United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

J Ecological i 

Research Program 

Multi-Year Plan 

FY 2008-2014 

February 2008 Review Draft 
ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM 

RESEARCH MULTI-YEAR PLAN 

(2008-2014) 

February 2008 Review Draft 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Primary Authors 

Rick A. Linthurst, National Program Director 

Iris Goodman, Acting Deputy National Program Director 

Wayne Munns, Valuation Lead 

Laura Jackson, Human Well-Being Lead 

Ann Vega, Decision Support Platform Lead 

Suzanne Marcy, Outreach and Education Lead 

Michael McDonald, Monitoring Lead 

John Johnston, Modeling Lead 

Anne Neale, Mapping Lead 

Jonathan Garber, Nitrogen Lead 

Jana Compton, Nitrogen Lead 

Mary Kentula, Wetlands, Co-Lead 

Virginia Engle, Wetland, Co-Lead 

Megan Mehaffey, Place Based Demonstration Projects, Coordinator 

Dixon Landers, Willamette, Lead 

Marc Russell, Tampa Bay Lead 

Randy Bruins, Midwest Lead 

Betsy Smith, Midwest, Co-Lead 

Dorsey Worthy, Coastal Carolina’s Lead 

ii
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Table of Contents 

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES -- BACKGROUND AND DRIVERS................................ 2

RESEARCH PLAN OVERVIEW................................................................................... 8

General Research Questions.........................................................................................................................8

General Approach.........................................................................................................................................9

Research Outputs..........................................................................................................................................9

Applications of Research Outputs .............................................................................................................12

Logic Model .................................................................................................................................................13

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................... 13

Long-Term Goals ........................................................................................................................................13

Organizational Structure............................................................................................................................15

RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 17

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER RESEARCH PLANS ................................................ 17

REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 20

LTG 1—EFFECTIVE DECISION SUPPORT............................................................ 21

1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................21

1.1 Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being..........................................................................22

1.1.1 Characterization of ecosystem service provision in terms of HHWB endpoints.......................23

1.1.2 Analysis of the effect of service disruption on HHWB endpoints.............................................24

1.1.3 Development of HHWB indicators and indices.........................................................................25

1.2 Ecosystem Service Valuation ..................................................................................................26

1.2.1 Ecosystem Service Definitions and Classification.....................................................................27

1.2.2 Ecosystem Service Production Functions..................................................................................28

1.2.3 Valuation Methods ....................................................................................................................30

1.3 Outreach and Education .........................................................................................................32

1.3.1 Establish client base, determine needs, values and understanding of ecosystem services to

enhance ERP research................................................................................................................33

iii
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

1.3.2 Translate ecosystem services into a useful and useable conceptual framework for decisionmakers 35

1.3.3 Produce first generation guidance on decision pathways and applications of ecosystem servicebased decisions and implementation for educational use ..........................................................36

1.3.4 Activate education/training products and evaluate implementation of ES based decisions on

achieving environmental results ................................................................................................36

1.4 Decision Support Platform (DSP) ..........................................................................................37

1.4.1 Identification of Products Such as Tools, Approaches, Techniques, Models, etc. and DSP 

Architecture Foundation Requirements.....................................................................................39

1.4.2 Development of DSP Architecture ............................................................................................40

1.4.3 Population of DSP Modules and Dissemination........................................................................41

1.4.4 Release of DSP and Tracking Results .......................................................................................41

1.5 References.................................................................................................................................42

LTG 2—NATIONAL INVENTORY, MAPPING, AND MONITORING................ 43

2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................43

2.1 Research on Monitoring Approaches for an Ecosystem Services Inventory......................43

2.2 Integrated Modeling of Ecosystem Services..........................................................................51

2.3 Mapping Ecosystem Services..................................................................................................57

2.3.1 Identification of mapping units..................................................................................................58

2.3.2 Spatial characteristics of ecosystem services.............................................................................59

2.3.3 “Bundling” of ecosystem services.............................................................................................59

2.3.4 Research development considerations.......................................................................................59

2.5 References.................................................................................................................................64

LTG 3 NITROGEN ASSESSMENT............................................................................ 67

3.1 Introduction - The Significance of Nitrogen..........................................................................67

3.2 Research Direction...................................................................................................................69

LTG 4 – ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENTS .................................................................... 72

4.0 General Introduction...............................................................................................................72

4.2 Wetland Ecosystems................................................................................................................74

4.2.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................74

4.2.2 Multi-Scale Research Approach ................................................................................................75

4.2.3 Conceptual Model......................................................................................................................76

4.2.4 Research Questions....................................................................................................................77

4.3 Coral Reef Ecosystems............................................................................................................82

4.3.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................82

4.3.2 Research Questions....................................................................................................................84

4.4 References.................................................................................................................................88

iv
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014 

LTG 5—PLACE BASED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.....................................92

5.0 Place as a Concept and Approach ......................................................................................... 92

5.1 The Cross Place Based Quintain ............................................................................................93

5.2 Place Based Project Goal ........................................................................................................97

5.3 Common Research Questions and Outcomes........................................................................97

5.4 Willamette Demonstration Project.........................................................................................99

5.5 Tampa Bay Demonstration Project......................................................................................101

5.6 Future Midwestern Landscapes Demonstration Project....................................................105

5.7 Coastal Carolina Demonstration Project.............................................................................106

5.8 References...............................................................................................................................108

6.0 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................................................. 110

6.1 Reviews...................................................................................................................................110

6.2 Agency Interactions...............................................................................................................111

APPENDIX A DETAILED CATALOGUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES........... 1

APPENDIX B ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ANNUAL 

PERFORMANCE GOALS.............................................................................................. 1

APPENDIX C: PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES.................................... 1

v
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

List of Acronyms 

AmeriFlux Long-term flux measurement network of the Americas 

BOSC Board of Scientific Counselors 

CEAP Conservation Effects Assessment Program

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

C-VPESS Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DSP Decision Support Platform 

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

EO Executive Order

ERP Ecological Research Program

ESV Ecosystem Service Valuation 

GIS Geographic Information System

HB Hierarchical Bayesian

HHWB Human Health and Well Being 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

LTER Long Term Ecological Research

LTG Long-term Goal

MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 

MIMES Multi-scaled Integration of Models for Ecosystem Services 

MYP Multi-year Plan

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment 

NCEE National Center for Environmental Economics 

NEON National Ecological Observatory Network 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESCS Non-market Ecosystem Services Classification System

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NLCD National Land Cover Dataset 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRC National Research Council 

NRCS National Resource Conservation Service 

NSF National Science Foundation 

OE Outreach & Education 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ORD Office of Research and Development 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

ReVA Regional Vulnerability Assessment 

SAB Science Advisory Board

STAR Science to Achieve Results 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WQP Water Quality Plan 

WRI World Resources Institute 

vi
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

INTRODUCTION 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of the few federal 

agencies that operates in both regulatory and scientific capacities. Through its Office of 

Research and Development (ORD), EPA conducts research necessary to ensure that the 

Agency's policies, programs, and regulations are based on a scientifically defensible 

foundation. 

In Fiscal Year 2001, to help ensure that it continues to satisfy a dual responsibility of 

research that focuses on current as well as emerging issues in an effective manner, ORD 

initiated the process of developing research plans that look ahead 5 - 10 years. These 

"Multi-Year Plans" (MYPs) serve several purposes, including: 

• Providing a clear strategy for each research program; 

• Demonstrating how ORD’s research programs contribute to the achievement of 

the Agency's strategic goals; 

• Providing information to support budget formulation decisions; and 

• Informing performance and accountability reporting, including the OMB Program

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review. 

This document presents the MYP for ORD's Ecological Research Program (ERP) for 

FY2008-FY2014. Over the past decade, ERP has focused successfully on ecosystem

monitoring, diagnostics and modeling. The current program has evolved from three longterm goals (LTGs) articulated in the 2003 MYP: 

1. National policy makers will have the tools and technologies to develop 

scientifically defensible assessments of the state of our nation’s ecosystems and 

the effectiveness of existing national programs and policies. 

2. States and tribes apply improved tools and methods to protect and restore their 

valued ecological resources. 

3. Decision-makers understand the importance of ecosystem services and make 

informed, proactive management decisions that consider a range of alternative 

outcomes. 

From a scientific perspective, the program has made major advancements in developing 

and implementing statistically defensible, scientifically rigorous, and policy relevant 

monitoring designs. Accomplishments also include, but are not limited to, the 

identification of indicators to be used within these designs, the interpretation of these 

data, and extrapolation of local data within regional contexts. 

The program has increasingly focused its attention on the third long-term goal, leading to 

some of the Agency’s most complex environmental management decisions. One of the 

unique features of this work has been the integration of multiple models, at multiple 

scales, to assess multiple impacts (positive as well as negative) over time. In short, the 

1 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

program is seeking to understand how alternative management scenarios will affect 

specific ecosystem functions. 

In 1997, EPA established an independent Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) to 

provide advice and recommendations to ORD about its research programs and plans, 

including ways to improve the quality of ORD’s research and to strengthen its relevance 

to EPA’s mission. In 2005, the BOSC Subcommittee for the ERP conducted a full 

review of the Program. In its formal report to ORD, this Subcommittee highlighted the 

significance of ERP’s research on ecosystem services:

The research, tools, and analytical technologies developed under the ERP 

represent the most comprehensive federal government research program 

examining the provision of ecosystem services and the communication of 

these to decision-makers. . . . 

. . . The goal and sub-questions form a body of work that should proceed 

as a whole. Because the ongoing work focuses on the delivery of tools to 

understand societal benefits of ecosystem services, new research on the 

provision of these ecosystem services is essential.

Given the increasing importance of ecosystem services as a means of evaluating the 

efficacy of alternative management options and the positive perspective of the peer 

reviews, we chose to augment our effort in this area. Accordingly, this MYP will 

describe our proposed research on ecosystem services and their relationship to human 

health and well-being, and our ability to place a value on services in monetary or nonmonetary terms, now the primary focus of the ERP. 

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES -- BACKGROUND AND DRIVERS 

A number of science drivers influenced the new direction. In a 1997 report on the role of 

EPA's research in support of environmental decisions (NAS 1997), the National 

Academy of Sciences highlighted the importance of ecosystem services: 

Human society is dependent on the goods and services provided by ecosystems, 

including clean air, clean water, productive soils, and generation of food and 

fiber. A growing recognition of this dependence alters the way we 

conceptualize environmental problems. Reducing the harmful environmental 

impact of human activities on ecosystems, which in turn provide humans with 

essential goods and services, is of direct benefit to society. [emphasis added] 

The report emphasized the variety of factors, including social factors, that underlie 

environmental problems and suggested that EPA’s research should include issues of: 

“resource utilization; diffusion of science into policy; individual and collective decision

making; economic, social, political, and legal structures; human settlement and land use; 

ethics and equity; technological innovation and diffusion; and interactions of social 

processes with physical/chemical and biological processes.” 

2 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

The NAS’ recommendation was widely reflected in research initiated by the ERP in the 

mid- to late-1990s. The ERP has been recognized for pioneering new research that 

makes ecology relevant to societal and policy issues; several examples are provided 

below. Through this MYP, ERP will continue to build on these innovations. 

• Research to develop Alternative Future Scenarios for place-based analyses—Six 

major studies, at local to regional scales, in collaboration with stakeholders, 

resource management agencies, and academia, examined alternative management 

strategies and their effects on ecological and social outcomes. Surprisingly, the 

scenario endpoints used in these early studies closely mirror the Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) ecosystem service categories.

• “Water and Watersheds” grants, co-sponsored with the National Science 

Foundation (NSF)—Interdisciplinary watershed studies requiring, as a condition 

of funding, that grantees demonstrate research collaboration between physical, 

biological and social scientists. 

• Research to develop methods to assess regional-scale vulnerability to ecosystem 

stressors (Regional Vulnerability Assessment program, or ReVA)—Providing 

regional-scale, spatially explicit information on the extent and distribution of both 

ecological stressors and sensitive resources, and developing methods so that 

management actions can be prioritized on the basis of relative risk. Products 

include web-based toolkits that enable users to predict the consequences of

potential environmental changes under alternative future scenarios and to 

communicate economic and quality of life trade-offs associated with alternative 

environmental policies. 

• ERP’s Landscape Ecology program—Anticipating many ways that methods and 

products derived from landscape ecology principles can be used to advance our 

understanding of ecosystem services 

• Research on ecosystem restoration—Recognizing that communities choose 

restoration priorities based on more than engineering criteria, the research

program was broadened to include development and application of tools to 

address social and economic issues. 

The MEA has also been an external driver of great significance to the program's current 

focus. The MEA, produced for the United Nations in 2005 by more than 1,300 scientists 

from around the world, is one of the most comprehensive reports to date on ecosystem 

services. Many of the document’s suggestions and concepts have been adopted as part of 

ERP’s new research strategy, including its depiction of the complex relationship that 

exists between ecosystem services and human well-being (MEA 2005; see Figure 1 and 

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Condition.aspx). 

3 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 1 Relationships among ecosystem services and human well-being

One particular finding of the MEA that resonated with the ORD research team states: 

Even today’s technology and knowledge can reduce considerably the 

human impact on ecosystems. They are unlikely to be deployed fully, 

however, until ecosystem services cease to be perceived as free and 

limitless, and their full value is taken into account. 

This barrier may be the single most important concept that the ERP has been 

designed to address. 

In 2006, EPA developed the Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan (U.S. EPA 

2006; http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/EcologBenefitsPlan.html). The 

interdisciplinary ecological benefits assessment process in the Plan (page 9) has been 

adopted by the ERP. Also, based on this document as well as Boyd and Banzhaf (2006), 

we define ecosystem services as the products of ecological functions or processes that 

directly or indirectly contribute to human well-being, or have the potential to do so

in the future. This definition provides a broad interpretation of ecosystem services to 

characterize services that may or may not be quantifiable. It is used to help us recognize 

the broad array of services we receive from ecosystems. The ERP definition is one of

4 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

several definitions currently used in the literature. A more descriptive definition and 

helpful information is provided in the Ecological Society of America primer on 

ecosystem services (see http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/esa.html). Table 1 

is a catalogue of the range of ecosystem services that fit within the definition and are 

examples of those of highest priority to the ERP, many of which are within the purview 

and expertise of other Agencies. 

While the MEA was a critical, initial step to demonstrate the potential for assessing 

global trends in ecosystem services, it is important to note that the MEA did not fully 

translate the global assessments to regional or even national scales of analysis. In May 

2007, the World Resources Institute (WRI, the organization that initiated the MEA) 

released a follow-up document: “Restoring Nature’s Capital: An Agenda for Action to 

Sustain Ecosystem Services” (http://www.wri.org/publication/restoring-natures-capital). 

The ERP is encouraged to note that many aspects of this new call to action by the 

initiators of the report reflect work underway or formally proposed by the ERP. These 

common themes include: 

• Designing a system for monitoring ecosystem services, using the best scientific 

and communication technologies, and using the resulting information to conduct 

regularly recurring assessments of ecosystem services (reflected in new LTG 2). 

• Increasing research on collaborative management of services across spatial scales, 

including investigating ways to make the concept of “ecosystem service districts” 

an operational management option (reflected in ERP's place-based research). 

• Enhancing understanding of ecosystem impacts that emerge over longer time

scales, including threshold responses or “tipping points” (reflected in ERP’s 

ongoing suite of grants investigating threshold behavior and regime shifts in 

aquatic ecosystems). 

• Developing tools to identify and manage trade-offs among services, over time, 

and in relation to who receives the benefits and who bears the costs (reflected in 

new LTG 1 – Decision Support Platform). 

• Disseminating information on ecosystem services in ways that make it useable by 

the public (reflected in new LTG 1 – Decision Support Platform). 

• Conducting research on the relationship between participatory decision-making 

processes and social, environmental, and economic outcomes (reflected in new 

LTG 1 – Decision Support Platform and Outreach and Education) . 

5 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research P

1 Table 1 Types of Ecosystem Services on Which the ERP Will Focus

SUPPORTING SERVICES REGULATING SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES C

Air quality regulation due to Biogeochemical Cycling Food/Fiber Production Recrevegetation 

Micro-climate regulation due to Carbon Cycling Plant crops (grains, fruits, et Huvegetation 

Disturbance & Natural Hazard Animal protein EcRegulation Terrestrial (livestock) tre

Carbon pool storages 

Erosion Control Wild aquatic (commercial fish) Bo

Carbon sequestration Flood Control Grazing Forage Production Re

Nitrogen Cycling Fire Control Fuels Sense 

Nitrification Biological Regulation Water provisioning SpiritDenitrification (in rivers, lakes, Pollination Quality Existereservoirs, wetlands) 

Habitat / refugia Pest Control Quantity 

Terrestrial Disease Control Surface water storages Aquatic - Fresh water Groundwater 

Timing: Aquatic - Estuarine Maintenance of base flow

Aquatic - Near-coastal, marine Hydrologic regime

Biodiversity

1 A more detailed catalogue of services is provided as Appendix A.

6 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Further, the WRI will be a partner in the research outlined in this MYP. 

Most recently, EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s Committee on Valuing the Protection of 

Ecological Systems and Services (C-VPESS) is scheduled to conclude, in 2008, its fouryear assessment of Agency needs in this area. The Committee has welcomed the ERP's 

focus as a way to strengthen the foundation for ecological valuation, and commends EPA 

for asking for further science from interdisciplinary experts. As with WRI, the ERP has 

enlisted the assistance of several of these Committee members as advisors to ensure the 

ERP continues on a path consistent with that outlined by the SAB. 

In addition to these scientific drivers, several statutory and regulatory mandates for EPA 

support the shift to an ecosystem services focus, including: 

• Executive Order (EO) 12866. EO 12866 requires an examination of the 

environmental costs and benefits of EPA's regulatory actions. Implementation of 

this Order has been hindered by the EPA's inability to account for the value of 

ecosystem services and any costs associated with service losses. Thus, tools that 

can help account for ecosystem services will benefit all EPA program offices 

responsible for implementing EO 12866. 

• Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA has several provisions that give EPA 

authority to conduct research on, and regulate impacts to, ecosystem services 

provided by aquatic systems. Section 404, covering permits for dredge and fill 

requests, requires that EPA issue guidance on procedures for evaluating and 

mitigating adverse environmental impacts to wetlands resulting from projects 

receiving federal aid. The CWA guidelines for implementing wetlands mitigation 

banking provide descriptions of wetland values and functions to consider for 

protection, and include the overall goal of "no net loss" in wetland values and 

functions, such as water purification and recreational value. In a broad sense, the 

CWA (Section 101) requirements for establishment of designated uses (“fishable, 

swimmable”) and criteria that maintain those uses is a focus on protecting the 

services provided by aquatic ecosystems. 

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations for NEPA provide authority for explicit 

valuation and consideration of ecosystem services when Federal agencies prepare 

environmental impact statements. 

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). The regulations that guide the assessment of natural resource 

damages under CERCLA provide for compensation resulting from injury to 

natural resources and the loss of services those resources provide.

In addition, several statutes, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic 

Substances Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, and the 

7 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act either directly or indirectly authorize EPA to 

conduct research related to protecting ecosystem services. While these statutes pre-date 

the current use of the term “ecosystem services,” they support the concept of protecting 

ecosystem services by protecting ecosystem structure and processes for their benefits to 

humans. 

Collectively, the NAS, SAB, BOSC, grants research, in-house research, the MEA, the 

legislative mandates, and the expected future needs of the Agency each contribute to the 

foundation on which we are building the redirected ERP. 

RESEARCH PLAN OVERVIEW

EPA’s strategic goals, which define the overall environmental results that the Agency is 

working to attain, provide the framework for organizing ORD research.2

 We use these 

goals to systematize the way in which we prioritize, plan, and implement our research; 

report our research findings and products; and budget for our programs. All ORD 

research programs are linked to at least one strategic goal. ERP’s research agenda will 

help to advance the Agency’s strategic goal of maintaining Healthy Communities and 

Ecosystems. Building off of this general goal, the ERP has defined the following 

hierarchy of common organizational concepts to guide its actions. 

Vision: Contribute to a comprehensive theory and practice for characterizing, 

quantifying, and valuing ecosystem services, to ensure that their relationship to 

human well-being is consistently incorporated into environmental decision 

making. 

Mission: Provide the information and methods needed by decision makers to assess the 

benefits of ecosystem goods and services to human well-being for inclusion in 

management alternatives. 

Goal: To transform the way decision makers understand and respond to 

environmental issues by making clear the ways in which our policy and 

management choices affect the type, quality and magnitude of the goods and 

services we receive from ecosystems. 

In general, ERP will measure this goal in terms of the increasing number of local, state, 

regional, national and/or other environmental decision makers confirming the use of ERP 

products, information and/or assistance to support their decision making. 

General Research Questions

The overarching research questions for the Program are: 

2 As defined in the 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan, the Agency's four strategic goals are (1) Clean 

Air, (2) Clean and Safe Water, (3) Land Preservation and Restoration, (4) Healthy Communities and

Ecosystems, and (5) Compliance and Environmental Stewardship (see

http://www.epa.gov/cfo/plan/plan.htm).

8 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• What are the effects of multiple stressors on ecosystem services, at multiple 

scales, over time? 

• What is the impact of changes in these services on human well-being and on the 

services' monetary and non-monetary value?

To answer these questions we need to develop quantitative, operational definitions for 

ecosystem services; know how these services are distributed throughout the landscape, 

and in what quantity and quality; project how they will respond to combinations of large 

and small scale stressors; and determine alternative management options that would 

optimize their sustainability. 

General Approach

Our objective is to inform a wide range of issues related to questions of social choice, 

with a special focus on informing the evaluation of trade-offs among ecosystem services 

provided under alternative management and policy decisions. To achieve this objective, 

we will undertake a multi-dimensional research plan that includes a range of focused 

investigations as well as integrating, thematic elements. The focused investigations will 

look at the provision of ecosystem services from three different perspectives: (1) the 

effect of a single, ubiquitous pollutant (reactive nitrogen) on service quality and quantity; 

(2) the dynamics of service flows in two priority ecosystems (wetlands and coral reefs); 

and (3) the dynamics of service flows in four geographic regions (Midwestern US; 

Willamette Basin, Oregon; Tampa Bay, Florida; and the Coastal Carolinas), that

represent a spectrum of ecological and socioeconomic characteristics. The cross-cutting 

themes we will investigate include the relationship between ecosystem services and 

human health; landscape characterization; ecosystem service inventories; alternative 

management option modeling techniques; and ecosystem service valuation. We will 

integrate the research outputs from the focused investigations and the thematic work into 

a decision support platform and will convey the findings through an organized education 

and outreach effort. 

Research Outputs

Our research will have four general types of outputs: 

• Measures and dynamic maps of ecosystem services – Colloquially known as 

“maps,” these products will reflect the most recent advances in ecological 

monitoring, spatial analysis, ecological mapping, and cartographic techniques in 

order to create spatial representations of ecosystem services over multiple scales 

and time-periods. They will be used for communication, outreach, planning, 

assessment, and resource management. 

• Predictive models relating to the response of stressors – Models are the 

foundation of our ability to forecast change and proactively assess how ecosystem

functions and services are likely to respond to natural and human stressors. These 

9 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

models will reflect a variety of techniques, including statistical, landscape, and 

process models. Modeling techniques will be matched to needs for temporal and 

spatial scales, the scope of stressors and endpoints to be considered, and intended 

use of model output. 

• Management Options and Alternative futures – We will work with collaborators 

to develop and implement alternative future scenarios relevant to their interests in 

conserving ecosystem services. These scenarios will be implemented using our 

suite of modeling tools; results will be presented as maps and other visualization 

tools (e.g., “flyovers” and other animations). 

• Decision Support Platform - We are developing a decision support platform to 

enable managers and decision-makers to explore how various policies affect the 

likely distribution of ecosystem services, and human health and well-being 

outcomes, both now and in the future. This decision support platform will be 

“powered” primarily by ERP modeling and scenario techniques. However, the 

design of the platform will proceed in close cooperation with ERP’s teams for 

Outreach and Education and for Valuation, as well as with our non-governmental 

organization (NGO) partners. Doing so will ensure that the platform can capture 

user needs for decisions and effectively translate our analytical results in ways 

that are useful to policies, rules, market incentives, and environmental 

stewardship. 

These outputs provide the ecological information and methods needed by decision 

makers to assess the benefits of ecosystem services and to identify strategic management 

options needed to meet our desired outcome for the Ecological Research Program, which 

is to secure the integrity and productivity of our ecological systems over space and time. 

Figure 2 illustrates in a hypothetical example how ERP's research output might initially 

be communicated. In this chart, we depict nine different ecosystem types within a 

particular geographic district and indicate the magnitude of the specific services each 

ecosystem provides. The y-axis could be one of many measures, from monetary values 

to rates of change and are shown here simply as relative differences. There is no attempt 

in this example to pass any judgment on positive or negative being “good” or “bad.” 

Having established and depicted a base case for a particular set of related ecosystems, we 

can develop a second chart that depicts incremental changes in these services due to a 

management action or the effect of an environmental stressor. We can present this 

information in a variety of ways, including: 

• Ecosystem services by ecosystem type; 

• Bundled ecosystem services by ecosystem type; or 

• Collective common services for the ecosystem service district. 

10 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Forest

Native

grassland

Headwater

wetland

Riparian

forest

Vegetated

buffer strip

Rip Rap

slope Row crop Grass seed Urban

Nutrient removal

Temperature regulation

Carbon Sequestration

Habitat

Flood protection

Food & Goods

Figure 2 Hypothetical ERP research output. Illustrative example of the 

services that would be expected to be provided (or consumed, if 

negative) within an ecosystem service district. All values are relative 

and could represent rates of production, current service provision, 

monetary value, or other relative measure. 

Figure 3 is a depiction of changes in services by type of ecosystem. In this hypothetical 

example, a riverine wetland provides a suite of services in its baseline condition (as 

illustrated in the stacked bar on the left). After significant alterations of the system for 

wild rice production (illustrated by the middle bar), the provision of all services except 

for food and fiber becomes negative. The bar on the right represents the difference 

between the baseline and altered services. 

Thus, ERP research is designed to provide an understanding of the type, quantity, and 

distribution of services gained or lost as a result of alternative management options. This 

information enables economists and decision-makers a way to better account for the full 

value of those changes, many of which are currently not considered at all. We can then 

convey this information to decision makers using an innovative decision-support platform

so that they can make informed, proactive choices when considering the alteration of an 

ecosystem. 

11 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Water Supply

Habitat

Food & Goods

Flood protection

Carbon Sequestration

Temperature regulation

Nutrient removal

Riverine Service - Baseline

Riverine Service - Post-Alteration

Difference

Figure 3 Hypothetical example of research output as a depiction of the changes 

in specific ecosystem services resulting from ecosystem alteration. In 

this example, after significant alterations of the system for wild rice 

production (illustrated by the middle bar), the provision of all services 

except for Food & Goods becomes negative. 

Applications of Research Outputs

The ERP research program is designed to act as a catalyst for innovation in management 

actions, policies, rules, and governance by providing information to be used by the 

Agency and others in: 

• Setting policies and guidelines that can achieve ecological protection through a 

variety of policy instruments that do not have the legal force of national rules; 

• Quantifying benefits for national rule-making in response to the Office of 

Management and Budget data requirements for benefit–cost assessments; 

• Developing environmental metrics and indicators for ecosystem services for use 

in periodic reports on the environment or for establishing environmental accounts 

within our national Gross Domestic Product accounts; 

• Catalyzing market innovations that engage the private sector in achieving 

environmental protection objectives; and 

12 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• Evaluating management actions that assist decision makers and stakeholders in 

making choices with a common understanding of the implications and tradeoffs. 

ERP research can also provide information useful for reducing transaction costs in, for 

example, market trading; estimating the availability, reproducibility, permanence and/or 

longevity of ecosystem services over space and time; identifying opportunities for 

maximizing multiple services per investment; recommending metrics for documenting 

environmental outcomes; and providing credible timelines required to achieve expected 

outcomes (given the lag that often exists between action and environmental response).

Logic Model

Figure 4 is a variation of a logic model3

 that is intended to summarize the ERP. The 

program planning is done from right to left, keeping the target vision, mission, and goal 

in mind. Subsequently, the program is implemented from left to right. For 

implementation, the first column represents the human and financial resources of the 

program, the second column describes the major categories of research activities, and the 

third column identifies a portfolio of research products and outputs. The logic model also 

summarizes the manner in which ERP will communicate research results to various users 

and the types of outcomes and specific environmental results that the research program is 

designed to achieve. 

The logic model provides a clear link between research and intended outcomes, defined 

as "transfer to partners," creating an awareness of the steps required to accomplish the 

end (outcomes). All too often, the research in the first three columns (Resources, 

Research Activities, and Research Outputs) is the sole focus of the effort, thus missing 

the need to affect behavioral changes that will help ensure the outcomes. The cyclical 

nature of the model reflects the need for continuous feedback between outcomes and 

research, such that the latter can be modified or expanded to further enhance the former. 

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 

To assist in achieving the goal of the Program, we have developed a research framework. 

ERP's research framework combines specific long-term goals and an organizational 

structure designed to facilitate cross-functional collaboration and cost-effectiveness. 

