Wednesday, March 22, 2006

**Note to Members of the Subcommittee on Valuation for National
Rulemaking SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems
and Services (C-VPESS)**

Rick Freeman and Hal Mooney have asked me to begin our work together on
the national rulemaking source example. Thanks especially to all who can
participate in the face-to-face meeting planned for April 18-19, 2006 in
Washington, DC. We hope that we can engage other subcommittee members
who cannot attend through two pre-meeting teleconferences that we have
scheduled for:

> April 4, 2006 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern Time
>
> Purpose: to discuss the goals and strategy for working together and
> preparing for a face-to-face meeting May 9-10, 2006.
>
> Teleconference number: Call 866-299-3188, access code 343-9981 and
> press the \# sign.
>
> April 11, 2006 from 11:00 - 12:30 a.m. Eastern Time
>
> Purpose: Subcommittee to discuss with Agency staff background
> questions about the Agency's benefit assessments for the proposed and
> final aquaculture rules and about the process used for developing
> those assessments.
>
> Teleconference number: Call 866-299-3188, access code 343-9981 and
> press the \# sign.

Please RSVP (<nugent.angela@epa.gov>) by Wednesday March 22 to confirm
your availability for the calls.

Please find attached background materials for subcommittee's work and
preliminary agendas for our face-to-face meeting and pre-meeting
teleconferences. The draft face-to-face meeting agenda assumes that
members who are not able to attend the face-to-face meeting will be
contributing text and ideas to the discussion through email or
teleconference participation.

Please read the background material described in the *Aquaculture
Overview* and, at a minimum, the key sections of the final benefit
assessment (identified on page 6 in the table "Key Sections of EPA
Documents"\--web links provided) before the first planning call, April
4, 2006.

Please let me know if I can be helpful as you begin work on the source
example.

Angela

Table of Contents

[Appendix 1: Aquaculture Overview 3](#__RefHeading___Toc130781593)

[Appendix 2: Suggested Guidance 10](#__RefHeading___Toc130781594)

[Appendix 3: Draft Agenda for Face-to-face Meeting April 18-19, 2006
15](#__RefHeading___Toc130781595)

[Appendix 4: Draft Agenda for Planning Call April 4, 2006
18](#__RefHeading___Toc130781596)

[Appendix 5: Draft Agenda for Planning Call April 18-19, 2006
19](#__RefHeading___Toc130781597)

.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130781593 .anchor}Appendix 1: Aquaculture Overview

**C-VPESS Subcommittee on Valuation for National Rulemaking: Aquaculture
Rule Source Example: Overview of Aquatic Rule for C-VPESS Subcommittee**

**Valuation Issue**: What are the benefits associated with the new
regulations in the final rule? What were the benefits associated with
options described in the proposed rule?

**EPA Decision/Reason for Valuation:**

On June 30 2004, EPA finalized a new rule establishing effluent
limitations guidelines (ELGs) for concentrated aquatic animal production
(CAAP), or aquaculture, facilities. The regulation applied to CAAP
facilities that generate wastewater from their operations and discharge
that wastewater directly into waters of the United States.

The scope of the rule is described in Attachment 1. Attachment 2
provides a table of technologies required by the final rule compared
with other options considered by EPA

[Authority for and Genesis of Rule]{.underline}

Title III of the Clean Water Act (CWA) gives EPA authority to issue
effluent guidelines, national standards for wastewater discharges to
surface waters and publicly owned treatment works (municipal sewage
treatment plants). The standards are technology-based (i.e. they are
based on the performance of treatment and control technologies). They
are not based on risk or impacts upon receiving waters.

When EPA completed this regulation, it completed all the regulations
required by a January 1992 settlement with the Natural Resources Defense
Council and others, which established a schedule by which EPA would
consider regulations for 19 industrial categories. Section 304(m) of the
Clean Water Act governs how EPA works with the public in identifying
identify industries for which effluent guidelines need to be revised or
developed.

[Requirements for and Use of Cost-benefit Analysis]{.underline}

The CWA includes no mandate for cost-benefit analysis. As a
technology-based rule, decision-making centers on analysis of
cost-effectiveness. The CWA, however, does not prevent EPA
decision-makers from considering cost-benefit analysis as part of the
entire technical analysis supporting a decision.

