UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 WASHINGTON D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD 

September 30, 2009 

EPA-SAB-09-019 

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

 Subject: Consultation on EPA’s Implementation of the Ecosystem Services 

 Research Program 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

In 2008, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed EPA’s Ecological Research 

Program Multi-Year Plan (Plan). The Plan articulated a new strategic direction for ecological 

research focused on understanding ecosystem services and their contribution to human health 

and well-being. In its advisory report, the SAB expressed strong support for the Plan but 

recommended improvements in several areas. In 2009, EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) requested an SAB consultation regarding implementation of the Ecosystem 

Services Research Program. ORD asked the SAB to assess whether the Agency had responded 

appropriately to the previous SAB recommendations, comment on the scientific merit of ongoing 

research projects, and offer additional recommendations for meeting the challenges facing the 

research program as the projects move forward. 

The SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee Augmented for the Consultation 

on EPA’s Ecosystem Services Research Program met on July 14-15, 2009, to discuss the 

research program, and Committee members provided the enclosed written comments in response 

to the Agency’s charge questions. This letter highlights key points resulting from the 

Committee’s discussion. EPA’s Ecosystem Services Research Program is bold, innovative, and 

necessary. The program focuses on research to understand the ways in which policy and 

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

ecosystems provide to sustain human well-being. As such, and because it is taking an integrated 

multidisciplinary approach to addressing multiple stressors acting within and across media, the 

research program has the potential, with appropriate support, to transform the way environmental 

decisions are made within and outside of EPA. Products of the research program should advance 

the practice of risk assessment by providing information for improved consideration of risks and 

benefits in environmental decision-making. 
 As further discussed in the enclosed Committee member comments, ORD has been 

responsive to many of the SAB’s previous recommendations. In particular, Committee members 

found that EPA has excelled in developing creative research partnerships with U.S. academic 

scientists and other federal agencies, and has begun to develop international partnerships. The 

partnership approach is crucial to the success of the research program. It is important that ORD 

focus on preserving these partnerships and making them even more effective. In particular, 

accelerating development of international partnerships and consideration of transboundary issues 

is essential because ecosystem services are not limited by political boundaries. The research 

program would benefit from additional resources that can be deployed to partners when 

opportunities exist to leverage work that will meet research program goals; the program has a 

strong track record in using this approach. 

 Committee members encourage ORD to take advantage of opportunities to continue 

developing tools that will allow stakeholders to quantify ecosystem services using local data and 

to link development of research program products to the immediate needs of EPA programs. For 

example, the ecosystem services research being conducted by ORD should be of considerable 

value to EPA’s Smart Growth and Sustainability initiatives and would also provide a useful 

framework for EPA’s Report on the Environment. 

 EPA’s Ecosystem Services Research Program has made considerable progress but a 

number of challenges must be addressed. The considerable potential of the program is unlikely 

to be achieved with its current level of funding and staff. Additional resources are essential to 

accomplish planned research and to support activities such as travel to meetings and acquisition 

of sufficiently powerful computer software for mapping, monitoring, and modeling efforts. It is 

also crucial to provide a clear indication of the uncertainty associated with ecosystem services 

maps and models developed by the research program. This will require the continued efforts of 

EPA staff and outside experts such as those who were instrumental in developing probability 

sampling schemes for EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. In addition, 

socioeconomic data should be included in the Ecosystem Services Research Program maps and 

models in order to begin addressing environmental justice issues. 

 Because this was a consultation, there will be no formal report from the SAB. Enclosed 

are my summary of key points discussed by the Committee members and their individual 

comments. We hope these comments are helpful to EPA and look forward to providing 

additional advice as the Agency continues to implement the Ecosystem Services Research 

Program. 

Sincerely, 

 

/Signed/ 

 

 Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Chair 

 Ecological Processes and Effects Committee 

cc: Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, Chair 

 EPA Science Advisory Board 

2
Enclosures: 

 Enclosure 1: Committee Roster 

 Enclosure 2: Summary of Key Points Discussed 

 Enclosure 3: Comments from Committee Members 

 Enclosure 4: Charge Questions to the Committee 

3
Enclosure 1: Committee Roster 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board 

Ecological Processes and Effects Committee Augmented for the Consultation on EPA’s 

Ecosystem Services Research Program 

CHAIR 

Dr. Judith L. Meyer, Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia, Lopez 

Island, WA 

MEMBERS 

*Dr. Richelle Allen-King, Professor and Chair, Department of Geology, University at Buffalo, 

Buffalo, NY 

Dr. Ernest F Benfield, Professor of Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, 

Blacksburg, VA 

Dr. Gregory Biddinger, Coordinator, Natural Land Management Programs, Toxicology and 

Environmental Sciences, ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., Houston, TX 

Dr. Ingrid Burke, Director, Haub School and Ruckelshaus Institute of Environment and Natural 

Resources, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 

Dr. G. Allen Burton, Professor and Director, Cooperative Institute for Limnology and 

Ecosystems Research, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 

Ann Arbor, MI 

Dr. Peter Chapman, Principal and Senior Environmental Scientist, Environmental Sciences 

Group, Golder Associates Ltd, Burnaby, BC, Canada 

Dr. Loveday Conquest, Professor, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of 

Washington, Seattle, WA 

Dr. Terry Daniel, Professor of Psychology and Natural Resources, Department of Psychology, 

School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 

Dr. Otto C. Doering III, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 

W. Lafayette, IN 

Dr. Wayne Landis, Professor and Director, Department of Environmental Toxicology, Institute 

of Environmental Toxicology, Huxley College of the Environment, Western Washington 

University, Bellingham, WA 

4
Dr. William Moomaw, Professor of International Environmental Policy and Director of the 

Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, The Fletcher School of Law and 

Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 

*Dr. James Oris, Professor, Department of Zoology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 

Dr. Charles Rabeni, Research Professor, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, University of 

Missouri, Columbia, MO 

Dr. Amanda Rodewald, Associate Professor of Wildlife Ecology, School of Environment and 

Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

Dr. James Sanders, Director and Professor, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Savannah, 

GA 

Dr. Kathleen Segerson, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, 

CT 

Mr. Timothy Thompson, Senior Environmental Scientist, Science, Engineering, and the 

Environment, LLC, Seattle, WA 

*Dr. Ivor van Heerden, Director, Center for the Study of Public Health Impacts of Hurricanes, 

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF 

Dr. Thomas Armitage, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 

* Unable to attend the July 14-15, 2009 meeting. 

5
Enclosure 2: Summary of Key Points Discussed from Dr. Judith Meyer, Committee Chair 

Current Status and Direction of the Ecosystem Services Research Program 

• The Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) has been responsive to many of 

the previous SAB recommendations. However, in some cases it was not possible to 

comment on EPA’s responsiveness because a revised multi-year plan and detailed 

implementation plans were not provided to the SAB Committee. It appears that EPA has 

tried to move in the directions recommended by the SAB, where feasible (given resource 

constraints). The documents and presentations given to the Committee for this 

consultation provided clearer justifications for the research direction than the previous 

multi-year plan and also demonstrated research program progress. However, a more 

transparent explanation of the process for selecting place-based demonstration projects is 

still needed. As previously recommended by the SAB, EPA has recognized its lack of 

expertise in the area of ecosystem valuation and has shifted its focus toward ecological 

research and the development of ecological production functions. The Agency has been 

able to hire relevant experts as Special Government Employees in disciplines not 

represented by existing staff. These individuals have added impressive talent to the 

program. Consultation with EPA program offices has occurred and this appears to have 

affected the development of implementation plans. 

• Forging additional partnerships between ESRP and other parts of EPA is essential 

for ESRP’s ultimate effectiveness. An important direction to take will be establishing 

stronger links between ecosystem services and human health. A clear statement of how 

assessment of ecosystem services will improve risk assessment and risk management at 

EPA would also make the benefits of the program more apparent to other parts of the 

Agency. Showing how the conceptual models in the place-based studies relate to the risk 

assessment paradigm will further demonstrate the relevance of ESRP activities.

• The ESRP has the potential to provide a unified approach to the use of spatially 

explicit data in decision making. The SAB previously reviewed a number of 

geographic information (GIS) based tools developed by EPA (i.e., Critical Ecosystem 

Assessment Model, Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program, Geographic 

Information System Screening Tool) and commented that EPA did not have a unified 

single accepted framework for using spatially explicit information for environmental 

decision-making. The ESRP can provide such a unified framework. However quick and 

confirmed demonstration of the relevance and utility of the program is needed to build 

support. 

• The ESRP does not appear to have addressed the SAB’s previous recommendations 

concerning use of life cycle analysis. The SAB previously recommended that EPA 

consider the use of life cycle analysis to visualize and assess alternative actions relative to 

management alternatives. It would be useful for the ERSP to further consider the use of 

such analyses and to more clearly identify where they are already being done. 

6
• As previously recommended by the SAB, the ESRP has achieved greater balance 

between research to develop decision support tools and the other parts of the 

program. The ESRP has retained some of the previously proposed work on the decision 

support platform, but has scaled this back to a more feasible plan with a more realistic 

timetable. In addition, it has scaled back its overly ambitious goals regarding valuation 

and contributions to human well-being. In some cases the balance may have shifted too 

far away from understanding the contributions of ecosystem services to human wellbeing. In particular, development of an index of well-being holds promise and could 

receive greater emphasis. In this regard, it may be useful for the ESRP to hire an expert 

in the relationship between environmental condition and human health. It is appropriate 

that most of the emphasis in the ESRP is on quantifying ecosystem services, but the 

research will be incomplete until benefits can also be understood. 

• The ESRP has made considerable progress in the 15 months since the SAB review of 

the draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan. Although implementation of the ESRP has been 

impeded by lack of sufficient funding, good progress has been demonstrated in a number 

of areas. For example, the ESRP has taken important steps to establish partnerships and 

leverage resources. In addition, it has hired outside experts to supplement its limited 

expertise in some areas. ESRP appears to have made progress toward developing the 

decision support framework, collecting information (data, models, etc.) that might be 

useful to policy makers concerned about ecosystem services. However, the success of 

the program is still dependent on expertise that exists outside of EPA. Additional 

program funding is needed to gain access to outside expertise thorough various 

mechanisms. In addition, more should be done to publicize the products of the program. 

Providing a demonstration of the applicability of the program (e.g., to Superfund or 

wetlands mitigation) should be a high priority. 

• The ESRP is making efforts to form partnerships within and outside of EPA but it 

will be important to continue developing partnerships with other federal programs 

(e.g., Long Term Ecosystem Research Program Sites, and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service) and international organizations, particularly in collaboration 

with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The outreach component of the program, 

in particular, needs strengthening and additional partnerships should be established in this 

area. EPA should also clearly identify the parts of the program that the Agency can 

execute without the additional cooperation of partners, and the parts that require outside 

assistance. The ESRP is complex and its components are highly interconnected. It is 

unlikely that all of the various partners are going to be able to fully carry out their 

planned or promised roles. A realistic assessment of the relative reliability of each 

partner is needed. This assessment can be accomplished though clear mutually agreed 

upon statements indicating what the program requires from the partners and what will not 

be accomplished if their roles are not fulfilled. It would be prudent for the directors of 

the ESRP to consider contingency plans now.