Long-Term Goals

The ERP has defined five long-term goals (LTGs) to guide its research agenda. The goals 

reflect the general approach described above, namely three cross-cutting thematic 

elements (LTGs 1, 2 and 3) and two focused investigation approaches (LTGs 4 and 5). 

More broadly, these goals combine ERP's interest in (1) advancing research on tools 

3

 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_model for general information about 

logic models. 

13 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program M

Logic Model for ORD Research Planning and Management

Program Design & Research Planning

Identify Identify

Performance Research Develop Lab Identify Goals for Themes and 

and Center Knowledge Research Topics Operation Gaps and 

Plans Research

Questions

Externalities – Regulatory requirements, National Priorities,

Emergencies, Court Decisions & Consent Agreements, Enacted Operating Budget, Resources and other External Factors Long-te

R Environm

esearch

Align the A Short term Outcom

ctivities resources of the 7 Research Transfer to Institutional •Create indicators Research and geo-spatial data Outputs Partners Outcomes •Ecosystem se

Laboratories and and techniques to •Measures and •Demonstration •Decision makers from natural anCenters to describe and projects with State, quantify ecosystem dynamic maps apply information, restored ecosyprioritized services Tribal, and local •Predictive models methods, and models are sustained fresearch to meet •Create models to partners •Management developed by ORD to generations long term goals describe, quantify, •Web-based make proactive •Ecosystem se

and forecast the options communication decisions that ensure conserved or eresponse of •Decision support strategy ecosystem services human well-being by while maintaini

systems •Presentations at to human and conserving and ecosystem reso

natural stressors conferences and enhancing ecosystem•Create new ways to workshops servicesrestore, retain, and •Publication of peerenhance ecosystem reviewed papers services •On-line tools for •Investigate linkagesbetween ecosystem decision supportservices and humanhealth

Program Implementation & Management

Figure 4 ERP Logic Model

14 
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

needed to improve ecosystem management and (2) applying those tools in the context of 

real world issues facing decision makers. The five LTGs are: 

1. Effective Decision Support. By 2014 ERP will provide innovative, online decision

support that offers EPA, Regions, States, local communities and resource managers the 

ability to integrate, visualize, and maximize use of diverse data, models and tools at 

multiple scales to generate alternative decision options and to understand the 

consequences of management decisions on the sustainability of ecosystem services, their 

value, and human well-being. This long-term goal integrates the products of the other 

four long-term goals. 

2. National Mapping, Inventory, and Modeling. By 2013 ERP will deliver publicly

accessible, scalable, national atlas, inventory system, and models for selected ecosystem

services that can be quantified directly or indirectly. 

3. Nitrogen Assessment. By 2013 ERP will provide an assessment of the positive and 

negative impacts on ecosystem services resulting from changes in nitrogen levels at select 

locations and within select ecosystems. 

4. Ecosystem Assessments. By 2013 ERP will provide guidance and decision support 

tools to target, prioritize, and evaluate policy and management actions that protect, 

enhance, and restore ecosystem goods and services at multiple scales for two specific 

ecosystem types: wetlands and coral reefs. 

5. Place-Based Demonstration Projects. By 2013 ERP will complete four site-specific 

demonstration projects that illustrate how regional and local managers can proactively 

use alternative future scenarios to conserve and enhance ecosystem goods and services in 

order to benefit human well-being and to secure the integrity and productivity of 

ecological systems. The four locations for these projects (Midwest, Willamette, Tampa 

Bay and the Coastal Carolinas) represent a spectrum of physiographic and socioeconomic 

characteristics; local, regional, and national drivers of ecosystem change; and the type 

and potential impact of resource management decisions. 

The second half of this document describes ERP's planned research with respect to the 

achievement of each of these goals and the annual performance goals that ERP will use to 

track its progress. 

Organizational Structure

The ERP has established an organizational research structure to maximize coordination, 

integration, consistency, and team effectiveness dynamics. The matrix provided as 

Figure 5 is a diagram of this research structure and is an important part of the Program's 

strategic plan. 

Along the top and left side of the matrix are the goals (and, as appropriate, 

subcomponents of the goal) and the percent of total internal effort ERP currently expects 

to apply to each. The column on the far right of the matrix identifies the lead scientists 

15
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research P

FIGURE 5 Ecological Research Program Planning and Implementation Framework 

DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS 

LTG 4 

Ecosystem Studies 

(23%) 

LTG 5 

Place-Based Demonstration Project

(28%) 

Wetlands 

(19%) 

Coral Reefs 

(4%) 

Willamette 

(5%) 

Tampa Bay 

(7%) 

Mid-West 

(7%) 

Integrated Decision 

Support Platform 

(3%) 

LTG 1 

Effective Decision 

Support 

(7%) 

Valuation of 

Ecosystem 

Services (2%) 

Ecosystem 

Services and 

Human Health (1%) 

Outreach & 

Education (1%) 

Landscape Ecology 

CROSS PROGRAM THEMES LTG 2 Mapping, Modeling, and Monitoring Ecosystem Services at Multiple Scales (37%) and Mapping (10%) Indicators and Monitoring of Ecosystem Services (21%) Modeling for Scenarios and 

Forecasting for 

Alternative 

Management 

Options (6%) 

LTG 3 

Pollutant-Specific 

Studies 

Nitrogen (5%) 

Project Leads 

Place Based Coordinator 

16
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

responsible for conducting research for each of the goals. Similarly, the row of cells at 

the bottom of the matrix identifies the leads for the column goals and their components. 

Unique to this ORD Program is the fact that each interior cell in the matrix identifies 

scientists who are responsible for participating in both "row" and "column" discussions, 

strategy development, and research. This structure optimizes interaction within the 

program. Behind the matrix in a third dimension are the staff of ORD that are 

participating in the program within the bounds of the LTGs. 

RESOURCES 

The ERP proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 is approximately $68 million. The 

FY2008 budget is sufficient to support the salary, travel, and operating expenses of an 

approximately 280-person staff (scientists and administrative support personnel). Given 

the expertise of the ERP staff, the planned allocation of ORD effort for each goal by 2010 

is roughly as follows: 

Long-term goal 1: 7 percent 

Long-term goal 2: 37 percent 

Long-term goal 3: 5 percent 

Long-term goal 4: 23 percent 

Long-term goal 5: 28 percent 

These allocations pose some specific challenges for the program that will be explained in 

later sections. In particular, accomplishment of LTG 1, one of the most critical of our 

goals, will depend on partnerships that complement the capacity and capability of current 

ORD staff. 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER RESEARCH PLANS 

As described earlier, ORD organizes its overall research agenda via MYPs prepared for 

13 complementary research areas that have scopes ranging from very broad to problemspecific.4

 Table 2 summarizes the scope of ORD’s research programs. As a basic 

research program with a broad scope, the ERP focuses primarily on advancing 

fundamental research capabilities and anticipating important emerging issues rather than 

on shorter-term, regulatory agenda-driven problem solving. As such, ERP's research can 

and does contribute to the ecological dimensions of other research plans. More broadly, 

the ERP’s approach to quantifying linkages between ecosystem services and human wellbeing offers potential for framing the management of ecological risk in new and 

productive ways that cut across environmental media and scientific disciplines. This 

framework can also be used to help communicate research results from other ORD 

programs. For example, the Sustainability Program conducts research to advance new 

technologies that better conserve energy and materials. The ERP complements the 

Sustainability Program by providing ways to assess options for conserving ecosystem

services for which there are no readily available technological substitutes. 

4 See http://epa.gov/osp/myp.htm. 

17
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

TOPICAL RESEARCH BROADLY APPLICABLE RESEARCH 

Overarching 

Issues 

Sustainability 

Ecological 

Research Program

Human Health 

Research Program, 

including Human 

Health Risk 

Assessment

Global Change 

Program Office 

Alignments

Air quality 

Water quality 

Drinking water 

Land 

Safe pesticides/Safe 

products 

High Priority 

Topics 

Endocrine disruptors 

Mercury 

Nanotechnology 

Table 2 Summary of ORD Research Plans 

The ERP seeks to advance the state of the science on the role of ecosystem services in 

human health and well-being at individual to societal levels. Clearly, the Human Health 

Research Program (HHRP) is ORD's primary instrument to evaluate multiple 

environmental insults to the human organism. Currently, however, the focus of the 

HHRP is on elucidating chemical source-to-effect pathways; it does not encompass the 

role of the natural environment in exposure mitigation or health promotion, nor does it 

address aspects of human well-being other than individual burden of disease. There is no 

formal relationship between the two plans at this time, but we continue to seek 

opportunities to develop this linkage.

The ERP maintains a close working relationship with the Global Change and Water 

Quality Programs in order to identify areas of productive collaboration and avoid 

duplication. Research products from each program are often applicable to the other, and 

some ORD scientists split their time between the programs and develop complementary 

collaborations. For example, the ERP complements the Global Change Program by 

providing data and methods on a broad range of natural and human stressors to 

ecosystems. In turn, the ERP looks to the Global Change Program for climate change 

scenarios, which the ERP includes as one of the drivers in its development of alternative 

future scenarios, in order to provide a more comprehensive context for considering 

management options. 

There has also been collaboration among the extramural components of the ERP and the 

Global Change Program, especially with respect to ecosystem services. For example, in 

2005, the ERP STAR grant program funded eleven exploratory research grants to 

quantify non-linear thresholds in aquatic ecosystems shifts related to a variety of

stressors, including climate change, and their subsequent effects on ecosystem services 

(http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2004/2004_aqua_sys.html). In 2007, the Global Change 

18
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Program awarded grants from a follow-up solicitation on non-linear responses to climate 

change (http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2005/2005_nonlinear_responses.html). 

The primary distinction between the ERP and the Global Change Program with respect to 

ecosystem services is that this topic is the sole focus of the ERP, which is seeking to 

develop a systematic and comprehensive approach for proactively incorporating services 

into decision-making in the public and private sectors, at all levels of governance. The 

major focus of the Global Change Program is to meet EPA’s client needs for adaptation

and mitigation strategies and to fulfill EPA’s responsibilities for the research agenda as

described by the ICCP. 

Similarly, ERP and the Water Quality MYP (WQ MYP) both address watershed 

management issues, but from complementary perspectives. For example, the ERP 

includes water-related ecosystem services as one of its core services for research. The 

ERP is developing new methods to enhance, maintain, or restore the full range of waterrelated ecosystem services, including water provisioning, biogeochemical cycling, 

nutrient cycling, water quality, mitigation of flood and storm surges, and aquatic habitat. 

The primary focus of the WQ MYP is research that addresses narrower regulatory goals 

aimed at particular water quality issues. The intersection of ERP and WQP research is

typically observed in the context of watershed management.5

To avoid unnecessary duplication of research efforts, screening of ERP and WQP 

projects occurs at several levels. At the Division level, the Division Directors review all 

staff projects. At the Laboratory and Center level, the Associate Laboratory Directors 

identify cross-division overlap. In addition, the National Program Directors for these two 

programs routinely share project information to flag potentially duplicative efforts. 

Nevertheless, a bright line does not always exist between some of the projects needed to 

achieve the long-term goals of these two Programs. As with the ERP and Global Change 

Programs, some ORD staff split their time between the ERP and Water Quality Programs 

to take advantage of potential synergies. 

Table 3 highlights the complementary nature of the ERP, Global Change, and Water 

Quality Programs in terms of their research focus, endpoints, clients, and staffing. Only 

through a multivariate look at the three programs can one discern most clearly the 

similarities and differences. Improving further the interaction among these programs is a 

management effort still in process in ORD. 

5 See http://epa.gov/osp/myp.htm - wq. 

19
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

EPA ORD Research Plan 

ERP Global Change Water Quality 

Focus Broad Scientific 

Scope Problem-specific Regulatory agenda

Ecosystems Multiple Multiple Aquatic

Stressors Multiple Climate Change Multiple

Work Force Internal Internal and 

Extramural Internal 

Primary 

Clients 

Multiple Program

Offices/ Regions 

Multiple Program

Offices/Regions 

Office of 

Water/Regions 

Endpoints Multiple Multiple Water Quality

Table 3 Comparison of Highly Related ORD Research Programs. Only 

through a multivariate comparison are some differences discernable. 

REFERENCES 

Boyd, J. and Spencer Banzhaf. 2006. What Are Ecosystem Services? - The Need for

Standardized Environmental Accounting Units. Resources for the Future 

Discussion Paper 06-02. January. 

MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, Volume 1. 

Findings of the Conditions and Trends Working Group of the Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment. Edited by Rashid Hassan, Robert Scholes, and Neville

Ash. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

NAS. 1997. Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions. Committee on

Research Opportunities and Priorities for EPA, National Research Council. 

National Academies Press, Washington DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic 

Plan. EPA-240-R-06-001. Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC. Online 

publication at http://www.epa.gov/economics/.

20
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

LTG 1—EFFECTIVE DECISION SUPPORT 

1.0 Introduction

Incorporation of ecosystem services and values into policy development and 

environmental decisions has been impeded by lack of understanding as to their potential 

applicability to decision making, a dearth of tools for quantification and comparative 

analysis, and barriers between disciplines. The purpose of LTG 1 is to reduce these 

impediments so that decision makers have the knowledge and an array of products that 

allow them to think more broadly about the impacts their decisions have on ecosystem

services and to understand, in qualitative or quantitative terms, the implications of these 

impacts on human well-being. The information and tools will also enable decision 

makers to include the impacts on ecosystem services and human well-being in their 

decision-making process. 

LTG 1 includes four elements that together with the input from the other LTGs form the 

foundation for providing decision makers what they need to make better decisions. 

• Human health and well-being (HHWB) will help decision makers better 

understand the vital link between ecosystem service provision and priority 

societal issues such as illness and disease, livelihood, homeland security, cultural 

preservation, and spiritual fulfillment. 

• Ecosystem service valuation (ESV) will give decision makers the constructs to 

describe the diverse values that ecosystems provide in a way that can support the 

assessment of tradeoffs among decision alternatives. 

• Outreach and education (OE) will reach out to decision makers to ensure that 

the research, tool development, and decision support approaches we develop will 

meet their needs and be applied with confidence.

• Decision support platform (DSP) will host and make available an array of tools 

designed for decision makers operating in different circumstances, communities, 

spatial scales, and levels of complexity and uncertainty. 

LTG 1 is central to the overall success of the ERP. First, it integrates the scientific and 

socioeconomic dimensions of ecosystem services by asking questions about the 

relationships between these services and human health and well-being, as well as the way 

society assigns value (monetary and non-monetary) to them. Second, this goal includes 

the communication of research results to the public and to decision makers, providing the 

latter in particular with a collection of tools in a framework that enables them to make the 

most informed judgments from a holistic view of alternative management options. 

Furthermore, as a way to maximize their utility, ERP intends to engage decision makers 

in the development of these tools. While fully dependent on the science contributed by 

the other components of the program, the ERP comes together in LTG 1. 

LTG 1 is also an area in which ORD has the least capability and institutional capacity.

While this presents a significant challenge, our intent is to enlist assistance from other

21
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

parts of the Agency, other agencies, non-governmental organizations, academia, and even 

the private sector, as partners to achieve our vision for this goal. For example, the 

valuation component of the research and coordination will draw on the expertise of the 

Agency’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). This partnership is of 

particular importance given that NCEE is the part of the Agency that is responsible for 

the environmental economics research that supports benefit-cost analyses for regulatory 

actions. Their interest in advancing the science supporting benefit-cost analysis ensures 

that the information provided in the program can be used as it becomes available. All 

parts of LTG 1 will be equally dependent on such relationships. 

1.1 Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being

Implicit in the concept of ecosystem services are benefits to human society. The 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA; World Resources Institute 2005) describes 

these benefits in terms of human well-being, comprising health, security, social relations, 

and freedom of choice and action. The ERP is, on a small and exploratory scale, 

beginning a unique area of study to characterize the linkages between ecological services 

and human well-being, with an emphasis on health issues at individual to societal levels. 

This work, summarized in Figure 6, will incorporate data on human morbidity, mortality 

and vulnerability, as well as expenditures and other proxies for health outcomes and 

risks, that are meaningful to decision-makers weighing competing societal concerns. As 

HHWB measures and indicators are expressions of societal value, valuation is inherent in 

this work and will be coordinated closely with the ESV component described in Section 

1.2. However, the main research emphasis is on documenting the contributions of 

ecosystem services to diverse aspects of HHWB. 

The connections between human health and clean air, land and water are obvious and are 

already central to EPA research and policy. Largely omitted from consideration, 

however, is the fundamental role of ecosystems in supplying these and other essentials of 

life support. An ecological perspective makes clear the relationship between nature’s 

purification, provisioning, and regulating services and such health issues as polluted 

drinking water, fish and shellfish contamination, and flood-related destruction and 

displacement. This focus represents a shift from a stressor-driven approach to protecting 

human health to one that considers the role of ecosystem services in overall human wellbeing, including disease prevention, health promotion, and community welfare. 

Research will address connections between ecosystem services and quality of life—

individual and community characteristics including adequate livelihoods, security from 

natural disasters, spiritual fulfillment, and recreation. Results will populate decision 

support systems in order to characterize the implications for human well-being of policy 

action or inaction that affects the provision of ecosystem services. Because of the prime 

importance to society of human health and well-being, dedicated effort within the ERP is 

needed to inform emerging research on ecosystem services with data and knowledge 

from anthropocentric disciplines including public health, epidemiology, sociology, and 

environmental psychology. 

22
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP – Human Health and Well-Being

Science Questions Outcomes

• Decision- ecision-makers consider impacts to ecosy to ecosystem services 

What aspects of human health and well- when evaluating polic ing policy alternatives affecting human health

being are linked e linked to ecosystem services? and well-being.

• Measures easures to express the value of ecosystem services are 

comparable parable to those us those used for competing societal de cietal demands.

How do human healt an health and well-being ll-being 

respond to disturbance gradients in the • Tools are av ools are available t ailable to inform multiple lev iple levels of decision- cisionprovision of ecosystem services? making.

• Ecosystem services are protected or restored to optimize 

societal benef al benefits.

What are key are key indicators and indices of

human healt an health and well-being f being for • Agency effectiveness is tractable with measures reflecting 

assessing ef ssing efforts to protect and restore priority societal values.

ecosystem services?

ERP Lon ERP Long-term Goal 1: Effe 1: Effective Decision Support

ERP will provide inno ide innovative online decision decision support that offers EPA, Regions, States, Tribes, local co local communities and 

resource managers the ability to integrate, visualize, and m e, and maximize use of diverse data, models and tools at multiple 

scales to generat scales to generate alternative decisio e decision options and understand the consequences of he consequences of management decisions on the ent decisions on the 

sustainabilit ainability of ecosystem services, their value, and human well-being. ll-being.

This long-t is long-term goal inte goal integrates the products of the other four lon our long-term goals.

Figure 6 Overview of LTG 1 - Human Health and Well-Being Component

1.1.1 Characterization of ecosystem service provision in terms of HHWB 

endpoints 

One of the primary ERP emphases is to understand how the condition of an ecosystem

affects performance of its natural functions, and how these in turn translate into the 

provision of ecosystem services. Research under the HHWB component will take these 

findings and characterize their societal implications, with an emphasis on population and 

community health issues. For example, the ERP will explore a bundle of services 

provided by wetlands. HHWB research will provide the information needed to value the 

status of identified wetland services in terms of homes protected from flooding, 

recreational user-days supplied, water-treatment costs averted, or other measures relevant 

to ERP research findings about the type, quality and quantity of wetlands service 

provision. The HHWB component will also address potential disservices, which for 

wetlands may include risk of mosquito-borne disease. 

Characterization of ecosystem services in terms of HHWB is needed in all ERP project 

areas. In the Willamette Service District, for example, services generated from forests 

and surface waters will require translation into HHWB benefits, while the parameters of a 

healthful urban ecosystem invite exploration in Tampa Bay. Urban ecosystem services 

23
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

flow from both green infrastructure and the built environment, and contribute to HHWB 

endpoints such as physical fitness, mental health, and neighborhood stability. 

Research to classify and quantify HHWB endpoints is necessary in order to assign value 

to ecosystem services that can be compared to the traditionally valued benefits and costs 

of environmental protection activities. In the early stages of the program, HHWB 

endpoints may be most feasibly expressed in monetary terms, such as reduced flood 

insurance payments, recreational expenditures, and reduced costs of mosquito-control 

measures per wetland area. As the state of the science advances, health endpoints will be 

further quantified in terms of population risk of illness or mortality. The HHWB research 

component will seek a comprehensive evaluation of societal endpoints to facilitate a 

robust consideration of benefits and costs associated with projected changes in the bundle 

of services provided by an ecosystem or geographic area. 

Projects under consideration would deliver outputs such as: 

• Associations between the condition of stream habitat and sportfishing revenue. 

• Associations between the availability of urban green space and indicators of

mental function. 

• Models linking wetland condition, type, quantity, and placement to incidence of 

mosquito-borne disease in sentinel species. 

1.1.2 Analysis of the effect of service disruption on HHWB endpoints 

A second emphasis of the ERP is to elucidate the role of stressors in disrupting ecosystem

services. Significant ERP effort will address the mechanisms by which nitrogen is 

transported and transformed through ecosystem processes. The place-based initiatives 

will address additional stressors. HHWB research will focus on human vulnerability to 

the disruption of ecosystem services. Examples include pathogen levels associated with 

eutrophication of recreational waters, and the risk of tick-borne disease from 

fragmentation of forest habitat. Again, initial studies will address readily measured and 

proxy HHWB endpoints in order to populate ERP decision support tools. Quantification 

of health risks will require a longer-term effort. 

Life stage and socioeconomic status affect the manifestation of numerous HHWB effects 

related to the disruption of ecosystem services. Children and seniors are more vulnerable 

than the general population to air pollution, Lyme disease, and loss of autonomy in the 

built environment. The elderly are also the most susceptible to heat-island effects and 

mortality from natural disasters. Subsistence cultures are particularly at risk from the loss 

or degradation of wild food sources. In addition to dietary effects, Tribal Nations suffer 

unique cultural and spiritual impacts from diminished wildlife populations and habitat. 

Design of HHWB studies to illuminate life-stage and socioeconomic susceptibility will 

facilitate ERP alignment with other environmental health research activities, potentially 

enhancing both in-house and external efforts to evaluate stressor pathways, interactions, 

and outcomes. 

Projects under consideration would deliver outputs such as: 

24
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• Trends analysis of wetlands loss and economic impacts from flood damage. 

• Models of vector-borne disease risk from habitat encroachment and changes in 

biodiversity. 

• Estimates of morbidity and mortality from air pollution levels under alternative 

scenarios of urban design. 

1.1.3 Development of HHWB indicators and indices 

Accountability is an essential requirement for the ERP and across the Agency. HHWB 

research will seek to provide highly-valued measures of accountability for EPA decisions 

to protect and restore ecosystem services. Tracking these measures will also facilitate

validation of models and scenarios in ERP decision support tools. As data on critical 

HHWB endpoints may be inaccessible or nonexistent at relevant spatial or temporal 

scales, research will explore proxy metrics such as sales and distribution of 

pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. Where linkages between ecosystem services and 

human health are documented and the ecological data are more accessible at appropriate 

scales, results will include ecological indicators for use by other EPA programs in health 

accountability. Core research will also explore definitions and measures of individual 

and population health beyond incidence of disease and mortality. This work may include 

developing quality-of-life indicators and indices of population or community health that 

relate to flows of ecosystem services. Mature indices will be normalized for geography 

and demographic profile, with estimates of background variation in the absence of 

ecosystem service degradation. Regionally and nationally tractable measures and 

indicators will contribute to EPA’s Report on the Environment to reflect societal impacts 

of status and trends in ecosystem services. 

Examples of projects/concepts now being considered include: 

• Spatiotemporal analysis of links between disease rates and the sale or distribution 

of medical supplies/pharmaceuticals.

• Analysis of morbidity/mortality statistics and measures of ecosystem

condition/function/services. 

• Ecological indicators of human health risks. 

• Indices of well-being. 

It bears repeating that this entire area is exploratory, small, and offers the beginning of 

such research in ORD. The degree to which it is able to evolve into a larger effort 

remains to be seen. However, there is no doubt that it is important to assisting decision 

makers understand any direct or indirect implications on the communities they serve. As 

such, it is an endpoint in the ERP that is anticipated to provide significant added value. 

Table 4 summarizes the Annual Performance Goals associated with the HHWB 

component of LTG 1. 

25
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Description Year 

Due 

APG 1 

Develop and test preliminary indicators of human health and wellbeing for use in assessing the results of protecting and restoring 

ecosystem services. 

2010 

APG 2 

Characterize benefits to human health and well-being associated 

with the provision of selected ecosystem services in the ERP 

place-based initiatives. 

2011 

APG 3 Document relationships between disturbance to ecosystem

services and changes in human health outcomes or exposures. 

2012 

APG 4 

Develop, test, and implement an index of well-being applicable to 

multiple ecosystems, stressor scenarios, and ERP place-based

initiatives. 

2014 

Table 4 APGs for LTG 1 - Human Health and Well-Being Component 

1.2 Ecosystem Service Valuation 

The information provided to decision makers, and to society as a whole, must be in forms 

most useful for establishing policy and evaluating alternative decision options. Research 

output associated with LTGs 2-5 will quantify ecosystem services and policy-relevant 

changes in their delivery, but this output will address only one part of the challenge. The 

best environmental decisions are those informed by the values society places on the 

services provided by ecosystems. The central role played by societal values in decisionmaking requires the ERP to acknowledge valuation of ecosystem services as a key 

element of decision support. 

By 2014, the ERP will provide the information needed by environmental decision makers 

to use the values of ecosystem services and changes therein to make proactive policy and 

management decisions that ensure ecological and human well-being. Coordination of 

approaches and methodologies to value ecosystem services across all elements is required 

to ensure that we reach this goal. Coordination will: 

• Facilitate development of information about ecosystem services and their 

production that is most critical to the valuation process; 

• Encourage appropriate levels of standardization and consistency of approaches 

and measurement units to maximize comparability of the knowledge developed 

across program elements; 

• Optimize programmatic efficiencies by ensuring transferability of knowledge 

among program elements, and ultimately to decision makers and the public; and 

• Fill critical voids in ERP valuation expertise by fostering strategic alliances 

internally and externally.

26
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

The MEA (World Resources Institute 2005) and notable predecessor efforts (e.g., Daly 

1997, Costanza et al. 1997) brought international attention to the contributions made by 

ecosystems to human well-being. Although concepts of ecosystem services and their 

socioeconomic worth were introduced a century ago, the science underlying 

environmental policy based on this awareness remains underdeveloped. Significant and 

substantial contributions by natural and social scientists are needed to advance ecosystem

service science to the degree required for effective decision support. Transdisciplinary 

partnerships and collaboration are needed to produce: 

• New concepts for defining and classifying ecosystem services and bundles of 

those services; 

• Improved approaches and information for describing the production of services; 

and 

• Enhanced and supplemental methods for quantifying the values of ecosystem

services and innovative ways of using this knowledge in proactive environmental 

management decisions. 

The research required to achieve these advances is described below and summarized in 

Figure 7. 

1.2.1 Ecosystem Service Definitions and Classification 

Ecosystem services, and the ecological structures and processes that produce them, are 

varied and often interconnected. The MEA and others (e.g., Costanza et al. 1997, de 

Groot et al. 2002) offer definitions of particular ecosystem services and schemes to 

classify them, but typically do so only in broad terms. Individual services not currently 

traded in markets often lack standard definitions and units of measurement, and efforts to 

characterize their production quantitatively remain largely unguided. A concerted effort 

toward standardization of the definitions and measurement of ecosystem services will 

enhance the transparency and transferability of ERP research outputs. 

An important research contribution of the ERP by 2012 will be a Non-market Ecosystem 

Services Classification System (NESCS) based on the precepts of the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s North American Industrial Classification System (APG 5). The purpose of 

NESCS is to define and classify ecosystem services in a system that tracks their 

production, consumption, trade and markets. NESCS will aggregate ecosystem services 

in a hierarchical classification system based on similarities in their production and 

substitutes or complements in their consumption. Such standardization will enhance the 

value of ERP research to evaluations of policy alternatives, development of ecosystem 

service atlases, reports of trends in ecosystem services, and development of ecosystem 

service trading markets.

27
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP – Ecosystem Service Valuation stem Service Valuation

Science Questions Outcomes

How should ec should ecosystem services be 

described and classif and classified to best suppor best support Environmental policy and decision and decision makers will: evaluation aluation of policy alternatives,

development of ecosystem service  Utilize consist e consistent def ent definitions and ions and measures o easures of ecosystem markets, and tr s, and transferability of ERP services and ices and their values to support support evaluation of trade-offs research outputs? amongst co ongst competing dec ing decision alternatives

 Utilize unders e understanding of the relationships among ecologic ecological,

W economic and hu c and human health processes ocesses when environmental What ecologic ecological, economic and human decisions are made health factors should ors should be consider considered when 

describing ec ibing ecosystem service production 

functions?  Utilize appropr e appropriate and accepted methods for ecosystem

service valuation that reflect economic, ecologic ecological, social, 

cultural, and human health considerat considerations

Which econo ich economic and donor-based  Utilize knowledge of ledge of values to protect and rest ect and restore ecosy ore ecosystem

valuation m luation methods are most efficacious f cious for services to opt ices to optimize societal benef al benefits

valuing ecos luing ecosystem services?

