham, Dennis .................................................. 205 White, Mat ............................................................. 210 White, Wayne S. .................................................... 341 Wiederholt, Ruscena P. ............................80, 171, 342 Wilgis, Randy ......................................................... 343 Wilkerson, Ethel ............................................. 285, 294 Wilkinson, Whitney ................................................ 344 Williams, Byron K. ......................................... 280, 345 Wilson, Karla G. ..................................................... 346 Wilson, Tamara ..................................................... 295 Wing, Ian Sue .......................................................... 16 Winsten, Jonathan ......................................... 347, 348 Winthrop, Rob ................................... 10, 328, 349, 350 Wise, Steve ............................................................. 27 Wittmann, Kevin .................................................... 255 Wolf, Kathleen L. ................................................... 351 Wolf, Steven A. ...................................................... 336 Wolfe, David W. ............................................. 124, 352 Yepsen, Metthea ................................................... 205 Yingling, Jay .......................................................... 353 Yonavjak, Logan .......................................54, 253, 354 Yoo, James............................................................ 355 Yoshida, Koshi ....................................................... 356 Yoskowitz, David ............................................. 48, 357 Yu, Dan ................................................................. 358 Zahina-Ramos, John G. ........................................ 359 Zanetti, Ederson .................................................... 360 Zarzycki, Tomasz .................................................. 150 Zaucha, Jacek ....................................................... 150 Zhang, Sijia............................................................ 361 Zhang, Yuquan W. ................................................... 18 Zhiyuan, Ren ......................................................... 140 Zhiyun, Ouyang ..................................................... 362 Zukovs, George ..................................................... 363


373

Additional Unindexed Abstracts

Listed alphabetically by presenting author. Presenting author names appear in bold.


374


375

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN CIVIL WORKS PLANNING AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Janet A. Cushing

Institute for Water Resources, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA

The purpose of this presentation is to overview the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program (Corps), with emphasis on the Corps’ planning process for developing sustainable solutions to water resources issues. Historically, the Corps mission areas focused on commercial navigation, transportation, and flood risk reduction. In 1996, the Corps was authorized to improve environmental quality of public interest using aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection measures. This stimulated continuing research, managed largely through ERDC, on what constitutes ecosystem service restoration and benefits measurement and methods for managing risks and uncertainties. Ecosystem services were directly addressed in at least one IWR report in 2003. The Corps uses different methods for plan comparison and selection between National Economic Development projects and those projects authorized for ecosystem restoration. This presentation provides the context of how the Corps makes investment decisions for the public good for the following presentations in the session that address how the Corps might move forward in the consideration of ecosystem services. Contact Information: Janet Cushing, USACE Institute for Water Resources, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Buildings, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868. Phone: 703-428-7087, Email: [email protected]


376

MEASUREMENT AND VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICE CO-BENEFITS FROM THE CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL George Van Houtven1, Dan Phaneuf2, Carol Mansfield1, Roger von Haefen3, Bryan Milstead4, Melissa Kenney5 and Ken Reckhow6

1RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 2University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 3North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI 5University of Maryland, College Park, MD 6Cardno Entrix and Duke University, Durham, NC

The primary purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay estuary by reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads to surface waters throughout its 64,000 square mile watershed. These load reductions are expected to offer a wide range of ecosystem service benefits to individuals and communities who live near the Bay or who use its resources. Homes near the Bay will be more valuable, opportunities for outdoor recreation will be improved, and the watermen who work the Chesapeake will be able to draw on more abundant stocks of fish and shellfish. By requiring point and nonpoint source controls throughout the Bay watershed, the TMDL is also expected to improve and protect other aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in nontidal areas of the watershed. The purpose of this presentation is to focus on one of these ecosystem service co-benefits: reductions in eutrophic conditions in freshwater lakes and reservoirs in Virginia. The presentation will describe a multistage modeling framework that allows us to translate reductions in nutrient loads to surface waters into changes in indicators of lake ecosystem services and then to estimate the monetary value of these changes. This framework was specifically designed to provide an integrated multidisciplinary framework that links environmental and economic models using ecosystem service concepts. The first stage of this framework uses a SPARROW model to estimate reductions in lake nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll a concentrations resulting from TMDL load reduction requirements. The second stage uses results from an expert elicitation to translate changes in these concentrations into changes in summary indicators of trophic status for lakes in the Southeastern U.S.. The third stage applies results from a stated preference survey of households in the Southeast to estimate residents’ individual and aggregate willingness to pay for state-wide lake water quality improvements. The main area of spatial overlap between the TMDL load reductions and the 2nd and 3rd stage models is the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The presentation will describe preliminary estimates of lake improvement co-benefits in Virginia based on this modeling application. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is continuing to revise and update its estimates of nutrient load reductions due to the Bay TMDL. Therefore, the co-benefit estimates are provisional and intended mainly to demonstrate how the framework can be applied to analyze policies like the Bay TMDL. Contact Information: George Van Houtven, 3040 Cornwallis Rd. Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA, Phone: 919-541-7150, Email: [email protected]

ACES and Ecosystem Markets 2012 - University of Florida · 2013-12-19 · ACES/EM/ESP 2012will...

Documents

Transcript of ACES and Ecosystem Markets 2012 - University of Florida · 2013-12-19 · ACES/EM/ESP 2012will...