Under Executive Order 12866 the Agency must determine whether a
regulatory action falls under the definition of a "significant
regulatory action" which requires a cost-benefit analysis and OMB
review. EPA generally conducts a cost-benefit analysis for rules that
might meet this trigger.

Information in cost-benefit analysis is used by decision makers,
especially for controversial issues. Analysts supplement formal
monetized cost-benefit analysis with narrative description of non
monetized benefits to explain benefits of different regulatory options.
These narrative descriptions are often removed stripped from final
assessments because of the time involved in developing them and
negotiating final language with OMB.

**Decision-maker who was to use analysis:** Acting Administrator,

**Other audiences for valuation information**:

Other audiences include: OMB and interested and affected parties (e.g.,
regulated entities, trade associations, environmental groups, and the
technical experts hired by these parties. In the case of some effluent
guidelines (not the aquaculture guidelines) regulated parties may be
interested in the valuation because they may have the ability to apply
for waivers from site-specific permits because particular circumstances
do not justify the cost-benefit standard established in the final
economic assessment.

**Status of Valuation Work and Chronology of Valuation Effort:**

  ------------------------------- -------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Final rule published            June 30, 2004  http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2004/August/Day-23/w15530.htm

  Final benefit analysis[^1]      June 2004.     http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/aquaculture/EEBA/index.html
  published                                      

  Due date for comments on        January 27,    
  proposed rule:                  2003.          

  Proposed rule published         September 12,  http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2002/September/Day-12/w21673.htm
                                  2002           

  Proposed benefit analysis[^2]   September      http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/aquaculture/ea/ea.htm
  published                       2002.          
  ------------------------------- -------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

The web page for the rule
(<http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/aquaculture/>)

contains a more complete chronology and links to relevant documents:

**["Bottom-line" Costs and Benefits]{.underline}**

In the final assessment, EPA described the costs and benefits of the
final rule option in the following ways. The Agency provided "Estimated
Pre-Tax Annualized Compliance Costs and Monetized Benefits" (2003
dollars) (see Table ES-4 in the final assessment)

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Estimated Total Costs               \$1,445,000

  Estimated total Benefits            \$66,000 to \$99,000
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

> "Monetized benefit categories are primarily in the areas of improved
> surface water quality (measured in terms of enhanced recreational
> value). EPA also identified a number of benefits categories that could
> not be monetized, including reductions in feed contaminants and
> spilled drugs and chemicals released to the environment, as well as
> better reporting of drug usage to permitting authorities." (p. ES-12)

In the proposed assessment (see p. 10-1), EPA described the benefits in
the following way:

> "EPA has quantified and monetized a subset of the anticipated benefits
> of the proposed action listed above. The central basis for the
> quantitative benefits analysis is a water quality modeling assessment
> that estimates water quality responses to the pollutant loading
> reductions under technology options described earlier in this
> document. Specifically, the benefits that EPA has been able to
> quantify are (a) water quality improvements in stream reaches
> downstream of flow-through and recirculating systems, and (b)
> improvements in the recreational use value of these same reaches.
> Benefits that were not quantified include water quality and ecological
> responses to pollutant loading reductions at net pen systems and
> ecological and other water resource benefits from reductions in
> releases of non-native species, aquatic animal pathogens, and drugs
> and chemicals used at CAAP facilities. EPA did not quantify or
> monetize these potential benefits due to lack of readily available
> assessment modeling tools for such an analysis. Thus, the estimated
> monetized benefits of the proposed action are based only on a portion
> of the expected environmental benefits of the proposed regulation."