ERP Long-term Goal 1

By 2014 the ERP will provide inno ide innovative online decision suppor decision support that offers EPA,

Regions, Regions, States, Tribes, local communities and resource managers the abilit he ability to

integrate, visualize, and maximize use of diverse dat rse data, models and tools at multiple 

scales to generat generate alternative decision decision options options and und and understand the consequences of he consequences of

management decisions on t decisions on the sustainability ainability of ecosystem services, their value and lue and 

human well-being. This long-term goal integrates the products of the other four long-t our long-term

goals.

Figure 7 Overview of LTG 1 - Valuation Component

1.2.2 Ecosystem Service Production Functions 

Ecosystem services are produced by the structures and processes of ecosystems, as 

influenced by human activity. These ecological features and their interactions can be 

described as the ecological (or biophysical) production function. The relationship 

between ecosystem services and human health might be characterized by a health 

production function. The economic value to society of an ecosystem service refers to its 

contribution to human welfare (through improving health, recreation, goods and services, 

or other aspects of well-being). Economic value is measured as society’s willingness-topay to preserve the ecosystem service, which is influenced by the quality and reliability 

of the service, its scarcity and degree of substitutability by other services, and the 

availability of complementary services—the economic production function. Once the 

physical effects of ecosystem services (and changes therein) on human health and wellbeing have been quantified, economic methods can be used to estimate the value of these 

changes. Thus, defining and quantifying these three components of the ecosystem

service production function are necessary ingredients to understanding value. 

28
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

As with most things in nature and society, the details of production functions are 

situationally-dependent. Yet, the science of ecosystem services, and its role in decision

making, will benefit from guidance communicating: 1) general issues to consider when 

describing ecosystem service production functions, 2) critical ecological, economic, and 

human health elements to include, and 3) important requirements to consider in support 

of the decision-support process. Like ecosystem service definition and classification, an 

appropriate degree of standardization in characterizing ecosystem service production 

functions will improve the transparency and transportability of the science we produce. 

By 2011, in association with construction of the NESCS, the ERP will develop broad 

guidance for characterizing ecosystem service production functions (APG 6). Production 

functions for key ecosystem services will be conceptualized to support understanding of 

policy-related linkages and to target critical components of those functions to ensure their 

conservation. Important attributes of conceptual production functions include their 

scalability and transportability across ecological and social settings. R. Costanza 

(personal communication) has classified the ecosystem services described in Costanza et 

al. (1997) based on the spatial characteristics of their production and consumption (Table 

5). This classification suggests nuances important to the characterization of the 

ecological, economic, and human health and well-being production functions. The 

research described in Section 1.1 will inform guidance for health and well-being 

production functions; research associated with LTGs 2-5 will inform guidance for 

ecological production functions. Other considerations influence the degree of 

mechanistic understanding needed to describe ecological and socioeconomic processes in 

production functions—generally, transferability of production function knowledge 

increases with mechanistic detail. The guidance and examples produced by the ERP will 

serve to clarify relationships among intermediate and final (or “directly enjoyed”) 

services to minimize problems of “double accounting” when values are determined and 

aggregated, and will be communicated as a module of the ERP decision support platform

(described in Section 1.4). 

Service Class Class Attributes Example Ecosystem Services 

Global/Nonproximal Benefit does not depend on 

proximity of service 

Climate regulation – carbon 

sequestration

Climate regulation – carbon 

storage 

Existence value 

Local Proximal Benefit depends upon 

proximity of service 

Disturbance regulation/storm

protection 

Waste treatment

Pollination 

Biological control 

Habitat/refugia 

29
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Service Class Class Attributes Example Ecosystem Services 

Direction Flowrelated 

Benefit received at points 

downstream of service 

production 

Water regulation/flood protection 

Water supply 

Sediment regulation/erosion 

control 

Nutrient control 

In situ Benefit received at point of 

service production 

Soil formation 

Food & non-timber forest 

production 

Raw material production 

User Movement 

Related 

Benefit received by people 

flowing to point of service 

production 

Genetic resources 

Recreation opportunities 

Unique cultural/aesthetic natural 

features 

Table 5 Classification of ecosystem services by spatial characteristics of their 

production (modified from Costanza, personal communication) 

1.2.3 Valuation Methods 

The ERP is pursuing economic methods as the primary strategic approach to valuation of 

ecosystem services, in part to support customary (and often mandated) decision processes 

based on benefit-cost analysis, and in part because money is an easily understood 

common denominator. Environmental economics is a well-established field, with 

formalized theory and concepts underpinning its valuation methods. Preliminary 

mappings of economic valuation methods onto arrays of ecosystem services are 

conveniently summarized by de Groot et al. (2002), Farber et al. (2006) and others. But 

the list of important ecosystem services is diverse and their production varied—economic 

valuation remains vexing for certain services not traded in markets (for which value 

cannot therefore be observed directly). Clarity and consensus about valuation methods 

most appropriate for various ecosystem services and policy contexts will facilitate 

proactive policy and management decisions that ensure human well-being (de Groot et al. 

2002). And although the recent activities of the SAB C-VPESS have helped to inform

EPA in this regard, outstanding issues remain with respect to the efficacy of certain 

valuation methods in specific situations. Approaches for economic valuation of bundles 

of services also will be needed to advance the ERP mission. 

General priorities for research improving valuation methods, and ecosystem services in 

general, is informed by considering the relative difficulties currently faced in developing 

ecological and economic production functions. When arrayed as a two-by-two matrix, 

ecosystem services falling into the “easy-easy” cell include those traded in markets and 

30
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

for which ecological production is well understood. Carbon sequestration, and the 

associated market for carbon offsets, is an example of this group. Conversely, some 

services—e.g., certain cultural and aesthetic services—are “difficult-difficult” because 

their ecological production is uncertain and their definition as commodities is 

challenging. The need for accepted valuation methods for services in the two 

economically “hard” cells of this matrix is acute if the values of these services are to 

contribute to decision making. 

In collaboration with our partners, the ERP will identify and participate in the valuation 

method research most critical to moving important services from “hard” to “easy” cells of 

the matrix. The upcoming report of the SAB C-VPESS on valuation methods for 

environmental decision-making will inform us of additional developmental needs.6

Specific research will be designed in future workshops, and strategic alliances will be 

developed to leverage the ERP's limited expertise and financial resources. Our STAR 

grant program, through the NCEE, will encourage the academic community to engage in 

exploration of novel economic methods. 

Neoclassical economic valuation methods are grounded in concepts of human utility, 

providing information about the value of ecosystem services as held by the receivers of 

those services—human society. As recommended by the SAB C-VPESS and others, and 

reflecting ORD's current expertise, the ERP will pursue development of donor-based 

methods of valuation to supplement economic approaches. Donor-based approaches—

often based on analysis of the stocks and flows of energy—use biophysical input 

accounting methods that provide alternative perspectives on nature’s worth and 

sustainability. The ERP will apply our resident expertise to elucidate the contributions of

donor-based valuation methods as supplements or alternatives to economic methods in 

environmental decision support. Additionally, the ERP will encourage development and 

evaluation by our partners of other non-economic valuation methods to supplement 

existing economic approaches. By 2014, the results of these efforts will be incorporated 

into the ERP decision support platform together with enhanced methods for economic

valuation to facilitate quantification of ecosystem service values (APG 7). 

Table 6 summarizes Annual Performance Goals associated with the Valuation component 

of LTG 1. 

6 The draft SAB C-VPESS report is available at http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/c-vpess_draft_03-09-

07.pdf

31
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Description Year 

Due 

APG 5 Non-market Ecosystem Service Classification System (NESCS) 

incorporated into DSP. 2012 

APG 6 Refined guidance of characterizing ecosystem service production 

functions for single and bundled services added to DSP. 2011 

APG 7 Enhanced economic and supplemental donor-based valuation 

methods fully incorporated into DSP. 2014 

Table 6 APGs for LTG 1 - Valuation Component 

1.3 Outreach and Education

The goal of Outreach and Education (OE) in the ERP is to ensure that ecosystem services 

are translated into terms, and communicated as concepts and products, in a way that 

compels decision makers and the public to informed action (as summarized in Figure 8). 

ERP – Outreach and Education

Science Que nce Questions Outcomes

• Ecosystem services ar ices are translated, communicated, and 

understood by stood by decision decision makers and the public. he public. How can decision m can decision makers’ use of ’ use of scienti scientific • Decision makers from policy to local levels embrace the information be enh ion be enhanced? (more use) importance of incorporating ecosy ing ecosystem services in their decision in their decision

matrix.

• The greatest needs of est needs of decision decision makers are met and activate 

ecosystem sensitive decisions, decisions, e.g., tailored development and 

How can ERP product can ERP products characterizing and delivery of projections a tions and char nd characterizations of consequenc consequences. projecting environmental consequences consequences • Training raining and educational m educational materials, models and tools are easily improve decision making? (better use) accessed and used well by decision m decision makers in decisions. decisions.

• Dynamic concept ic conceptual models are av ls are available t ailable to aid decision d decision maker

understanding standing of options, and pot and potential alter ial alternatives for 

management decisio ent decisions that can bet hat can better achieve desired desired 

environmental outcomes.

What parameters are required to ensure 

that env hat environmental deci al decisions lead t ions lead to • ERP produc RP products are used to enhance the integration of ecosystem

desired and desired and anticipated environmental services into decisions decisions impacting those services.

results? (effective outcomes of use) • Documented use o ented use of ecosystem services res ices results in ident s in identifiable 

improvement in the environment.

ERP Long-term Goal 1: Decision Support

By 2014 ORD will provide innovative online decision support that offers EPA, Regions, State s, States, Tribes, local communities and resource

managers the abili e ability to integrate, visualize, and maximize use of diverse data, models and tools at multiple sc iple scales to generate generate

alternative decision options options and understand the conseque e consequences of management decisions on the sustainabili the sustainability of ecosystem services, 

their value and human well-being. This long-term goal integrates the products of the other four long-term goals.

Figure 8 Overview of LTG 1 - Outreach and Education Component 

32
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Specific objectives to achieve this goal are to: 

• Determine what decision makers understand and need, and translate ecosystem

services in a way they understand and can use. 

• Produce and deliver educational products to enable decision makers to evaluate 

management options for achieving both human and environmental goals. 

• Ensure decision-makers know about and use ERP products effectively to enhance 

the integration of ecosystem services into decisions impacting those services. 

Under OE there is a dual need for fostering a strong connection with and understanding 

of client values and motivations, and creating an educational framework that ensures 

understanding and action. Satisfying this need will help us to bridge the gap between 

what people say they need and how they make decisions, and what they actually do. We 

will seek input from potential clients to determine what they want, and how to engage 

and assist them in product use and application for achieving environmental results. 

Outreach and Education depends on the use of existing capabilities, steady exchange 

among ERP projects and themes, as well as learning from others who are effectively 

connecting with local constituencies on environmental issues. In addition, establishing 

strong partnerships with organizations with missions complementary to the ERP will be 

an important component. One such organization, the World Resources Institute (WRI), 

has stated that one of its goals is to “Mainstream Ecosystem Services.” Discussions with 

WRI have suggested that, from an international and business community perspective, 

they could move us forward most quickly. Other NGOs that we have approached have 

also expressed interest our OE activities. OE will maximize use of existing and planned 

venues offered by independent organizations as a backdrop for outreach and education. 

As illustrated in Figure 9, the Outreach and Education Team has the task of ensuring 

connection with the entire array of participants within and outside EPA to foster 

communication, exchange, and mutual understanding of the products and purpose of the 

ERP. 

1.3.1 Establish client base, determine needs, values and understanding of 

ecosystem services to enhance ERP research 

Successful outreach is founded upon multi-way communication. For success we must 

seek input from a broad array of clients, create opportunities for clients and our team to 

exchange knowledge and perspectives, and ensure effective delivery of information. 

While outreach is an immediate need with primary efforts up front, ongoing interface 

with clients will characterize this research component. Research will also include 

evaluating what others have done that can compliment our work. We have three primary 

objectives: (1) define and engage diverse client groups, know who they are, what they 

know and don’t know about ecosystem services, and what they need to use ecosystem 

services in decision making, (2) capitalize on known decision processes to determine how 

and what to communicate to clients to enhance awareness and understanding of 

ecosystem services, related issues, and scientific advancements, (3) create a process to 

33
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP Decision Support

Decision Support

Charge

ERP

Strategic Plan

Theme Based

Goals & Needs

Outreach and

Education Team

Platform

Valuation

Health

Nitrogen Wetlands Coral Reefs

Carolinas Midwest Tampa Bay Willamette

Existing

Capabilities

Partnerships

& MOUs

Educational

Forums

Community

Actions

EPA Programs

Planners

County Boards

State Regulators

Federal Policy Makers

Non-governmental org 

Commercial Interests

Federal land owners

Public land owners

Interested parties

Others

Figure 9 Integrating Role of the Outreach and Education Team 

develop and nurture partnerships and collaborations with key internal and external 

decision makers, other clients, and the public. 

To accomplish OE objectives, a communication strategy will be developed upfront that 

includes processes for reaching appropriate audiences, and designing products and 

delivery mechanisms that will cause clients to use the concept of ecosystem service 

values in decisions. OE market research will include identifying individual and client 

categories, targets of opportunity for exchange, and existing and potential decision 

categories. The ERP goal is to provide research products and support to a broad clientele 

at multiple decision levels (e.g., EPA program offices and Regions, federal and nonfederal partners, politicians, state land use and regional planners, scientists, conservation 

organizations, developers, ecologists, economists, educators and other interested parties). 

In partnership with the ERP place-based and ecosystem type projects, OE will identify

and characterize potential clients and categories of decisions to better understand the 

breadth of problems to be addressed, the types of questions being asked, and who will 

likely make decisions about them. This information will be used to determine the types 

of products of greatest use to clients, and the types and challenges inherent in decision 

required for a variety of decision situations. 

34
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

In addition, outreach interviews and workshops will be conducted to gather information 

and exchange ideas. These exchanges will provide essential information for generating 

terms and descriptions that effectively translate the concept of ecosystem services that 

make it readily recognized by the public. OE is planning three workshops in different 

locations across the country to provide a platform for exploring the major stumbling 

blocks and opportunities for incorporating ecosystem services in local, regional and 

national decisions. These will supplement ERP place based workshops they may be 

planning. 

To better understand how to approach client decision processes, OE will incorporate 

lessons learned from the in-depth evaluation of existing decision tools being conducted 

by the Decision Support Platform (DSP) Team on the uses, strengths, limitations, 

potential applications and demonstrated value of on-line applications. We also will be 

seeking greater understanding about what on-line applications cannot accomplish and 

plan for alternative venues for education and decision support. 

1.3.2 Translate ecosystem services into a useful and useable conceptual framework 

for decision-makers 

As previously noted, translation of ecosystem services into something dynamic and 

useful for a broad clientele is needed to captivate the interest of very busy decision 

makers with ample economic and political pressure to think one-dimensionally about the 

values of development over conservation. Currently the expression “ecosystem services” 

means little to most people, with low recognition or emotional appeal in the decision 

community or general public. In fact, for many, the expression is obscure enough to be 

met with suspicion and rejection. It will not be enough to generate research and publish 

papers on ecosystem services or to place products on a web site to transform the health 

and environmental decision process. We need products and processes that energize 

clients, present new and sometimes non-intuitive outcomes that they would not have 

understood or recognized without these new approaches. 

Early efforts in outreach will provide information on what is and is not understood, and 

where challenges exist. Using this information and existing materials, overview and fact 

sheets will be improved, and an educational primer and new presentations will be 

generated to offer background information on the different elements of ecosystems

services and human well being, developed within the specific context of client-based 

questions and decisions. Case study examples will be used to augment the primer. 

Ecosystem service-based decisions and implementation require local and generally 

voluntary commitment. Although information provides a critical foundation, much more 

is needed to bring ecosystem services into decision making. Hands-on learning and 

powerful demonstrations illustrating how to achieve successful implementation and 

desired environmental and societal results are critical to decision makers’ interest in using 

this perspective. As a first step, a dynamic conceptual model builder is envisioned. 

While people use conceptual models in their daily lives, normally they do not commit 

them to paper. By giving mental constructs physical form, conceptual models render the 

ideas within them available to critical evaluation. They also provide a forum for 

35
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

exploration, and most important, for shared learning. Project teams working under the 

ERP will be generating conceptual models that characterize the relationships and issues

unique to the place or demonstration projects under development. OE will use these 

conceptual models, as well as others in the literature or generated by clients or OE, to 

create case examples of problem solving using ecosystem services as an organizing 

element. Conceptual models can then provide the structure for future tutorials on 

ecosystem services. 

1.3.3 Produce first generation guidance on decision pathways and applications of 

ecosystem service-based decisions and implementation for educational use 

Even with the use of typical conceptual models, the complexity of ecosystem services 

and human well-being in a decision context is well beyond the ability of individuals or 

groups to grasp. Thus our task is to create an understanding sufficient to tackle this 

complexity so that decisions will move away from being based on economics or health or

ecosystems alone, but instead to understand their influences on each other. Models that 

can handle complex and trans-disciplinary dynamic systems characterized by emergent 

properties are central to tackling this challenge. Using existing dynamic systems 

approaches and software, we plan to design an on-line model connector that can assist 

clients in building dynamic and illuminating models from those made available through 

the program and from others that open opportunities for creative thinking, better science 

questions, enhanced problem solving, improved decision making, and better solutions. In 

addition, clients who access and use these models have a powerful opportunity to educate 

others, and to offer feedback directly to the Program.. 

Guidance and model development needs to undergo testing in case studies to determine 

the effectiveness of our approaches. We will select one or more existing or ongoing 

activities within the ERP and within and outside government that are likely to offer good 

case study examples of communities using ecosystem service-based decisions making 

and implementation. Objective criteria for case selection will be generated and used to 

include an existing local or regional decision team interested in incorporating ecosystem

services into their decision matrix. 

Products will be uploaded onto the DSP for beta testing among a diverse clientele to seek 

input on successful use, value, and opportunities for improvement. 

1.3.4 Activate education/training products and evaluate implementation of ES 

based decisions on achieving environmental results 

In the final phase, OE products will be finalized and activated on the ERP DSP (see 

Section 1.4.4) including educational materials, case studies, and dynamic systems 

training modules. Final on-line testing of training modules will be completed with 

selected partners. 

Although the DSP is to consolidate a broad array of information, case studies, projects, 

models and other products for the entire ERP to make it accessible to a broad audience, 

36
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

just using a DSP can be overly challenging. OE will assist in engaging users through the 

education and training products. 

Finally, providing information on a great DSP alone will not achieve environmental 

results. Specific outreach work will be conducted to document the environmental and

social outcomes realized when clients incorporated ecosystem service thinking and 

approaches into their decision matrix. Lessons learned from successes as well as 

challenges will provide next steps for outreach activities and decision support. 

Table 7 summarizes Annual Performance Goals associated with the Outreach and 

Education component of LTG 1. 

Description

Year 

Due 

APG 8 

Create diverse client base, determine client needs, values, 

understanding of ecosystem services to enhance research and 

decision support development 

2009 

APG 9 Translate ecosystem services into a useable conceptual 

framework for decision makers 2012 

APG 10 Produce first generation case study application of ecosystem

service-based decisions and implementation for education 2013 

APG 11 Activate education/training products and evaluate implementation 

of ES based decisions on achieve environmental results 2014 

Table 7 APGs for LTG 1 - Outreach and Education Component 

1.4 Decision Support Platform (DSP)

Making the information available to all those who can use the information, in a form they 

can best use it, is fundamentally important to the ERP. Thus, as summarized in Figure 

10, we have set as a goal that by 2014, the ERP will provide an innovative online 

decision support platform (DSP) that offers regional, state, tribal, and local decisionmakers resources, tools, models and integrated decision analysis capabilities to help 

inform decisions at multiple scales and increase the understanding of the consequences of 

these decisions on the sustainability of ecosystem services and human well-being. To

maximize their application to the field of ecosystem services, and to improve the value of 

decision support, we will develop a DSP that integrates, applies, and effectively and 

logically delivers to both technical and non-technical audiences the research outputs (i.e., 

case studies, models, maps, and other tools) associated with Long-term Goals 2-5. This 

is the overall purpose for the DSP. Direct input from ERP clients (as collected through 

ERP Outreach and Education) as well as evaluation of other relevant decision support 

37
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP – Effective Decision S ffective Decision Support

Outcomes

Science Questions

Decision Support Pla ort Platform will be developed to provide effective

decision support to inform the protection, restoration and 

W enhancement of Ecosystem Services by: What decision support tools are needed to

protect, enhance, and restore the delivery  Identifying, evaluating and categorizing existing available of ecosystem services at multiple spatial 

DS tools (i.e. lo s (i.e. local-policy scale applicability) scales?  Identifying and evaluating gaps in tool capabilities to address 

Ecosystem Service decision needs

 Developing DS Platform to support and disseminate

How can Decision Support effectively Ecosystem Service DS tools

facilitate inclusion of ecosystem services

and values in decisions made at all scales Protection, restoration and enhancement of Ecosystem Services will

(i.e. local to policy level)? be considered/incorporated at National/Policy Level scale and 

Local/Regional/Tribal Scales by:

W  Understanding top environmental policy priorities/challenges What types of models, electronic tools,  Identifying gaps in available tools to inform decisions and evaluation of management option  Developing user friendly DS tools to provide sound scientific techniques will best assist decision

m options that fully incorporate, protect and enhance desired makers in incorporating ecosystem ecosystem services services into their decisions (e.g. st s (e.g. stand

alone or web based)?

Decision makers are using ERP DSP to evaluate management

options inclusive of the value of ecosystem services.

ERP Long-term Goal 1

ERP will provide an innovative on-line decision support that offers EPA, Regions, States, States, Tribes, local communities 

and resource managers the ability to integrate, visualize and maximize use of diverse data, models and tools at

multiple scales to generate alternative decision options and understand the consequences of management decisions

on the sustainability of ecosystem services, their value and human well-being. This long term goal integrates the

products of the other four long-term goals 

Figure 10 Overview of LTG 1 - Decision Support Platform Component 

approaches, will also contribute to development of the DSP. Careful consideration is 

required to determine how these products/approaches will be harmonized and presented,

when they will be interactive and synthesized for decision analysis or delivered as 

interactive or passive educational materials. In some cases the DSP will need to serve as 

a portal for accessing ERP, ORD and outside resources. 

The ERP DSP team comprises individuals with expertise and experience in decision 

support, statistics, software development, web-based systems, modeling, decision 

analysis, program management, and includes representatives from all other ERP teams.

Many of the DSP team members have developed decision support tools and systems in 

the past, and therefore understand the necessity of involving users/clients in the very 

early stages of, and throughout, development in order to meet their needs. Partnerships 

must be developed with both government (federal, state, local, and tribal) and nongovernment organizations. Expertise from outside of EPA will also be continually 

sought to guide the development of the DSP. 

38
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Creation of an effective decision support platform faces many challenges, including: 

• The diversity of the audience for which the DSP is intended – from local level 

decision makers to policy level decision makers and the multiple scales at which 

they are making their decisions. 

• The numerous types of ERP products, e.g., electronic and non-electronic, webbased or non-web-based, etc., which have different architectures but need to be 

housed and potentially integrated on one platform. 

• The obstacle of getting people to use decision support tools/systems. 

A number of research and design activities are needed to ensure the DSP overcomes these 

challenges and meets the objectives of the ERP. The DSP Team will rely heavily on 

results of other ERP teams to achieve its overall goal. The primary activities the DSP 

team will undertake are: 

• Identification of ERP and non-ERP products such as tools, approaches, models, 

techniques, etc. to address client needs (as determined through Outreach and 

Education) and the development of DSP architecture foundation requirements. 

This will be done in close coordination with other ERP teams. 

• Development of the DSP architecture including design and delivery options for 

multiple users at multiple scales for best access and use. 

• Population of modules of the DSP (with assistance from other ERP teams) and 

dissemination (with assistance from Outreach and Education) for interactive beta 

testing and client feedback. 

• Release of fully functional, on-line DSP and tracking its use and usefulness. 

1.4.1 Identification of Products Such as Tools, Approaches, Techniques, Models, 

etc. and DSP Architecture Foundation Requirements 

As part of the ERP, the DSP team must prepare a research and implementation plan 

detailing activities and milestones for the team. This plan will be developed with input 

from all other ERP teams. It will be peer-reviewed prior to implementation. 

The DSP needs to meet the needs of all types of decision makers at multiple scales. This 

daunting task will be attacked in several different ways. 

• The ERP is in the process of developing a multitude of products for different 

types of decision-makers. All of these products (e.g., decision support tools, 

models, approaches, techniques, etc.), or the knowledge provided by them, need 

39
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

to be incorporated into the DSP. This will be a significant undertaking and the 

DSP team plans to coordinate directly with all other ERP teams in order to ensure 

that the ERP products developed are appropriately placed on the DSP either as a 

stand-alone product, a resource link, or as an integrated part of the decision 

analysis capability and in the appropriate module. This is an on-going process; 

however, the initial collection of information regarding products should be 

complete by 2009. 

• In FY08, the Outreach and Education Team (in close coordination with the DSP 

team) will be conducting client-focused assessments and workshops to better 

understand the breadth of problems to be addressed (e.g., why ecosystem services 

are not valued or incorporated into decisions), the types of questions being asked, 

and who will likely address them. This information, in concert with information 

from other ERP-related workshops, will be used by the DSP team in FY09 to 

determine the types of products of greatest use to clients and the types and 

challenges inherent in decisions required for a variety of decision situations. 

• EPA and other agencies and organizations have developed a multitude of

decision support tools/approaches/techniques that are relevant to the work of the 

ERP including valuation of ecosystem services and human health and well-being. 

While no one tool/approach/technique will likely be wholly adopted for use in the 

ERP, it is important to learn what others have done successfully and then 

incorporate those successful aspects into the ERP DSP while considering both the 

ERP products and the needs of clients. This evaluation effort should be 

completed by 2009. 

1.4.2 Development of DSP Architecture 

After the information collection step is complete and documented, the DSP Team will be

able to determine the requirements for the DSP architecture foundation. In other words, 

the team will be able to lay out a conceptual model for the DSP to demonstrate how the 

pieces will all fit together. 

ERP products will be in many different forms and architecture (e.g., electronic, nonelectronic, web-based, non-web-based, open source software, commercial software, etc.) 

that need to be brought together in one platform. Because the ERP DSP is intended to be 

an on-line platform, it is necessary to determine the software/server needs required by the 

applicable products identified above (e.g., tools, approaches, models, techniques). 

Through 2009, the DSP team will evaluate and determine software/server needs and 

requirements and provide software architecture guidelines to electronic tool/model 

developers. This work will be done in concert with the product identification step and 

will engage EPA’s Office of Environmental Information and other information 

technology experts. Platform architecture design will occur in 2010, with a period of

review by ERP teams and other clients following in FY2011. By the end of FY2011, the 

platform architecture will be revised, refined, and enhanced, at which point the 

“skeleton” of the DSP will be available on-line. 

40
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

1.4.3 Population of DSP Modules and Dissemination 

Goosen et al. (2007) warn that many decision support tools and systems are not being 

used to the extent intended. This paper provides suggestions for how to improve the 

"success rate" for decision support tools and systems. The ERP DSP team will strive to 

overcome others’ mistakes in this area so that the DSP is actually used by those for which 

it was intended. 

Once the “skeleton” of the DSP is available, ERP teams can begin to populate the DSP 

with products (e.g., tools, approaches, models, techniques). It is envisioned that separate 

modules will exist in order to meet the different needs of different decision-makers. It is 

desirable to include information, resources, approaches, techniques, tools, models, and 

integrated decision analysis for each module; however, in practice, it is likely that 

different modules will be populated at different rates and with different types of products. 

It is the goal of the DSP team to populate at least two modules of the DSP in 2012 in 

order to disseminate these for interactive beta testing and client feedback. The 

dissemination process will be primarily performed by the ERP Outreach and Education 

team who will educate and encourage the use of the DSP. Feedback will be obtained via 

several mechanisms including workshops, conferences, beta test projects, and an on-line 

mechanism. This feedback will be used to refine and enhance the first two modules and 

inform the development of additional modules. 

1.4.4 Release of DSP and Tracking Results 

The fully functional DSP will be released in 2014. Web-statistics and testimonials will 

be collected for an additional period of time yet to be determined. The DSP team will 

attempt to collect information related to how the DSP: 

• Informs the protection, restoration, and enhancement of ecosystem services, 

• Enables decision makers to evaluate management options inclusive of the value of 

ecosystem services and human health and well-being, 

• Encourages the consideration/incorporation of ecosystem services in decisions at 

the national/policy-level scale and at the local/regional/tribal scales. 

ERP will also attempt to measure additional positive outcomes, such as: 

• An increase in the number of decisions which include traditionally non-market 

costs and benefits 

• Increased availability of ecosystem services 

Table 8 summarizes Annual Performance Goals associated with the Decision Support 

Platform component of LTG 1. 