7
Implementation of the Integrated Pilot for Reactive Nitrogen 

• The integrated pilot for reactive nitrogen has established linkages with other aspects 

of the program – wetlands and place-based studies in particular. Although linkages 

have been established, there are many relevant research projects on nitrogen that are 

being supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and additional interactions could be established. In 

addition, several key issues should be addressed. Since nitrogen cascades chemically 

through different media and ecosystems, the modeling that EPA is conducting should 

help identify the most effective point of intervention rather than evaluating reactive 

nitrogen medium by medium and problem by problem. EPA should also consider which 

metrics, or combination of metrics, are most effective in setting priorities for managing 

reactive nitrogen within a framework of ecosystem services. In addition EPA should 

consider effective ways to enhance denitrification without creating additional amounts of 

N2O and focus on managing reduced forms of reactive nitrogen such as NH3 and NH4. 

This program offers the opportunity to illustrate the concept of tradeoffs in decision 

making. Linkages between this program and the modeling program will be essential as 

there are real problems with linking models together and the compounding of 

uncertainties.

• Nitrogen was a good choice for pilot studies because it can exert both positive and 

negative impacts, is widely studied, and is important to all media under EPA’s 

purview. The Long Term Ecosystem Research conceptual framework appears to be 

appropriate and the roadmap concept for integration also seems appropriate. However, 

the actual staff time allocated to the effort appears to be too small to accomplish all 

necessary tasks. Progress has been made but the SAB Committee has not yet seen the 

implementation plan. 

Implementation of Mapping, Monitoring, and Modeling Themes 

• The SAB Committee did not receive enough information to assess how the ESRP 

modeling program is progressing. The lack of information about the modeling 

program is of considerable concern because other parts of the ESRP rely upon models. 

Given the centrality of models in all other aspects of the program, the apparent lack of 

progress in this area appears to threaten the success of the ESRP. The modeling program 

should be one of the areas where program integration is most obvious and is also a part of 

the program where issues of uncertainty should be addressed.

• The mapping work being conducted by the ESRP will provide useful products, but 

socioeconomic information should be incorporated. The maps that are being 

developed should be able to show locations, status, and changes in ecosystem services, 

although it is not clear how they will be able to demonstrate the more dynamic aspects of 

ecosystem services (i.e., ecological production functions and tradeoffs). To address 

issues of social equity and social choice, the maps will need to be linked with 

socioeconomic information, and it is not clear how this is being accomplished. This will 

require coordinated assessments of what people need/want/care about (and when and 

8
where) and what proximal (and perhaps more remote) ecosystems are capable of 

sustainably contributing toward meeting those needs/wants/cares. An atlas of ecosystem 

services requires a joint mapping of ecosystems (in bio-ecological terms) in association 

with human social values. Most of the examples provided actually map ecological 

endpoints, ecosystems and/or ecological conditions that contribute to the provision of 

some services to some human population.

• The focus on land use decisions in the mapping program seems to be unusual for 

EPA since the monitoring program is focusing on water-related ecosystem services. 

It is not clear when decision-makers will be included in the process. Some understanding 

of the type of data needed to make decisions would provide important guidance about the 

structure of an atlas of ecosystem services. The structure and application of an atlas is 

still relatively general in concept and it is unclear what spatial scale and level of 

resolution will be used. The mapping group should consider using the place-based 

studies as the context for developing the atlases.

• The decision of the monitoring program to focus on water-based services seems to 

be appropriate given EPA’s current monitoring programs. However, the mapping 

program emphasizes land use decisions and therefore the linkage to the monitoring 

program is not clear.

• EPA should continue to develop the Analytical Tools Interface for Landscape 

Assessments (AtTILA). These tools will allow users to calculate ecosystem services 

using local data and this will lead to a greater level of stakeholder support. 

Implementation of Place-Based Studies 

• The conceptual models developed for the place-based studies lack consistency. The 

use of completely different conceptual models for each element of the ESRP is confusing. 

Using similar conceptual models would facilitate cross-comparisons and testing. The 

national program should therefore exert direction so that the conceptual models have a 

consistent framework. The diversity of approaches in the different studies is indicative of 

a young science and may be a reflection of local priorities and needs of decision makers. 

However, some national direction and consistency is essential. For example, the concept 

of a base year as used in the Midwest could be applied in other place-based studies. 

National guidance on stressors and services to be considered in the place-based studies 

could also be useful. Clearly all of the stressors and services addressed in the program 

are not applicable to all sites, but they should be considered at each site. All of the placebased studies are also considering how to quantify ecosystem services and develop 

ecological production functions. National guidance and coordination to assist these 

efforts would be useful. 

• EPA should consider development of a framework for implementation of placebased analyses of ecosystem services. Additional work is needed to determine how the 

specific locations of place-based studies are widely representative of major ecosystems 

upon which humans rely and the extent to which findings of the place-based 

9
investigations can be generalized to other systems or geographic areas. One concern 

cutting across all of the projects is that the future scenarios are still to be determined. 

Currently, there is insufficient information to evaluate the relevance/likelihood of the 

scenarios. For each demonstration project, the crosscutting themes seem to be 

explanations of topical areas that overlap rather than descriptions of ways in which the 

projects will be linked. The decision support framework team should work closely with 

the place-based studies teams to test approaches for bringing together the mapping, 

monitoring, and decision-supporting tool development.

• The place-based studies should include international partners. EPA must be able to 

deal with pollutants and other stressors moving across national boundaries. The U.S. 

transports air pollutants to Canada, and some U.S. watersheds cross the Canadian border. 

There is evidence that mercury and other persistent pollutants are transported to the U.S. 

from Asia. Without accounting for these pollutants, estimates of benefits or ecosystem 

services losses are inaccurate. Work with international partners is necessary to address 

these issues. Transboundary issues even apply to the Tampa Bay, Willamette, and other 

case studies because materials from outside the study areas can be transported into the 

region. Furthermore, it is important that ESRP work with researchers in Europe, 

Australia, and China who have been making considerable progress in developing the 

science of ecosystem services.

Implementation of Ecosystem Specific Studies: Wetlands

• ESRP wetlands research has the potential to provide products currently needed by 

EPA Program Offices. The need for assessment of ecosystem services and benefits 

from wetlands protection and mitigation has been identified in wetlands mitigation 

rulemaking. Current methods for assessing wetlands services and benefits have 

fundamental flaws. Therefore, research to develop methods to quantify ecosystem 

services would have an immediate benefit to those within EPA who write permits and 

consider the appropriateness of proposed mitigation banks. The wetlands research theme 

has the possibility of serving as the best ESRP model for demonstrating the advantages of 

the ecosystem services approach. 

• The benefits that can be derived from wetlands should be more clearly identified. 

Wetland services such as fisheries support and wildlife support must be expressed in 

clear unambiguous terms. Given the importance of understanding the linkage between 

stressors and wetland ecosystem function, the ultimate research objectives need to be 

clarified.

Implementation of Decision Support Activities

• EPA faces a number of challenges to achieving the goals of the Decision Support 

Framework. Lack of resources is a general problem hindering ESRP activities. In 

addition EPA does not have an existing framework for the use of ecosystem services as 

the basis for regulatory mechanisms such as permits and enforcement of permits. 

Therefore, early demonstration of the utility of the program is essential. ORD does not 

10
have the expertise to provide complete decision support. However, ORD’s strength is in 

identifying and quantifying ecosystem services and predicting how the provision of these 

services would change in response to stressors. A key part of this is an analysis of tradeoffs. ORD should have the expertise to provide information about these tradeoffs without 

the need to explicitly value any of the associated changes (for which it does not have the 

necessary expertise). Information about these tradeoffs (i.e., ways to identify and 

quantify them) would be an important input that could be provided by ORD to EPA 

program offices for policy discussions. In the long run, with more resources, ORD could 

expand its ability to assess or value these tradeoffs. In the short run, with its limited 

resources, ORD could at least seek to identify the tradeoffs. 

• A key component of decision support is making sure that the information provided 

is relevant and useful. Information about what stakeholders care or are most concerned 

about can be determined through deliberative processes involving decision scientists or 

the thorough the use of focus groups. This will make the analysis relevant and responsive 

to stakeholder needs.

• The role of economics in the current decision support framework is unclear. There 

is little, if any, mention of benefits from the provision of ecosystem services, and no 

references to economics or studies by economists in the briefing material provided to the 

Committee. ORD does not have the expertise to conduct ecological valuation and there 

are not economists on the list of ESRP experts, partners, or expertise to be tapped. It is 

therefore unlikely that ORD will have the expertise to conduct ecological valuation.

• It is not clear why the decision support framework is closely tied to the Coral Reef 

Group. It might be better to try to develop the decision support framework in the context 

of something that is likely to get greater interest, particularly given the SAB’s view that 

the usefulness of the decision support framework needs to be demonstrated quickly. 

Other possible applications where the decision support framework might be developed 

with greater visibility and interest would be one of the place-based studies or the 

wetlands or nitrogen projects.

• The organizational scheme of the tools database is confusing. The categories used to 

sort tools are unclear. For example, it is not clear how the economic models are distinct 

from the empirical models or conceptual models. If the database is to be useful to 

decision makers it should be very transparent and user friendly. 

• It is unclear how the proposed use of social networking tools will further ORD’s 

research agenda. There seems to be considerable interest in using social networking 

tools to bring stakeholders and decision makers to a common understanding about a 

topic. However, the information provided to demonstrate how this would work 

represents a biased sample of stakeholders along a number of dimensions. 

11
 Enclosure 3: Comments from Committee Members 

Comments from Dr. Fred Benfield............................................................................................ 13 

Comments from Dr. Gregory Biddinger .................................................................................. 15 

Comments from Dr. Ingrid Burke ............................................................................................ 20 

Comments from Dr. Allen Burton............................................................................................. 23 

Comments from Dr. Peter Chapman........................................................................................ 26 

Comments from Dr. Loveday Conquest................................................................................... 31 

Comments from Dr. Terry Daniel............................................................................................. 37 

Comments from Drs. Otto Doering and William Moomaw.................................................... 45 

Comments from Dr. Wayne Landis.......................................................................................... 47 

Comments from Dr. Judith Meyer............................................................................................ 54 

Comments from Dr. Charles Rabeni ........................................................................................ 60 

Comments from Dr. Amanda Rodewald .................................................................................. 62 

Comments from Dr. James Sanders.......................................................................................... 69 

Comments from Dr. Kathleen Segerson................................................................................... 71 

Comments from Mr. Timothy Thompson ................................................................................ 75 

12
Comments from Dr. Fred Benfield

Charge Question 1.1. Has ESRP been responsive to EPEC comments on Strategic Multi-Year 

Plan (MYP)? 

I think the ESRP has made progress toward satisfying the comments of the EPEC on the MYP 

(beginning with the name change from Ecological Research Program MYP to the ESRP). The 

new program has focused the research perspective on three areas to explore how ecosystem 

services emerge and then how the services interact with a variety of human-based spheres. While 

admittedly still impeded by a lack of sufficient funding, the three initiatives are a good starting 

point to produce some tangible results. Things seem to remain largely in the planning stages for 

most of the other initiatives suggested by EPEC but it is clear that ESRP has taken the 

suggestions seriously and is making the transition from the ERP to the ESRP. 