**[Overview of EPA Valuation: Key Sections of EPA
Documents]{.underline}**

+---------+----------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Identif | **Final benefit            | **http://www.epa.gov/waters   |
| ication | assessment: Chapter 7 on   | cience/guide/aquaculture/EEBA |
| of      | Environmental Impacts from | /EEBA%20-%20Chapter%207.pdf** |
| pote    | Aquaculture Facilities.**  |                               |
| ntially |                            |                               |
| im      |                            |                               |
| portant |                            |                               |
| eco     |                            |                               |
| logical |                            |                               |
| changes |                            |                               |
+---------+----------------------------+-------------------------------+
|         | Proposed benefit           | ht                            |
|         | assessment: Chapter 9 on   | tp://www.epa.gov/waterscience |
|         | Environmental Impacts of   | /guide/aquaculture/ea/ch9.pdf |
|         | the AAP Industry in the    |                               |
|         | U.S                        |                               |
+---------+----------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Ch      | **Final benefit            | **http://www.epa.gov/waters   |
| aracter | assessment: Chapter 8 on   | cience/guide/aquaculture/EEBA |
| ization | Environmental Benefits of  | /EEBA%20-%20Chapter%208.pdf** |
| and /or | Final Regulation,**        |                               |
| quantif |                            |                               |
| ication |                            |                               |
| of      |                            |                               |
| b       |                            |                               |
| enefits |                            |                               |
| (non-m  |                            |                               |
| onetary |                            |                               |
| terms   |                            |                               |
| and     |                            |                               |
| m       |                            |                               |
| onetary |                            |                               |
| terms)  |                            |                               |
+---------+----------------------------+-------------------------------+
|         | Proposed benefit           | <http                         |
|         | assessment: Chapter 10 on  | ://www.epa.gov/waterscience/g |
|         | Environmental Benefits of  | uide/aquaculture/ea/ch10.pdf> |
|         | Proposed Regulation and    |                               |
|         | Chapter 11., Section 1,    | htt                           |
|         | Cost-Benefit Comparison    | p://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ |
|         |                            | guide/aquaculture/ea/ch11.pdf |
+---------+----------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Ch      | **Final benefit            | **http://www.epa.gov/waters   |
| aracter | assessment: Chapter on     | cience/guide/aquaculture/EEBA |
| ization | Environmental Benefits of  | /EEBA%20-%20Chapter%208.pdf** |
| of      | Final Regulation, Chapter  |                               |
| unce    | 8, especially section      |                               |
| rtainty | 8.2.7, Source of           |                               |
| and     | Uncertainty**              |                               |
| data    |                            |                               |
| quality |                            |                               |
+---------+----------------------------+-------------------------------+

**[Other Aspects of the Analytical Process]{.underline}**

**Data constraints:**

The CWA provides direct authority for EPA to survey industries
concerning technologies and costs related to effluent guidelines. OMB
review of such surveys under the Paperwork Reduction Act does not impede
development of regulations. There is no authority provided for data
collection related to the benefit of such regulations.

**Resource constraints:**

The Office of Science and Technology prepared the final assessment with
the support of Eastern Research Group, Incorporated and Tetra Tech.

**Peer review:**

The economic assessments were not peer reviewed nor were sections of the
documents peer reviewed because they did not include novel methods or
approaches.

**Attachment 1: Scope of Final Rule**

Excerpt from "Effluent Guidelines Aquatic Animal Production Industry
Final Rule - Fact Sheet"

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/aquaculture/fs-final.htm#

The rule requires that all applicable facilities:

-   Prevent discharge of drugs and pesticides that have been spilled and
    minimize discharges of excess feed.

-   Regularly maintain production and wastewater treatment systems.

-   Keep records on numbers and weights of animals, amounts of feed, and
    frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs.

-   Train staff to prevent and respond to spills and to properly operate
    and maintain production and wastewater treatment systems.

-   Report the use of experimental animal drugs or drugs that are not
    used in accordance with label requirements.

-   Report failure of or damage to a containment system.

-   Develop, maintain, and certify a Best Management Practice plan that
    describes how the facility will meet the requirements.

The rule requires flow through and recirculating discharge facilities to
minimize the discharge of solids such as uneaten feed, settled solids,
and animal carcasses.

The rule requires open water system facilities to:

-   Use active feed monitoring and management strategies to allow only
    the least possible uneaten feed to accumulate beneath the nets.

-   Properly dispose of feed bags, packaging materials, waste rope, and
    netting.

-   Limit as much as possible wastewater discharges resulting from the
    transport or harvest of the animals.

-   Prevent the discharge of dead animals in the wastewater.