41
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Description

Year 

Due 

APG 12 

Identify ERP and non-ERP products such as tools, approaches, 

techniques, models, etc. to address user needs and develop DS 

Platform architecture foundation requirements 

2010 

APG 13 Develop Decision Support Platform Architecture 2011 

APG 14 Populate two modules of the DS Platform and disseminate for 

interactive Beta testing and client feedback 2012 

APG 15 Populate additional modules of the DS Platform and disseminate 

for interactive Beta testing and client feedback 2013 

APG 16 Fully functional DS Platform is on-line and utilized by clients to 

incorporate ecosystem services into the decision process. 2014 

Table 8 APGs for LTG 1 - Decision Support Platform Component 

1.5 References

Farber, S. et al. 2006. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. 

Bioscience 56:121-133. 

Costanza, R. et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystems services and natural 

capital. Nature 387:253-260. 

Daly, G. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island 

Press, Washington, DC. 

de Groot, R.S., M.A. Wilson and R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the 

classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and 

services. Ecological Economics 41:393-408. 

Goosen, H., R. Janssen and J. Vermaat. 2007. Decision support for participatory 

wetland decision-making. Ecological Engineering 30:187-199 

World Resources Institute. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Living Beyond 

Our Means—Natural Assets and Human Well-Being. World Resources Institute, 

Washington, DC. 

42
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

LTG 2—NATIONAL INVENTORY, MAPPING, AND MONITORING 

2.0 Introduction

Research and products developed in support of long-term goal (LTG) 2 will enable 

Agency, state, and local governments, non-government organizations, and other decisionmakers to assess the likely effects of management actions on ecosystem services. 

Assessments can be retrospective (evaluating the effectiveness of past management 

practices) or prospective (in order to anticipate and better protect against unintended 

consequences). Ecological monitoring, modeling, and mapping have been mainstays of 

ecological science, both within the Agency and for the discipline as a whole. This LTG 

builds upon the strengths and successes of the ERP, particularly its extensive landscape

ecology, and ecological modeling experience, and its implementation of the 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). 

Within the ERP, ecological monitoring is essential for ensuring that assessments of 

ecological condition, integrity, and ecosystem services are unbiased and representative. 

Modeling is an essential analytical tool for forecasting changes, while mapping has long 

been fundamental to resource management, both for resource conservation, and for 

resource development. Technologies for monitoring, modeling, and mapping have 

improved dramatically in the last decade. ERP research associated with LTG 2 will bring 

these three capabilities together in innovative ways that strengthen and mutually reinforce 

our ability to assess, explore, and sustain the provision of ecosystem services in the

United States. 

2.1 Research on Monitoring Approaches for an Ecosystem Services Inventory

Decision-makers need consistent and credible assessments of the quantity, quality, and 

location of ecosystem services at the local, state, regional and national levels; effective 

monitoring plays a key role in producing these assessments. First and foremost, 

monitoring produces quantitative descriptions of services' current status and, over time, 

trends in the characteristics of interest. With this information, decision makers can assess 

whether a problem is big or small, whether it is it widespread or localized in hotspots, and 

whether there is an observable response to policy measures (i.e., are things getting better 

or worse?). In addition, an effective monitoring program will provide the input data 

necessary to run forecasting models. The monitoring component of LTG 2 will comprise 

development of a framework for supplying the data necessary to fulfill these two primary 

monitoring functions. In collaboration with other organizations within and outside of 

EPA, ERP will then test and demonstrate the framework's utility. 

ERP's monitoring research will proceed within the broader context of developing 

ecosystem service inventories, or accountings of the various services provided by distinct 

ecosystems. Over the past two decades, there have been numerous calls to undertake 

such an accounting (Repetto et al. 1989, England 1998, Banzhaf and Smith 2002, Boyd 

43
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

and Banzhaf 2005, Kremen and Ostfeld 2005, Repetto 2007), but to date, these efforts 

have not achieved the necessary combination of ecological specificity, statistical rigor,

and collaboration with end users required to create a viable system. The Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment (2005) ranks as the first global attempt to provide an assessment 

of the quality and quantity of the services provided by ecosystems around the world. 

Similarly, there have been several efforts to galvanize a focus around assessing and 

reporting on key indicators of our nation’s ecological condition (Heinz Center 2002, EPA 

2003, NRC 2000). While these efforts have not specifically focused on indicators of 

ecosystem services, it is clear that the authors believed the indicators proposed and used 

would document important characteristics of ecological systems that are relevant to 

determining ecosystem services. 

The primary objective for the ERP’s ecosystem service inventory is to conduct research 

on quantifying ecosystem services and proposing a design that will lay the foundation for 

the United States to implement a national ecosystems services inventory. We propose to 

develop the scientific tools and technologies that will allow the nation’s ecosystem

services to be periodically assessed and interpreted by decision-makers and the public. 

The framework must consist of at least two dimensions. Knowing what to measure to 

most effectively represent the ecosystem services of interest is a necessary first step in the 

design of an ecosystems services inventory. Second, implementing the design also 

requires specification of the spatial units within which measurements will occur, whether 

the same spatial unit can be used for all metrics measured, how inferences will be made 

to more than the few systems measured, how the information will be summarized and 

reported, and how frequently the attributes must be measured. We also believe that the 

development and implementation of a national ecosystem services inventory will take 

place within the context of existing Agency programs. Research on the design of an 

inventory framework will consider each of these issues. 

Boyd and Banzhaf (2005) suggested useful characteristics of an ecosystem service 

inventory that might constrain design alternatives. They also argued that rigorously and 

consistently defined ecosystem service metrics (units, in their terminology) must be 

consistent with the principles of the underlying ecology and with the economic 

accounting system to which they will be applied. They propose the following definition: 

“Final ecosystem services are components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used 

to yield human well-being.” They explicitly exclude ecological processes and functions

as services and intermediate services. Subsequently, they note that ecosystem services 

occur in a spatial context that can affect the quantity of the service provided. The 

implication is that the design of an inventory of ecosystem services must include the 

spatial context. Construction of an ecosystem services index requires not only estimates 

of the quantity of the services but also a “weight” or value assigned to the service. The 

social value of the quantity of ecosystem services produced is also spatially dependent. 

This further argues for the design of an inventory program that is spatially explicit. Little 

attention has been given, however, to what spatial units may be appropriate in measuring 

ecosystem services. They only note that the services “should be measured in the most 

spatially explicit manner that is practicable” and that they “envision mapping each 

service at a relatively fine resolution.” Ecosystem service benefits also differ in the 

44
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

spatial characteristics of their production. Benefits received from services production 

may be global/non-proximal, local proximal, direction flow-related, in-situ, or user 

movement related (see the Valuation component of LTG 1). 

Figure 11 illustrates the five primary science questions for the monitoring component of 

LTG 2 and the outcomes we intend to achieve by answering these questions. 

Science Question #1: Are there direct measurements of ecosystem services that can be 

monitored or is it necessary to measure other ecosystem attributes and infer or model 

ecosystem services from them? 

The ERP has committed to providing tools to address the ecosystem services listed in 

Table 9. 

Supporting 

Services 

Regulating 

Services Provisioning Services Cultural Services 

• Carbon storage • Nutrient • Food and fiber production • Recreational 

• Habitat/ cycling • Fuels opportunities 

maintenance of 

biodiversity 

• Flood 

reduction 

• Water-provisioning 

(described separately as 

• Sense of place 

• Storm-surge water quality, quantity, 

protection and timing of flows) 

Table 9 Core ecosystem services 

Any monitoring framework related to ecosystem services will necessarily provide 

indicators related to each of these services. A fundamental need is to identify if, and 

when, direct measures of these services are possible and when surrogates are necessary. 

It is instructive to consider the data gaps identified by Carpenter et al (2006) that impeded 

the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Many of the specific data gaps are associated 

with ecosystem attributes that are fundamental to the services, rather than the services

themselves. These gaps are: 1) global time series on land cover change, 2) location and 

rate of desertification, 3) global maps of wetlands distribution, 4) systematic information 

on stocks, flows, and economic values of many ecosystem services (e.g., freshwater 

fisheries, natural hazard regulation, groundwater, pollination), 5) trends in human 

reliance on ecosystem services, 6) systematic local and regional assessments of the value 

of ecosystem services, and 7) connections between data on human services and 

ecosystems. 

45
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP – Monitoring Approaches for an 

Ecosystem Services Inventory

Science Questions Outcomes

Responsive, low variability indicators for estimating ecosystem

What are direct and indirect indicators or services and communicating changes in those services to the

ecosystem services tha services that can be measured? asured? public will be developed.

What are the scalar and the scalar and spatial issues that Designs Designs will be developed that allow scientifically defensible ensible must be re st be resolved to develop a monitoring quantification of key ecosystem services. design for ecosy r ecosystem services?

New approaches for estimating ecosystem services at local to How can new approaches to ecosystem national scales will be tested for their scientific rigor and service sampling, “census,” and existing

applicability for trend detection i tection in selected services. natural resource surveys be combined to 

test the usefulness of these approaches?

ERP Mon ERP Monitoring in Long-term Goal 2

ERP will deliver a publicly accessible ccessible, scalable, national atlas, an in atlas, an inventory system, and 

models for selected ecosystem services that can be quantified directly directly or indirectly across 

the U.S. to be used by the Agency, NGO’s, an O’s, and other decisio r decision makers to support 

prioritizing policy and management acti nt actions and ons and their consequences.

Figure 11 Overview of LTG 2 - Monitoring Component

A review of the ecological indicators selected by the National Research Center (2000), 

Heinz Center (2002), and EPA (2003), shows almost none of the indicators would be 

direct measures of ecosystem services but rather measures of ecological characteristics 

fundamental to the availability of services from these systems. Recognition of this has 

given rise to a focus on “Nature’s Capital” (Irwin and Ranganathan 2007), which refers 

to the fundamental characteristics, both structure and function, of ecosystems that must 

be protected and maintained if services are to be available. To a large extent, the 

characteristics described in this context are more amenable to monitoring and yet 

fundamental to maintenance of ecosystem services. For example, biodiversity is an 

ecosystem characteristic that is directly measurable and critical to the provisioning of 

services in each of the four major categories of ecosystem services (supporting, 

regulating, provisioning and cultural). Land cover provides another example, where 

remote sensing provides a powerful tool often used to generate complete and detailed 

“maps” of land cover and can be effectively monitored over time. Land cover itself is not 

a direct measure of ecosystem services. However, land cover can be combined with other 

information layers and models to generate maps of expected ecosystem services. Thus, 

an ecosystem services monitoring framework must ensure that the underlying ecosystem

46
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

characteristics are measured as well as the necessary supporting data to translate those 

characteristics into ecosystem services. 

ERP research will: 

• Review major ecological assessments and identify indicators that can be directly 

measured. 

• Identify indirect measures of ecosystem services.

• Collaborate with other components of ERP to establish the relationship between 

direct measures of ecosystem structure and function that can be quantifiably 

linked to ecosystem services. 

• Identify measurable indicators of the direct and indirect drivers of changes in 

ecosystem services. 

Science Question 2: What are the implications for inventory design when ecosystem 

services must be reported at multiple scales? 

If ecosystem services are to be incorporated into the decision-making process in the 

United States, then it will be necessary to know the type, quantity, and distribution of 

ecosystem services provided at multiple scales. A national ecosystems services index 

(ESI) or "green GDP" account requires reporting at the national scale. Components of an 

ESI, as well as the ESI, could be included in EPA’s Report on the Environment (EPA 

2007) or the Heinz Center’s State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report (Heinz Center 2002). 

These reports provide state-of-the-nation information useful for tracking progress and 

seeing the effects of policy decisions. Regional and state decision-makers are likely to 

want information specific to their geopolitical region. From an ecological perspective 

reporting the quantity and quality of ecosystem services using non-geopolitical regions 

(e.g. ecoregions or hydrologic regions) may be useful. Planning and decision making 

occurs at multiple spatial scales and for many different types of spatial regions. The 

place-based demonstrations within the ERP (LTG 5) provide examples of different types 

of regions where decisions need to occur. 

ERP research will: 

• Identify the requirements for reporting at multiple spatial scales. 

• Determine whether this places constraints on the design of an inventory for 

ecosystem services. 

Science Question #3: What spatial units are appropriate for measuring ecosystem 

services and what are the advantages and disadvantages of measuring ecosystem 

services by ecosystem types or with a common spatial unit?

47
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

As Banzhaf and Smith (2002) suggest, 

[J]udgments would have to be made about the best way to describe the 

services these assets provide and thus to collect the relevant data. Market 

goods generally come to consumers in reasonably well-defined units, often 

- discrete packages. Even services available from private markets 

typically have a unit of account that has been determined by the market. 

But what are the “units” we should use to measure changes in air quality?

From one place to another and from one time period to another, air quality 

may be impaired by different pollutants, and furthermore each pollutant 

may be important to people for different reasons. Some pollutants may 

have cumulative impacts resulting from long-term exposure. Others may 

have serious effects following acute episodes. Moreover, these ambient 

concentrations can vary continuously over space and time, rather than 

being sold in discrete packages at discrete locations. 

How are ecosystem services best captured - by examining individual ecosystem types 

(e.g., forests, wetlands, streams, etc), by examining collections of ecosystems which 

provide the necessary service, or are both needed? The MEA (2005) suggests that one 

can look to individual types of systems (e.g., marine, inland waters, forests, wetlands, dry 

lands). This approach of developing designs based on ecosystem types (and classes 

within these types) is consistent with the basic monitoring already done in the US (e.g., 

EPA and States for freshwater systems, the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) for forests and agricultural systems, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and EPA for coastal systems). What is/are the critical scales of 

the monitoring design? Are ecosystem services best viewed at a single scale or are their 

compelling reasons to estimate services over multiple spatial extents? Currently, 

monitoring is done at the plot scale in the US and then inferences are made to larger 

geographic areas statistically, based on the sampling design criteria. 

In the past, significant time and effort have been spent debating the appropriate spatial 

framework to use for monitoring and reporting: watersheds, ecoregions, hydrologic units 

(HUCs), geopolitical areas, soil and geological regions. This issue is perhaps even more 

pressing for monitoring ecosystem services, where spatial characteristics govern the 

“production” and “use” of these services (Costanza 2007). As frequently has been the 

case, and as we believe will be the case for ecosystem services, there is no unique 

solution. We must find a productive way to incorporate each of these perspectives. 

Designing a monitoring network also requires a very explicit description of the answers 

that are expected to be provided. It is often useful to think of the one or two key graphs, 

charts, or tables in a report that would be used to communicate the results. For example, 

EPA’s Office of Water made explicit decisions that it was necessary to report on the 

length of stream and river having certain characteristics (e.g., length of river with 

nitrogen exceeding expected background levels) and for estuaries to report on the 

estuarine area having certain qualities (e.g., area of estuary with benthic index below a 

certain threshold). Special attention will have to be given to ensuring congruency 

48
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

between the underlying ecology of ecosystems and the services provided with the desires 

of policy makers for reporting. For example, it is possible to conceive of the biological 

integrity, nutrient concentrations, or habitat quality of any point or segment of a stream. 

We can develop the indicators, monitor specific locations and report the results in the 

context of use for policy (e.g., length of stream with nutrient concentrations exceeding a 

critical threshold). Can we conceive of ecosystem services in a similar way? Does a 

particular point on a stream provide storm-surge protection or nutrient removal? Or do 

the measurements and assessment have to occur at a different scale? And if so, at what 

scale should they occur? Will ecosystem service indicators need to reflect the spatial 

scale, pattern, or connectivity of the underlying biophysical and landscape features that 

govern production of the service? Will indicators need to vary by ecosystem service of 

concern? If this latter view is true, it significantly complicates the framework for a 

monitoring design. This level of specificity is necessary to design a useful monitoring 

framework. 

ERP research will: 

• Identify the specific forms of answers that are needed about ecosystem services 

and identify the design constraints arising from them. 

• Evaluate existing federal monitoring efforts for compatibility with ecosystem

service reporting needs. 

• Evaluate the congruency between the underlying ecological meaning of the 

indicators and the desired reporting frameworks. 

Science Question #4: Can an ecosystem services inventory be based on a “census” or 

will it be necessary to sample the nation’s ecosystems? 

Banzhaf and Smith (2002) state 

“more data would need to be collected on a more systematic basis to 

represent the condition of the services being provided by diverse natural 

assets on a national scale. Even where government agencies and private 

parties are currently collecting data, they frequently target problem areas, 

rather than developing a sample that would adequately represent the 

country.” 

Collecting national, representative data on ecosystem service indicators is an enormous 

undertaking. Currently, no national effort exists to provide the data. Olsen et al (1999) 

reviewed major natural resource monitoring and inventory programs; they concluded that 

gaps exist, but that existing programs could form a foundation for a coordinated national 

monitoring and inventory program. Recently, the National Academy of Public 

Administration (NAPA 2007) recommended institutional options for developing a 

national system of environmental indicators. Building upon existing agencies’ efforts is 

essential, although many unanswered questions and gaps remain. The Heinz Center 

49
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

(2006) identified the priority gaps in monitoring necessary to provide the indicators that 

they had identified as essential and concluded that additional monitoring and funding 

were needed to accomplish the task. 

A critical question to be addressed is whether it is possible, and cost-effective, to directly 

measure ecosystem service metrics everywhere, and to repeat the measurements every 

five to ten years. Such a census approach to an inventory is appealing as it enables the 

information to be used at multiple spatial scales. Certainly, we can census land cover 

using satellite imagery and then apply models and other data layers to “map” areas of 

potential ecosystem services. 

When a census approach is not feasible, or cost-effective, an alternative is to conduct 

surveys similar to current natural resource surveys (e.g., the U.S. Forest Service's Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA), the USDA National Resource Conservation Service's 

(NRCS) National Resource Inventory, EPA's national aquatic assessments, and USDA's 

National Agricultural Statistic Service surveys). There would be substantial benefit to 

using data from existing monitoring networks for assessing ecosystem services, but such 

an approach has not been demonstrated for use in determining ecosystem services. 

A second alternative to a census is monitoring a limited number of “representative” sites. 

This is a common approach in networks that are primarily research networks such as

NSF’s Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) and NSF’s proposed National 

Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). While this approach has been effective for 

research, it has seldom been adopted as the primary design framework for long-term 

monitoring networks that require estimates of uncertainty in their assessments. 

ERP research will: 

• Investigate issues associated with combining spatial data based on different 

spatial units.

• Evaluate alternatives for development of a national ES inventory, including 

census and probability-based survey designs. 

• Propose design framework requirements for a national ES inventory.. 

Science Question #5: What demonstrations are needed to fill gaps in the Inventory 

Framework? 

National-scale data exist on recent land cover/use in the National Land Cover Dataset 

(NLCD, see LTG 2 Mapping) across the contiguous US. The survey programs noted 

above area also a source of national-scale data. In addition, the EPA’s Office of Water 

conducts National Aquatic Resource Surveys (using probability-based monitoring 

designs and condition indicators), which provide nationally representative data on the 

condition of aquatic ecosystems at the regional and national levels. While these data are 

at the national-scale, an important question is whether or not they can be used to 

50
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

construct selected indicators of ecosystem services and thereby provide for the rapid 

development of at least select components of a national inventory. 

The monitoring research will collaborate with the place-based research and ecosystembased research components of the ERP. Both have identified objectives and questions 

relevant to the monitoring framework objectives. For example, the ERP wetland 

component has as a research question: “What is the relationship between the abundance, 

distribution, and condition of wetlands in the landscape and the delivery of ecosystem

services?” And, the Willamette Ecosystem Services component of the ERP has as one of 

its objectives: “Develop an approach to inventory and map ecosystem services ... based 

on current conditions and available data in order to establish a base line for future 

conditions.” Interaction will also occur with the mapping component of LTG 2 that has 

as one of its primary goals the development of a publicly accessible and scalable National 

Atlas of Ecosystem Services. These collaborations are essential for the ERP to provide

credible and consistent recommendations at all scales for a national ecosystem services

inventory. 

EPR research will: 

• Evaluate the Office of Water’s national aquatic survey indicators for direct and 

indirect indicators of ecosystem services. 

• Generate interim national estimates of several ecosystem services for aquatic 

systems. 

• Collaborate with the mapping team to develop recommendations on national 

monitoring of land cover. 

• Collaborate with the mapping team to provide change estimates of ecosystem

services derived from land cover.

Table 10 summarizes the Annual Performance Goals associated with the monitoring 

component of LTG 2. 

2.2 Integrated Modeling of Ecosystem Services

Modeling forms a bridge between empirical monitoring of ecosystem services and 

mapping of those services. For LTG 2, the ERP will use, develop, adapt, or refine 

models to quantify the key interactions among the structure and function of ecosystem 

components, including the services they provide; to quantify stressor-response 

relationships among common stressors and ERP-selected ecosystem service endpoints; to 

explore likely future conditions, using forecasting methods and scenario-building 

techniques; and to estimate major sources of uncertainty in our understanding of 

ecosystem behavior. The models will provide important analytical capabilities within the 

context of the proposed Decision Support Platform (see LTG 1). 

51
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Description Year 

Due 

APG 17 Peer reviewed research and implementation plan for developing a 

national ecosystem services inventory. 2009 

APG 18 Direct or indirect measures for select ecosystem services have 

been established. 2011 

APG 19 Implications for combining monitoring data based on different 

spatial scales understood. 2012 

APG 20 Suitability of existing federal monitoring efforts for assessing 

ecosystem services has been determined. 2013 

APG 21 Design requirements for reporting at multiple spatial scales have 

been determined. 2013 

APG 22 A monitoring framework for a national ecosystem services 

inventory is available. 2014 

Table 10 APGs for LTG 2 - Monitoring Component 

The ERP has extensive experience in ecological modeling, but has never before set for 

itself the challenge of creating a community of practice for models that have ecosystem 

service endpoints. In recent years, the scientific community has begun developing new 

ways to model ecosystem services. However, these techniques are in their infancy, 

creating an opportunity for ERP to become a leader in the ecosystem service modeling 

field. We have designed the program to promote interaction and learning among the

Modeling Team, the four place-based demonstration projects (LTG 5), and the two 

ecosystem assessments (LTG 4), so that the program is able to test and refine its 

modeling concepts for a set of core ecosystem services across varied geographic settings 

and different spatial scales (from 250 km2

 to 2.4 million km2).

Figure 12 illustrates the three primary science questions for the modeling component of 

LTG 2 and the outcomes we intend to achieve by answering these questions. 

Science Question #1: What are the Program’s high priority needs for forecasting and 

scenario development, including ecosystem service endpoints, spatial extents, and

temporal resolution? 

The ERP’s place-based demonstration projects and ecosystem assessments are addressing 

services of particular interest to their location, system type, and stakeholder interests. 

52
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP – Modeling Ecos odeling Ecosystem Services 

Science Questions Outcomes

What are the Program’s high pr high priority needs 

for forecasting and scenario development, High-pr High-priority client needs for forecasting and scenario needs 

including ecosystem service endpoints, ice endpoints, are met, enabling enabling early progress in management and policy

spatial extents, and temporal resolution? decisions that inform the conservation of ecosystem services.

How can modeling odeling methods be modified to 

estimate ecological pr ecological production functions for Ecological Ecological models beco odels become trans-disciplinar ciplinary tools that enable enable 

selected ecos ed ecosystem services? decision-makers to consider ne ider new options for conserving and 

restoring ecosy oring ecosystem services in ways not previously possible. possible.

How can an can an interoperable community of

ERP client ERP clients assimilate, document, and re-use the best he best practice for ecosy r ecosystem service modeling odeling be available m ailable modeling tec odeling techniques at lo niques at lowest possible cost in time established and ablished and distributed t ributed to clients most

and human resources; ources; these techniques ar chniques are also employed by quickly?

ERP partners and collaborators.

ERP Long-term Goal 2

ERP will deliver a publicly accessible, sc ible, scalable, alable, national atlas, an inventory system, and models

for selected ecosy ed ecosystem services that can be quantified dir ied directly or indirect or indirectly across the U. ss the U.S. to be

used by the Agenc e Agency, NGO’s, and other decision her decision makers to suppor to support prioritizing polic ng policy and 

management actions an tions and their consequences. equences..

Figure 12 Overview of LTG 2 - Integrated Modeling Component

However, each will also address several of the core ERP ecosystem services listed in 

Table 9.7

Among the first activities for the modeling team will be an assessment of available 

models that can be used to address these services at the required time-steps and spatial 

extents, and the identification of gaps that warrant modification of existing models or 

development of new models. In addition, the modeling team will investigate and 

recommend options for developing a tiered approach to modeling, in order to better 

accommodate a specific model application for its intended use. 

Science Question #2: How can modeling methods be modified to estimate ecological 

production functions for selected ecosystem services?

7 See Appendix A for a description of the associated units, spatial extents, and temporal resolution 

for these services.

53
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Economists use the concept of a “production function” to describe the mathematical 

relationship between inputs (e.g., capital, labor) and goods produced (see Section 1.2.2). 

Historically, production functions were presented as mathematical descriptions of the 

goods and services that can be produced from inputs of natural and human capital, labor, 

and other resources. Although such production functions have previously included 

natural resources, it was usually only in terms of inputs as raw materials, rather than as 

services resulting from ecosystem structure and function. Today there is growing 

recognition that we need new ways to identify and envision genuine ecological 

production functions, and to be able to describe these production functions within 

different spatial boundaries, and over different time frames. Such production functions 

are important for several reasons: 

1. They help individuals, governments, and private entities assess the multiple 

services derived from ecosystem functions. 

2. They help us identify instances in which management strategies can yield 

expanded ecosystem services and reduce conflicts. 

3. They help us understand how our choices affect the production of ecosystem

services over space and time. 

Most existing ecological models do not include ecological production functions, and most 

also stop short of estimating true ecosystem service endpoints. For example, they may 

estimate habitat condition, but not extend to include estimates of how habitat conditions 

are likely to affect fisheries productivity or recreational opportunities. In addition, as 

noted in the valuation component of LTG 1, ecosystem services have inherent spatial 

characteristics that further complicate the estimation of service production across a 

landscape or coastal area (see Table 5). 

The spatial dimensions of ecosystem service production have rarely been explicitly 

considered in model development, yet they strongly control the provision of services. 

Services affected by the interactions among land management practices, flood risks, 

aquatic habitat, provisioning of water quantity, and protection of water quality may be 

best handled within a drainage network. Other services may best be handled by entirely 

different spatial configurations; for example, storm surge protection, enhancing fisheries 

productivity, and restoring resilience and sense of place to coastal cities may depend 

more on the pattern and ecological condition of barrier islands, deltas, and estuaries over 

a regional coastal area. Some services depend on movement to, from, or through specific 

areas. People who want to enjoy the sense of place provided by beautiful natural areas

often need to travel to these comparatively rare locations. Similarly, conserving 

biodiversity often requires the maintenance of interconnected, high-quality habitat in 

order to support viable metapopulations. These types of “movement” related services 

might be best modeled by way of contagion theory or using individual-based models; 

such analyses might suggest a wide variety of non-intuitive "node and network" spatial 

patterns for conservation and restoration efforts. 

54
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Moreover, humans increasingly dominate many ecosystems, necessarily imposing 

patterns of settlement and infrastructure upon coastal areas, estuaries, agricultural areas, 

forests and rangelands. In order to meet demands for ecosystem services, we need 

modeling and scenario techniques to enable us to investigate how alternative strategies

for managing the pattern and connectivity of ecosystem structures and functions can help 

us to maintain, restore, or enhance the desired mix of ecosystem services that can be 

provided from within these highly modified environments. 

Developing techniques to address the issues of ecological production functions is likely 

to be the most challenging, but also the most fundamental, issue facing the modeling 

team. A variety of modeling methods show promise for addressing these complex issues, 

but few have been tested in the context of modeling ecosystem services. These methods 

include: hierarchical Bayesian techniques, landscape models, individual-based models, 

process-models that can simulate endpoints that reflect ecosystem services, and 

optimization models. Hierarchical Bayesian (HB) will likely play a major role in 

bridging top-down and bottom-up modeling approaches. HB holds promise for putting 

empirical data and process models on equal footing, whereby the uncertainties of each are 

specified with conditional probability statements. HB is a hierarchically specified visual 

modeling approach, and thus compatible with the mapping component of this LTG. HB 

approaches are quickly becoming mainstream, with new applications in the realms of 

biodiversity, fisheries, population dynamics, genomics, and human clinical trials. In 

addition, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used HB modeling 

extensively in constructing their climate change forecasts. 

The modeling team has identified potential partners for the development of new methods. 

For example, the ERP has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Gund 

Institute for Ecological Economics. This MOU will allow ERP to share data from its 

study sites for testing and further refinement of the Multi-scaled Integration of Models 

for Ecosystem Services (MIMES) simulation approach initially developed at the Gund 

Institute. Other external experts and partners have been identified, but formal 

arrangements for working with them are still pending. 

Science Question #3: How can an interoperable community of practice for ecosystem 

service modeling be established and distributed to clients most quickly? 

In addition to the scientific and technical challenges related to modeling, there are also 

programmatic issues to be addressed. These include: 

• The status and experience of modeling teams for place-based projects and

ecosystem assessments; some are in initial start-up phases, others are more 

mature.

• Varying problem statements (e.g., different drivers of change, and different 

services of interest). 

55
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• A wide range in the status of existing model assessment and selection. 

