Aligning Methods for Assessing Wetland Ecosystem Services

1. Aligning Methods for Assessing Wetland Ecosystem Services Anthony Dvarskas NOAA Assessment and Restoration Division/IMSG CNREP 2010 New Orleans, LA

2. Presentation Outline • Components for ecosystem service assessment • Current methods available • Components of available approaches • Research needs, policy questions and next steps

3. Intermediate and Final Ecosystem Services Figure from: Fisher B, et al. Ecological Applications. 2008; 18: 2050-2067.

4. Components of a Wetland Ecosystem Services Assessment Tool • Ecological element • Structure and function of ecosystem • Human element • Benefits to humans from given ecosystem structure and level of function/provision of intermediate services • Ability to evaluate tradeoffs within and across categories

5. Wetland Assessment Approaches • Several procedures available for assessing ecological components (physical and biological functions) from multiple Federal agencies • Different contexts for use of techniques • Not all techniques consider both ecologic and human elements • Biological assessment vs physical/functional assessment • Approaches generally do not assign a monetary value (is this always necessary?)

6. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) • Developed in 1980s (Adamus 1988) • Evaluates multiple functions (e.g., sediment stabilization, nutrient removal/transformation) • Considers social significance, effectiveness, opportunity, and habitat suitability of evaluated wetland • Arrive at probability that selected wetland function will occur

7. Habitat Evaluation Procedure • Developed by Fish and Wildlife Service • Can compare areas in terms of wildlife habitat • Relies on understanding of species and habitat interaction (use of Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)) • HSI X AREA HABITAT = Habitat Unit Habitat Evaluation Procedures. ESM 102. USFWS. 1980.

8. Habitat Evaluation Procedure (cont’d) Habitat Evaluation Procedures. ESM 102. USFWS. 1980.

9. Hydrogeomorphic Method • Developed by Army Corps of Engineers • Uses reference wetlands (e.g., natural in region of interest) • Evaluates set of wetland functions through field assessment • Functional capacity index (FCI) – 0-1, 1 equals function at same level as reference wetland • FCI X acres of habitat assessed = FCUs

10. Habitat Equivalency Analysis • Developed by NOAA • Used in assessing ecological service gains and losses resulting from injuries to natural resources • Metric(s) selected as proxy for habitat services • Discounting used to aggregate injuries over time • Output of discounted service acre-year (DSAY)

11. Compensatory Interim Lost Resource Services Resource Services B Baseline Service Level A Resource Services Time Incident Compensatory Restoration Begins Full Natural Recovery

12. Indices of Biological Integrity • Used in stream assessments • Have been applied in wetlands • Similarities to HEA approach • Identify assemblages, select set of metrics, combine metrics into index • Demonstrate change in index with changing human disturbance http://www.epa.gov/Wetlands/wqual/bio_fact/fact5.html

13. State Wetland Mitigation Ratios • States also develop mitigation ratios • Different ratios for different wetland enhancements (e.g., creation vs preservation), types of wetlands impacted • Virginia DEQ example: • 2:1 forested wetlands • 1.5:1 for scrub-shrub wetlands • 1:1 for emergent wetlands http://www.deq.state.va.us/wetlands/mitigate.html

14. Economic Analyses of Wetland Values • Economic literature provides attempts to value wetland ecosystem services • Benefit of using the metric of currency – widely understood and consistent across areas • Challenge remains in transfer of monetary values from one wetland to another (benefit transfer) • Since values based on human perception and behavior, can vary from region to region

15. Summary of Selected Methods

16. Where do we stand? • Range of methods that assess wetland ecosystem functions/intermediate services • Different units produced from each assessment method • No prescribed translation of those functions and services described to final ecosystem services/benefits to humans

17. Common Characteristics of Assessment Methods • Need to define area for assessment • At baseline and under future conditions • Role of GIS in ecosystem services evaluation • Habitat types play key role • Selection of indicator metrics for analysis • Assessment of changes over time from impacts other than policy • What does the baseline trajectory look like?

18. Research Needs and Questions • How to take information from assessments using different scales and translate to a common method? • Boyd and Banzhaf (Ecol Econ 2007) argued for standardized methods of ecosystem service measurement • How can information from an “aligned” method translate into policy-relevant tradeoff information? • Making the leap between the functional analysis and the benefits • Need to consider intergenerational aspect of ecosystem service valuation • What is appropriate discount rate, if any?

19. Research Needs and Questions • Metrics for policy decisions need to be in readily understandable terms • Many wetland evaluation procedures rely on subjective evaluations • Additional data monitoring at wetland sites • Increased understanding of links between level of function and societal values • How does assessment of function inform the value tradeoff determinations? • Ecological production functions? • How to link ecological and human components? • Mapping of relationship between ecosystem functions and human well-being • Work by EPA ESRP, USDA ERS and Natural Capital Project

20. Consistency vs Specificity • Consistent and similar framework aids in accounting of credits/potential expansion of markets • Consistent framework may create broad metrics that do not capture specific regional characteristics • Will likely always be some tradeoff between consistency and specificity • How does this limit potential size of an ecosystem services market? • Carbon markets have developed frameworks and guidance with formalized accounting procedures

21. Summary • Multiple techniques available to assess wetland functions and, in some cases, values • Ongoing need to link assessment of function and collected ecological metrics to policy-relevant values • Need for further collaboration across Federal and non-Federal entities that calculate restoration uplift • How to develop consistent tool that works across regions? • Contact info: Anthony.Dvarskas@noaa.gov