Charge Question 1.2. Long-term goal 1 (LTG1): valuation, human well being and decision 

support. 

EPEC suggested LTG 1 appears a bit ambitious for multiple reasons and should probably be a 

long-term objective with more modest time horizons for the various parts. Apparently, the 

decision to make the switch lies with upper management and has yet to be made. Perhaps the 

major concern about LTG 1 was the lack of in-house expertise to handle the valuation, human 

well being and decision support goals of the plan. ESRP has obviously tried to answer this 

concern by contacting with a few outside experts in these respective fields who have begun to 

contribute information and advice to the various ESRP teams involved in developing products. 

Still, the greatest limitation seems to be funding, not just for sufficient in-house FTEs although 

that continues to be a serious constraint, but for travel and other expenses necessary to make the 

kind of progress they would like to and need to make if the program is to be successful. 

Charge Question 1.3. Progress on the Multi-year Plan (MYP). 

 As mentioned above, progress has been impeded by lack of sufficient funds but it seems clear 

that progress has been made in planning on all fronts. I think it is too early in the game to 

consider eliminating elements of the program. Some are likely to be less fruitful than others but 

because most are still in infancy, it is difficult to predict which will be the less successful. 

Charge Question 1.4. Partnerships. 

The partnerships are a great idea and it appears that the ball is rolling pretty well in that area. I 

think the partnership program is likely to do well within some divisions of EPA and hopefully 

between divisions. Partnerships with entities outside the agency may do well at first blush but 

may eventually fade if new resources are not put toward the effort. This may be especially true 

in the case of academia where a major key to continued success is funding and publications. I 

think ESRP may be a hard sell in some divisions within the Agency, especially those with 

regulatory and enforcement responsibilities. As has been said numerous times in ESRP 

13
documents we have received, the “science of ecosystem services” is pretty new and I know some 

ecologists who equate the idea with ”applied” science and want nothing to do with the idea. 

However, future investments in the form of funding will very likely lead to a maturing process 

for ecosystem services as a science. One potential partnership that apparently has yet to be 

tapped is that of the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites. There are at least 4 sites, 

Coweeta LTER(NC), North Temperate Lakes (WI), Baltimore Ecosystems Study (MD), and the 

Central Arizona-Phoenix(AZ), that have made large commitments to integration of social science 

and ecology. There are also sites on both coasts, in the desert southwest, northeastern forest, and 

in the mid-west. Additionally, there are sites in coastal and inland wetlands, the tropics, western 

mountains, and in Antarctica. 

Charge Question 5. Implementation of ecosystem specific studies (wetlands). 

a. Benefits of wetland research theme? The wetlands research theme provides a tractable 

framework for developing products that can demonstrate the value of ecosystem services 

(ES) within and outside the agency. It has the advantage of being included in the new 

place-based research sites across the landscape, and can incorporate data from a variety 

of ongoing Agency research in wetland ecosystems as well. Partnering with the EPA 

Office of Water (OW) water quality monitoring and assessment program demonstrates 

how Agency divisions can have common goals and targets which should encourage other 

potential partners for research, e.g., the LTER sites Florida Coastal Everglades and the 

Virginia Coast Reserve. 

b. Have the benefits been made clear? The benefits are more implicit than explicit. There 

is also a lack of a clear plan of action. The general framework is there, but what will 

actually be attempted? 

c. Will the wetland research theme move the Agency to a national perspective on wetland 

production functions? The plan covers the “Big 3” most people talk about when 

considering top priority services provided by wetlands, i.e., C sequestration; N & P 

removal or stabilization; and flood control/storm surge protection. The general plan is to 

start small and, presumably, expand over time, but to begin working essentially from 

coast to coast including the mid-continent region. The Critical Path diagram (Appendix 

B) certainly suggests the possibility of a national perspective for the Agency provided the 

critical links among RQ1, RQ2, and Research Applications are developed and sufficient 

funding becomes available. 

d. Missing stressors in the plan? I think they are pretty well covered by the broad categories 

shown in the various conceptual models pertaining to wetlands although I didn’t find an 

explicit list of specific drivers and stressors. 

14
Comments from Dr. Gregory Biddinger

Charge Question 1. Current Status and Direction of the Ecosystem Services Research program 

(ESRP) 

Charge Question 1.1. The SAB previously reviewed the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan 

and recommended improvements in the strategic direction and focus of the Program, the 

research goals and questions, and the program implementation strategy. Given the current status 

and direction of the ESRP, please comment on whether the Program has been responsive to the 

intent of the Committee’s primary recommendations. 

The Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) Status Report and Future Directions (June 

24, 2009) clearly lays out how the agency has made a strong effort to accept and integrate the 

recommendations of SAB Advisory (Sept 30, 2008). The ESRP status report is a good example 

of how it is easy for SAB to make recommendations but not so easy for the agency to implement 

when they have significant resource constraints. In general I feel the agency has made and 

continues to make an effort to incorporate the intent of the SAB advisory and to some degree 

reasonably address the detail of recommendations. As well, I think they have and are using some 

creative approaches to meeting the spirit of the SAB advisory. For example, instead of rewriting 

the overarching report to address many of the recommendation for greater detail on such aspects 

as planned research and interagency partnerships; or explanations of process and criteria for 

endpoint selections; they have requested that each of the ESRP component area develop 

Research implementation Plans which can provide the detailed justification for their work as 

well as evidence of use of partnerships and process to achieve their objectives. Although not all 

of these plans are complete they are making good progress in achieving this goal, which as they 

note is the first time the agency has gone to this level of documentation on planning. So I would 

say the SAB advice is being heeded and the Agency has adapted to the advice. 

Additionally, I think the status report has been open and frank with regards to the challenges they 

face with regards to staffing and funds for extramural work. But even in the face of this 

challenge I think they have shown creativity. In the face of lack resources for outreach and 

education they have in essence made it an objective of all of the components and requested that it 

be considered in the development of implementation plans. In the absence of staff expertise in 

decision support area for basic research they are doing their best to document learnings from 

workshops and projects in the place-based, pollution specific and ecosystem specific project 

activities. 

Charge Question 1.2. In the SAB advisory report on the EPA Ecological Research Program 

Multi-Year Plan there was considerable discussion about ESRP’s focus on Long-term Goal 1: 

valuation, human well-being, and decision support. The SAB commented that predicating the 

whole program on this goal had set the bar too high for success. Has the Program achieved a 

more balanced focus at this stage of development, or are more adjustments recommended? 

To some degree they have made a significant change in LTG 1 in that they have moved away 

from the end goal being the creation of an on-line analytical platform for doing ecosystem 

service analysis to creating the technical framework, supporting data and tools to adapt that 

15
framework to decisions at local regional and national scales. One the other hand they are clearly 

still in a position of some risk in that they are limited on funding for valuation, linkages to 

human well-being and outreach and education. 

The SAB advisory comment that ORD is setting the bar too high is metaphorically incorrect. The 

agency is trying to build a bridge that gets from the current approach of managing the avoidance 

of impacts to an approach that manages our interaction with the environment to optimize the 

sustainable production of ecosystem services in light of their contribution to human well-being. 

In order to build the needed framework to achieve that objective they have to lay the technical 

groundwork for the value of ecosystem services in linkage to human well-being and they provide 

tools to aid decisions regarding the management tradeoffs. In essence you must predicate the 

ultimate goal of the overall program on being able to fill in this knowledge gap, otherwise you 

haven’t built the bridge. 

This is not to say that I am not concerned that these key areas of valuation, human well-being 

and decision support are significantly underfunded. The result of this lack of resources raises 

concern for the overall success of this research program or at least makes me want to suggest that 

in the end the impact of this effort will be delayed significantly. But this said the SAB should 

not suggest the lack of funding is acceptable and that ORD should do less or other work. Clearly 

this is the right research agenda for them to be working on and it should be funded adequately. 

Noted that there has been some reordering of the approach to the decision science activities in 

response to funding, so ORD is trying to work with the SAB recommendation. This is a concern 

as there needs to be alignment between the data that is being developed and the tools being used 

and the structured approach to the decision. So the conceptual model for a decision framework 

should not be delayed too long or you run the risk of developing endpoints, monitoring data and 

models that are not well aligned with the decisions to be made. But as is the case today, in the 

absence of the right data we will use what we have because the decision often can’t wait for the 

research and data to catch-up. 

Charge Question 1.3. Please assess the progress the Program has made in the 15 months since 

the SAB review of the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan, in light of budget and 

staffing constraints. Has sufficient progress been made to warrant maintaining the current 

elements within the program? 

Yes. They have embarked on a major refocusing exercise in their ecological research efforts. 

Such a shift in technical focus requires a transition. It seems as if this first 15 months has 

encompassed that period of transition and as they note in the summary report the work from 

previous plan is starting to come to completion. 

Charge Question 1.4. Please comment on the partnership approach being developed in the 

ESRP. Would the proposed future investments be likely to advance: integration across EPA; 

adoption of ESRP concepts by the Agency; and the science of ecosystem services, including 

improved management of ecological risks? 

16
There are a number of partnership approaches being utilized in this research plan including 

ORD’s internal partnerships with Program offices and Regional offices and externally with other 

federal and state agencies, universities, regional planning authorities, municipal governments and 

the private sector. Not clear what “future investments” the charge question is addressing. But 

will do my best to give a perspective. First it is clear from the status report that establishing 

these partnerships is possible but that lack of resources is a general problem hindering partnering 

activities. The value of these partnerships in aligning the research with the decisions that have to 

be made is clear and accepted by all, but getting resources to get input into the research design or 

share in the research workload seems to be a constant challenge. Once again this lack of 

resourcing is a road block to progress. 

At the end of the day there is another 800 pound barrier in the room and that is the lack of 

regulatory authority to directly apply Ecosystem Services as measures of compliance. This 

barrier is not independent of resourcing. If the traditional use of regulatory criteria and standards 

based on toxicological risk and engineering proxies is core business for Agency program and 

regional offices, they must address that base business first. If resources are limited there is not 

staff left over to engage in the research. If the Agency had a separate policy initiative trying to 

vision the next generation of regulatory approaches then they would be the champion for 

additional funding. 

With regards to the additional funding described in the appendix F of the Status Report and 

Future Directions document, It seems to be focused on the right elements and would be the 

necessary funding to address resourcing for both internal and external partnerships to get the 

alignment between the research and the regulatory implementation of the vision. 

Charge Question 6: Implementation of Decision Support Activities 

Charge Question 6.1. Please comment on the defined and anticipated challenges to achieving 

the goals of the Decision Support Framework. What recommendations does the Committee have 

to overcome the most significant of these challenges? 