Attachment 2

Technologies Required by the Final Rule Compared with other options
considered by EPA

Image below taken from final assessment, page 4-2

![](media/image1.png){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130781594 .anchor}Appendix 2: Suggested Guidance

**Suggested Guidance for C-VPESS Subcommittees Preparing Draft Text
Relating to EPA Valuation "Source Examples" for the May 9-10, 2006
C-VPESS meeting**

At the C-VPESS planning call on February 3, 2006, committee members
agreed to work in March and April in three subcommittees focusing on
three types of source examples of most apparent interest

-   Valuation for national-level rule-making: Tentative focus: EPA
    Office of Water Aquaculture rule;

-   Valuation for regional decision-making: Tentative focus: Green
    Infrastructure Mapping as a Decision-Support Tool

-   Valuation for local decision-making: (tentative focus: Superfund
    Site(s) combined with Traditional versus Sustainable Redevelopment
    of Contaminated Properties)

C-VPESS members asked for guidance on the scope and general approach for
the source example exercise. The suggested guidance below is offered to
help subcommittees work in parallel to achieve the two major purposes of
the source-example exercise:

-   to help the C-VPESS develop its *Applications Report*, which will
    examine how EPA might conduct valuation studies in particular
    decision contexts (e.g., national rule-making, regional decisions,
    local decision-making) using a variety of methods.[^3]

-   to help C-VPESS identify the extent to which the various methods
    included in the current draft SAB C-VPESS *Methods Report* might be
    used by EPA, to assess their strengths and weaknesses; and to shed
    additional light on a number of cross-cutting issues that have been
    identified for inclusion in that report.

This guidance suggests that subcommittees consider three major
questions:

A.  How could EPA conduct ecological valuation as completely as possible
    in the specific context provided by the source example?

B.  How could EPA conduct ecological valuation in other contexts that
    are similar to the specific context provided by the source example
    but differ in some key aspect such as scale, data availability,
    scientific uncertainty, etc.? In other words, how can the source
    examples provide a starting point for a more general approach to
    ecological valuation that would be useful to EPA?

C.  Based on subcommittee discussions, how can the C-VPESS refine the
    discussion of cross-cutting issues currently in the October 18, 2005
    draft of the Methods Report[^4] and address other cross-cutting
    issues identified at the December 2005 SAB Workshop, *Science for
    Valuation of EPA\'s Ecological Protection Decisions and Programs*?

More detail related to these questions can be found in the attachment to
this guidance.

Subcommittee draft expanded narrative outline for the May 9-10 meeting
should represent the consensus views of subcommittee members or the
range of views held by them. Draft expanded narrative outlines should be
approximately 15-25 pages in length, provided to the Designated Federal
Officer by May 1, 2006 for distribution to the full committee.

**Attachment: Additional Detail on Three Major Questions for**

**C-VPESS "Source Example Subcommittees"**

A.  **How could EPA conduct ecological valuation as completely as
    possible in the specific context provided by the source example?**

> As a guide to this effort, each subcommittee can refer to the process
> diagram discussed earlier by the committee (see figure 1) and ask:

1.  how could you identify the potentially important ecological changes?

2.  how could you determine what people care about, and hence what
    changes to focus on?

3.  how can you quantify the ecological impacts in bio-physical terms?

4.  how can you characterize and, if possible, quantify these impacts in
    human (but non-monetary) terms?

5.  if necessary, how might you quantify these impacts in monetary
    terms?

![](media/image2.png){width="6.0in" height="4.743055555555555in"}

> In the process of answering these questions, each subcommittee can
> identify the extent to which the various methods included in the
> current draft SAB C-VPESS Methods Report
>
> (<http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/c-vpess_oct_18_2005_draft_12_methods_report.pdf>)
> might be used by EPA and assess their strengths and weaknesses.
>
> In regard to question 3, each subcommittee can also consider whether
> they found the Boyd and Banzhaf approach (Boyd and Banzhaf 2006)[^5]
> to defining ecosystem services to be helpful? If not, why not?

B.  **What questions should be asked related to this type of valuation
    that would make C-VPESS advice more generally useful to EPA? How can
    the subcommittee change aspects of the source example to illuminate
    potentially useful applications of analytical processes, methods and
    data sets?**

-   Subcommittees should ask:

    -   Are there special features to this valuation exercise that
        analysts don't generally encounter?