• Number and skill mix of modelers for ERP studies varies from having a critical 

mass to a limited few. 

We propose to develop an ERP Community of Practice for Modeling. Figure 13 presents 

a schematic representation of this proposed Community. This Community of Practice 

begins by taking stock of its various theme- and place-based approaches to identify 

opportunities for consensus approaches, in order to facilitate wide sharing of modeling 

methods and technologies across the ERP. To assist this, we will investigate how 

modeling technologies may contribute to managing both the scientific and programmatic 

needs of the ERP. In addition, the ERP will use open source standards wherever possible 

to facilitate community participation and avoid unnecessary restrictions on software 

access and reuse. Other benefits include: 

• Minimized production of non-science software (more resources focused on 

science components). 

• Model execution management (time savings and quality assurance). 

• Data flow management (quality assurance). 

• User interfaces (assessment level to individual components). 

• Modeling support software (data access/retrieval/processing, visualization, quality 

assurance). 

Similarly, modeling infrastructure can be used to manage considerable complexity, while 

at the same time satisfying modeling requirements for model coherence, transparency, 

reproducibility, characterization of uncertainty, and quality assurance. 

ERP will publish modeling components according to a community standard format that 

facilitates immediate application for both research and regulatory decision making. A 

model, database, or assessment methodology, when published, will be accompanied by 

metadata that explain the component, its content, its domain of application, its basis of 

theory, and its uncertainty in a quantifiable format. Furthermore, metadata will be 

consumable by modeling infrastructures and search and query software so that decisions 

regarding deployment with other components and in other infrastructures can be readily 

determined and implemented. 

Table 11 summarizes the Annual Performance Goals associated with the modeling 

component of LTG 2. 

56
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 13 Proposed ERP Integrated Modeling Community of Practice (EPA 

2008) 

Description Year 

Due 

APG 23 

Peer reviewed research plan that outlines a systematic approach to 

meeting high-priority modeling needs for ecosystem services, 

including a tiered approach for matching model complexity with 

scale, scope, and intended uses. 

2009 

APG 24 

New approaches for integrated modeling of high-priority 

ecosystem services are identified in collaboration with clients, 

social scientists, and economists, including ecological production 

functions required for valuation. 

2011 

APG 25 

Assessment methods incorporate ecological production functions 

for high-priority services, including requirements for transparency, 

reproducibility, and characterization of uncertainty. 

2012 

APG 26 Community-wide standards of practice for ecosystem service 

modeling research and scenario development are identified. 2013 

APG 27 Monitoring and Modeling components are published according to 

a community standard format, accompanied by metadata. 2013 

APG 28 An ERP expert knowledge data base for modeling is available for 

inclusion in the ERP decision support platform. 2014 

Table 11 APGs for LTG 2 - Modeling Component 

2.3 Mapping Ecosystem Services

The mapping component of LTG 2 has two main objectives: 1) to develop and deliver a 

publicly accessible and scalable National Atlas of Ecosystem Services, and 2) to provide 

57
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

integrated ecosystem services landscape science support to the ecosystem assessments 

and place based projects that ERP will undertake to support LTGs 4 and 5. The methods 

to accomplish these tasks will draw heavily from experience in the science of landscape 

ecology and landscape characterization, in concert with ORD’s experience in other 

science disciplines, such as wetland ecology, hydrology, soil sciences, physical sciences, 

terrestrial biology/ecology, and aquatic biology/ecology. 

Ecosystem services mapping is a critical component of the ERP, as it provides decisionmakers and other key users with a visual and comprehensible method for interpreting and 

understanding how the delivery of ecosystem services can be conserved and enhanced, 

while maintaining the use of ecosystem resources. Accordingly, ecosystem services 

models/maps will provide users the ability to assess choices in a spatially explicit context. 

As described below, ERP's implementation plan will address three key issues related to 

ecosystem services mapping: identification of mapping units, spatial characteristics of

ecosystem services, and "bundling” of ecosystem services. 

2.3.1 Identification of mapping units 

Ecosystem services mapping requires what may be a less-than-straightforward selection 

of appropriate units as well as scales. For example, the appropriate analysis/mapping unit 

for water quality and supply services would seem to be the watershed. If so, a choice of 

scale is necessary, from catchment (i.e., NHD Plus) to broad-scale watersheds (e.g., 8-

digit Hydrologic Accounting Units). However, the use of a watershed unit could be 

challenging; for example, in flat, coastal areas watersheds can be very difficult to 

delineate. 

In other circumstances, ecological units that directly provide services to humans may be 

considered an appropriate mapping unit, especially for services related to biological 

diversity and habitat functions. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and others, 

for example, are mapping fine scale ecosystems using biophysical components of the 

environment. Another potential mapping unit, and one that has been successfully used 

before, is equally sized grid cells or some other definitively shaped polygons laid out 

across the U.S. As an example, the conterminous U.S. contains approximately 865,000 

3x3 km2

 grid cells, which may be an appropriate unit for services related to carbon 

cycling. Similarly, local community planners may want the option of using counties or 

parcels as a mapping unit. All of these options are certainly possible with current

technology and knowledge. 

Mapping unit identification will be an important consideration for the ERP Mapping 

Team. The output of the team's work may suggest that different mapping units are 

appropriate for describing different ecosystem services. If this is the conclusion, we will 

propose the development of a hybridized and flexible approach, which will allow for the 

configuration and reconfiguration of ecosystem services across different mapping units, 

as needed. 

58
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

2.3.2 Spatial characteristics of ecosystem services 

Mapping ecosystem services is completely different from mapping ecosystem attributes 

and presents many new challenges to the environmental science community. Ecosystem 

services exhibit spatial characteristics that are unique to the conveyance of a benefit. 

Proximity is one of these spatial characteristics and is important to the delivery of some

ecosystem services but not all. For example, climate regulation services, such as carbon 

sequestration, or cultural/existence values of ecosystems do not depend on proximity 

since recipients at all locations could derive the same benefit. In contrast, flood 

attenuation and storm surge protection are obviously very much dependent on proximity; 

those living closest to the ecosystem delivering the service benefit the most. 

Flow-related direction is another important characteristic of ecosystem services; many 

water quality, nutrient retention, and soil erosion/sedimentation services, are flow-related. 

Recipients of flow-related ecosystem services may be hundreds or even thousands of 

miles away from the location where an impact on services might be observed. Nutrient 

retention in the Midwest, for example, provides benefit to those who depend on the 

fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. The fisheries are affected by land-use decisions in the 

Midwest where application of fertilizers and tilling practices are directly related to the 

amount of nutrients flowing to streams and then on to the major tributaries of the 

Mississippi River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. Spatial characteristics are a 

complex topic that must be addressed by the mapping team. 

2.3.3 “Bundling” of ecosystem services 

Benefits to society from an individual ecosystem service are not provided in isolation 

and, for this reason, it is important for the mapping component of ERP to develop 

methods to combine or “bundle” ecosystem services together, allowing the user to 

visualize the full potential of multiple services provided by a given spatial unit. One 

simple possibility for bundling ecosystem services is to develop a scoring system

whereby individual ecosystem services can be scored across a region, with scores 

summed (with or without weighting, depending on needs of user) and then displayed as 

one value for any given spatial unit. 

2.3.4 Research development considerations 

The two main objectives of the mapping team are to 1) deliver a National Atlas of

Ecosystem Services and 2) provide integrated landscape science support to place-based, 

pollutant-based, and ecosystem-based research. The two functions complement each 

other well as both can benefit from science undertaken in support of the other. 

Achievement of the two objectives will entail consideration and coordination of a 

common set of elements: 

• Land cover/use and land cover/use change. 

59
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• Geographic exploration of environmental data, such as human population, stream

characteristics, topography, soil conditions, and atmospheric deposition.

• Landscape indicator development. 

• Geospatial/statistical model development (e.g., SWAT, Markov, 

RUSLE/SEDMOD, SPARROW). 

• Associating landscape indicators and ecosystem services. 

• Scale. 

• Identification of spatial mapping unit. 

As shown in Figure 14, the outcomes of the mapping component of LTG 2 will address 

the following fundamental and challenging science questions: 

1. How can ecosystem services be measured and mapped at multiple spatial scales 

for the U.S? 

2. What are the relationships between drivers of change (i.e., land use, global 

climate change, and other environmental policy decisions) and the distribution 

and extent of ecosystem services at multiple spatial scales? 

3. How can ecosystem services mapping be used to inform the decision-making 

process and ensure that the consequences to ecosystem services delivery are 

included in land use and other environmental policy decisions?

Science Question #1: How can ecosystem services be measured and mapped at multiple 

spatial scales on a national level? 

Mapping ecosystem services presents new challenges because of their inherently unique 

spatial attributes. The mapping of ecosystem services will use a combination of direct 

attributes and model-derived attributes. 

The ERP mapping team will draw on its vast experience in the fields of landscape 

ecology, GIS, hydrology, wetland ecology, remote sensing, biology, modeling, and 

spatial analyses to create maps of ecosystem services at multiple spatial scales. ORD’s 

experience includes conducting many national and regional landscape assessments where 

features of the landscape (e.g., percent natural landcover, percent riparian buffer with 

natural landcover, percent agriculture on steep slopes, and average permeability of soils) 

60
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP – Mapping of Ecosystem Services

Science Questions Outcomes

Ecosystem services provided by the environment will be quantified and 

How can ecosystem services be mapped allowing decision makers to recognize:

measured and mapped at multiple spatial  The true monetary and non-monetary value of ecosystem services, scales on a national level?  The spatial extent of ecosystem services delivered throughout the 

nation,

 How landscape characteristics affect delivery of ecosystem services.

Decision makers will understand the relationships between drivers of 

change, ecological function, and delivery of ecosystem services What are the relationships between allowing them to consider: drivers of change and the distribution and 

extent of ecosystem services at multiple  How land use, global climate change, and other environmental

spatial scales? policy decisions affect delivery of ecosystem services,

 How choices affecting delivery of one ecosystem service may affect

other ecosystem services,

 How ecosystem services can be conserved or enhanced while

maintaining use of ecosystem resources. 

How can ecosystem services mapping be

used to inform the decision-making Decision-makers are using comprehensible tools to protect, enhance, 

process and ensure that the and restore the delivery of ecosystem services at multiple spatial scales

including: consequences to ecosystem services

delivery are included in land use and  Interactive maps to evaluate alternative scenarios and their affect on other environmental policy decisions delivery of individual as well as bundles of ecosystem services

 Measures of uncertainty to ensure confidence in the tools

ERP Long-term Goal 2

ERP will deliver a publicly accessible, scalable, national atlas, an inventory system, and models for selected ecosystem

services that can be quantified directly or indirectly across the U.S. to be used by the Agency, NGO’s, and other decision

makers to support prioritizing policy and management actions and their consequences.

Figure 14 Overview of LTG 2 - Mapping Component 

have been mapped at different scales, in a multitude of regions throughout the U.S., and 

at several scales. For example, one recent project mapped multiple landscape metrics for 

over 2.5 million NHD-Plus surface-water catchments across the U.S. ORD experience 

also includes extensive work modeling the predictive relationships between landscape 

features and environmental endpoints, including: 

• Probability of fecal coliform impairment in South Carolina, Maryland, and the 

Ozarks. 

• Predicted sediment loads in the Mid-Atlantic region, Ozarks, and elsewhere. 

Predicted nutrient loads in the Mid-Atlantic region and elsewhere. 

• Probability of pesticide occurrences in the Mid-Atlantic coastal plains. 

• Bird diversity in the Mid-Atlantic and elsewhere.

• A landscape analysis of the quality of New York City’s water supply. 

61
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• Using Landscape Metrics to Develop Indicators of Great Lakes Coastal Wetland 

quality

Many of the landscape metrics that ORD has calculated in the past can serve as inputs to 

the quantification of ecosystem services. For example, the percent of impervious 

surfaces, an input to the quantification of water provisioning, nutrient regulation, flood 

attenuation, soil and sediment regulation, and atmospheric and climate regulation 

services, has been calculated for more than 865,000 3x3 km2 grid cells and more than 2.5 

million NHD-Plus catchments across the U.S. In many cases, models exist that will 

further enable the quantification of such relationships. 

Existing ORD landscape science expertise, combined with ORD traditional science 

expertise, monitoring data, and progressive modeling techniques will be used to develop 

the best methods possible for mapping ecosystem services. This is an ambitious 

undertaking that will require engagement of expertise from other agencies such as USGS, 

USDA, and NOAA as well as expertise from academia to ensure that we fully utilize 

currently available science. Accordingly, data will be used that are or will be available 

nationally, such as the National Land Cover Data (NLCD), NOAA Coastal Change 

Analysis Program (C-CAP) data, the U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO) and Soil 

Survey Geographic (SSURGO) data, National Hydrography Data (NHD), Watershed 

Boundary Data (WBD), National Elevation Data (NED), and U.S. Census Bureau 

population data. National data sets that will be added to the ERP Library will also 

include air quality (e.g., Community Multiscale Air Quality [CMAQ]) and climate (e.g., 

Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model [PRISM]) data. 

ERP mapping teams are being assembled to address specific ecosystem services in 

conjunction with mapping teams that are being assembled to assist each of the placebased, pollutant-based, and ecosystem-based teams. Individuals will often be a part of 

multiple teams; this diffuse and integrated team structure creates a cross-ORD foundation 

of ideas and expertise that can be shared and built upon throughout the ERP. Teams are 

developing methods and demonstrating ecosystem service mapping techniques with the 

vision that the methods must be applicable at national and/or regional scales. Teams are 

currently identifying the best models to use for their research approaches and will heavily 

rely on the Modeling Team within the ERP. A set of criteria will be developed to accept 

or reject methods for mapping ecosystem services before they are considered for 

inclusion in the National Atlas. Examples of currently active teams include: 

• Coastal storm surge protection team

• Net primary productivity team

• Carbon storage team

• Water provisioning team 

• Nutrient regulation team

• Inland flood attenuation team

• Habitat characteristics team

• Fisheries team 

62
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Science Question #2: What are the relationships between drivers of change and the 

distribution and extent of ecosystem services at multiple spatial scales? 

In addition to mapping ecosystem services at a static point in time, the ERP must 

characterize the relationships between these services and drivers of change such as 

climate change, land use changes, and other changes influenced by environmental policy 

decisions. This is a critical component of the ERP mapping work, as it will result in tools 

that allow decision-makers to visualize the consequences of choices for the delivery of 

ecosystem services. This work will draw heavily on ORD’s landscape science and 

modeling experience and will initially utilize mature and tested data sets. For example, 

the NLCD is available for two time frames, 1990 and 2001 with planning for a 2006 

release likely. NOAA Coastal C-CAP data are or will be available for three time frames, 

1995, 2001, and 2005. The same mapping teams identified above will be responsible for 

this aspect of the work and will be required to demonstrate their methods through 

regional pilot projects before undertaking national scale efforts. Each team must address 

spatial scale when establishing relationships between drivers of change and ecosystem

services, as these relationships often change depending on resolution. One cannot 

assume that a relationship observed at one scale holds for another scale (or that a finer 

scale will produce stronger relationships). 

Science Question #3: How can ecosystem services mapping be used to inform the 

decision-making process and ensure that the consequences to ecosystem services 

delivery are included in land use and other environmental policy decisions? 

In addition to producing maps of ecosystem services and demonstrating and mapping the 

relationships between these services and drivers of change, ORD must also be able to 

make resulting information readily available to decision-makers and other interested 

users. To ensure the National Atlas of Ecosystem Services meets the intended purpose, it 

will be: 

• Available online;

• Interactive; 

• Digital; 

• Updated as new/improved information becomes available; 

• Scalable – user will be able to select scale desired; 

• Widely available; 

• Inclusive of a baseline condition;

• Capable of assessing the consequences of choices; 

• A living product, layers of information can be added as they become available; 

• Distributed by a high-visibility venue (e.g., National Geographic); 

• Capable of bundling ecosystem services; and 

• Capable of assessing changes over time. 

The availability of the National Atlas is closely linked with the Decision Support and 

Outreach and Education components of LTG 1. It is anticipated that the Atlas will be 

63
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

distributed through an EPA Decision Support system, coordinated through LTG1. In 

addition to distribution through EPA, the maps are also expected to be available through 

cooperating institutions, such as the National Geographic, through whom they can reach a 

wider audience. 

Table 12 summarizes the Annual Performance Goals associated with the mapping 

component of LTG 2. 

Description Year 

Due 

APG 29 

Completion of an integrated multi-year research and development 

plan for a national atlas, an inventory system, and models for 

selected ecosystem services 

2009 

APG 30 

Methods developed and demonstrated for modeling and mapping 

ecosystem services related to wetlands, nitrogen cycling, and 

water quality including demonstrations at multiple spatial scales in 

place-based research areas 

2010 

APG 31 

Methods developed and demonstrated for modeling and mapping 

ecosystem services related to carbon cycling, water provisioning, 

aquatic habitat and fisheries, and storm surge protection including 

demonstrations at multiple scales in place-based research areas 

2011 

APG 32 First national ecosystem services maps related to wetlands, 

nitrogen cycling, and water quality are available. 2011 

APG 33 

First national ecosystem services maps related to carbon cycling, 

water provisioning, aquatic habitat and fisheries, and storm surge 

protection are available 

2012 

APG 34 Methods developed and demonstrated for bundling of ecosystem

services 2013 

APG 35 

Interactive maps are available to decision-makers to help them

protect, enhance, and restore the delivery of ecosystem services at 

multiple spatial scales 

2014 

Table 12 APGs for LTG 2 - Mapping Component 

2.5 References

Banzhaf, H.S., and V.K. Smith. 2002. Adding Environmental Services to an Economy's

Scorecard. Resources for the Future, Issue Brief No. 02-09, August 2002. 

[available at www.rff.org] 

64
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Boyd, J.W and H.S. Banzhaf. 2005. Ecosystem Services and Government 

Accountability: The Need for a New Way of Judging Nature's Value. 

Resources., Summer 2005. [available at www.rff.org] 

Carpenter, S.R., R. DeFries, T. Dietz, H.A. Mooney, S.P Polasky, W.V. Reid, and R.J. 

Scholes. 2006. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Research Needs. Science. 

314: 257 – 258. 

Costanza, R. 2007. Common Ground Workshop Proceedings 

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/workshop/07_10_07_ecological.html

England, R.W. 1998. Should we pursue measurement of the natural capital stock? 

Ecological Economics 27: 257 - 266. 

Irwin, F. and J. Ranganathan. 2007. Restoring Nature’s Capital: An Action Agenda to 

Sustain Ecosystem Services. World Resources Institute. Washington, D.C. 

Heinz Center. 2002. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, 

and Living Resources of the United States. 288. Boston: The H. John Heinz III 

Center for Science, Economics and the Environment 

Heinz Center 2006. Filling the Gaps: Priority Data Needs and Key Management 

Challenges for National Reporting on Ecosystem Condition. 104 pp. Boston: The 

H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment 

Kremen, C and R.S Ostfeld. 2005. A Call to Ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and 

managing ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment; 3(1): 540-

548. [www.frontiersinecology.org] 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: 

Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

National Academy of Public Administration. 2007. A Green Compass: Institutional 

Options for developing a national system of environmental indicators. 

Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration. 

National Research Council. 2000. Ecological Indicators for the Nation. Washington, 

D.C. National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press. 

Olsen, A. R., Sedransk, J., Edwards, D. , et al. 1999. Statistical issues for monitoring 

ecological and natural resources in the United States. Environmental Monitoring

and Assessment 54, 1-45. 

Repetto, R. 2007. Comment on environmental accounting. Ecological Economics 61: 

611 -612. [doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.004] 

65
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Repetto, R., Magrath, W., Wells, M., Beer, C., and Rossini, F. 1989. Wasting Assets. 

Natural Resources in the National Accounts, World Resources Institute, 

Washington. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Draft Report on the Environment - 2003. 

EPA/600/R-03/050. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA’s 2007 Report on the Environment:

Highlights of National Trends (Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Washington, D.C. 

USEPA. 2008. Integrated Modeling for Integrated Environmental Decision Making. 

Council for Regulatory Environmental Modeling White Paper in Review. 

66
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

LTG 3 NITROGEN ASSESSMENT 

3.1 Introduction - The Significance of Nitrogen

EPA is faced with developing strategies to deal with classes of stressors that do not 

behave like traditional toxic chemicals in the environment. Habitat change, exotic 

species, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, sediment loads, and nutrient overenrichment are examples of stressors that affect the ability of the nation’s ecosystems to 

deliver goods and services essential to the quality of our standard of living. The risks 

these stressors pose to human health and ecosystems can not be easily managed if at all 

within EPA’s existing regulatory structures because (1) the effects cross traditional 

regulatory media; (2) the effects are highly place-dependent and (3) the stressors exist in 

many forms and interact strongly with one another. Further complicating the picture is 

the fact these stressors lead to both desirable and undesirable changes. Nitrogen is one 

such stressor. 

The significance of reactive nitrogen (Nr), which includes all forms of the element that

are environmentally significant, stems from the duality of its environmental impacts. The 

MEA has underscored that understanding the tradeoffs inherent in controlling this class 

of environmental pollutant is one of the major challenges the EPA will face in the 21st

century. On the one hand, reactive nitrogen is one of life’s essential nutrient elements. It 

is required for the growth and maintenance of all of earth’s biological systems. For 

humans, there are several sets of services provided by natural and anthropogenic sources 

of reactive nitrogen, including the production of plant and animal products (food and 

fiber) for human consumption and the combustion of fuels that support our energy and 

transportation needs. Population growth and increased demands for energy, 

transportation and food lead to greater demand for Nr. While releases of nitrogen are 

associated with societal benefits, Nr is a powerful environmental pollutant. Over the past 

century, human intervention in the nitrogen cycle and use of fossil fuels has led to 

substantial increases in human and ecosystem exposure to Nr. The amount of Nr applied 

to the nation’s landscape and released to the nation’s air and water has reached 

unprecedented levels, and projections show that Nr pollution will continue to increase for 

the foreseeable future. These increases in Nr pollution are accompanied by increased 

environmental and human health problems. 

Release of Nr, in both oxidized (NOx) and reduced (mostly ammonia and ammonium) 

forms contributes to: 

• Depletion of stratospheric ozone. 

• Climate change attributable to greenhouse gas emissions, especially nitrous oxide 

(N20). 

67
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• Fine particle formation and the resulting effects of fine particles on human health, 

air clarity, visibility, and the radiative properties of the atmosphere. 

• Formation of ozone in the troposphere, and subsequent human health effects 

associated with ozone inhalation, as well as damage to plants that reduces crop 

and forest production. 

• Increases in deposition of ammonia and nitrogen oxides to terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems, which generates a “cascade” of direct and indirect effects on soil 

fertility, plant productivity, water quality and estuarine productivity, and human 

structures. 

Direct application of nitrogen fertilizers to fields, rangelands, and forests, in combination 

with the wet and dry deposition of nitrogen from the atmosphere, contributes to: 

• Direct damage to plant foliage that reduces production and increases susceptibility 

to insect and diseases. 

• Long-term loss of soil fertility through the soil acidification, depletion of base 

cations, changes in element ratios, and increases in availability of harmful 

aluminum in soils. 

• Shifts in plant community composition and loss of biodiversity. 

In addition, direct deposition of Nr to surface waters through precipitation and dry 

deposition, direct inputs of sewage, and diffuse non-point sources of Nr contribute to: 

• Nitrate contamination of drinking water supplies. 

• Eutrophication-related algal and other vegetation blooms, loss of dissolved 

oxygen, fish kills, loss of productivity, and loss of desirable habitat. 

• Acidification of lakes and streams. 

• Reduced buffering capacity of estuarine and marine waters. 

Furthermore, both the benefits and problems associated with Nr are intricately linked to 

other essential elements (e.g., carbon, sulfur, trace elements in soils) and pollutants such 

as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ozone, and fine particulate matter that affect the 

quality of air, water and soils. Nr emissions, processes, and effects occur across a 

continuum of landscape scales and at time scales that range from hours to hundreds of 

years. These realities, together with the linkage of Nr to other essential elements and 

pollutants, make it necessary to develop modeling and analytical tools that account for 

many variables. 

68
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Given the current magnitude and future trajectory of Nr emissions combined with the 

complexity of chemical and biological transformations of Nr as it moves through the 

landscape and the array of effects associated with nitrogen pollution, the fundamental 

challenge facing the EPA is to transform major environmental policies in ways that make 

clear the consequences of choices that affect how emissions of pollutants of national 

scale result in changes in the type, quality, and magnitude of the services-- clean air, 

clean water, productive soils and generation of food and fiber—that we receive from the 

nation’s ecosystems . 

3.2 Research Direction

At the strategic level, the research is to provide a scientifically sound methodology for a 

pollution control outcome that is based on quantification of the tradeoffs among 

ecological services, affected positively and negatively, by changes in amount of that 

pollutant released to the environment. The organization of research for this pollutionspecific component of the ERP requires a series of data collection and modeling steps 

that move in sequence toward the goal of identifying, quantifying, and valuing the 

changes in all ecological services affected by changes in anthropogenic Nr emissions in 

the system, landscape type, or geographic area of concern. Measured or scenario-driven 

changes in Nr inputs, applications, and emissions are used as a starting point to determine 

the measured or modeled responses in ecological structure and function. 

The scale and complexity of Nr pollution, suggests that solutions to the problem will 

require supporting data collection and modeling efforts capable of assessing all Nr flow 

pathways and related environmental receptors and effects at a national --or hemispheric, 

or even global--scale. That approach is not practical as a starting point. However, 

problems associated with spatial scale and system complexity become more tractable 

when the research is aimed at developing one or more proofs-of-concept for the overall 

approach. 

As a small program at this point, we will start by taking advantage of the ongoing studies 

in wetlands, coral reefs, and in particular, the place-based demonstration projects to study 

Nr pathways and effects. It is desirable to scale up to the national scale from an EPA 

policy level but we believe considerable progress can be made initially at our smaller 

scales representing very different ecosystem service districts, yet maintaining a national 

perspective and developing national tools and inputs where required and where practical. 

Specifically, we will develop research projects that focus on the science questions, and 

the intended outcomes, highlighted in Figure 15. The Annual Performance Goals 

associated with LTG 3 are listed in Table 13. 

69
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

What ecosystem services 

respond, and are most sensitive 

to, various forms of Nr inputs?

What is the quantitative response 

of ecosystem services to Nr?

What is the level of Nr above or

below which ecosystem services 

are enhanced, maintained, or

degraded?

Policy makers can focus on those systems most sensitive to

changes in reactive nitrogen.

Decision makers understand that the form of N inputs are, or 

are not critical in control policies. 

Reduction strategies can account for the balance of positive 

and negative effects of N reductions.

Economists will convert these ecosystem response functions to 

monetary values for the marginal changes were possible.

Regulators can determine the optimal level of nitrogen for the 

desired multi-service response targets.

Science Questions Outcomes

ERP – Nitrogen Assessment

ERP Long-Term Goal 3

By 2013 ERP will provide an assessment of the positive and negative impacts 

on ecosystem services resulting from changes in nitrogen levels at select

locations and within select ecosystems.

What ecosystem services 

respond, and are most sensitive 

to, various forms of Nr inputs?

What is the quantitative response 

of ecosystem services to Nr?

What is the level of Nr above or

below which ecosystem services 

are enhanced, maintained, or

degraded?

Policy makers can focus on those systems most sensitive to

changes in reactive nitrogen.

Decision makers understand that the form of N inputs are, or 

are not critical in control policies. 

Reduction strategies can account for the balance of positive 

and negative effects of N reductions.

Economists will convert these ecosystem response functions to 

monetary values for the marginal changes were possible.

Regulators can determine the optimal level of nitrogen for the 

desired multi-service response targets.

Science Questions Outcomes

ERP – Nitrogen Assessment

ERP Long-Term Goal 3

By 2013 ERP will provide an assessment of the positive and negative impacts 

on ecosystem services resulting from changes in nitrogen levels at select

locations and within select ecosystems.

Figure 15 Overview of LTG 3 

70
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Description Year 

Due 

APG 36 Complete an implementation plan for the ERP nitrogen research 

effort. 2008 

APG 37 

Report on the state of the science on ecosystem services and 

reactive N using national and international data sources, including 

the Science Advisory Board Committee studying reactive 

nitrogen. 

2009 

APG 38 

Provide ecosystem service response functions for reactive N and 

responsive ecosystem services for multiple ecosystems, including 

wetlands, for the place based ecosystem services districts. 

2010 

APG 39 

Research report on thresholds of change in key ecological 

services affected by changes in emission rates of Nr to the 

atmosphere. 

2011 

APG 40 

Report on the value of ecological services provided by Nr and 

costs associated with the services affected by Nr within the placebased demonstration projects based on alternative management 

options. 

2012 

APG 41 

Provide the modeling framework as a multi-media decisionsupport tool for Nr based on the optimization of ecological 

services affected by changes in forms and flows of Nr from

anthropogenic sources affecting the place-based demonstration 

projects. 