The Agency LTG 1 status report has identified most of the principle challenges they face 

including: (1) Lack of resources and in-house expertise; (2) bounding the effort to make it 

manageable; (3) technical and administrative challenges and (4) integrating science with human 

values and judgment. Clearly these are challenges and currently are constraining the progress of 

the research. In Appendix F there is a clear definition of the scale and type of extra resources 

that would advance this research plan. So assuming those extra resources don’t materialize, what 

can the Agency do to overcome the listed challenges? They can if they restructure the research 

to narrower set of objectives or scale of projects. The ESRP plan is currently covering a wide 

range of community based projects and has even added one for the southwest. As much as I 

believe these projects are the key to building support for the use of ecosystem services maybe 

ORD can not progressed all simultaneously. Unfortunately this will require moving funding 

around in a fashion that will likely not line up with existing staffing. Also the current conceptual 

model for the DSF included an analytical-deliberative process. Not all decisions will require 

analytical-deliberative processes; An initial step might be to focus on the process of using 

ecosystem services in processes that are principally between the agency and a single stakeholder 

17
to demonstrate use of ecosystem services in regulatory applications and then focus on building a 

more complicated DSF in subsequent demonstrations. The earlier the Agency can successfully 

demonstrate applicability of the DSF and use of ecosystem services in regulatory context the 

more likely they will avoid the risk outlined in the following paragraph. 

There are at least two other principal challenge they face to full and useful implementation of the 

management approach. The first is the lack of statutory and regulatory framework for the use of 

ecosystem services as the basis for regulatory mechanisms such as permits and enforcement of 

those permits. At this point they are operating under the premise that if they build a usable and 

obviously better working system they regulatory systems will migrate to this better way. Of 

course, I think they are on the right path to a better way to manage the environment but there are 

clear risks in this proactive strategy. First you may build it and there is not political will to 

migrate current regulations to the better decision process. In that case you are left with 

principally application of the DSF under voluntary or self-regulating applications. The second 

risk which is more short-term is that their management loses faith in the ultimate utility of the 

research and they become even further resource constrained. In either case, what this suggests to 

me is the need for early demonstrations of the utility. Appendix F of the Status report is intended 

to provide an indication of what they would do if they had additional funding, but what the ESRP 

lead may want to try to do is bring some of that vision in under the existing funding. For 

example in Appendix F they suggest demonstrating the use of ecosystem services approach for 

Regional projects, alternative energy policy or green infrastructure projects. Such demonstration 

will lower the risk of lost management support and also would set the example for a better 

regulatory basis then we have today. 

Recommendations: Move elements of demonstration projects from Appendix F forward even if 

you have to reduce or delay other aspects of research program. This may also build the case for 

the complete funding of an expanded effort as outlined in Appendix F. 

Charge Question 6.2. How does the EPA reconcile Decision Support as a significant need for 

the Ecosystem Services Research Program with the Program’s relative inexperience and 

minimal resources? 

The intent and relevance of this charge question is not clear. The ultimate mission of this 

research initiative is to provide the information and methods needed by decision-makers to 

assess the benefits of goods and services to human well-being for inclusion in management 

alternatives. So by definition what they are all about is creating decision support. The research 

team has downgraded its objective from the creation of a decision support platform to a decision 

support framework. As well, they have reduced their initial focus for the framework to Land and 

resource use decisions and to a degree they have delayed the creation of this the DSF for land 

and resource use for at least a year. So they have adjusted their initial goals in response to 

previous SAB comments and in response to limited resources. In addition they have brought in 

outside expertise from Carnegie Mellon University to supplement their current lack of internal 

expertise. 

In support of continued inclusion of this area in their plan, ORD suggests that the typical 

decision maker for land resource use is typically individuals, towns, counties and tribes who are 

18
focused on economic outcomes and not human health and/or the environment. Providing the 

information, tools and framework to aid decisions by local government requires the continued 

inclusion of a focus on the development of a DSF. Once again in response to limited resources 

they are currently tapping the other program activities through workshops to gather learnings to 

build their framework. 

19
Comments from Dr. Ingrid Burke

Charge Question 1. Current Status and Direction of the Ecosystem Services Research program 

(ESRP) 

Charge question 1.1. The SAB previously reviewed the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan 

and recommended improvements in the strategic direction and focus of the Program, the 

research goals and questions, and the program implementation strategy. Given the current status 

and direction of the ESRP, please comment on whether the Program has been responsive to the 

intent of the Committee’s primary recommendations. 

The Program has been responsive, in that the reasons for an ecosystem services program have 

been elaborated. 

The elaboration of the Millennium Assessment diagram to include “stressors” was interesting, in 

two ways. First, it placed the Ecosystem Services framework, which is new and compelling, in 

the context of the stressors framework. While this connected the old work to new, it constrains 

the new work in at least one important way, which is that as it is, ecosystem services are only 

decreased by human activity, not preserved or conserved. That is, humans only cause negative 

impacts, and do not behave, or are induced, or motivated, or find incentives, to maintain or 

increase ecosystem services, according to this diagram. It does seem to me that EPA is 

fundamentally limiting itself to regulation in a sort of pessimistic way, instead of inspiring 

policies that include incentives and positive action. There are a few inspirational paragraphs in 

the strategic vision, but ALL of the rest of these documents get back to business as usual, and I 

fear, mapping the impacts of the stressors in terms of dollars, a superficial exercise at best. I 

need to incubate slightly longer about this, perhaps in discussion with the committee, but I have 

the sense that this diagram and approach considerably reduce the richness and ultimate potential 

success of the ideas, and the usefulness of an ecosystem services approach. Second, the 

“stressors’ box is huge and overwhelms all the other ideas and boxes. This magnifies the effect 

of the constraint, and suggests that the focus of all the work is the same as it has been in the past. 

This is probably my real concern: in response to budget constraints and trying to maintain 

continuity in the face of political change and a consistent staff, the Program is leveraging 

resources and hanging on, rather than really embracing new ideas. The new nuggets in the 

ecosystem services concept are, I think a) an explicit connection between the environment and 

human health and well-being, and b) a focus on the optimistic approach of incentives for 

maintaining the flow of ecosystem services to humans, rather than a focus on the negative 

impacts of humans. 

Charge Question 1.2. In the SAB advisory report on the EPA Ecological Research Program 

Multi-Year Plan there was considerable discussion about ESRP’s focus on Long-term Goal 1: 

valuation, human well-being, and decision support. The SAB commented that predicating the 

whole program on this goal had set the bar too high for success. Has the Program achieved a 

more balanced focus at this stage of development, or are more adjustments recommended? 

20
I am concerned that accomplishing these goals is still so dependent on expertise that exists 

outside EPA. There is basically no expertise for any of those. 

The model appears to be selecting individual experts from outside to represent that expertise in 

the program. I am uncomfortable with the process by which this occurs, with respect to 

transparency, and have the bias that competition and review result in a justifiable result. 

Charge Question 1.3. Please assess the progress the Program has made in the 15 months since 

the SAB review of the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan, in light of budget and staffing 

constraints. Has sufficient progress been made to warrant maintaining the current elements 

within the program? 

Charge Question 1.4. Please comment on the partnership approach being developed in the 

ESRP. Would the proposed future investments be likely to advance: integration across EPA; 

adoption of ESRP concepts by the Agency; and the science of ecosystem services, including 

improved management of ecological risks? 

The difference between centers of excellence..where individuals committed to interaction spend 

a good deal of time together....and partnerships, is Huge. I suggest some very careful thinking 

here. 

Charge Question 3: Implementation of Mapping, Monitoring, and Modeling Themes 

Charge Question 3.1. Focusing specifically on the Mapping theme, please comment on the 

usefulness of the proposed products. For example, please comment on the potential for 

ecosystem service atlases to communicate the status, changes, and locations of ecosystem 

services to EPA clients and the public. Similarly, please comment on whether ecosystem service 

atlases will inform decision makers about: 1) issues related to social equity and social choice; 2) 

innovative valuation methods (e.g., by providing information on location, availability of 

substitutes, and changes over baseline conditions); and 3) issues related to environmental and 

land management, including public and private investments to conserve ecosystem services. 

The mapping initiative is really coming together; the presentation provided a GREAT deal more 

information to me. It looks as though this is finally the nexus for federal agencies interacting to 

bring the data layers together. It’s critical to keep up on this effort (more on this in a second). 

The connection to Ecosystem Services, as is true with the N work, is weak. That needs to be 

elaborated in a SIMPLE way (no spaghetti diagrams necessary, I don’t think, though: a simple 

box and arrow would be fine). 

There is an enormous opportunity for this program to serve the Report on the Environment, and 

the EPA Smartgrowth program. Providing somewhat higher resolution to communities can be a 

superb resource for community planning, particularly areas where land use is changing from 

rural to exurban, and there may not be a tradition of land use planning. 

Finally, it would be a great thing for the metadata include sources of data, dates of the data, 

21
Charge Question 3.2. What advice does the Committee have for the next steps in Monitoring and 

Modeling? In particular, are there pitfalls that the Office of Research and Development should 

be sensitive to as it develops this part of the ESRP? 

This is a place where there is strong opportunity for connecting with the Report on the 

Environment. 

Additionally, I think that there is enormous impetus for the cross-agency collaboration right now, 

and while the program is well on its way in developing those, real leadership could be exerted. I 

think there could probably be funding available now, for EPA to take the lead on an 

EPA/USGS/NASA/USFS/etc. collaboration. I recommend an aggressive approach to OMB 

about this. 

22
Comments from Dr. Allen Burton

General response to Charge Question 1: Status Report and Future Directions 

1. P. 1: 3 perspective approach (N, wetlands/coral reefs, 5 regions) is excellent 

2. P. 3: In addition to state and municipal initiatives, mention NGOs and federal (e.g., 

NOAA). 

3. P. 4: An example of a business case is N trading 

4. P. 7: The public-private National Ecosystem Services Research Partnership is great – but 

are there resources available to make this happen? To foster collaboration? 

5. P. 8: The challenges listed are on target – and very daunting. Each are deal breakers if 

not addressed adequately. 

6. P. 13: ESRP Organizational Matrix: Would be good to define the percentages – are 

these FTEs? 

7. P. 15: LTG2 – is this part of the earlier SAB effort on ecovaluation? 

8. Overall: Need acronyms defined. 

9. Pp. 15-20: The recommendation responses are so general they are difficult to evaluate. 

10. P. 17: The Lyme disease and West Nile virus examples seem odd, as they affect so few. 

11. Appen. D: This expert explanation is good, BUT, where are remaining weaknesses and 

gaps in expert needs to accomplish the ESRP goals? Note. Also, these experts MUST be 

charged with also providing EPA with updates on the works of others. Many good 

projects are ongoing by NSF, NOAA, and others that are not mentioned and directly 

support ESRP goals. The experts should be aware of these and should be responsible for 

educating EPA on the state-of-the-science. 

12. Appen. E: The partnership is a great idea and effort. Who was invited? I am curious 

because I did not hear about it, nor did our NOAA lab, which is active in several related 

research endeavors. The partnership must include those doing relevant research. 

13. Appen. E: CRDAs are quite cumbersome and need a business linkage. Having 

participated in CRDAs, I cannot envision this being an effective approach. There is little 

incentive for them to succeed with monetary rewards. 

14. Appen. H: These accomplishments need some reference as documentation. Some do 

not appear related to ecosystem services. The EPA PPCP survey should also be 

mentioned. 

Charge Question 6: LTG 1- Decision Support 

1. Fig 1. What is 4. Target research and tools? 

2. Lots of good changes and figures are very useful. 

3. For APM2, the database should including ongoing and recent research projects by 

agency, lead contact, project abstract, and web links. A lot is going on which must be 

considered. 