    -   Are there regular features or issues associated with other
        valuation exercises that this source example doesn't involve?

-   Some suggestions from Committee Members:

    -   Could the issue raise concerns about the value of "natural" vs.
        non-natural (e.g., genetically engineered, engineered, exotic
        species) components of the ecosystem and does EPA's valuation
        approach address these concerns? Are there appropriate methods
        that could?

    -   Could the valuation issue involve valuation issues regarding
        "bio-ecological" benefits (biodiversity, protection/restoration
        of native plant/animal species, "naturalness") and some
        important aesthetic benefits that can be represented visually
        (e.g., natural beauty---which requires some specific piece of
        landscape to represent)? If so present and discuss the role that
        (non-economic) verbal and perceptual survey methods might play
        in such a decision making process

C.  **Based on subcommittee discussions, how can the C-VPESS refine the
    discussion of cross-cutting issues currently in the October 18, 2005
    draft of the Methods Report and address other cross-cutting issues
    identified at the December 2005 SAB Workshop, Science for Valuation
    of EPA\'s Ecological Protection Decisions and Programs?**

    -   Determination of who is appropriate to assign ecological values
        (e.g., experts, non-experts) and related issues of sampling and
        representativeness

    -   Selecting the endpoint or target to be valued

    -   Choice of spatial and temporal scale for the valuation

    -   Selecting appropriate descriptions or expressions of the
        endpoint or target

    -   Spatial data issues

    -   Importance of quantifying and/or characterizing non-monetized
        benefits in a way that is scientifically based, defensible,
        verifiable (not just listing them and including as +B);
        standardization is key; metrics to use?

    -   Data quality -- general characterization of data quality,
        importance (or lack thereof) of response rates; use of knowledge
        networks; questions about reaction vs. introspection; tradeoffs
        between Type I and Type II errors; role of information (how
        informed)

    -   Characterization of uncertainties

    -   Potential for data sharing -- making existing data (ecological,
        economic, survey) readily available; data, model, and parameter
        "banks"; making use of LTER, NEON; standardization of data

        []{#__RefHeading___Toc130781595 .anchor}Appendix 3: Draft Agenda
        for Face-to-face Meeting April 18-19, 2006

**Meeting of the Subcommittee on Valuation for National Rulemaking, SAB
Committee on Valuing the Protection of**

**Ecological Systems and Services (C-VPESS) Draft Agenda**

**April 18-19, 2006**

**Science Advisory Board Conference Center, 1025 F Street, NW, Suite
3705, Washington, D.C. 20004**

**Purpose: Subcommittee to develop the Aquaculture Rule source example
to develop draft text for full C-VPESS consideration on May 9-10, 2006
that will**

**• help the C-VPESS develop the national rule-making portion of the
Applications Report rule-making, regional decisions, local
decision-making) using a variety of methods.**

**• to help C-VPESS identify the extent to which the various methods
included in the current draft SAB C-VPESS Methods Report might be used
by EPA, to assess their strengths and weaknesses; and to shed additional
light on a number of cross-cutting issues that have been identified for
inclusion in that report.**