2013 

Table 13 APGs for LTG 3 

71
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

LTG 4 – ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENTS 

4.0 General Introduction

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) produced a compelling synthesis of the 

global value of ecosystem services to human well-being (MEA 2005). While the MEA 

was a critical, initial step to demonstrate the potential for assessing global trends in 

ecosystem services, it is important to note that the MEA did not attempt to down-scale 

such assessments to regional or even national scales of analysis, nor did it attempt to 

create methods and tools to support decision-makers at any level of governance, industry, 

or citizen action. Carpenter et al. (2006) identified many uncertainties and research needs 

evoked by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. These include characterizing 

ecosystem services, linking ecosystem condition and function to services and human 

well-being, predicting the effects of changes in ecosystem services on human well-being, 

and improving the identification, quantification, and communication of uncertainty, and 

in turn provoke the following research questions: 

• What are the current spatial extent and condition of ecosystems?

• How are wetland structure, function, and processes related to the provision of 

ecosystem services? 

• What ecosystem drivers affect ecosystem services provisioning and how do 

human uses mollify or exacerbate these drivers?

• How can ecosystem services be aggregated across the landscape at various spatial 

scales, while retaining important ecosystem heterogeneity and the ability to detect 

change at the various scales? 

• How can ecosystem services be linked to the maintenance and support of human 

well-being?

• How do changes in ecosystem functions and services affect future human wellbeing?

The ERP will focus on the dynamics of service flows in two priority ecosystems – 

wetlands and coral reefs. Both of these ecosystems deliver a wide range of ecosystem 

services (e.g., fish and fiber production, water supply support, water purification, climate 

regulation, flood regulation, coastal protection, recreational opportunities, and tourism) 

that support human incomes, livelihoods, and social, cultural, and spiritual enjoyment. 

Yet wetlands and coral reefs are in serious decline (Dahl 2005; Wilkinson 2004) and 

efforts to manage and protect them have been inadequate, often lacking both monetary 

resources and management expertise. For example, the most recent National Wetlands 

Inventory Status and Trends report (Dahl 2005) reported a net gain in total wetland 

acreage between 1998 and 2004, yet significant losses still occurred in specific wetland 

types (e.g., 61% of freshwater wetland losses were due to urban and rural development). 

As human population continues to increase, especially in coastal environments, wetlands 

and coral reefs worldwide are projected to suffer continued loss and degradation, thus 

reducing the capacity of these ecosystems to provide valued services that contribute to 

72
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

human well-being. Rapid development and population growth concurrently intensifies 

the demand for ecosystem services. Major policy decisions in the next decade must 

address trade-offs among current and future uses of wetland and coral reef resources. 

Particularly important trade-offs involve those between coastal land use and human 

safety during floods or storm surges; agricultural production and safe water supplies; land 

use and biologically diverse terrestrial ecosystems; water use and biologically diverse and 

productive aquatic ecosystems; and current water use for irrigation and future agricultural 

production (MEA 2005). Such decisions must also consider the full range of benefits and 

values to human well-being provided by different wetland and coral reef ecosystem

services. 

Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the average global value of wetland ecosystem services 

in US 1994 dollars to be almost $15K ha-1

 yr

-1, which is the highest value reported for 

any biome, and urged that future environmental decision-making processes weigh the 

value of ecosystem services as an important contribution to human well-being. Since 

environmental valuation was first applied to coral reefs (Spurgeon 1992) there have been 

several significant studies that describe valuation approaches and estimates of coral worth 

(e.g., ICLARM 2001). One frequently cited study (Costanza et al. 1997) estimated the 

global value of corals at $377B yr-1, or $0.60 m-2 yr

-1. A subsequent study, using more

realistic estimates of coral distribution but omitting some important services, estimated 

the global value as $30B yr-1, or $0.10 m-2 yr

-1 (Cesar et al. 2003). Global estimates, by 

their very nature, are coarse and not necessarily relevant to local management decisions. 

As illustration, a recent insurance claim for a ship grounding in Yemen was settled at the 

equivalent of $30 m-2 yr

-1, representing a much higher local value for coral reefs than 

average global values (Spurgeon 2004). 

Improved environmental management will therefore require procedures to valuate 

wetland and coral reef services at the scale of management decisions. Variability in 

services and valuation of services is likely to differ among jurisdictions; therefore tools 

and procedures are needed that can be applied to local conditions by local resource 

managers. Immediate needs include tools and procedures to quantitatively characterize 

the linkages between ecosystem services and ecosystem attributes (biological, physical 

and chemical components); to valuate ecosystem services; to assess extent and condition 

of the ecosystems; to quantify effects of human activity on delivery of services; and to 

forecast alternate futures from the range of management decisions under consideration. 

The goal of the ORD Ecological Research Program is to evaluate ecosystem services 

using three research approaches: pollutant-driven, ecosystem-driven, and place-based. 

This section outlines our initial research focus within the ecosystem-driven approach to 

evaluate ecosystem services provided by wetlands and coral reefs. The long-term goal 

for the ecosystem component of the ERP is: 

By 2015 ERP will provide guidance and decision support tools to target, prioritize, and 

evaluate policy and management actions that protect, enhance, and restore ecosystem 

goods and services at multiple scales for two specific ecosystem types: wetlands and 

coral reefs. 

73
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

In order to accomplish this outcome, the objectives of this program are to produce the 

cutting-edge science necessary to: 

1) Identify, characterize, and assess ecosystem services of wetlands and coral 

reefs that contribute to human well-being at multiple spatial and temporal 

scales; 

2) Identify, characterize and assess environmental conditions and human 

activities that influence the delivery of ecosystem services from wetlands and 

coral reefs; 

3) Provide maps, models, information and decision support tools to forecast local 

and regional sustainability of wetland and coral reef ecosystems and the 

services they provide; and 

4) Apply information on the benefits of ecosystem services of wetlands and coral 

reefs to valuation and decision-making processes for resource management, 

environmental protection, and ecosystem restoration. 

4.2 Wetland Ecosystems

4.2.1 Introduction 

Wetlands are ecotones, or zones of transition, between land and water (Johnston 1993). 

As such wetlands have been recognized as important regulators of the flows of materials 

and of other processes occurring across the landscape (Risser 1993). Thus, wetlands 

contribute to the services provided by aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, in addition to 

providing unique services. Although much is known, conceptually or qualitatively, about 

the links between wetland condition, function, and services, research is needed to 

quantify those links at multiple scales and to demonstrate the impact of alternative futures 

on the ability of wetlands to provide services and to affect human well-being. In the 

long-term, other ecosystems can also be assessed and integrated by adapting the models 

developed for wetlands. 

ORD will initiate the ecosystem-based portion of its research strategy by assessing the 

services of wetlands at multiple scales. Wetlands were identified as a priority for 

preservation, restoration, and enhancement by the President on Earth Day 2004 (CEQ 

2006). Recognizing the array of benefits provided by wetlands to the economic, 

ecological, and cultural heritage of all Americans, this new national initiative went 

beyond the “no net loss” policy with a goal to restore or create, protect, and improve at 

least 3 million acres of wetlands by 2009 (CEQ 2006). Multiple Federal agencies, 

including EPA, are working to achieve the President’s goal, providing ample opportunity 

for leveraging partnerships and resources. ORD’s research will help inform Agency 

decisions on the location and scale at which certain types of wetlands should be 

protected, enhanced, or restored to optimize wetland services. ORD has unique 

74
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

competencies that provide operational leadership on multiple wetland science topics, 

including ecosystem services, which directly address the needs identified in the MEA and 

those of the Federal agencies tasked with achieving the President’s goal. As illustrated 

above by the MEA (2005), a rich history exists for evaluating ecosystem services of 

wetlands. Ecological functions of wetlands are well-defined and have been related to 

outcomes valued by humans (e.g., see “Regional Guidebooks for Applying the 

Hydrogeomorphic Approach” at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/wlpubs.html). 

4.2.2 Multi-Scale Research Approach 

In this ERP MYP 2009-2014, ORD proposes a coordinated, comprehensive research 

approach to assess the multiple services provided by different types of ecosystems and 

the impact of changes in the landscape on the provisioning of services and human wellbeing. Ecosystem services are provided at a range of spatial and temporal scales from 

short-term/site-specific to long-term/global, and benefit humans at multiple institutional 

scales from the individual to community to international (Hein et al. 2006). Effective 

assessments of ecosystem services and their connection to human well-being, therefore, 

cannot be conducted at a single temporal or spatial scale to determine the full benefits to 

humans. This research will focus on developing and applying the necessary tools to

assess wetland ecosystem services at national, regional, and sub-regional scales (e.g., 

watersheds). 

Much is known about the structure and function of wetlands (both qualitatively and 

quantitatively) and conceptual models have been developed to link function to ecosystem

services and values (King et al. 2000); yet the complexity of wetland ecosystems has 

hindered the valuation of multiple services at regional and larger scales (NRC 2005). 

Wetland services have historically been valued at fine scales because the benefits of 

restoration or protection activities have been perceived as limited to individual land 

owners or residents living in or near a particular ecosystem. Because some

generalizations may be made about ecosystem services across scales, ecologists often 

aggregate the value of individual services to larger scales. However, understanding the 

scales at which wetland services are realized and quantifying the uncertainty inherent in 

aggregation across scales is critical for appropriate valuation (Mitsch and Gosselink 

2000; NRC 2005). For example, individual wetlands in a watershed may have 

quantifiably different capacities to store water but this function becomes important as an 

ecosystem service only when sufficient wetland area in the landscape is available to 

desynchronize the flow of floodwater. Hey and Philippi (1995), for example, estimated 

that the restoration of approximately 13 million acres of wetlands in the Upper 

Mississippi and Missouri River basins would be necessary to provide enough flood 

storage to protect the residents in that region from excess river flow due to extreme flood 

events. 

A landscape perspective is critical to understanding the services associated with the 

ecological functions of wetlands. While some wetland functions (e.g., habitat) may be 

defined at the scale of individual wetlands, most functions and values (e.g., biodiversity, 

water-quality improvement, flow moderation) depend on the type, abundance, and 

75
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

distribution of wetlands across a watershed or landscape (Detenbeck et al. 1999, and the 

references cited therein). Bedford (1996) observed that the ecological services provided 

by wetlands result from the hydrogeologic characteristics of the landscape that cause 

specific wetland types to form and support their characteristic structure and function. Her 

findings were echoed by the National Research Council (NRC) (2001) in operational 

guidelines for creating or restoring wetlands that are ecologically self-sustaining. 

Specifically, the NRC called for adopting a dynamic landscape perspective in wetland 

management that paid special attention to hydrological and topographical variability,

subsurface characteristics, and the hydrogeomorphic and ecological landscape and 

climate. 

Although knowledge of the spatial and temporal thresholds at which wetland functions 

are altered and services are impacted is necessary to inform management and policy 

decisions, large gaps remain in our understanding of regional (and larger) scale impacts 

of changes in wetland functions on services and human well-being. Wetland regulation 

and management have historically occurred at the scale of individual wetlands. The best 

known example of this approach is compensatory mitigation required in permits issued 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These individual wetland decisions can, 

cumulatively, reconfigure the wetland resource over large geographic areas (Kentula et 

al. 1992; Kentula et al. 2004). Shifting the scale of research and management to the 

broader landscape will involve the consideration of ecologically meaningful regions of 

assessment, such as watersheds, aquatic ecoregions (Omernik 1987), hydrologic 

landscape regions (e.g., Winter 2001, Wolock et al. 2004) and how they interface with 

the political units associated with land use planning, and resource regulation and 

management. 

4.2.3 Conceptual Model 

Figure 16 is a conceptual model illustrating key relationships associated with the 

provision of wetland ecosystem services. As summarized in Figure 17, ERP research 

will enhance the scientific understanding of these services by answering the following

research questions: 

Research Question 1. How do drivers of change affect the ecological 

function of wetlands and the delivery of services at multiple spatial 

scales? 

Research Question 2. What is the relationship between the abundance, 

distribution, and condition of wetlands in the landscape and the delivery 

of ecosystem services? 

Research Question 3. What decision support tools are needed to 

protect, enhance, and restore the delivery of wetland services at multiple 

spatial scales?

76
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 16 Conceptual model for wetlands showing the relationship between 

drivers of change, ecological functions, ecosystem services and human 

well-being. 

4.2.4 Research Questions 

ORD’s proposed research will be organized around the characteristics of the wetland 

resource that affect the production of services, including the relative abundance of 

functional wetland type, their distribution and position in the landscape, and their 

ecological condition. There is a strong scientific basis for the relationship between these 

characteristics and the ecological function of wetlands (Brinson 1993, Bedford 1996). 

This research will build on the emerging concept of a biological or ecological condition 

gradient, which describes a series of changes in community composition, structure, 

function, and processes along an axis of human disturbance. If we can describe how 

wetland mosaics change along a gradient of human disturbance, we can evaluate the 

cumulative impact of change on emergent properties (such as habitat use by species 

which use more than one habitat type). Research that demonstrates how these concepts 

can be quantified and applied to resource management is limited, especially in terms of 

wetland services. 

77
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP - Wetlands

Science Que nce Questions Outcomes

Restoration, protection, ection, and improvement of wetlands will 

How do drivers of change aff change affect the consider:

ecological f ological function of wetlands and wetlands and the 

delivery of services at multiple spatial  All serv All services pro ices provided by wetlands.

scales?  How wetland wetland services ar ices are improved or degraded. degraded.

 How landscape position affects deliv s delivery of wetlands ser ands services.

 How land use decision land use decisions will affect wetland ser tland services.

 The monetary and non-monetary value of wetland services.

What is the relat is the relationship between the 

abundance, distribution, and condition of Wetland management decisions cisions will be based o based on knowledge 

wetlands in the lands in the landscape and the of ecosystem services using:

delivery of ecosystem services?  Interactive maps to determine restoration opt ion options that ons that

maximize wetland services.

 Wetland trading sc ading scenarios to optimize wetland services.

W  Decision-support support tools to ev tools to evaluate alternative scenarios. What decision support ion support tools are neede e needed to  National at National atlas of wetland services. protect, enhance, enhance, and rest and restore the deliv he delivery  Tools to achiev ools to achieve optimal bundles of services from wetlands. of wetland ser and services at multiple spat ltiple spatial 

scales?

Wetlands policy ands policy (i.e., no net loss and President’s loss and President’s Wetlands 

Initiative) will include no ll include no loss of wetland s tland services.

ERP Long-term Goal 4

ERP will provide guidance and decision suppor and decision support tools to target, prioritize, and evaluate 

policy and management act ent actions that protect, enhance, enhance, and restore ecosystem goods and goods and 

services of wetlands at multiple scales.

Figure 17 Overview of LTG 4 - Wetlands Component 

Research Question 1: How do the drivers of change influence the ecological 

function of wetlands and the delivery of services at multiple spatial scales? 

The primary indirect drivers of wetland loss and degradation are population growth and 

development for economic gain. The primary direct drivers of adverse change in the 

ability of wetlands to provide services are infrastructure development, land conversion, 

water withdrawal or augmentation, pollution, over harvesting and exploitation, and the 

introduction of invasive species (MEA 2005). Although the most recent status and trends 

report described a net gain of 191,750 acres of wetland in the conterminous U.S., losses 

of specific wetland types still continued to occur, primarily as a result of human actions 

that destroy wetland hydrology (Dahl 2005). Sixty-one percent of U.S. wetland losses 

are attributed to urban and rural development (Dahl 2005). In addition to causing losses 

of wetland area, the drivers of change also affect the ability of existing wetlands to 

deliver ecological services. Information on the effects of human use on the delivery of 

wetland services at multiple scales is limited, especially in regard to performance by 

wetland type and location. 

78
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP research will: 

• Establish the relationship between ecological function and delivery of services by 

wetlands. 

• Determine the effect of drivers of change on wetland structure, ecological 

functions, and the delivery of specific ecosystem services and bundles of services. 

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between the abundance, distribution, 

and condition of wetlands in the landscape and the delivery of ecosystem services?

Functional classes of wetlands (e.g., HGM classification of Brinson (1993)) have been 

related to ecological functions of wetlands (Magee et al. 1999, Shaffer and Ernst 1999, 

Shaffer et al. 1999). Changes in the relative abundance of wetland functional classes in a 

landscape result in a change in the relative abundances of ecological functions and the 

related services (Kentula et al. 2004). The relative abundance of functional classes is 

called a landscape profile (Gwin et al. 1999). Current and limited research on the use of 

landscape profiles shows that units of the landscape have different profiles depending on 

hydrogeomorphology, geology, and climate. Use of landscape profiles is a first step in 

characterizing the ecological functions and associated wetland services in an area of 

interest. To date, such profiles have been generated by surveys of wetlands (e.g., Gwin et 

al. 1999, Kentula et al. 2004) and through geographic information system (GIS) modeling 

by Johnson (2005). 

The use of landscape profiles for wetlands is only a first step in understanding the 

potential delivery of ecosystem services. There is also a need to consider the wetland 

resource as part of a functional surface. A functional surface is the mosaic of land cover 

and land use types in which wetlands occur (Forman 1995). The distribution pattern of 

wetlands on the functional surface is also tied to the hydrologic, geologic, and 

topographic characteristics of the landscape (Bedford 1996). Therefore, functional types 

of wetlands occur in different spatial and temporal settings and combinations throughout 

the landscape; this mosaic determines the level to which ecosystem services are or can be 

derived. 

ERP research will: 

• Determine how surveys of wetland condition can be used to estimate the delivery 

of ecosystem services by wetlands. 

• Develop landscape approaches (i.e., landscape profiles, functional surfaces) for 

determining the hydrologic and ecological functions of wetlands and associated 

delivery of ecosystem services. 

79
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• Develop landscape models predicting the delivery of specific ecosystem services 

and bundles of services based on wetland landscape profiles, empirical stressorresponse models, and published literature. 

Research Question 3: What decision support tools are needed to protect, 

enhance, and restore the delivery of wetland services at multiple spatial 

scales? 

ERP’s research will build on current research on surveys of wetlands condition to 

develop approaches for effective wetland management. In addition to describing the 

ecological status of wetland resources, surveys provide data about the likely causes of 

wetland degradation (e.g., Wardrop et al. 2007, Whigham et al. 2007). Survey 

information and decisions can then be used to prescribe management options and best 

management practices, or to contribute to the production of a restoration opportunities 

map (Figure 18). For example, in an evaluation of restoration options for the Sanyang 

wetland in China, Tong et al. (2007) determined the drivers, condition and function of 

wetlands and modeled the ecosystem services and their current and potential value. They 

found that material production provided the highest current value but that the current 

value of environmental purification was negative (i.e., money was "owed" for this service 

due to water pollution and the lack of wetland vegetation). The potential value of 

the wetland to provide environmental purification was very high, accounting for 43 

percent of the total potential value. The decision, then, was to restore the structure and 

function of the wetland to support environmental purification. Although this example 

illustrates the decision process for determining restoration priorities for a single wetland 

system, our approach must address multiple scales. We need to have decision support 

tools that can inform management decisions at the local, regional, and national scales. 

ERP research will: 

• Develop interactive mapping tools that provide decision makers with accurate 

place-based information on wetland ecosystem services and value and the effects 

of local and landscape manipulations, including protection, restoration, 

enhancement, and degradation, on the provision of wetland ecosystem services 

and summary landscape valuation. 

• Report on recommended approaches to incorporate the protection, enhancement, 

and restoration of wetland services into wetland management strategies. 

80
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 18 Map of the Cuyahoga watershed in Ohio showing the relative 

suitability for wetland restoration (from White and Fennessy 2005). 

81
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

The research described above will fill long-term needs. In the short-term, ERP will 

initiate an ambitious research effort to incorporate the wetland research program into a 

comprehensive approach for ecosystem services research, assessment, and management. 

This approach will use the modeling strategy developed to evaluate alternative futures in 

the Willamette River Basin (Baker et al. 2004) and the Tampa Bay watershed, in 

combination with valuation of wetland services. The proposed research will: 

• Determine the best methods (monetary and non-monetary) to value wetland 

services at multiple scales. 

• Apply current classical and exploratory valuation methods to quantify the local 

and landscape provision of ecosystem services across wetland types, sizes, 

location, condition, and hydrogeomorphic setting.

• Develop decision support tools that allow manipulation of wetland sizes, 

functional types, placement in the watershed, and potential wetlands stressors and 

provide the graphical ability to output maps that visually detail the changes and 

effects of the different scenarios. 

• Determine the consequences (relative risks) of optimizing for a particular service. 

4.3 Coral Reef Ecosystems

4.3.1 Introduction 

ERP’s research on coral reef services is organized to improve the understanding, delivery 

and sustainability of ecosystem services from coral reefs. This includes an inventory and 

characterization of the services provided by coral reefs (ecosystem assessment), the 

influences of natural and anthropogenic activities on those services (quantifying agents of 

change, both adverse and beneficial), and the outlook for sustained services under 

alternative future scenarios (forecasting service sustainability). These three aspects are 

captured in the research questions detailed below and summarized in Figure 19. The 

research is organized by flow of information (Figure 20): (1) ecosystem assessments to 

inventory the extent and condition of coral reefs and to quantify linkages between reef 

attributes and ecosystem services; (2) quantifying environmental agents of change, 

particularly adverse, anthropogenic drivers on existing reef attributes and their services; 

(3) forecasting sustainability of existing attributes and services in view of future 

environmental changes and potential management activities; and (4) validating success of 

management actions and refining forecasts. Through this process tools and models will 

be developed that will allow managers to incorporate environmental valuation methods 

into coral reef management. 

While ERP research will eventually examine all relevant coral reef ecosystem services, 

the initial efforts will focus on the four services currently believed to have the greatest 

82
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

What is the relationship of coral reef

extent, distribution and condition with the 

delivery of ecosystem services and 

human well-being? 

What environmental conditions and 

human activities affect coral reef

ecosystem services? 

What decision-support tools are needed 

to sustain coral reef ecosystem services?

Resource managers will incorporate coral reef value, protection 

and restoration into watershed and waterbody management 

decisions using procedures and models developed through 

ERP research.

ERP research products will be used by U.S. coral reef

jurisdictions to forecast environmental and economic outcomes 

of alternate management and policy scenarios.

U.S. coral reef jurisdictions will develop protective water quality

standards, specifically biocriteria, using procedures and models

developed in ERP research.

ERP research will fulfill the President’s Ocean Action Plan,

which directs EPA to develop methods for evaluating the health

of coral reefs and associated water quality.

Through ERP research, EPA will fulfill its role in the Coral Reef

Task Force to lead, coordinate and strengthen U.S. government

actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems.

Science Questions Outcomes

ERP – Coral Reefs

ERP Long-term Goal 4 for Ecosystems (Coral Reefs)

ERP will provide guidance and decision support tools to develop and evaluate policy and management actions for

protection, enhancement and restoration of services derived from coral reef ecosystems

What is the relationship of coral reef

extent, distribution and condition with the 

delivery of ecosystem services and 

human well-being? 

What environmental conditions and 

human activities affect coral reef

ecosystem services? 

What decision-support tools are needed 

to sustain coral reef ecosystem services?

Resource managers will incorporate coral reef value, protection 

and restoration into watershed and waterbody management 

decisions using procedures and models developed through 

ERP research.

ERP research products will be used by U.S. coral reef

jurisdictions to forecast environmental and economic outcomes 

of alternate management and policy scenarios.

U.S. coral reef jurisdictions will develop protective water quality

standards, specifically biocriteria, using procedures and models

developed in ERP research.

ERP research will fulfill the President’s Ocean Action Plan,

which directs EPA to develop methods for evaluating the health

of coral reefs and associated water quality.

Through ERP research, EPA will fulfill its role in the Coral Reef

Task Force to lead, coordinate and strengthen U.S. government

actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems.

Science Questions Outcomes

ERP – Coral Reefs

ERP Long-term Goal 4 for Ecosystems (Coral Reefs)

ERP will provide guidance and decision support tools to develop and evaluate policy and management actions for

protection, enhancement and restoration of services derived from coral reef ecosystems

Figure 19 Overview of LTG 4 - Coral Reef Component

value; shoreline protection, tourism, fish production, and biodiversity (Costanza et al. 

1997, Cesar et al. 2003) and their relationships to social well-being. The reef attributes 

that provide these services include stony corals, soft corals and sponges, fish, and benthic 

invertebrates. Some of these attributes provide the service directly (e.g., stony corals 

provide coastline protection); others support the production of fish—notably habitat 

provided by stony corals, soft corals and sponges and benthic invertebrates as fish prey 

(Figure 21). All of these attributes contribute to biodiversity. Additional attributes and 

services will be investigated as necessary. Much of the initial research for Coral Reef

Services will occur in U.S. Caribbean jurisdictions (U.S. Virgin Islands); however, it is 

anticipated that information and decision support tools will be useful and transferable to 

the entire eastern Caribbean. 

83
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Tools to 

valuate, assess, 

and forecast 

ecosystem

services 

Quantifying

Agents of

Change

Ecosystem

Assessment 

Forecasting 

Sustainability 

of Reef 

Services 

Figure 20 ERP research on coral reef ecosystems will target ecosystem

assessment (reef attributes that provide services), quantifying 

environmental agents of change (natural and anthropogenic), and 

forecasting sustainability of reef services under different management 

scenarios. Arrows represent the flow of organization and information

that will lead to improved indicators, links, and models to valuate, 

assess and forecast coral reef ecosystem services. 

4.3.2 Research Questions

Research Question 1: What is the relationship of coral reef extent, distribution and 

condition with the delivery of ecosystem services and human well-being? 

Environmental valuation requires that values (worth) are applied to use and non-use 

services of an ecosystem, that the extent and condition of the ecosystem is known, and 

that linkages between services and reef attributes are quantified. Methods to valuate 

coral reef services have matured over the last two decades. The most important services 

described by these methods of valuation include shoreline protection, fishing, tourism

and non-use aspects (biodiversity, aesthetics). To estimate value from these services it is 

necessary to know the extent, distribution, and condition of the resource. Linear extent 

and distribution of coral reefs, particularly in the eastern Caribbean, have been described 

84
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Protection Tourism

Eco

iota

system Serv

Benthic Fish Soft Corals

& Sponges

Stony 

Corals 

Fisheries Biodiversity Coastline 

Invertebrates

ice

B

Figure 21 Conceptual diagram of the relationship between various coral reef 

attributes (biota) and four major ecosystem services. These linkages 

will be quantitatively characterized in the Ecosystem Assessment 

portion of ERP research. 

through satellite and sonar imagery (Kendall et al. 2004). However, certain reef 

attributes that are critical to ecosystem services (e.g., reef complexity, coral condition) 

have not been. Moreover, most reef services have not been quantitatively linked to the 

reef attributes that provide them. To defensibly associate reef attributes to provision of

service will require quantitative evaluation. 

ERP Research will: 

• Inventory and characterize services derived from coral reefs in the eastern 

Caribbean. 

• Describe potential methods for valuation of these services. 

Quantitatively link the structural and functional attributes of coral reefs that 

underpin ecosystem services. 

• Describe the spatial distribution of ecosystem services based on distribution, 

attributes and condition of existing coral reefs. 

• Identify different spatial scales that best capture benefits derived from coral reefs. 

85
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Research Questions 2: What environmental conditions and human activities affect 

coral reef ecosystem services? 

Environmental change has been shown to affect coral reef ecosystems dramatically. This 

was never more evident than the destruction of over 16 percent of the world’s coral 

during a 1998 climate-induced bleaching event (Wilkinson 2000). Both natural and 

anthropogenic changes must be considered in coral reef management, yet only local, 

anthropogenic changes can be influenced by local management decisions. Changes in 

reef attributes can be converted, by virtue of linkages described above, to changes in 

ecosystem services. This process will identify the costs of human disturbances, which 

can be used to better inform management decisions (e.g., forest clearing) and better focus 

management actions (e.g., reduce fishing). 

ERP Research will: 

• Determine the relative influence of local versus regional environmental condition 

on coral reef services. 

• Identify human activities that have the greatest impact on coral reef ecosystems. 

• Quantitatively relate human stressors to declines in reef attributes and loss of

services. 

• Identify regulatory and management activities that will improve delivery of

services through protection and restoration of reef attributes. 

Research Question 3: What decision-support tools are needed to sustain coral reef 

ecosystem services? 

Implicit in this research question is the need to forecast sustainability of coral reef 

attributes that provide valued services. The question is focused on decision-support tools, 

rather than generalized solutions, because variability of reef attributes and human 

disturbances is very high across reefs. Resource managers need the capacity to forecast 

sustainability for their particular locale. Forecasts could rely on tools as simple as trend 

analysis for reef extent or condition. Trend analysis would not, however, provide insights 

into environmental change or management alternatives. For these, sustainability models 

must be developed, models that consider the existing attributes and provide a dynamic 

platform for examining the consequences of various environmental scenarios and 

management activities. Sustainability models will require information generated partly 

from (local) ecosystem assessments and partly from research performed to address 

specific model needs (for example, coral growth rates and erosion rates). The models

must also have spatial flexibility to be applicable at multiple management scales. Models 

may therefore be coupled to interactive mapping tools. 

ERP research will: 

86
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• Provide tools to forecast reef sustainability and future delivery of ecosystem 

services. 

• Forecast effects of selected regulatory, restoration, or management activities on 

reef sustainability and future services from an eastern Caribbean jurisdiction. 

• Examine consequences of management alternatives that optimize particular coral 

reef services. 