4. How will EPA ensure the toolbox gets used? An education and promotion campaign is 

needed. 

5. Good expert hires. 

23
6. P. 8, bullet 3. The DSF Team’s effort on developing interactions and connections with 

potential outside partners seems weak and destined for failure, as this takes time and 

would benefit from outside agency expertise, such as noted above. 

7. Challenges: Key issue for success: funding and FTEs 

8. Human Well-Being Theme conceptual model Fig. 1.2 is good. 

9. The focus of roadway vegetation however seems odd and a tough link to prove, given the 

lack of experimental design control, multiple stressors and extreme spatial/temporal 

variation. 

Charge Question 4: LTG 5 - Site-Specific Demonstration Projects 

1. Use consistent nomenclature – Community, Site, Place based????? 

2. Good selections of regions and studies. 

3. Given the importance of these 5 projects, EPA should ask SAB or an outside expert panel 

to routinely review their progress on each. 

4. The Midwest project does not seem to recognize all the relevant studies going on that 

link to this. This is a serious concern, given EPA’s shortage of resources and apparent 

willingness to partner on these complex issues. 

5. Good conceptual model. 

6. Why the focus on agriculture and not also urban, commercial, residential sprawl and 

industry inputs? All land uses with the watershed should be considered. 

7. Why only focus on migratory birds, and not fish and other wildlife? 

8. The partnerships, metrics, and ecosystem services hierarchy that are advocated are 

wonderful, but the devil is in the details. This effort needs outside assistance and peer 

review. 

9. Other challenges: multiple stressors in every watershed, scale, FTEs, integrating other 

relevant research, ecosystem services linkage (e.g., biodiversity, groundwater and stream 

recharge-hydrologic connectivity, fisheries, climate change) 

10. Tampa Bay: 

11. Nicely designed project. 

12. Fig 3’s partnerships are impressive, but difficult to imagine how this will happen in a 

productive manner. NOAA should be involved. Can it be that ONE FTE is coming from 

all of these partners (p. 6, 1.4.4)? 

13. The initial valuation findings in 2008 are quite surprising and frankly difficult to believe 

that recreation, aesthetics and flood control are not high ranking. 

14. Challenges are again $ and FTEs. 

15. Excellent FigA1. 

16. P. 10. It is also difficult to believe that “exact units for each measure leading to services” 

will be determined from literature reviews. 

17. Solids should be added as a potential stressor and service for wetlands, just as nutrients 

are. 

18. Willamette:

19. What is WESP? 

20. The project seems to be routine monitoring efforts and little to do with linking to 

ecosystem services and valuation. The previous SAB comment regarding this concern 

still applies. 

24
21. Appen B is not an adequate conceptual model. 

22. P. 10 last line. Note EPA did not edit this line and is confused about collaborations. 

23. Coastal Carolinas:

24. It is unclear how they will “characterize and quantify the changes in the spatial and 

temporal distribution of coastal ecosystem service production and determine how those 

changes translate into changes in human well-being.” 

25. Appen. B conceptual model is weak. 

26. Southwest:

27. Conceptual model is good, but what about aquatic life, N loading. Why is N loading 

leaving the model and not inputing into the model? 

28. Too few FTEs 

29. Cross Place Based Coordination:

30. This section is quite weak and is critically important for the success of ERSP’s goals. 

25
Comments from Dr. Peter Chapman

General Comments 

I commend USEPA staff involved in the Ecosystem Services Research Program for listening to 

what we had to say in our initial meeting and written submissions and acting on many of our 

suggestions or, where appropriate, explaining why alternative actions were more appropriate. I 

also commend them on finding innovative means in many cases to address the technical and 

other challenges posed by their innovative, ambitious and very necessary work. I particularly 

like: consideration of direct and indirect drivers; the aim to not only meet or exceed statutory 

requirements, but to perhaps eventually obviate regulations; involvement of appropriate outside 

experts; addition of the Southwestern place-based study; client-based scenarios; excellent 

progress on national partnerships at various levels; presentations outside the U.S.; good progress 

on integration (except apparently in LTG5, see General Comment 6d, below); a transdisciplinary approach to research; additional details such as names of USEPA key personnel, not 

previously provided; inclusion of Bayesian analyses and weight of evidence; meta-analyses; 

flexibility in the program (e.g., the appropriate inclusion of ocean acidification to coral reef 

research); etc. However, I also noted at the meeting some serious flaws as follows. Those 

underlined remain to be corrected. 

1. We (the SAB EPEC) repeatedly emphasized the need for adequate funding and support

including travel budgets for this program; although improvements have been made, 

neither need has been fully addressed. Other Key Challenges that require funding and 

other support are well documented on page 8 of the Status Report and Future Directions. 

In my opinion, an overall change in Agency focus appears to be required if this program 

is to succeed.

2. Related to General Comment 1, above, as noted in the materials provided (p 5 of the 

Status Report and Future Directions), outreach and education, valuation and human wellbeing have not been adequately incorporated into the Program due to lack of funding.

They need to be incorporated on a priority basis using additional funds, not existing funds 

assigned to this program. 

3. We also repeatedly emphasized the need for this project to go beyond the boundaries of 

the U.S. Although some changes have been made to the program in this direction, I find 

the response to date to be inadequate to the reality of a global community facing global 

challenges that are not restricted to artificial political boundaries. I note that the overall 

Goal of the Program is “To transform the way decision makers understand and respond to 

environmental issues.” This will not occur without a global rather than a national 

perspective. 

26
4. We questioned the rationale for studies of coral reefs. A response was provided in the 

pre-meeting materials that was not wholly convincing (see General Comment 6 below). 

However, given that coral reefs are charismatic and are likely to no longer exist in about 

50 years due to ocean acidification, they are an appropriate ecosystem for dealing with 

both annihilation due to a single cause and the “death of a thousand cuts”. 

5. I am very concerned that the Program does not have the ‘administrative clout’ to not only 

put the appropriate staff in the appropriate lead positions in the program, but to keep them 

there. This program needs sufficient high-level support, including appropriate changes in 

regulatory authority, that staffing is appropriate and is maintained. 

6. We were specific in terms of recommendations regarding the important place-based 

projects (pp 21-23 of our September 30, 2008 letter to the USEPA Administrator 

regarding LTG 5). It was not apparent from the pre-meeting materials that our advice was 

followed. I believe that our advice is or will be followed, but document that advice below 

‘for the record’. 

a. We recommended that a transparent explanation be provided of the process for 

selecting demonstration sites and provided organizing principles for such 

selection. To my surprise, only one site (Coastal Carolinas) explicitly addressed 

this recommendation in the pre-meeting material provided. Such explanation is 

needed for each of the sites along with an assessment of their comparability to 

other similar sites such that information extrapolation is reasonably possible. 

Explanations provided at the meeting were convincing but need to be 

documented. 

b. We recommended that “When the choices are made, they should be shown on a 

map that includes all U.S. States and Territories...will provide transparency 

regarding key ecological areas excluded....”. Again, to my surprise, I could not 

find such a map in the pre-meeting material provided. A map was provided in the 

first presentation during the meeting but did not include two US states (Alaska 

and Hawaii) or any U.S. Territories. And a transparent explanation still needs to 

be documented for all sites as noted above. In future, maps need to not only 

include all of the U.S. and its Territories, but its near (e.g., Mexico, Canada, 

Cuba) and far (e.g., EU) neighbors. It is, after all, a small world related to 

environmental issues. 

c. Life cycle assessment (LCA) was emphasized as “a useful means for visualizing 

and assessing different alternative actions relative to management alternatives” 

27
and we recommended expansion of LCA in the plan, yet the words “life cycle” 

did not appear in any of the material provided to this meeting. LCA is critically 

important in assessing relative risk, one of the key components of effective 

decision support. Our previous recommendation needs to be implemented. In this 

regard I note that Dr. Randall Bruins (USEPA-NERL) approached me during the 

meeting for contacts and advice regarding LCA, which I will provide. 

d. We expressed concern regarding coordination within LTG5. I understand that 

coordination is now in place via Dr. Hal Walker and look forward to a greater 

degree of inter- and intra-site coordination. 

e. We strongly recommended that “transboundary issues be explicitly considered in 

the place-based projects”. This has not occurred. The words “transboundary” 

occur exactly three times in the material provided regarding LTG5, once on page 

7 and twice on page 8. They are used in the context of describing difficulties and 

discarding any more than peripheral consideration of transboundary issues, rather 

than attempting to find innovative solutions. The word “transboundary” was not 

used in any of the LTG5 presentations at the meeting – it appears to presently be 

peripheral rather than integral to the Program; the reverse needs to be the case. 

Charge Question 1: Current Status and Direction 

Charge Question 1.1. Program responsiveness to SAB EPEC recommendations? 

A high level of creative responsiveness has occurred in many parts of the program, but not prior 

to the meeting in all areas and particularly in LTG5 (place-based studies), as noted above in my 

General Comments. I am now satisfied with the level of responsiveness. 

Charge Question 1.2. Balanced focus or more adjustments needed? 

See General Comments, above. 

Charge Question 1.3. Sufficient progress? 

See General Comments, above. 

Charge Question 1.4. Partnerships adequate? 

No. International partnerships are inadequate. For example (p 7 of the Status Report and Future 

Directions), although USEPA participated in at least one major international conference, they 

have not involved international partners. The statement on page 8 of the Status Report and 

Future Directions “we are now addressing transboundary issues in two Place-Based studies: the 

Future Midwestern Landscapes (FML) and the Southwest Ecosystem Services Project (SWESP)” 

is incorrect – for example the Midwestern project generally dismisses addressing transboundary 

28
issues (p8 of that project description). Rather than pointing to problems in addressing 

transboundary issues, solutions need to be sought. Further, it is not clear what “sub-global 

assessments” are (p 12 of the Status Report and Future Directions), nor how they can be 

integrated into necessary global assessments. This issue is larger than just this program. As noted 

on page 6 of the Willamette Ecosystem Services Project “At the highest levels of federal 

government there is a need for agreement upon the kinds of collaborations that should exist to 

meet the common good”. This statement / need is applicable to the Program as a whole, not to 

solely this place-based study. In this regard, I strongly encourage the Program leads and 

coordinators to take any and all opportunities to publicize what they are doing not only in 

different ‘trade’ publications (e.g., ecology, economics) but also to laypersons via appropriate 

media (e.g., the Web, newspaper, radio, TV) and internationally. 

Charge Question 4: Place-Based Studies 

Charge Question 4.1. Conceptual models missing any critical elements? 

The conceptual models for each site should be based on the same generic template, made specific 

for each site. Presently the models follow different templates for different sites and it is very 

difficult to determine what is and is not appropriate in each model. In addition, it is not clear that 

the Program is aware of or incorporating all relevant other studies. Further, some major foci 

appear to be missing, for example: Midwest – human habitat changes other than agriculture; 

Southwest – aquatic life; Tampa Bay – invasive species. Finally, I urge caution in decisions to 

“scale down” the work, “constrain” it, or make it more “manageable” – such decisions need to be 

based on the overall goals of the Program, not on logistic or other considerations which, although 

real, can reduce the utility of this much-needed Program to the point that it is not worth doing. 