**[Day 1]{.underline}**

+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 9:00 -     | Welcome                         | Dr. Angela Nugent,    |
| 9:10       |                                 | EPA, SABSO            |
|            |                                 |                       |
|            |                                 | Dr. Vanessa Vu, EPA,  |
|            |                                 | SABSO                 |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 9:10 -     | Review of agenda                | Drs. A. Myrick        |
| 9:20       |                                 | Freeman and Harold    |
|            |                                 | Mooney, Co-Chairs     |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 9:20 -     | Identification of ecological    | Dr. A. Myrick Freeman |
| 9:40       | stressors associated with       |                       |
|            | concentrated aquatic animal     |                       |
|            | production (CAAP)               |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 9:40 -     | Identification of potentially   | Dr. Robert Huggett    |
| 10:30      | important ecological changes    |                       |
|            |                                 | Dr. Harold Mooney     |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 10:30 -    | Break                           |                       |
| 11:00      |                                 |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11:00 -    | Identification of related human | Dr. Douglas MacLean   |
| 12:00      | values and ecological changes   |                       |
|            | for what people care about, and | Dr. William Ascher    |
|            | the ecological changes to focus |                       |
|            | on                              | Dr. Paul Slovic (not  |
|            |                                 | attending in person)  |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 12:00 -    | Lunch                           |                       |
| 1:00       |                                 |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 1:00 -     | Quantification of ecological    | Dr. Robert Huggett    |
| 2:30       | impacts in bio-physical terms   |                       |
|            |                                 | Dr. Harold Mooney     |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 2:30 --    | Characterization and            | Dr. Douglas MacLean   |
| 3:30       | quantification of impacts in    |                       |
|            | human (but non-monetary) terms  | Dr. William Ascher    |
|            |                                 |                       |
|            |                                 | Dr. Paul Slovic (not  |
|            |                                 | attending in person)  |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 3:30 -     | Lunch                           |                       |
| 3:45       |                                 |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 3:45 -     | Quantification in monetary      | Dr. A.Myrick Freeman  |
| 4:45       | terms                           |                       |
|            |                                 | Dr. V. Kerry Smith    |
|            |                                 | (not attending in     |
|            |                                 | person)               |
|            |                                 |                       |
|            |                                 | Dr. Robert Stavins    |
|            |                                 | (not attending in     |
|            |                                 | person)               |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 4:45 -     | Characterization of data        | Dr. William Ascher    |
| 5:30       | quality and uncertainty         |                       |
|            |                                 | Dr. Robert Stavins    |
|            |                                 | (not attending in     |
|            |                                 | person)               |
|            |                                 |                       |
|            |                                 | \-                    |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 5:30       | Adjourn                         |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+

**[Day 2]{.underline}**

+----------+---------------------------------+------------------------+
| 8:30 -   | Opening of Meeting/Review of    | Drs. A. Myrick Freeman |
| 8:35     | Agenda                          | and Harold Mooney      |
+----------+---------------------------------+------------------------+
| 8:35 --  | Additional methodological       | All                    |
| 11:00    | issues to address of importance |                        |
|          | to valuation for rulemaking     |                        |
+----------+---------------------------------+------------------------+
| 11:00 -- | Working Lunch                   | All, based on          |
| 2:45     |                                 | assignments            |
|          | Discussion of Cross-Cutting     |                        |
|          | Issues[^6]                      |                        |
+----------+---------------------------------+------------------------+
| 3:00     | Adjourn                         |                        |
+----------+---------------------------------+------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130781596 .anchor}Appendix 4: Draft Agenda for
Planning Call April 4, 2006

**Subcommittee on Valuation for National Rulemaking SAB Committee on
Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services (C-VPESS)
Draft Agenda Planning Teleconference #1: April 4, 11:00 - 12:00 a.m.
Eastern Time**

**Teleconference number: 866-299-3188, access code 343-9981 \#**

**Purpose: Subcommittee to discuss the goals and strategy for working
together and preparing for a face-to-face meeting May 9-10, 2006.**

**[Day 1]{.underline}**

+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11:00 --   | Welcome and review of agenda    | Dr. Angela Nugent,    |
| 11:10      |                                 | EPA, SABSO            |
|            |                                 |                       |
|            |                                 | Drs. A. Myrick        |
|            |                                 | Freeman and Harold    |
|            |                                 | Mooney, Co-Chairs     |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11:10 -    | Review of goals for             | Drs. A. Myrick        |
| 11:20      | subcommittee and review of      | Freeman and Harold    |
|            | materials sent to subcommittee  | Mooney                |
|            | members                         |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11:20      | Discussion of pre-meeting       | All                   |
| -11:30     | teleconference (April 1?, 2006) |                       |
|            | with Agency                     |                       |
|            |                                 |                       |
|            | Purpose: to raise questions     |                       |
|            | about the Agency's benefit      |                       |
|            | assessments for the proposed    |                       |
|            | and final aquaculture rules and |                       |
|            | about the process used for      |                       |
|            | developing those assessments    |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11:30 --   | Proposed agenda and assignments | All                   |
| 11:50      | for April 18-19^th^             |                       |
|            | face-to-face Subcommittee       |                       |
|            | meeting                         |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11:50 --   | Summary of Action Items         | Drs. A. Myrick        |
| 12:00      |                                 | Freeman and Harold    |
|            |                                 | Mooney                |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 12:00      | Adjourn                         |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc130781597 .anchor}Appendix 5: Draft Agenda for
Planning Call April 18-19, 2006