Table 14 summarizes the Annual Performance Goals associated with both the wetlands 

and coral reef ecosystem assessment components of LTG 4. 

Description

Year 

Due 

APG 42 

Provide a scientifically defensible approach for conducting the 

research to support policy and management actions that protect, 

enhance and restore the ecosystem goods and services of 

wetlands and coral reefs.

2009 

APG 43 Characterize the relationships between ecological function and 

delivery of services by wetlands and coral reefs. 2010 

APG 44 Evaluate how surveys of condition can be used to estimate the 

delivery of ecosystem services by wetlands and coral reefs 2011 

APG 45 Develop landscape approaches for determining the hydrologic 

and ecological functions of wetlands and coral reefs 2011 

APG 46 

Develop landscape models predicting the delivery of specific 

ecosystem services and bundles of services based on wetland 

landscape profiles, empirical stressor-response models, and 

published literature. 

2012 

APG 47 Characterize effects of environmental change on the delivery of 

ecosystem services provided by wetlands and coral reefs. 2013 

APG 48 

Develop interactive mapping tools for decision makers to 

evaluate the effects of local and landscape manipulations, 

including protection, restoration, enhancement, and degradation, 

on the provision and value of wetland ecosystem services. 

2014 

APG 49 Develop and demonstrate decision support tools that will protect 

and sustain coral reef ecosystem services 2015 

Table 14 APGs for LTG 4 

87
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

4.4 References

Baker, J. P., D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, D. White, J. Van Sickle, P. A. Berger, D. Dole, 

and N. H. Schumaker. 2004. Alternative futures for the Willamette River Basin, 

Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:313-324. 

Bedford, B. L. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for 

freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:57-68. 

Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report 

WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

Carpenter, S.R., R. DeFries, T. Dietz, H.A. Mooney, S. Polasky, W.V. Reid, and R.J. 

Scholes. 2006. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Research Needs. Science

314:257-258. 

Cesar, H.J.S., L. Burke and L. Pet-Soede. 2003. The Economics of Worldwide Coral Reef 

Degradation. Cesar Environmental Economics Consulting, Arnhem, Netherlands. 

Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. 

Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 

1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature

387:253-260. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2006. Conserving America’s Wetlands 2006: 

Two Years of Progress Implementing the President’s Goal. Executive Office of 

the President, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC. 57 p. 

Dahl, T.E. 2005. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998 

to 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 116 p. 

Detenbeck, N. E., S. M. Galatowitsch, J. Atkinson, and H. Ball. 1999. Evaluating 

perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the 

Great Lakes Basin. Wetlands 19:789-820. 

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics. Cambridge, New York, New York. 652pp. 

Gwin, S. E., M. E. Kentula, and P. W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of wetland 

regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. 

Wetlands 19:477-489. 

Hein, L., K. van Koppen, R.S. de Groot, E.C. van Ierland. 2006. Spatial scales, 

stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 

57:209-228. 

88
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Hey, D.L. and N.S. Philippi. 1995. Flood reduction through wetland restoration: the 

Upper Mississippi River Basin as a case history. Restoration Ecology 3: 4-17. 

ICLARM. 2001. Economic valuation and policy priorities for sustainable management of 

coral reefs. International Consultative Workshop. December 2001, Penang, 

Malaysia. 

Johnson, J. B. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Profiling: An Approach to Landscape 

and Cumulative Effects Analysis. EPA/620/R-05/001, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

Johnston, C.A. 1993. Material Fluxes across Wetland Ecotones in Northern Landscapes. 

Ecological Applications 3:424-440. 

Kendall, M.S., K.R. Buja, J.D. Christensen, C,.R. Kruer, nd M.E. Monaco 2004. The 

seascape approach to coral reef mapping: an integral component of understanding 

the habitat utilization patterns of reef fish. Bull. Mar. Sci. 75:225-237. 

Kentula, M. E., R. P. Brooks, S. E. Gwin, C. C. Holland, A. D. Sherman, and J. C. 

Sifneos. 1992. An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland 

Restoration and Creation. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Kentula, M. E., S. E. Gwin, and S. M. Pierson. 2004. Tracking changes in wetlands with 

urbanization: sixteen years of experience in Portland, Oregon, USA. Wetlands 

24:734-743. 

King, D.M., L.A. Wainger, C.C. Bartolus, and J.S. Wakeley. 2000. Expanding Wetland 

Assessment Procedures: Linking Indices of Wetland Function with Services and 

Values. ERDC/EL TR-00-17. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development 

Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

Magee, T. K., T. L. Ernst, M. E. Kentula, and K. A. Dwire. 1999. Floristic comparison 

of freshwater wetlands in an urbanizing environment. Wetlands 19:517-534. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: 

Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 68p. 

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and 

landscape setting. Ecological Economics 35: 25-33. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the 

Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better 

Environmental Decision Making. The National Academies Press, Washington, 

DC. 277 p. 

89
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the 

Association of American Geographers 77:118-125. 

Risser, P.G. 1993. Ecotones at Local to Regional Scales from around the World. 

Ecological Applications 3:367-368. 

Shaffer, P. W., and T. L. Ernst. 1999. Distribution of soil organic matter in freshwater 

emergent/open water wetlands in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. 

Wetlands 19:505-516. 

Shaffer, P. W., M. E. Kentula, and S. E. Gwin. 1999. Characterization of wetland 

hydrology using hydrogeomorphic classification. Wetlands 19:490-504. 

Spurgeon, J.P.G 1992. The economic valuation of coral reefs. Mar. Pol. Bull. 24:529-

536. 

Spurgeon, J.P.G. 2004. Valuation of coral reefs: the next 10 years. In (pp 50-58): 

Economic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Coral 

Reefs. Worldfish Center. 

Tong, C., R.A. Feagin, J.Lu, X. Zhang, X. Zhu, W. Wang, and W. He. 2007. Ecosystem

service values and restoration in the urban Sanyang wetland of Wenshou, China. 

Ecological Engineering. 

Wardrop, D. H., M. E. Kentula, D. L. Stevens, Jr., S. F. Jensen, and R. P. Brooks. 2007. 

Assessment of wetland condition: an example from the Upper Juniata Watershed 

in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 27:416-431 

Whigham, D. F., A. D. Jacobs, D. E. Weller, T. Jordan, E., M. E. Kentula, S. F. Jensen, 

and D. L. Stevens, Jr. 2007. Combining HGM and EMAP procedures to assess 

wetlands at the watershed scale - Status of flats and non-tidal riverine wetlands in 

the Nanticoke River watershed, Delaware and Maryland (USA). Wetlands 

27:462-478. 

White, D., and S. Fennessy. 2005. Modeling the suitability of wetland restoration 

potential at the watershed scale. Ecological Engineering 24:359-377. 

Wilkinson, C. 2000. Status of Coral Reefs of the World.2000. Australian Institute of

Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland.

Wilkinson, C. (ed.). 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World. 2004 Vol. I. Australian 

Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland.

Winter, T. C. 2001. The concept of hydrologic landscapes. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association 37:335-349. 

90
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Wolock, D. M., T. C. Winter, and G. McMahon. 2004. Delineation and evaluation of 

hydrologic-landscape regions in the United States using geographic information 

system tools and multivariate statistical analyses. Environmental Management 34 

(Suppl 1):S71-S88.

91
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

LTG 5—PLACE BASED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS 

5.0 Place as a Concept and Approach

The concept of place is central to the development of the science of ecology, and is 

critical to the investigation of ecosystems services. The nature, the structure, the value, 

and the aggregations of ecosystems services are all place-dependent. Therefore, none of 

the research being proposed by in this multi-year plan can be carried out without 

consideration of place. Place structures the work in two primary ways. 

First, consideration of a stressor such as nitrogen, or a resource such as wetlands, and the 

policies that affect them, require an assessment at a regional or national level that 

responds to the scale of these problems. Nitrogen sources, and the form of the nitrogen 

introduced, differ by location – with air emissions (NOx) important in the east, fertilizer 

(NO3) in the Midwest, and livestock wastes (NH3) in specific concentrated locations 

throughout the country. Likewise, the ecosystem functions that transport and transform 

nitrogen vary with location and ecosystem structure. Thus, policy decisions that address 

reductions of atmospheric emissions of nitrogen at the regional or national level (e.g., the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule) or the reductions of watershed-derived nitrogen to coastal 

waters (e.g., to control coastal eutrophication or to reduce Gulf hypoxia) must consider 

the spatial considerations of sources, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services in 

order to optimize and evaluate the effectiveness of national and regional policies. 

The second element of place-based research addresses the ways in which a full suite of 

ecosystem services derives from the characteristics of a place and changes in response to 

alterations in that place. In this context, ecosystem services, and the values associated 

with them, represent a key mechanism for (1) representing values that have not been 

traditionally incorporated into decision making, which has predominantly reflected 

economic and political considerations, and (2) providing an additional or alternative unit 

of equivalence (to $) when evaluating alternate scenarios, trade-offs, and optimization in 

decision making. 

In this case, ecosystems services are derived from ecosystem functions that are, in turn, 

associated with biogeographic characteristics of a specific place. Likewise, the responses 

of those services to natural and human drivers of change are predicated on and 

conditioned by the particularities of place. It follows, then, that research of this nature is 

highly dependent on place-specific data and information and that mapping of ecoservices, 

drivers, and outcomes will be key both to the research and to incorporating the products 

of research into decision making. 

Therefore, the ERP has chosen place based studies to address this second element. Sites 

were selected using the following general criteria: 

• Sites of interest near existing EPA research facilities; 

• Sites with a rich database in place; 

92
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

• Supported by EPA regional offices; 

• Likelihood of active partnerships with other agencies and scientists; 

• Expressed interest of the Division Director; and 

• Sites that would be in very different parts of the country with both similar and 

dissimilar issues to address. 

These criteria are more opportunistic than they are strategic, but we believe that, through 

our coordinated approach, they will fully meet our immediate needs. Should we find 

critical gaps, additional sites could be added should appropriate staff and/or monetary 

resources be available.

5.1 The Cross Place Based Quintain

A quintain (kwin’ton) is the function or condition studied in multiple cases to evaluate 

similarities and differences in order to better understand the whole (Stake 2006). Other 

government programs focused on ecological communities are actively utilizing this 

method, including the NSF-sponsored LTER, and the USDA Conservation Effects 

Assessment Project (CEAP). Each of these studies has its own quintain or purpose that 

ties the multiple study locations together. The ERP has selected four areas to study the 

quintain of ecological services as they occur across geography, climate, and drivers of 

change. 

Figure 22 is a map indicating the four study sites selected to improve our understanding 

of ecosystem services and, in turn, support sustainability efforts and good stewardship of 

our ecosystems. Each site is located in a geographically distinct region of the United 

States: 

1. The Tampa Bay region includes a handful of basins surrounding the city of 

Tampa Bay in Florida. Decision makers need information to help them better 

balance rapid urban growth while preserving unique estuarine habitats and 

economically important recreation and tourism industries. 

2. The Future Midwestern Landscapes includes 13 “bread basket” states where 

agriculture is predominant. Economic incentives for the development of biofuels 

produced from crops are causing rapid changes in land cover in this region. 

Decision makers at national, state, and local levels responsible for guiding these 

changes need tools to help balance the ecosystem services associated with

agriculture, including food and energy production, with other services that are 

associated with healthy soils, streams, and wildlife habitat. 

3. The Willamette River basin is located in an Oregon river valley between 

mountains and the ocean, where local interest in sustainable economic growth is 

strong. Of particular concern is maintaining and improving agricultural lands, 

forests, and riparian wetlands which influence river conditions. 

93
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 22 ERP Place Based Demonstration Projects Locations 

4. The Coastal Carolinas includes coastal North and South Carolina. Counties in 

the region are facing agricultural shifts and rapid development that is causing 

continued stress to their wetlands, sensitive habitats, and protected species. Much 

of the coastline also is expected to be affected by future sea level rise and 

increased tropical storm frequency and intensity, leaving many decision makers 

trying to determine what can be done to diminish impacts. 

Ecosystem services by their very nature are spatial; therefore, models or measures of 

services must be able to incorporate or extrapolate to and from a spatial format. Each of 

the ERP study areas will tap into readily available national datasets such as the NLCD, 

EPA's EMAP, and the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA). The 

national datasets can then be supplemented with more detailed regional data from studies 

like the CEAP, AmeriFlux, and the LTER, which will allow analysis of ecological 

patterns and services that occur at a finer scale. 

Given that each site has a different focus, no single statistical or analytical tool is ideal 

for addressing the range of services it provides. However, a common set of services will 

be the starting point for evaluation (see Table 15). Many of these services can be directly 

measured such as soil organic matter, temperature, crop yield, or habitat. Others can be 

derived from survey data such as fertilizer application, livestock numbers, national park 

94
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

visits, or predicted from models (i.e. soil erosion rates, surface water runoff, carbon 

storage). However, there are a number of services particularly those related to processes, 

which will be more difficult to describe (i.e. energy dissipation, habitat quality, and 

biodiversity) for which we may need to use surrogates or indirect measures. Lead 

scientists will bring together a team to work with the disparate datasets and link them to 

spatially explicit outputs that can be used in a web based decision support system. 

The success of such a large multi-site, multi-scale, multi-investigator study depends on 

preserving site-based differences while including a sufficient number of common 

ecosystem measures to allow for evaluation of basic patterns and interaction. Some

comparability will be obtained by using common approaches to modeling, while others

will be facilitated, for all four place-based studies, through a focus on measures of a 

common core list of services from among the broader list of services listed in Table 15. 

Table 15 Ecosystem Services for Place Based Study Sites (Core Services 

Indicated in BOLD CAPS) 

Service Informing Indicators 

& Measures

SUPPORTING SERVICES

Biogeochemical Cycling 

Carbon Cycling

Carbon pool storages 

Standing biomass 

Soil organic content

CARBON SEQUESTRATION Net primary production 

Nitrogen Cycling 

Nitrification Grams nitrogen / unit area / unit time

Denitrification (in rivers, lakes, 

reservoirs, wetlands) 

Microbial abundance; oxidation rate, (see Wolheim and

others for proxies) 

Habitat / refugia 

Terrestrial Nature, location, quantity & arrangement

Aquatic

WETLANDS Nature, location, quantity & arrangement

Fresh water Nature, location, quantity & arrangement

Estuarine Nature, location, quantity & arrangement

Near-coastal, marine Nature, location, quantity & arrangement

Biodiversity Species counts

REGULATING SERVICES

Air quality regulation due to vegetation Removal of pollutants 

Micro-climate regulation due to

vegetation 

Changes in diurnal temperature ranges from background 

Disturbance & Natural Hazard 

Regulation 

Erosion Control kg/ha/year reduced 

95
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Service Informing Indicators 

& Measures

FLOOD CONTROL Change in flood peaks (2-yr., 10-yr., 50-yr. recurrence 

interval) 

Fire Control Fuel load

Biological Regulation 

Pollination Increased production due to pollinators 

Pest Control Diversity/distance from ideal/fragmentation

Disease Control Host vector habitat

PROVISIONING SERVICES

Food/Fiber Production 

Animal protein

Terrestrial (livestock) lbs/ha, animals/ha

Wild aquatic (commercial fish) “yearling” estimates, catch, change in catch, change in fish 

advisories 

Plant crops (grains, fruits, etc.) Bushel /ha/year 

Grazing Forage Production Livestock supported/ hay bale/ha 

Fuels Net energy production 

Water provisioning

QUALITY EMAP condition indicators 

QUANTITY 

Surface water storages Usable volume/capacity 

Groundwater 

Maps of regional and alluvial aquifers 

Recharge rates per unit area

Est’d. change in aquifer storage, or piezometric head., ft.

above reference 

TIMING: 

Maintenance of base flow

Statistical measures of baseflow characteristics, and change

in same

Hydrologic regime Statistical measures of flow regime, and change in same

CULTURAL SERVICES

Recreational 

Hunting & Fishing Licenses/take

Ecotourism/nature Viewing/ trekking/

camping Visits /year 

Boating Rentals/docking fees

Recreational Sports Rentals 

SENSE OF PLACE Spatially explicit visualization of change in landscape for 

selected service endpoints 

Spiritual value Spatially explicit estimates of change in indigenous nonconsumptive use service endpoints 

Existence value / bequest value 

Spatially explicit visualization of change in landscape for 

selected service endpoints, including non-consumptive use 

endpoints 

96
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

These measures will likely come from existing process or empirical models. However, 

there may also be a need to develop new models using existing data. One potential 

method is to use output from site-specific process models within each place based study 

to determine critical variables for a simpler model that applicable across a greater spatial 

scale. For example PnET-CN is a moderately complex process model from which it is 

possible to pull single equation models to predict N mineralization for particular forest

types in order extrapolate to a larger area (Aber et al. 1997). The final set of model 

outputs will provide the necessary information for a general assessment of core services, 

which can then be compared across sites, as well as information on patterns of spatial 

organization, component interactions, and temporal lags in ecosystem services. 

Figure 23 provides a conceptual overview of the proposed place based approach, using 

the Willamette site as an illustrative example. Again, each site has scale and stressor 

considerations that are not identical; thus, the flexibility of many aspects of the approach 

remain site specific. 

5.2 Place Based Project Goal

The overarching goal of the ERP place based research is to complete, by 2013, four sitespecific demonstration projects that illustrate how regional and local managers can use 

alternative future scenarios to proactively conserve and enhance ecosystem goods and 

services in order to benefit human well-being and to secure the integrity and productivity 

of ecological systems. 

5.3 Common Research Questions and Outcomes

While each of the place based research sites will support a distinct set of models and 

assessments, all will to some extent address the questions and seek the outcomes noted in 

Figure 24. 

Table 16 summarizes the Annual Performance Goals that are common to all of the placebased demonstration projects. The following sections provide descriptions of each place 

based project and note project-specific annual performance goals. 

97
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Description Year 

Due 

APG 50 Plausible future scenarios are developed for place based studies 

(with informed input from national, regional and local managers). 2010 

APG 51 Ecosystem services are quantified spatially (and decision makers 

informed) 2011 

APG 52 The value of ecosystem services is determined within each place 

based study and provided to decision makers. 

2012 

APG 53 Ecosystem services and their value are included in a tool for 

decision making. 2013 

Table 16 APGs for LTG 5 

Figure 23 Flow path illustrating the project goals of quantifying ecosystem 

services through impact on the web of complex ecosystem processes 

and pools, and understanding how these ecosystem processes provide 

services of interest. The project builds upon a strong foundation of 

research on landscape condition and projected future change from the 

Baker et al. study (2004). 

98
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

ERP – Place Based Demonstration P lace Based Demonstration Projects

Science Que nce Questions Outcomes

What are the ecosy are the ecosystem functions w unctions which 

support or provide good ide goods and serv s and services? Decision makers are provided information t ation to recognize the true 

monetary and non-monetary value delivered by ecosystem

services. What is the v is the value of ecosystem services 

in terms of human well-being?

What are the modeled relationships 

between input een inputs and drivers of change and change and Decision makers are provided the necessar ided the necessary information to 

ecosystem structure, function and tion and understand the relationship bet hip between change, e hange, ecological f ological function 

services? and deliv and delivery of ecosystem services.

What trade-offs occur among bundles ong bundles of

ecosystem services and how do these do these 

trade-offs respond to changes in land use in land use 

and other and other variables? Decision makers use tools to inform policy decisions. isions.

What tools are needed e needed to demonstrate 

ecosystem services and their value to

decision makers?

ERP Long-term Goal 5

Complete four site-specific demonstration projects that illustrate how regional and local 

managers can use alt anagers can use alternative future scenarios to pr scenarios to proactively conserve and enhance and enhance 

ecosystem goods and s goods and services.

Figure 24 Overview of LTG 5 

5.4 Willamette Demonstration Project 

The "Willamette Ecosystem Service District" comprises an area of western Oregon 

roughly defined by the Willamette River Basin, but including counties, ecological 

regions, and other components of the appropriate spatial context (Heal et al. 2001) 

(Figure 25). However, the quantification of some services, such as carbon sequestration 

may require a larger, regional perspective. 

Oregon’s Willamette River is located in western Oregon, has a drainage area of 29,727 

square kilometers, and has the thirteenth highest streamflow of rivers in the conterminous 

United States. The Willamette Basin has a Mediterranean climate with dry summers and 

wet winters. Most precipitation occurs between November and March. The Willamette 

River drains the Coast Range on the west side of the basin, the Willamette Valley, and 

the Cascade Mountains to the east. 

99
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 25 The Willamette Ecosystem Service District

Forests dominate the Coast Range and Cascade Mountains, while the valley is home to a 

diversified agricultural industry and a growing component of urban and suburban land. 

Pasture and grass seed fields occupy 60 percent of the valley’s agricultural area, with 

grass seed production occurring primarily on the extensive areas of poorly drained soils. 

The Willamette River network supports a wide variety of native and exotic fish species. 

In general, lowland (valley) stream and river systems support greater numbers of fish 

species than higher elevation, headwater streams and rivers. Several fish species in the 

region are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or are being considered for 

listing, including: Oregon chub (Oregonichthys crameri), spring Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynynchus mykiss), coho salmon 

(Oncorhynynchus kisutch), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynynchus clarki), and bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus). 

Population in the Willamette Basin is concentrated in the four major urban centers of 

Portland, Salem, Corvallis, and Eugene. City limits and urban growth boundaries 

determine the geographic extent of high density development today and in the future. 

The 1990 estimate of population in the Basin was 2,300,000. By 2050, the total 

population of the Basin will grow to 4,000,000. Increasing population is a major forcing 

variable or stressor on the Basin and the delivery of ecosystem services. 

The dominant ownership classes in the Basin are private (64 percent of the land area), 

followed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS, 28 percent) and Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) O&C lands (5 percent). The Willamette Valley Ecoregion (WVE) is almost 

exclusively in private ownership, while the Cascades Ecoregion (CE) is largely 

Federally-owned (primarily USFS) with some private industrial forest ownership as well. 

100
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Land use zoning is the result of Local Comprehensive Plans completed by cities and 

counties under Oregon 1973 Statewide Land Use planning guidelines and regulations. 

Zoning is one of the implementing measures along with land-division ordinances and the 

establishment of urban growth boundaries. The legal framework of land use planning is 

largely responsible for determining what land management practices are permitted under 

each zoning classification. The result in Oregon over the last thirty-five years is a 

relatively stable base of forest and agricultural land use. 

Presettlement vegetation of the Willamette Valley comprised a complex mosaic of forest, 

savanna, prairie and wetlands. The conversion of these lands to agricultural land use 

represents the largest and most extensive alteration of ecosystem structure and function in 

the Basin. Table 17 provides a comparison of Land Cover types in 1851 and 1990. 

Notably, land cover types such as Natural Grass (Prairie), Savanna and Wetland are 

largely missing from the 1990 landscape. 

Land Cover 

1851 

area (ha)

1990 

area (ha) 

1851 

% of 

area 

1990 

% of 

area 

Change in 

Cover (%) 

Development 0 175,928 0.0 10.7 N/A

Agriculture 0 552,552 0.0 33.5 N/A

Natural Grass 310,823 9,333 18.9 0.6 -97.0 

Natural Shrub 219,275 124,895 13.3 7.6 -43.0 

Hardwood Forest 89,249 107,901 5.4 6.5 20.9 

Mixed Forest 60,476 255,299 3.7 15.5 322.1 

Conifer Forest 603,050 384,967 36.6 23.3 -36.2 

Savanna 213,580 0 13.0 0 -100.0

Wetland 130,324 7,221 7.9 0.4 -94.5

Water 21,275 25,635 1.3 1.6 20.5

Table 17 Willamette Valley Land Cover Change 1851-1990 (from Hulse et al. 

2002). 

5.5 Tampa Bay Demonstration Project

The Tampa Bay demonstration project will focus on the region defined as the Tampa Bay 

Estuary Watershed (Figure 26). Tampa Bay, Florida's largest open-water estuary, covers 

398 square miles at high tide and comprises six major sub-watersheds. Popular for sport 

and recreation, the Bay also supports one of the world's most productive natural systems. 

More than 100 tributaries flow into Tampa Bay, including dozens of meandering, 

brackish-water creeks and four major rivers -- the Hillsborough, Alafia, Manatee, and 

Little Manatee. Estuaries like Tampa Bay, where salt water from the sea and fresh water 

101
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 26 Tampa Bay Estuary Watershed (Source: Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program 2006) 

from rivers and uplands mix, are nurseries for young fish, shrimp, and crabs. More than 

70 percent of all fish, shellfish, and crustaceans spend some critical stage of their 

development in these nearshore waters, protected from larger predators that swim the 

open sea. 

Wildlife abounds along the shores of Tampa Bay. Mangrove-blanketed islands in Tampa 

Bay support the most diverse colonial water bird nesting colonies in North America, 

annually hosting 40,000 pairs of 25 different species of birds, from the familiar white ibis 

and great blue heron to the regal reddish egret -- the rarest heron in the nation. Others, 

including sandpipers and white pelicans, are seasonal visitors. The Bay also is home to 

dolphins, sea turtles, and manatees. 

102
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Co-located with this extremely productive natural ecosystem is a very large urban center 

of commerce, transportation, and industry. In fact, the success of these human uses 

depends on the quality of the Tampa Bay ecosystem. The Port of Tampa is Florida's 

largest port and consistently ranks among the top 10 ports nationwide in trade activity. 

Two additional ports, St. Petersburg and northern Manatee County, also add to the Bay’s 

commercial value. Combined, the three ports contribute an estimated $15 billion to the 

local economy and support 130,000 jobs. More than four billion gallons of oil, fertilizer 

components, and other hazardous materials pass through Tampa Bay each year. The 

Tampa-St. Petersburg area annually contributes billions to the region's economy and is 

home to more than 2.3 million people. 

Tampa Bay is also a focal point for the region’s premier industry – tourism. The Bay and 

the sparkling beaches of the surrounding barrier islands attract nearly five million visitors 

each year. Fort DeSoto Park, at the mouth of Tampa Bay, was named the number one 

beach in the continental United States in a 2004 annual survey. Sport fishing, boating, 

kayaking, and wildlife watching are increasingly popular activities among both visitors 

and residents – an interest fueled by steady improvements in water quality. Today, onesixth of the Gulf Coast population of Florida manatees spend the winter near power 

plants bordering the bay, and more than 200 species of fish spend some part of their lives 

within the Tampa Bay estuary. 

The number of people in this area is expected to grow by nearly 19 percent by the year 

2015, as approximately 500 people move each week to one of the watershed's three 

counties. According to a study completed by the University of Florida, the west-central 

region of Florida will experience "explosive" growth, with continuous urban 

development from Ocala to Sebring, and St. Petersburg to Daytona Beach (Zwick and 

Carr 2006). The I-75 and I-4 corridors are expected to be fully developed. Most of 

Florida's Heartland will convert to urban development, resulting in a dramatic loss of 

agricultural character and native Florida landscape that define this region today (Figure 

27). Seminole, Orange, Brevard, Indian River, Pinellas, and Manatee Counties are 

expected to build out in the period from 2020 to 2040, so population is projected to spill 

over into surrounding counties in the region. Virtually all the natural systems and 

wildlife corridors in this region will be fragmented, if not replaced, by urban 

development. 

Thus, the Tampa Bay ecosystem represents a nearly perfect example of projected stress 

of human development on a natural ecosystem that is valued (economically, aesthetically 

and culturally) in its present state. With such fast-paced growth, redressing past damage 

to Bay habitats and protecting them in the future will remain the greatest challenge for 

managers in this region. Maintaining the water quality gains of recent decades will 

require more effort every year to compensate for increased pollution associated with 

growth. 

103
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 27 Predicted low, medium and high-density imperviousness in the 

Tampa Bay region in 2025

104
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

5.6 Future Midwestern Landscapes Demonstration Project

The Midwestern United States, comprising the Eastern, Central and Western plains, is 

responsible for a significant proportion of the world's grain production. However, 

growing U.S. energy needs, shrinking domestic energy reserves, and instability of foreign 

supplies are causing a growing segment of Midwestern agriculture to be shifted from 

production of food to production of energy feedstocks. The actions of multiple Federal 

agencies are driving this shift, including the Internal Revenue Service (tax incentives), 

the Departments of Agriculture and Energy (grant and loan programs), Customs and 

Border Protection (fuel ethanol import duties), and EPA (renewable fuel content 

standards) (Yacobucci 2006; OTAQ 2007). These federal policies are augmented by 

many state and local incentives. 

While current biofuel production is based on grain, the president's Alternative Energy 

Initiative (The White House 2006) calls for research to extend the range of feedstocks to 

include cellulosic materials. A 2005 study by USDA and the Department of Energy 

(DOE), referred to as the "Billion-Ton Study," concluded that “the land resources of the 

United States are capable of producing a sustainable supply of biomass sufficient to 

displace 30 percent or more of the country’s present petroleum consumption” (Perlack et 

al. 2005). This conclusion was based on the potential availability of more than 1.3 billion 

dry tons of biomass feedstock per year, of which one billion would originate from

agricultural resources – especially residues such as corn stover and perennial crops such 

as grasses. Achieving these production and use figures, the study notes, would entail 

changes in land use and land management practices. These changes may have important 

ramifications, both positive and negative, for the ecosystem services that are associated 

with Midwestern agricultural landscapes (see for example Hill et al. 2006). Furthermore, 

until the much-anticipated cellulosic conversion technologies are fully available, surges 

in demand for corn as fuel feedstock will generate environmental concern (see for 

example NASS 2007). 