Charge Question 4.2. Good demonstration projects? Additional ecosystem services? 

See General Comment 6, above. In addition, I am concerned regarding the development of a new 

indices in this project – indices (typically based on single numerical values) can be misleading 

due to information compression and loss, and do not fit with the ‘weight of evidence’ approach 

that is correctly the primary focus of this Program. 

Charge Question 4.3. Progress in cross-place-based theme to compare and contrast the five 

sites? 

See General Comment 6, above. In addition, I note that Dr. Hal Walker, the Place Based 

Coordinator, is also part of the N writing and implementation team, which is good for integration 

but possibly bad in terms of him having sufficient time and energy for his primary role in this 

Program. 

Charge Question 4.4. Omissions of key partners? 

The most obvious omissions are international partners. See General Comment 6e, above. This 

omission needs to be rectified sooner rather than later. Further, the connection between this work 

29
and the decision-makers needs to be strengthened or the work will be of academic, not of 

practical relevance. 

30
Comments from Dr. Loveday Conquest

Charge Question 1. Current Status and Direction of the ESRP 

Charge Question 1.1. Whether the Program has been responsive to the Committee’s primary 

recommendations. 

The various EPA groups have taken care to respond in some detail to SAB comments for LTGs 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. As an example, I recall much discussion about “why coral reefs?” at the April 

2008 meeting, and EPA has responded to concerns expressed about that project. That particular 

project would be an easier sell if reefs are viewed as sentinels regarding processes of ocean 

acidification. As expected, the many projects have different parts which are in various stages of 

development. 

I am glad to see that some STAR grants are being awarded (or will be awarded). The ones 

mentioned pertain to valuation of ecosystem services provided by wetlands. 

The links between the Outreach and Education (OE) and DSF groups appear to have been 

strengthened somewhat. Nonetheless, it was noted at the meeting that the Outreach component is 

not working as well as EPA would like it to. ORD has not been set up to do outreach and 

therefore is not all that comfortable doing it. Perhaps this is a place where some of the 

partnerships would come in handy; i.e., ORD partnering with an organization whose specialty 

includes outreach and education. 

I like the concept of “benefits transfer” to link certain ecosystem services (e.g., urban green 

space, night sky darkness) to HHWB outcomes (e.g., mental-health outcomes in children, 

endocrine system diseases). This approach will go a long way to engaging policymakers and 

stakeholders. 

The use of experts by EPA to fill a variety of knowledge gaps is a good way to stretch limited 

resources. This approach seems to be working and should be continued. There remains some 

concern about exactly how the experts are chosen (apparently not by open solicitation); more 

transparency is needed here. Occasionally specifics were missing about exactly how an expert 

would contribute to the ESRP. 

EPA is keenly aware of the challenges facing it. Of concern is the fact that some groups appear 

to lack sufficient travel money for EPA personnel to travel to workshops and for face-to-face 

collaborations, and for international travel. I am concerned about EPA’s comments regarding 

limitations on computer software and computing power—is it merely expense, or something 

else? The Tampa Bay group mentions a lack of information on available funding, insufficient 

funds for their ecological economist (expert hire), and dwindling administrative support. ORD 

seems to have a good record of leveraging small amounts of funding to get a bigger bang for the 

buck. For example, good use of an expert hire can be very cost effective (when compared the 

cost of an additional FTE). In the meeting, ORD asked the committee to make specific 

suggestions, but the specifics need to come from ORD (perhaps some of the details from the 

budget in Appendix F?). An EMAP example was noted of how a few $million was used to gain 

31
access to data sets that would have cost many times that amount to actually collect. More budget 

specifics like that would help. 

ORD noted that there is a workshop to identify stream ecosystem service endpoints for July 

2009, involving both economists and ecologists. It will take time to build up a common 

vocabulary and to get both groups working “in alignment”. I note that EPA will investigate to 

see which indicators can be used to estimate ecosystem service endpoints; no doubt information 

gaps will also be revealed here. Because certain final ecosystem services for water have already 

been codified in the Clean Water Act, one can view water as a “low hanging fruit” project and 

therefore a good place to start. 

The committee has emphasized more than once that transboundary issues need to be considered, 

and that the ESRP should pay more attention to studying how ecosystem services are valued in 

other countries, some of which are way ahead of us in this area. The U.S. can learn from what 

others have done. Lack of funds for international travel was noted as a barrier, so this remains a 

resource issue. 

Charge Question 1.2. LTG 1 vs. LTGs 2-5. More balanced focus at this stage of development? 

It does now seem that LTGs 2-5 are now receiving more balanced attention and focus. By 

concentrating on the needs in decision-makers and stakeholders, EPA has gotten more realistic 

about the timeline and the focus for the Decision Support Framework (DSF, previously the 

Decision Support Platform). The date for the completed DSF is now 2016, more reasonable than 

the earlier stated timelines. The development of the database of tools (APM 2) should allow 

users to see which tools are used for the various types of ecosystem services and has the capacity 

to inform users about tools of which they might not be aware. The timeline indicates that this 

database will be ready for external review in October 2009. It is also good that EPA is 

documenting decision processes under current use (that might prove useful in the development of 

the Decision Support Framework). Both the development of the tools database and 

documentation of decision processes have the potential to reveal data gaps. 

Charge Question 1.3. “Has sufficient progress been made to warrant maintaining the current 

elements within the program?” 

It appears that EPA is making progress with the ESRP on many fronts, under rather challenging 

conditions involving resources (not enough) and authority to direct lines of research (again, not 

enough). The phased approach, having a variety of projects at different stages of development 

(some finished or nearly so, some in the middle, some pilot projects just being started) is a good 

one. It would be helpful if EPA could actually produce an atlas of ecosystem services for some 

ecoregion or geographic region before too long. 

Charge Question 1.4 “Please comment on the partnership approach being developed in the 

ESRP. 

Part of the stated EPA definition of “success” will be demonstrated by having the logos of 

several organizations on the cover page of any atlas produced under the ESRP. Since EPA 

32
admits that it is unlikely to own and maintain all parts of the ESRP over the long term, it is vital 

that strong partnerships be built. I do not believe that EPA can carry the burden of ESRP forever; 

thus the establishment of an Ecosystem Services National Atlas Consortium seems prudent. As 

happened with EMAP, when the funding runs out, that would signal the end of EPA’s major 

involvement, so it is necessary to aim for sustainability through the partnerships and the 

Consortium. That is where the legacy of ESRP has the highest hope of continuation. For 

example, the Willamette Ecosystem Services Project (WESP) specifically mentions the USDA’s 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), with its already existing national network of 

district conservation offices in each county. The purview of the NRCS could be expanded to 

include ecosystem services. (Also pointed out is the fact that the NRCS network is such that it 

could serve the suburban-rural interface, an extremely important ecotone). 

The partnership with the National Geographic Society is a natural one and will help immensely 

in terms of distribution of maps. From the Wetlands presentation, the committee learned that 

EPA has a partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and that new Pacific Coast plots 

are being added to the 2005 Status and Trends plot locations. Overall, ESRP has developed 

several good partnerships within the U.S., particularly with other federal agencies around data 

sharing as part of the M^3 process. (It came up in the committee meeting that the M^3 process 

could end up being the centerpiece for data sharing and interagency cooperation.) The ESRP 

should also consider developing international partnerships, in collaboration with the Millennium 

Assessment. The public-private National Ecosystem Services Research Partnership mentioned 

in the ESRP presentation sounds good, but note also Dr. Ingrid Burke’s comments regarding her 

experience of the current status (embryo? fledgling?) of this Partnership. 

Charge Question 2. [Not my area of expertise, so no further comments on this one.] 

Charge Question 3. Implementation of Mapping, Monitoring, and Modeling Themes. 

Charge Question 3.1. Usefulness of proposed products from the Mapping theme. Potential for 

ecosystem service atlases to communicate status, changes, and locations or ecosystem services to 

EPA clients and the public. Whether ecosystem service atlases will inform decision makers 

about: 1) social equity/social choice issues; 2) innovative valuation methods; 3) environmental 

and land management issues, including public/private investments. 

The ecosystem service atlases can be a very effective communication tool, as demonstrated by 

the Willamette Alternative Futures Project and the Tampa Bay Project. The status of an 

ecosystem service (or set of services) can be easily conveyed to EPA clients and various 

stakeholders. Similarly, “alternative futures” (in this case, different trajectories for ecosystem 

services based upon linked forecasting models) can be displayed via maps of land use/land cover 

and bar charts (e.g., of natural resource indicators), allowing one to assess the consequence of 

policy and management choices. Another example would be mapped projections of Lyme 

disease risk under alternative scenarios of forest fragmentation due to housing development (or 

alternative scenarios based upon climate change projections), along with economic valuation of 

projected disease incidence. (Note: “why Lyme disease?” was asked by some committee 

members; I believe Lyme disease is linked to later neurological problems, and its range might be 

spreading, hence its importance.) 

33
An example pertaining to social equity might be a map of an showing current air quality status 

(e.g., with respect to PM2.5), and projected trends in air quality. This could be coupled with a 

map displaying socioeconomic status (SES), thus indicating whether generally poorer areas 

would be more likely to experience declining air quality in future. In general, social science data 

(such as SES) will need to be incorporated into models to see where ecosystem services matter to 

human health and well-being. 

It is heartening to note that the concept of ecosystem services seems to be growing. EPA has 

provided some examples of where ecosystem services may be used to prioritize contaminated 

Superfund sites for clean-up, or to inform permit and restoration decisions. In the ESRP 

presentation, Oregon State Senate Bill 513 having to do with ecosystem services was outlined. 

Particularly encouraging is the requirement to convene an ecosystem services markets working 

group. I surmise that the existence of the Willamette Alternative Futures Project (which has an 

available atlas) had something to do with this bill being sponsored. 

Decision makers can also relate to valuation measures such as reduced costs for drinking water 

treatment (due to improved percent forest cover in source water watersheds), recreational 

fisheries revenue due to decreased fish contaminant levels, and improved human life expectancy 

due to PM2.5 reduction from urban forest canopies. 

Charge Question 3.2. Next steps in monitoring and modeling, including pitfalls/challenges. 

Continue the work on the Atlas (or at least an atlas—for a place-based project, or coral reefs, or 

wetlands). Continue to strengthen the partnerships. The results from the July 2009 

economics/ecology workshop will be crucial. Tapping into the NRCS’s national network of 

district conservation offices in each county sounds like a good way to get “full areal coverage”, 

at least in the lower 48. Could ORD capitalize on this? 

The results of the Green Infrastructure Analysis (forested and wetland cover) will be important in 

terms of demonstrating status of habitat connectivity. This is where an “alternative futures” 

approach can demonstrate what can happen with different trajectories of urban/suburban 

development. The resulting maps should have a lot of impact in terms of a communication tool 

with stakeholders. Similarly, maps for pollutant attenuation by riparian buffers and wetlands, 

drinking water sustainability, nutrient and pesticide loading, increased flood potential associated 

with development, etc. can really tell a story to policymakers. The report mentions that 

“currently there is no good national coverage of wetlands”—if that is the case, just how much 

information comes out of the National Wetlands Inventory? 

