Transcript Slide 1
ACES, 2008 Considering Ecosystem Services in Restoration Decisions on the Upper Mississippi River System K. S. Lubinski K. Barr J. Barko S. Bartell R. Clevenstine M. Davis D. Galat D. Wilcox Outline I. UMR restoration questions II. Ecosystem services progress on the UMR - workshop results III. Outlook: - what seems to fit, what doesn’t I. UMR restoration questions and decisions River Management Questions Yesterday’s - Fish or ducks? - To stock? Set bag limits? Today’s System level - Can we fix some pieces of the system without jeopardizing others? (fishes AND ducks AND mussels?) - How much restoration is enough? Project level - Build project X? - Build project X before project Y? Our multi-objective dilemma Problem: Navigation Pool “aging” Symptoms: Altered hydrograph, loss of depth, sediment re-suspension One solution: DRAWDOWNS Justification: Good for aquatic vegetation, good for waterfowl BUT … Mussel mortality? II. Ecosystem services progress on the UMR - workshop results Conceptual Framework adapted from the National Research Council (2004) Impacts of actions Ecosystems Human Actions Ecological production functions Services/ Biophysical Values Provides information Economic valuation functions Economic Values Initial List of UMR Ecological Services Cultural Services Provisioning Services Regulating Services Aesthetics Food Biological regulation Recreation Genetic resources Disturbance (Flood) regulation Science/education Raw materials Nutrient regulation Spiritual/historic Water Supply (including transportation) Soil retention Waste regulation Essential River Ecosystem Characteristics External, Large-Scale Driving Factors Terrestrial Environment/ Land Use Climate Habitat Structure Floodplain Connectivity Fluvial Dynamics Some Ecosystem Services Drinking Water River Plants, Animals And Ecological Processes Biotic Interactions Fiber Flood Mediation Energy Type & Quantity Flow Regime Food Waste Assimilation Recreation Water Chemistry Navigation BASIC FLOODPLAIN ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS Decomposers Animals Sunlight Vegetation Water Sediment Physical Floodplain Template (Source: Lubinski 2007) HUMANS Animals (Source: Lubinski 2007) HUMANS The “Cart” Ecosystem Services Aesthetics Waste Regulation Food The “Horse” Ecosystem Structures & Functions Raw Materials Water Supply A Hypothetical but Likely Assessment of Benefits +2 Without projects Measurements/ Values +1 0 -1 -2 +2 With projects Measurements/ Values +1 ? 0 -1 -2 ES1 ES2 ES3 ES4 ES5 - To maximize or optimize? - Can we afford to lose any service completely? Good News: Managers are embracing the concept of ecosystem services. Limiting Factor – Loss of historical forest plant community System Goal 5: Viable populations of native species Example Reach Objective – Adjust dam operations to emulate water table regimes that historically supported floodplain forest native plant communities. Ecosystem Functions – Soils dry & oxidize, allowing root systems to expand Impounded water table Lowered water table Species intolerant of saturated soils survive and expand range Forest plant species complexity increases; habitat & food resources for wildlife enriched Exotic grasses and forbs less competitive with diverse native species present ECOSYSTEM SERVICE Improved wildlife viewing, food foraging, aesthetics III. Outlook: - what seems to fit, what doesn’t Scale of Decisions Project System (UMRS) Policy Relative Value of Ecosystem Services As Decision Criteria ? Technically measureable? Countable within framework? ++ ? Outside Corps guidance? Recap 1. Upper Mississippi River System management “keeping pace” with methodology and concepts 2. Management attraction to ecosystem services 3. Potential value of tool may be greater at larger scales Moving on …..