A National Biofuels Action Plan is being drafted to lay out a coordinated federal strategy 

for bioenergy development. Under this plan, an interagency team including EPA’s Office 

of Transportation and Air Quality is expected to conduct full life-cycle analyses of 

environmental and human health risks and impacts associated with alternative feedstocks 

and processes. To complement this examination of risks and impacts (i.e., harms), ERP 

proposes a landscape-level analysis, referred to as the “Future Midwestern Landscapes” 

(FML) study, of the ecosystem services (i.e., benefits) associated with each alternative. 

This analysis would include as many as possible of the provisioning, regulating, cultural, 

and supporting services (as defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)) 

that are associated with alternative, future Midwestern landscapes. Taken together with 

the life-cycle studies, this analysis would afford a more complete picture of the trade-offs 

associated with each alternative. 

The spatial boundaries for this study will be established to define a relatively contiguous 

area of the Midwest comprising the areas most likely to be affected by biofuels 

development. The current area of concentration of ethanol biorefineries suggests 

approximate study boundaries (Figure 28). However, when cellulosic technologies 

105
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 28 U.S. ethanol biorefinery locations, in production and under 

construction, as of April 2007 Source: Renewable Fuels Association

2007. 

become competitive, biofuels production areas will include more western areas of the 

Great Plains. Areas to be included also will depend on data availability and the 

commitment of Federal or state partners to provide needed support. Within this large 

area, smaller-scale areas may also be defined for scenario development and analysis 

exercises that respond to the needs of regional planners or watershed groups. 

5.7 Coastal Carolina Demonstration Project

The Coastal Carolinas demonstration project is still in the conceptual stage and does not, 

at this time, have a formalized research agenda. This study will focus on identifying and 

quantifying ecosystem services, and establishing the relationships of air, land, and aquatic 

processes to coastal ecosystem functions in order to support decisions that promote 

healthy and sustainable coastal communities. 

The Coastal Carolinas (Figure 29) encompass the tidal counties from Currituck Sound 

south to the Savannah River, and include the Albemarle and Pamlico Estuaries, Cape 

Hatteras, and the Outer Banks, and the major cities of Wilmington, Myrtle Beach, and 

Charleston. These areas are experiencing unprecedented pressures from population 

growth, landscape alteration, and climate change, including anticipated impacts from 

rising sea levels. 

North Carolina has 37 coastal counties that contain 40 percent of the state's land area and 

23 percent of the state's population (as of 2004). South Carolina has 22 coastal counties, 

containing 50 percent of the state's land area and 40 percent of its population (as of 

106
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Figure 29 Coastal counties (blue) and tidal watersheds (dark blue outlines) of 

North and South Carolina. 

2004). Population shifts in these coastal counties have varied dramatically, with some of 

the more rural counties losing as much as five percent of their population during the 

period 2000 to 2004, while the population in others (four in North Carolina and two in 

South Carolina) grew by 10 to nearly 20 percent in that same brief period. These shifts 

are reflected in changes in ecological systems and services. 

Housing construction and infrastructure development in immediate coastal areas 

frequently occurs in high risk landscapes - the 'ocean view' is the most desirable property, 

despite storm exposure and impacts to nearby wetlands and other near-shore ecosystems. 

Increasingly higher costs of property with appropriate elevation, drainage, and adequate 

infrastructure is pushing development into less suitable areas. Low-lying areas along the 

coasts of North and South Carolina are at particular risk of anticipated increases in the 

frequency, intensity, and duration of tropical and subtropical storms resulting from the 

gradual warming of the surface waters of the Atlantic Ocean. In addition, these areas will 

also experience the greatest impacts from sea level rise, as high tides extend farther 

inshore and higher up existing terrain. Barrier islands and tidal marshes will tend to 

move inland with advancing sea levels, regardless of existing human construction, 

increasing the cost of maintaining existing structures in immediate coastal areas. 

107
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Principal shifts anticipated in rural coastal counties are increased food crop production as 

a result of the increasing emphasis on biofuels production in the Midwest, and the 

wholesale conversion of large areas to high ethanol-yield corn. These changes may be 

accompanied by increased rates of fertilizer application, with resultant changes in nutrient

loading to coastal watersheds. Depending on the demand, some managed forest areas 

may be converted to open agriculture, with associated additional sediment and nutrient 

runoff. 

The goal of the Coastal Carolinas demonstration project is to provide local, state, and 

regional decision makers in North and South Carolina with integrated tools and 

information that incorporate the concepts and measures of ecosystem services. ERP's 

expectation is that decision makers will then use these tools and data to appropriately

assess the full costs and benefits of land use decisions, including the ability to evaluate

the long term value of such ecosystem services and the probable future impacts and costs 

of such decisions under a variety of possible future scenarios. 

5.8 References

Aber, J.D., S.V. Ollinger, C. T. Driscoll. 1997. Modeling nitrogen saturation in forest 

ecosystems in response to land use and atmospheric deposition. Ecological 

Modeling 101:61-78. 

Baker, J.P., D.W. Hulse, S.V. Gregory, D. White, J. Van Sickle, P.A. Berger, and N.H. 

Schumaker. 2004. Alternative futures for the Willamette River Basin, Oregon.

Ecological Applications 14:313–324. 

Heal, G., G.C. Daily, P.R. Ehrlich, J. Salzman, C. Boggs, J. Hellmann, J. Hughes, C. 

Kremen, and T. Ricketts. 2001. Protecting natural capital through ecosystem

service districts. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20:333-364. 

Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, D. Tiffany. 2006. Environmental, economic, 

and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(30): 

11206-11210. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: 

Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007. "Prospective plantings." Retrieved April

20, 2007, from http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/pspl0307.txt. 

OTAQ. 2007. "Renewable fuel standard program." Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, U.S. EPA. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/ - rfs040907. 

Perlack, R. D., L. L. Wright, A. F. Turhollow, R. L. Graham, B. J. Stokes, D. C. Erbach.

2005. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: The 

108
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply, U.S. Department of Energy;

U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Renewable Fuels Association. 2007. "Ethanol biorefinery locations." Retrieved April 

20, 2007, from http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/. 

Stake, R. E. 2006. Multiple Case Study Analysis. pp339, New York, New York: The 

Guilford Press. 

The White House. 2006. Advanced energy initiative. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/. 

Yacobucci, B. D. 2006. Biofuels incentives: A summary of federal programs, Resources, 

Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service, The Library of 

Congress. http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/links/pdf/Biofuels_Incentives.pdfTampa Bay 

Estuary Program. 2006. Charting The Course: The Comprehensive Conservation and 

Management Plan for Tampa Bay.

Zwick, P.D. and M.H. Carr. 2006. Florida 2060: A population distribution scenario for 

the State of Florida. GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida. 25 pp. 

109
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

6.0 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

Measuring the performance of a research program is a significant challenge. The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) uses the Performance Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART) as a means to periodically evaluate the progress and efficiency of the ERP in 

meeting its goals. The mission of the PART is to establish clear measures and milestones 

against which the program can be monitored and assessed with respect to its overall 

stewardship of the public trust and the progress it has made towards outcomes that 

demonstrate or reflect benefit to the American public. 

Appendix C summarizes OMB's assessment of the ERP with respect to the goals from the 

2003 MYP.8

 ERP's aggregate PART ratings from the last three assessments are as 

follows: 

Ecosystems Research PART Ratings

Year Score Rating

2003 40.0% Results Not Demonstrated

2005 46.0% Ineffective

2007 71.2% Moderately Effective

Improvements in the PART rating are closely associated with improvements in our ability 

to define specific metrics, establish baselines and, as a result, observe measurable 

changes in those metrics over time. The ERP has not yet defined the performance 

measures for the work proposed in this MYP. 

6.1 Reviews

The ERP MYP undergoes several period reviews, including: 

• Every four to five years: 

o A BOSC full Program Review (next review tentatively scheduled for 

2009); and 

o A PART review (next review tentatively scheduled for 2011). 

• Every 2 years, a BOSC mid-cycle review to examine the program's progress. 

• Additional reviews, as desired (for example, a Science Advisory Board review of 

the MYP). 

8 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10001135.2007.html for the complete 

OMB assessment.

110
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

These reviews are critical to the scientific integrity of the program. The most recent midcycle BOSC review occurred in May 2007, with a primary objective of evaluating the 

existing program and outlining, conceptually, the new research program.9

 The BOSC 

offered a number of comments which have influenced the direction and/or approach 

described in this MYP. 

In brief, they advised the ERP to: 

• Improve performance measure recommendations; 

• Improve outreach; and 

• Enhance leadership and collaboration. 

The ERP is acting on all of these recommendations. A team has been formed to review 

and revise the metrics specific to the program, an education and outreach effort has been 

added to the program, and all of the program participants are charged with finding 

partners for collaborative undertakings. With regard to this third recommendation, ERP 

is engaged in discussions with several organizations, including: 

• National Geographic, for the purpose of developing a national atlas of ecosystem

services. 

• The Natural Capital Project (comprising The Nature Conservancy, the World 

Wildlife Fund, and Stanford University), for the purpose of developing and 

refining methods to map and value ecosystem services. Initial efforts will focus 

on the Willamette River Basin. 

• The World Resources Institute, for the purpose of making ecosystem services a 

mainstream component of business decision-making. 

• The Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont, for 

the purpose of testing and refining the MIMES at ERP’s place-based study areas. 

• Harvard University, where environmental law students would conduct research on 

(1) how existing laws address ecosystem services, and (2) how new laws could be 

crafted to address legal, social, geographic, and ecological issues associated with 

ecosystem services. 

6.2 Agency Interactions

This program has been assembled primarily within the Office of Research and 

Development with less-than-usual input from stakeholders within the Agency. Given the 

program's core science focus, we believe the program's scientists can best propose a longterm strategy. Subjecting this document to peer review is expected to confirm our belief 

that the proposed research will make important scientific contributions. We will also

9 See http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/ecomc082307rpt.pdf. 

111
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

engage the Agency in discussions to determine how we can collaborate to advance goals 

in areas of mutual interest. Information from these discussions will be a critical input 

during the development of MYP implementation plans (due in mid-July 2008), in which 

research leads will outline schedules for the achievement of specific goals. 

The target audiences for ERP's research output include local decision makers, whose 

daily decisions affect the quantity and quality of ecosystem services; staff in EPA 

Regional Offices who must implement regulations that affect these services and who 

must consider the impact of many small decisions on the larger regional scale; and EPA's 

national program managers, who are responsible for implementing regulations on a 

national scale. Interaction with these audiences will help ensure that the ERP research 

framework achieves its intended science and regulatory goals.

112
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program M

APPENDIX A DETAILED CATALOGUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 

Service Informing Indicators & Measures Spatial extent; spatial and temporal resolution Spatial char

ser

SUPPORTING SERVICESBiogeochemical CyclingCarbon Cycling

Carbon pool storages 

Standing biomass Regional: Seasonal time-step National: Seasonal time-step Global non-prox

depend on proxi

Soil organic content Regional: Annual time-step National: Annual time-step Global non-prox

Carbon sequestration Net primary production Regional: Annual time-step National: Annual time-step Global non-prox

Nitrogen Cycling

Nitrification Grams nitrogen / unit area / unit time

Local: Regional: National: 

Local proximal (proximity) 

Denitrification (in rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands) 

Microbial abundance; oxidation rate, (see Wolheim and others for proxies) 

Regional: National: 

Local proximal (Directional flow

Habitat / refugia Regional: Annual time-step Local: Annual time-step

Terrestrial Nature, location, quantity & 

arrangement

National: Annual time-stepRegional: Annual time-stepLocal: Annual time-step

Aquatic - Fresh water Nature, location, quantity & arrangement National: Annual time-step Regional: Annual time-step Local: Annual time-stepAquatic - Estuarine Nature, location, quantity & arrangement National: Annual time-step Regional: Annual time-step Local: Annual time-step

A-1
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program M

Service Informing Indicators & Measures Spatial extent; spatial and temporal resolution Spatial char

ser

Aquatic - Near-coastal, marine Nature, location, quantity & arrangement National: Annual time-step Regional: Annual time-step Local: Annual time-step 

Biodiversity Species counts

National: Annual time-stepRegional: Annual time-stepLocal: Annual time-step

REGULATING SERVICES Air quality regulation due tovegetation Removal of pollutants 

National – annual time-stepRegional – annual time-stepLocal – annual time-step 

Micro-climate regulation due tovegetation 

Changes in diurnal temperature ranges from background

Regional –summer seasonLocal – summer season 

Disturbance & Natural Hazard Regulation

Erosion Control kg/ha/year reduced Directional flowFlood Control Change in flood peaks (2-yr., 10-yr., 50-yr. recurrence interval) Directional flowFire Control Fuel load Local proximal 

Biological Regulation

Pollination Increased production due to

pollinators Local proximal

Pest Control Diversity/distance from ideal/fragmentation Local proximalDisease Control Host vector habitat Local proximal 

PROVISIONING SERVICESFood/Fiber Production

Plant crops (grains, fruits, et Bushel /ha/year Regional: Annual time-step In-situAnimal proteinTerrestrial (livestock) lbs/ha, animals/ha Regional: Annual time-step In-situ 

A-2
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program M

Service Informing Indicators & Measures Spatial extent; spatial and temporal resolution Spatial char

ser

Wild aquatic (commercial fish) “yearling” estimates, catch, change in catch, change in fish advisories Regional: Annual time-step Local: Annual time-step Local proximal 

 Grazing Forage Production Livestock supported/hay bale/ha In-situFuels Net energy production Regional: Annual time-step In-situWater provisioning

Quality EMAP condition indicators National: rotating assessment Local proximal a

flow related 

Quantity Local proximal a

flow related 

Surface water storages usable volume/capacity National: Local proximalGroundwater 

-- Maps of regional and alluvialaquifers -- Recharge rates per unit area-- Est’d. change in aquifer storage, or piezometric head., ft. above reference 

National: Regional: Local: 

Local proximal 

Timing:Maintenance of base flow

Statistical measures of baseflow characteristics, and change in same

Regional: Local: 

Hydrologic regime Statistical measures of flow regime, and change in same Regional: Local: 

CULTURAL SERVICESRecreational All recreation are Regional & Local: Annual time-step User movement 

proximal

Hunting & Fishing Licenses/take User movement 

proximal

Ecotourism/Nature Viewing/trekking/ camping Visits /year User movement 

proximal

Boating Rentals/docking fees User movement 

proximal

Recreational Sports Rentals User movement 

proximal

Sense of place

Spatially explicit visualization ofchange in landscape for selected service endpoints 

Regional: Local: Local proximal 

A-3
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program M

Service Informing Indicators & Measures Spatial extent; spatial and temporal resolution Spatial char

ser

Spiritual value 

Same as Sense of Place, plusspatially explicit estimates of changein indigenous non-consumptive use service endpoints 

National, Regional, Local Local proximal a

proximal

Existence value / bequest value 

Spatially explicit visualization ofchange in landscape for selected service endpoints, including nonconsumptive use endpoints 

National: Regional: Local: 

Global non-prox

A-4
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

APPENDIX B ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ANNUAL 

PERFORMANCE GOALS 

Description Year 

Due 

LTG 1 - Human Health and Well Being Component 

APG 1 

Develop and test preliminary indicators of human health and wellbeing for use in assessing the results of protecting and restoring 

ecosystem services. 

2010 

APG 2 

Characterize benefits to human health and well-being associated 

with the provision of selected ecosystem services in the ERP 

place-based initiatives. 

2011 

APG 3 Document relationships between disturbance to ecosystem

services and changes in human health outcomes or exposures. 

2012 

APG 4 

Develop, test, and implement an index of well-being applicable to 

multiple ecosystems, stressor scenarios, and ERP place-based

initiatives. 

2014 

LTG 1 - Valuation Component

APG 5 Non-market Ecosystem Service Classification System (NESCS) 

incorporated into DSP. 2012 

APG 6 Refined guidance of characterizing ecosystem service production 

functions for single and bundled services added to DSP. 2011 

APG 7 Enhanced economic and supplemental donor-based valuation 

methods fully incorporated into DSP. 2014 

LTG 1 - Outreach and Education Component 

APG 8 

Create diverse client base, determine client needs, values, 

understanding of ecosystem services to enhance research and 

decision support development 

2009 

APG 9 Translate ecosystem services into a useable conceptual framework 

for decision makers 2012 

APG 10 Produce first generation case study application of ecosystem

service-based decisions and implementation for education 2013 

APG 11 Activate education/training products and evaluate implementation 

of ES based decisions on achieve environmental results 2014 

B-1
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Description Year 

Due 

LTG 1 - Decision Support Platform Component 

APG 12 

Identify ERP and non-ERP products such as tools, approaches, 

techniques, models, etc. to address user needs and develop DS 

Platform architecture foundation requirements 

2010 

APG 13 Develop Decision Support Platform Architecture 2011 

APG 14 Populate two modules of the DS Platform and disseminate for 

interactive Beta testing and client feedback 2012 

APG 15 Populate additional modules of the DS Platform and disseminate 

for interactive Beta testing and client feedback 2013 

APG 16 Fully functional DS Platform is on-line and utilized by clients to 

incorporate ecosystem services into the decision process. 2014 

LTG 2 - Monitoring 

APG 17 Peer reviewed research and implementation plan for developing a 

national ecosystem services inventory. 2009 

APG 18 Direct or indirect measures for select ecosystem services have 

been established. 2011 

APG 19 Implications for combining monitoring data based on different 

spatial scales understood. 2012 

APG 20 Suitability of existing federal monitoring efforts for assessing 

ecosystem services has been determined. 2013 

APG 21 Design requirements for reporting at multiple spatial scales have 

been determined. 2013 

APG 22 A monitoring framework for a national ecosystem services 

inventory is available. 2014 

LTG 2 - Modeling 

APG 23 

Peer reviewed research plan that outlines a systematic approach to 

meeting high-priority modeling needs for ecosystem services, 

including a tiered approach for matching model complexity with 

scale, scope, and intended uses. 

2009 

APG 24 

New approaches for integrated modeling of high-priority 

ecosystem services are identified in collaboration with clients, 

social scientists, and economists, including ecological production 

functions required for valuation. 

2011 

APG 25 

Assessment methods incorporate ecological production functions 

for high-priority services, including requirements for transparency, 

reproducibility, and characterization of uncertainty. 

2012 

B-2
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Description Year 

Due 

APG 26 Community-wide standards of practice for ecosystem service 

modeling research and scenario development are identified. 2013 

APG 27 Monitoring and Modeling components are published according to 

a community standard format, accompanied by metadata. 2013 

APG 28 An ERP expert knowledge data base for modeling is available for 

inclusion in the ERP decision support platform. 2014 

LTG 2 - Mapping 

Completion of an integrated multi-year research and development 

APG 29 plan for a national atlas, an inventory system, and models for 2009 

selected ecosystem services 

APG 30 

Methods developed and demonstrated for modeling and mapping 

ecosystem services related to wetlands, nitrogen cycling, and 

water quality including demonstrations at multiple spatial scales in 

place-based research areas 

2010 

APG 31 

Methods developed and demonstrated for modeling and mapping 

ecosystem services related to carbon cycling, water provisioning, 

aquatic habitat and fisheries, and storm surge protection including 

demonstrations at multiple scales in place-based research areas 

2011 

APG 32 First national ecosystem services maps related to wetlands, 

nitrogen cycling, and water quality are available. 2011 

First national ecosystem services maps related to carbon cycling, 

APG 33 water provisioning, aquatic habitat and fisheries, and storm surge 2012 

protection are available 

APG 34 Methods developed and demonstrated for bundling of ecosystem

services 2013 

Interactive maps are available to decision-makers to help them

APG 35 protect, enhance, and restore the delivery of ecosystem services at 2014 

multiple spatial scales 

LTG 3 - Nitrogen Assessment 

APG 36 Complete an implementation plan for the ERP nitrogen research 

effort. 2008 

APG 37 

Report on the state of the science on ecosystem services and 

reactive N using national and international data sources, including 

the Science Advisory Board Committee studying reactive 

nitrogen. 

2009 

Provide ecosystem service response functions for reactive N and 

APG 38 responsive ecosystem services for multiple ecosystems, including 2010 

wetlands, for the place based ecosystem services districts. 

Research report on thresholds of change in key ecological 

APG 39 services affected by changes in emission rates of Nr to the 2011 

atmosphere. 

B-3
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Description Year 

Due 

APG 40 

Report on the value of ecological services provided by Nr and 

costs associated with the services affected by Nr within the placebased demonstration projects based on alternative management 

options. 

2012 

Provide the modeling framework as a multi-media decisionsupport tool for Nr based on the optimization of ecological 

APG 41 services affected by changes in forms and flows of Nr from 2013 

anthropogenic sources affecting the place-based demonstration 

projects. 

LTG 4 - Ecosystem Assessments 

APG 42 

Provide a scientifically defensible approach for conducting the 

research to support policy and management actions that protect, 

enhance and restore the ecosystem goods and services of 

wetlands and coral reefs.

2009 

APG 43 Characterize the relationships between ecological function and 

delivery of services by wetlands and coral reefs. 2010 

APG 44 Evaluate how surveys of condition can be used to estimate the 

delivery of ecosystem services by wetlands and coral reefs 2011 

APG 45 Develop landscape approaches for determining the hydrologic 

and ecological functions of wetlands and coral reefs 2011 

APG 46 

Develop landscape models predicting the delivery of specific 

ecosystem services and bundles of services based on wetland 

landscape profiles, empirical stressor-response models, and 

published literature. 

2012 

APG 47 Characterize effects of environmental change on the delivery of 

ecosystem services provided by wetlands and coral reefs. 2013 

APG 48 

Develop interactive mapping tools for decision makers to 

evaluate the effects of local and landscape manipulations, 

including protection, restoration, enhancement, and degradation, 

on the provision and value of wetland ecosystem services. 

2014 

APG 49 Develop and demonstrate decision support tools that will protect 

and sustain coral reef ecosystem services 2015 

LTG 5 - Place-Based Demonstration Projects 

APG 50 Plausible future scenarios are developed for place based studies 

(with informed input from national, regional and local managers). 2010 

APG 51 Ecosystem services are quantified spatially (and decision makers 

informed) 2011 

APG 52 The value of ecosystem services is determined within each place 

based study and provided to decision makers. 

2012 

APG 53 Ecosystem services and their value are included in a tool for 

decision making. 2013 

B-4
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

APPENDIX C: 2003 ERP MYP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

Note: As ERP completes work associated with the 2003 MYP, and as work associated 

with the 2008 MYP commences, a new set of performance measures will replace the ones 

described below. 

Measure: Utility of ORD's causal diagnosis tools and methods for States, tribes, and relevant 

EPA offices to determine causes of ecological degradation and achieve positive environmental 

outcomes. 

This measure captures the assessment by an independent expert review panel of the 

appropriateness, quality, and use of the program's research under 2003 Long-Term Goal 1. This 

measure was established during the 2005 PART review, though the wording was modified 

slightly to conform with a new rating methodology developed through an OMB/ORD/Board of 

Scientific Counselors (BOSC) workgroup. Using a well-defined, consistent methodology, the 

BOSC will provide a qualitative rating and summary narrative regarding the performance of each 

2003 Long-Term Goal. Rating categories include: Exceptional, Exceeds Expectations, 

Satisfactory, and Not Satisfactory. Full ratings are expected approximately every 4 years, though 

the BOSC will provide progress ratings at the mid-point between full program reviews. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Long-term Outcome

2009 Exceeds 

Expectations 

2013 Exceeds 

Expectations 

Measure: Utility of ORD's environmental forecasting tools and methods for States, tribes, and 

relevant EPA offices to forecast the ecological impacts of various actions and achieve positive 

environmental outcomes. 

This measure captures the assessment by an independent expert review panel of the 

appropriateness, quality, and use of the program's research under 2003 Long-Term Goal 2. This 

measure was established during a 2005 PART review, though the wording was modified slightly

to conform with a new rating methodology developed through an OMB/ORD/Board of Scientific 

Counselors (BOSC) workgroup. Using a well-defined, consistent methodology, the BOSC will 

provide a qualitative rating and summary narrative regarding the performance of each 2003 LongTerm Goal. Rating categories include: Exceptional, Exceeds Expectations, Satisfactory, and Not 

Satisfactory. Full ratings are expected approximately every 4 years, though the BOSC will 

provide progress ratings at the mid-point between full program reviews. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Long-term Outcome

2009 Exceeds 

Expectations 

2013 Exceeds 

Expectations 

C-1
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Measure: Utility of ORD's environmental restoration and services tools and methods for States, 

tribes, and relevant EPA offices to protect and restore ecological condition and services to 

achieve positive environmental outcomes. 

This measure captures the assessment by an independent expert review panel of the 

appropriateness, quality, and use of the program's research under 2003 Long-Term Goal 3. This 

measure was established during a 2005 PART review, though the wording was modified slightly

to conform with a new rating methodology developed through an OMB/ORD/Board of Scientific 

Counselors (BOSC) workgroup. Using a well-defined, consistent methodology, the BOSC will 

provide a qualitative rating and summary narrative regarding the performance of each 2003 LongTerm Goal. Rating categories include: Exceptional, Exceeds Expectations, Satisfactory, and Not 

Satisfactory. Full ratings are expected approximately every 4 years, though the BOSC will 

provide progress ratings at the mid-point between full program reviews. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Long-term Outcome

2009 Exceeds 

Expectations 

2013 Exceeds 

Expectations 

Measure: States use a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to determine the 

status and trends of ecological resources and the effectiveness of programs and policies. 

Data reflect the number of States with which the program has worked collaboratively to assist in 

using a common monitoring design and developing appropriate indicators. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Long-term Outcome

2008 35

2015 50

Measure: Percentage of Ecological Research publications rated as highly-cited publications. 

This metric provides a systematic way of quantifying research performance and impact by

counting the number of times an article is cited within other publications. The "highly cited" data 

are based on the percentage of all program publications that are cited in the top 10% of their field, 

as determined by "Thomson's Essential Science Indicator" (ESI). Each analysis evaluates the

publications from the last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert 

program reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors. 

C-2
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Term Type Year Target Actual

Annual Outcome

2005 Baseline 19.40 %

2007 20.40 % 21.10 %

2009 21.40 %

2011 22.40%

Measure: Percentage of Ecological Research publications in "high-impact" journals. 

This measure provides a systematic way of quantifying research quality and impact by counting 

those articles that are published in prestigious journals. The "high impact" data are based on the 

percentage of all program articles that are published in prestigious journals, as determined by

"Thomson's Journal Citation Reports" (JCR). Each analysis evaluates the publications from the 

last ten year period, and is timed to match the cycle for independent expert program reviews by 

the Board of Scientific Counselors. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Annual Outcome

2005 Baseline 19.30 %

2007 20.30 % 20.80 %

2009 21.30 %

2011 22.30%

Measure: Number of States using a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to 

determine the status and trends of ecological resources and the effectiveness of programs and 

policies. 

Data reflect the number of States with which the program has worked collaboratively to assist in 

using a common monitoring design and developing appropriate indicators. The actual number for 

2007 was not yet available at the time this document was prepared. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Annual Outcome

2005 20 22

2006 25 25

2007 30

2008 35

2009 40

2010 45

2011 50

C-3
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Measure: Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA 

office needs for causal diagnosis tools and methods to determine causes of ecological 

degradation and achieve positive environmental outcomes. 

Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal 

year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program

strives to complete 100% of its planned outputs each year. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Annual Outcome

2005 100 % 100 %

2006 100 % 86 %

2007 100 %

2008 100 %

2009 100 %

2010 100 %

Measure: Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA 

office needs for environmental forecasting tools and methods to forecast the ecological impacts 

of various actions and achieve positive environmental outcomes. 

Annual research outputs are included in the program's Multi-Year Plan. At the end of the fiscal 

year, the program reports on its success in meeting its planned annual outputs. The program

strives to complete 100 percent of its planned outputs each year. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Annual Outcome

2005 100 % 83 %

2006 100 % 100 %

2007 100 %

2008 100 %

2009 100 %

2010 100 %

C-4
February 2008 Review Draft Ecological Research Program Multi-year Plan,2008-2014

Measure: Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA 

office needs for environmental restoration and services tools and methods to protect and 

restore ecological condition and services to achieve positive environmental outcomes. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Annual Outcome

2005 100 % 50 %

2006 100 % 100 %

2007 100 %

Measure: Percent variance from planned cost and schedule. 

This measure captures the ability of the program to increase cost effectiveness based on the extent 

to which it delivers annual research outputs relative to the amount of funds spent. Using an 

approach similar to Earned Value Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the 

difference between planned and actual performance and cost for each 2003 Long-Term Goal, 2)

adding these data together to generate program totals, and 3) dividing the Earned Value of all 

work completed by the Actual Cost of all program activities. One hundred percent or above 

represents an ideal level of cost effectiveness. 

Term Type Year Target Actual

Annual Efficiency

2004 Baseline -8.10 %

2005 N/A -15.60 %

2006 -13.60 % Data lag 

2007 -11.60 %

2008 -9.60 %

2009 -7.60 %

C-5