I encourage continued work on the Analytical Tools Interface for Landscape Assessments 

(AtTILA). The notion of a user being able to do an ecosystem service calculation based upon 

one’s own local data is very appealing. To get stakeholders used to thinking and talking in terms 

of ecosystem services, it must be made relatively easy for people to calculate such valuations for 

their local situations. This would be a big step forward. 

34
The development of national data sets (soils, cropland, wetlands data layers were pointed out in 

the Natl-ES presentation), is really exciting. The partnerships are key in order for this to work, 

and I imagine the national data set development is providing a lot of the impetus for the 

partnerships. 

Challenges

Sufficient resources to fund enough FTEs to get the job done is, of course, always an issue. The 

fact that ESRP leads are, in general, not EPA managers (and thus have no authority over 

resources) is troubling. If new leadership comes in or starts shifting priorities of a Lab, this could 

really stall progress. While partnering with other organizations is essential, this does not mitigate 

the need for support (via resources) for ESRP from EPA managers and Lab heads. 

EPA mentions quantifying uncertainty as a real challenge, very true. It is possible (can get 

complicated, but still possible) to quantify uncertainty for data sources based upon probability 

sampling. For data sources not based upon probability sampling, it is much more difficult to 

quantify uncertainty. For example, if a probability sample for an area already exists (or if one can 

be taken), then additional data from non-probability samples can be incorporated into the 

probability sample using what are called selection functions. (This is an area of sampling theory 

rich with research possibilities; much remains to be developed. Perhaps Dr. Don Stevens, 

formerly of Oregon State University, now residing in Wasilla, AK, could be called upon as an 

expert scientist to help in this area. I believe Dr. Tony Olsen, EPA Corvallis, is involved in this 

effort.) Quantifying uncertainty practically qualifies as its own ESRP project. It certainly needs 

to be “constantly worked on” as ESRP moves forward. 

I remain concerned about the ability to develop a National Atlas (in an ArcGIS server 

environment) being hampered by present computing resources. For full and use of maps, one 

needs a GIS server with adequate computing power. In a best scenario, easy illustration of data 

gaps might prompt private and public entities (through the Consortium) to contribute data for use 

in the National Atlas. 

Charge Question 4. Implementation of Place-based Studies. 

There needs to be better integration of these projects into the overall arching framework. Each 

placed-based project should illustrate how the decision support framework operates. One cannot 

emphasize this point enough. I keep going back to the Willamette Alternative Futures Project. 

This one (having started in the mid-1990’s), seems to be the most developed in terms of linking 

changes in stressors (land use in this case) to outcomes that could be viewed as ecosystem 

services. 

There were some good points in the Tampa Bay Project presentation that would presumably fit 

well into the decision support framework. One was noting that attainment of standards for 

particulate matter (PM) would result in $14-$55 billion of nationwide health benefits. That is an 

example of an ecosystem service (removal of PM) translating into human health and well-being. 

Similarly, coming up with a model for relating wetland loss to increased waste water treatments 

to maintain specified levels of water quality is another example of such. This project has also 

35
taken an “alternative futures” approach to assess the effects of land cover/land use on ecosystem 

services. 

Charge Question 5. Ecosystem-specific studies: Wetlands. 

The ecosystem services provided by wetlands (slide 9 in the presentation) appear to be a good 

start, and probably need further refinement. Most of the boxes under “Wetland Categories and 

Services” (slide 11) are filled in; is it possible to start building/filling in the DSF for wetlands 

from these studies? Slide 17 (and also remarks from Dr. Rick Linthurst) point out that ecosystem 

services (like species!) do not exist singly, but together, and therefore must be considered in 

“bundles”. Furthermore, the same change in an ecosystem can be viewed both positively and 

negatively, for which the tradeoffs must be clear (the example presented was that of decreased 

storm surge reduction, but increased shrimp yield, as a marsh becomes more fragmented). Much 

work remains on models for ecological production functions (slide 30). Even after this is “done” 

(if such an endeavor can ever be said to be finished), there still remains the problem of working 

out models for economic production functions to be able to say something about ecosystem 

service benefits. EPA correctly notes (last point on slide 32) that it may not be possible to do 

direct measurement for all sites (a census). In order to estimate services for sites that are not 

measured directly, one would need a quantitative model that allows one to measure something 

indirectly (perhaps via remote sensing) and then translate that into the desired service. Along 

with this, a measure of uncertainly would need to be incorporated. 

The committee was informed that the National Implementation Plan for Wetlands is now in 

revision and should be ready by autumn 2009. Undoubtedly this will answer many of the 

committee’s questions regarding the wetlands study how it fits into the DSF. 

The example provided in the NAtl-ES presentation (slide 26), with statements about the 

percentage reduction in nitrate load using so many ha of constructed wetlands (and with the 

$1.38/lb cost for nitrogen removal), provided a very specific statement about an ecosystem 

service and the cost for getting there. 

Slide 11 from the ESRP presentation shows invasive species as a concern, but no mention of this 

was made in the Wetlands slide presentation. 

Charge Question 6. The Decision Support Framework (DSF). 

The concept of the DSF cannot be completed without a careful delineation of the ecological 

production functions. 

The best way to achieve the goals of the DSF is to take a demonstration project (e.g., ecosystem 

services as specified in the Clean Water Act) and take it through to the finish by defining 

ecosystem services, assessing effects of stressors, relating them to changes in human health and 

well-being, valuation of ecosystem services (e.g., increase/decrease in years of human life if 

things got better/worse), etc. Having a carefully thought through overarching model should make 

this process more straightforward. 

36
Comments from Dr. Terry Daniel

General issues (charge question 1) 

Charge Questions 1.1 and 1.2. 

The revisions to the ESRP MYP respond well to the recommendations of the previous SAB 

EPEC review by shifting away from the earlier emphasis on human wellbeing and economic 

valuation efforts toward greater focus on identifying, monitoring, mapping and modeling the 

ecological systems, endpoints and ecological production functions that are the basis for 

ecosystems services. Clearly, focusing the program on ecosystems services requires identifying 

ecological changes that have implications for human/social wellbeing. However, the principal 

strengths and the primary responsibilities of ORD-ERP are in discovering and articulating the 

complex webs of bio-ecological systems and processes that support, regulate, produce, store and 

deliver the goods and services needed and desired by humans. 

The proposed ESRP requires close collaboration with economists, behavioral and social 

scientists whose primary work is to understand the consequences of environmental change for 

human/social wellbeing. This collaboration must be bi-directional. Ecological research should 

determine the bio-ecological effects of relevant stressors and management actions on ecological 

systems and represent those effects in terms that can be related by economists and social and 

medical scientists to changes in human health and wellbeing. An important responsibility of 

ecological research in this context is to identify and call attention to ecological systems that are 

important to human wellbeing, but which are not yet adequately appreciated. The ESRP 

recognizes this need for collaboration and has done an admirable job of recruiting and 

incorporating appropriate economics and social science expertise, mostly through 

temporary/part-time hires and through partnerships with other units inside and outside of the 

Agency. Still, the texts and presentations of the ESRP’s plans and accomplishments are not 

always clear about how the program is balancing the bio-ecological and the human/social value 

sides of the ecosystems services framework that it has adopted. 

Charge Question 1.3. 

The ESRP has made admirable progress on several fronts since the last SAB-EPEC review. The 

overall organization of the program is better articulated and several component projects have 

moved along considerably. More attention has been given to the implementation of the 

coordination among individual projects (place studies, nitrogen study, target ecosystems), so that 

the likelihood of achieving the important advantages of the overall program is increased. 

Charge Question 1.4. 

The ESRP has continued to build and refine an impressive network of partnerships with other 

units within EPA, as well as with other government and private agencies. A concern here is the 

degree of control, and the reliability, of the many links in the elaborate network of partnerships 

on which the ESRP MYP depends. The revised plan acknowledges the uncertainties of the many 

intra-EPA partnerships on which the ESRP depends, especially the risk of program offices 

37
changing priorities or shifting focus in the face of budget, political and other constraints. The 

same issue surely applies to the extra-Agency partners—perhaps even more so. The ORD-ERP 

should be clear about the parts of the ESRP plan that they have the capability to execute on their 

own, versus the parts that require (and to what extent) continuing contributions from others, over 

whom the ORD-ERP has little or no actual control. This is not to discourage the admirable 

accomplishment of wide support and promises of cooperation within and outside the Agency—

without which the ESRP as conceived could hardly be started. However, this is a complex and 

highly interconnected 10-year plan. It is unlikely that all of the various partners are going to be 

able to carry out fully their planned/promised roles. A realistic assessment is needed of the 

relative “reliability” of each partner (with regard to performing and maintaining their role in the 

ESRP) and of the effects on the overall plan of the failure of a given partner to fulfill their role. 

This assessment can be approached diplomatically; e.g., through clear, mutually agreed upon 

statements of what the program is counting on partner X to perform (as in a formal MOU) and 

what accomplishing their role contributes to the overall success of the program (and by 

implication what will not be accomplished if this role is not fulfilled). It would be prudent for 

the directors of the ESRP to consider contingency plans now. 

Specific assignments 

Charge Question 3 – addressing implementation of mapping, monitoring and modeling themes 

National Monitoring for Ecosystem Services (no specific charge question presented) 

“We will design a monitoring system for inventorying ecosystem services.” 

From 1.8, appendix A--“For example the hierarchy of services in the Willamette and Southwest 

Place based areas may both include a focus on water quantity, but in the Willamette it may be for 

flood control while in the Southwest it may be for delivery of sufficient amounts of water to 

sustain population needs.” 

The example in the box above from the Decision Support Framework chapter highlights the 

distinction between ecological “endpoints” (e.g., X amount of water at place Y at time Z) and 

ecosystem “services” (e.g., water as a flood hazard, water for drinking). It should be clear (and 

probably is, but there appears to be some “back-sliding” in this presentation of the monitoring 

section of the ESRP), that monitoring and mapping “services” requires an “overlay” of 

ecological endpoints and human/social needs and wants. An important implication is that social 

and demographic data, including projections of future populations and their likely needs/wants, 

is required to identify, assess, project and map ecosystems services for any given place and time. 

The approach implied by the current model (1.2, Figure X) might be to focus on “potential” 

ecosystem services (e.g., fresh water, as an ecological endpoint, is assumed to eventually be 

needed/wanted by someone—i.e., it has high potential to provide a service). However, this 

assumes that we can accurately/validly infer what human populations at relevant places and 

times (including future populations) will want/need. Of course the flood versus drinking 

example cited above reveals that such inferences are at least complicated and always require 

38
some data, inferences or assumptions about the human/social contexts (in which case data and 

data-based inferences are to be preferred). 

“We will develop monitoring designs and indicators that will allow current ecosystem services 

(ES) for aquatic ecosystems to be estimated on a national and regional basis.” 

Following the flood-versus-drink example discussed above, there is a real danger that this 

approach might assess the quantity of fresh water produced/ stored /delivered by ecosystems at a 

sample of places across the US and, by extrapolating across the floods in some parts of the 

country and severe water shortages in other parts conclude that “water services” for the nation 

are adequate. We can take it on faith that the EPA would never actually make such a mistake. 