**Subcommittee on Valuation for National Rulemaking SAB Committee on
Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services (C-VPESS)**

**Draft Agenda**

**Planning Teleconference #2 April 11, 11:00 - 12:30 a.m. Eastern Time**

**Teleconference number: 866-299-3188, access code 343-9981 \#**

**Purpose:** Subcommittee to discuss with Agency staff background
questions about the Agency's benefit assessments for the proposed and
final aquaculture rules and about the process used for developing those
assessments.

+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11:00 --   | Welcome, introductions, and     | Dr. Angela Nugent,    |
| 11:10      | review of agenda                | EPA, SABSO            |
|            |                                 |                       |
|            |                                 | Drs. A. Myrick        |
|            |                                 | Freeman and Harold    |
|            |                                 | Mooney, Co-Chairs     |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11:10 -    | Response from Agency Staff to   | Dr. Julie Hewitt      |
| 11:30      | questions provided in advance   |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11:30      | Discussion of additional        | All                   |
| -12:15     | questions                       |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 12:15 --   | Summary of Action Items         | Drs. A. Myrick        |
| 12:30      |                                 | Freeman and Harold    |
|            |                                 | Mooney                |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 12:30      | Adjourn                         |                       |
+------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+

[^1]: Economic and Environmental Benefits Analysis of the Final Effluent
    Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
    Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Industry Point Source
    Category (hereafter called "final assessment"), EPA-821-R-04-013

[^2]: Economic and Environmental Impact Analysis of the Proposed
    Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Concentrated
    Aquatic Animal Production Industry (hereafter called "proposed
    assessment") EPA-821-R-02-015

[^3]: More specifically, the source examples are intended:

    to provide specifics about what should be done to characterize
    ecological values more fully, not to critique EPA efforts or provide
    detailed advice on specific cases

    to provide context for a discussion of the practical issues that EPA
    is likely to face in doing valuations, not to provide EPA with
    analysis on specific valuations.

    to provide a starting point for discussion of how varying details of
    the examples (e.g., changing scale, type of pollutant, data
    availability) might lead to use of different methods or approaches,
    so that C-VPESS can generate general principles with applicability
    beyond the specific details of the source examples.

    to help the C-VPESS draft an Applications Report that would offer
    guidelines for conducting ecological valuation in different decision
    contexts with enough specificity to allow EPA analysts and decision
    makers to make better informed choices about how to conduct and use
    ecological valuations.

[^4]: on the web at
    <http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/c-vpess_oct_18_2005_draft_12_methods_report.pdf>)
    ,

[^5]: Boyd, J. and S. Banzhaf (2006). What are Ecosystem Services? The
    Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units. RFF Discussion
    Papers. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future.

    On the web at:
    http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Features/What-are-Ecosystem-Services.cfm

[^6]:
    > We could tag subcommittee members to come prepared to address the
    > topics below and have them come with brief text

    Determination of who is appropriate to assign ecological values and
    related issues of sampling and representativeness (Slovic-not
    attending in person, MacLean)

    Selecting the endpoint or target to be valued (Huggett)

    Choice of spatial and temporal scale for the valuation (Ascher)

    Selecting appropriate descriptions or expressions of the endpoint or
    target (Slovic-not attending in person)

    Spatial data issues (Smith-not attending in person)

    Importance of quantifying and/or characterizing non-monetized
    benefits in a way that is scientifically based, defensible,
    verifiable (not just listing them and including as +B);
    standardization is key; metrics to use? (Ascher)

    Data quality -- general characterization of data quality, importance
    (or lack thereof) of response rates; use of knowledge networks;
    questions about reaction vs. introspection; tradeoffs between Type I
    and Type II errors; role of information (how informed) (Smith-not
    attending in person, Ascher)

    Potential for data sharing -- making existing data (ecological,
    economic, survey) readily available; data, model, and parameter
    "banks"; making use of LTER, NEON; standardization of data
    (Smith-not attending in person)