However, the description of this section of the ESRP is so sparse and so undeveloped that it fails 

to adequately address or even acknowledge the essential distinctions between ecological 

endpoints and ecosystems services. The conceptual model and the implementation plan for 

monitoring activities in the ESRP needs to be much more explicit about how endpoint-service 

distinctions will be addressed. 

The research on a selection of estuaries is certainly relevant and important to the assessment of 

aquatic ecosystems services. Based on the very brief descriptions provided here, however, it 

appears that this work will at most only address a very narrow set of ecological endpoints 

potentially related to a single service; e.g., populations of uncontaminated fish as a contribution 

to desired recreational fishing experiences/opportunities. This has the advantage of enabling the 

application of reasonably well developed economic valuation methods (travel cost estimates of 

w-t-p for recreational fishing opportunities), but this seems to be a case of looking under the 

lamp post. Are these the most important services of esturarine ecosystems? Is this the strongest 

public policy basis for protecting these systems? Do the measures here proposed provide 

adequate indictors (never mind measures) of the most important services of these ecosystems? 

From 1.4.2, Current Impacts, Critical Accomplishments and Innovations: “Increased estuarine 

recreational fisheries associated with decreased fish contaminant levels may have resulted in 

$13.5M increase in recreational revenue nationally (linked to OW NARS).” 

Note that recreational fishing may not be the “highest and best use” for esturarine ecosystems 

and that $13.5M/yr is not a lot of money these days. The danger is that this relatively convenient 

measure of ecosystems services value could be very misleading (especially to the public), and 

risks overlooking the longer term “values” of these systems to their respective regions, to the 

nation, and to the world that shares the oceans. 

Similar concerns are raised by the descriptions of the studies of streams and lakes. Measures and 

maps of the miles of streams (and presumably acres of lakes) and various aspects of their 

condition are surely important inputs into assessing ecological endpoints related to potential

services that might come from these ecosystems. But these measures are not themselves 

measures of ecosystems services, and they are very likely not sufficient even to begin to address 

many of the most important services provided by/through these ecosystems. 

39
The later sections of this chapter are also brief and incomplete, but somewhat more encouraging. 

The reference to “indicators” (rather than “services”) and the note that Jim Boyd is assisting in 

the design of the monitoring program give some assurance that the endpoint-versus-service 

problems noted above will be properly addressed. Certainly, properly constructed indicators can 

provide suitable “estimates” of ecosystems services, as Boyd’s work has shown. But the 

construction of such indicators requires the “overlay” of ecological and social factors (at a place 

and time). The workshop to determine “final ecosystems service indicators” for stream 

ecosystems will hopefully help to refine this approach considerably. 

“There 138 estuaries that represent over 90% of the estuarine surface water and freshwater 

inflow of the coastal regions of the contiguous US, and only about 92 of these are not currently 

being monitored by NOAA’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) or EPA’s 

National Estuary Program (NEP). Thus, a census approach may be possible, and even desirable, 

for estuarine ES.” 

132 – 92 = 40, or just 30% of the 90% (that is, 27%) of estuaries. How is this a basis for 

claiming a census sample? 

Charge Question 3.1 

Certainly dynamic atlases of ecosystems services like those described could be of considerable 

use to decision makers and stakeholders as well as to environmental scientists. The model that 

guides this mapping theme is more sophisticated than that presented in the monitoring section, 

but it also misses some aspects of the endpoint-service distinction. In the model, the structure 

and function of various ecosystems (e.g., streams) “determines” the various types of ecosystems 

services that flow to various populations of people. There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem 

here, as one could not know what structures and functions of ecosystems are relevant until you 

know what goods and services are needed/desired by associated (or at least potential) human 

populations. This would require coordinated assessments of what people need/want/care about 

(and when and where) and what proximal (and perhaps more remote) ecosystems are capable of 

sustainably contributing toward meeting those needs/wants/cares. An atlas of ecosystems 

services requires a joint mapping of ecosystems (in bio-ecological terms) in association with 

human/social values. 

In some cases the human need component may be reasonably well known, as when the service in 

question is an adequate supply of clean/cleanable water to a specified water distribution system 

providing drinking water to a known population of people (perhaps one instance of the “source 

water” studies described later in this section). One might then be able to” back up” the 

downward-pointed arrows in the conceptual model presented to determine the relevant 

ecological systems and conditions (ecological production functions) required to sustainably 

produce (store and deliver) suitable water to meet the drinking water needs of that particular 

human population. 

It may be that “ecosystems services” is not really what is represented in the atlases. Most of the 

examples provided actually map ecological endpoints, ecosystems and/or ecological conditions 

40
that contribute to the provision of some service(s) to some human population (or potential 

population). 

Similarly, please comment on whether ecosystem service atlases will inform decision makers 

about: 1) issues related to social equity and social choice--Only if they are explicit about what 

human populations are being “served” at what levels. 

2) innovative valuation methods (e.g., by providing information on location, availability of 

substitutes, and changes over baseline conditions)--Again, this requires identification of what 

populations (including future generations) are being served, at what levels, over what time 

periods, at what costs, etc. 

3) issues related to environmental and land management, including public and private 

investments to conserve ecosystem services--If all of the above is accomplished, the atlases 

would certainly be helpful in this regard. 

 

Charge Question 3.2. 

 The pitfall that seems most imminent is that monitoring, modeling and mapping (including 

dynamic atlases) will focus on traditional (and often already available) bio-ecological variables 

represented in traditional ways without carefully and explicitly considering how those variables 

are related to human health and wellbeing. The texts and the presentations of progress on the 

ESRP include many excellent maps of “wetlands,” “rivers” (classed by nitrogen capacity), and 

“vegetation cover types,” for example. These are surely ecologically important, and it might be 

safe to assume that they are (or might be) of importance to human/social wellbeing (somewhere 

at some time). However, if the focus of this program is to be on ecosystems services, the 

locations, amounts and condition of these ecological components must be systematically related 

to the wants and needs of human populations that are or might be directly or indirectly served in 

some way by these ecosystems or their components. It is important that the monitoring, 

modeling and mapping activities of the ESRP begin systematically to incorporate the 

human/social variables that translate ecosystems into ecosystems services. 

 

Charge Question 6 – addressing implementation of decision support activities. 

Charge Question 6.1. 

The challenge for the Decision Support System Framework project is to keep the focus on 

ecological aspects of the policy/decision making enterprise at EPA. Certainly the ecological 

aspects must be addressed in the context of all the other parts of the larger decision system, and 

the DSS must identify and build the required links from and to the ecological components. 

However, the ESRP (ORD-ERP) should place the greatest emphasis on identifying and 

understanding the relevant ecological components and systems, based on the best available 

understanding of their relationship to human health and wellbeing. 

As a step in that direction, the Conceptual Model (Figure 1.2, Summary Description of ESRP) 

should insert an additional module under Analytic-Deliberation: Between Determine Services 

41
and Identify Stressors it would be appropriate to insert something like Ecological Productions. 

This module would identify the ecological endpoints and systems on which the identified 

services depend, articulate the ecological production functions for those endpoints, and elaborate 

the fuller ecological systems in which those production functions are based. On this later point it 

will be important to identify a) remote but essential supporting/sustaining functions of other 

ecological components and systems/sub-systems and b) any important goods and services not 

initially identified and targeted under Determine Services to which the identified production 

functions and associated components/systems significantly contribute. This would seem to be 

one of the core responsibilities of ecological research. This Ecological Productions module 

would also be a prerequisite to identifying stressors and their relevant effects, through ecological 

systems, on the identified goods and services, to devising viable alternatives for controlling 

stressors and/or mitigating their negative effects, as well as to the evaluation of the management 

options under consideration. 

While the presentation of the DSS at the 7/15/2009 meeting of EPEC (Ms. Ann Vega) differed in 

many respects from the text provided ahead of the meeting, it perhaps even more obscured the 

role of ecological research and expertise. It is important that the DSS clearly articulate the full 

decision context into which the ESRP should contribute, and perhaps an emphasis on nonecological aspects is appropriate at this point for a research unit largely composed of biologists 

and ecologists. However, the DSS framework should serve the important role of showing 

explicitly where ecological science fits into the decision/policy context, how that science is 

constrained by the decision context, and especially how the focus on ecosystems services affects 

the content, processes and outputs of ecological science. 

Though it is currently implied as part of the Take Action module, it would be useful to add a 

separate module for Monitor and Adapt. Allegiance to adaptive management is wide spread, but 

conformance with its key requirement is still rare. Any effort to emphasize this important 

follow-through would be worthwhile. 

The shift in timing and goals for the DSS development is appropriate and properly responsive to 

the concerns raised in the SAB EPEC review. The explicit and aggressive inclusion of 

stakeholder involvement is appropriate and, while potentially painful at times, such involvement 

should improve the likelihood, the magnitude and the sustainability of the success of the ESRP. 

Reliance on others inside and outside the agency for data and models to build the DSS is 

unavoidable and perhaps even an advantage, as it capitalizes on hard work already done and 

expertise not likely to be available to ORD-ERP. However, it would be prudent to 

systematically assess how critical each of the expected contributions is to the ESRP enterprise, 

what the effects would be if the quantity, quality and/or timing of the contribution is ultimately 

less than expected, what substitutes might be available and what modifications will be needed to 

the overall ESRP and/or to specific components of the plan. That is, “plan B” should be 

considered in some detail before it is needed. 

The model shown in figure 2 contains all the right parts and most of the needed arrows—

especially of the double-headed variety. The text within and outside the figure is correct in 

pointing out the importance of local decisions on the broader ecological and social systems. The 

42
model graphically allows, but the text fails to adequately point out, that federal decisions have 

very important effects on local situations and on local decision options. The relation between 

local and federal levels in this context is often portrayed as having negative effects (in either 

direction, depending upon whom you ask), so it may be important to emphasize how this model 

offers the opportunity to achieve positive and synergistic effects that benefit both levels (this bidirectionality was better represented in the 7/15/09 presentation than in the pre-meeting text). 

The concept of a “searchable database” of decision support tools is certainly in the right 

direction, but even at this early stage of development of the DSF it will be important to anticipate 

the needs of intended users. Among the key issues to consider even now are abilities to scale up 

or down (in time and in space) from existing data and models to fit particular decision contexts 

(on ecological and on social dimensions), how best to make up for missing data/models, and how 

to address multiple-stressor (multiple-media) problems based on single stressor (single medium) 

data and models. These needs have very likely already been surfaced in the initial 

stakeholder/user workshops, and they are likely to exist for some time even after the final DSS is 

achieved. 

After hearing the 7/15/09 presentation of the current and planned DSS, including the data base of 

several hundred “tools,” it seems that the search engine might better be modeled after “match 

making” systems than after more conventional key word or list of parameters systems. That is, a 

decision maker will need help with a complex, multi-dimensional problem, likely differing in 

many respects from the requirements and capabilities of any of the available tools. The task is to 

find tools that are likely “good mates” to the decision problem and context at hand. 

Table 2 and Figure 3—please add an institutional acronym key! 

Charge Question 6.2. 

First, the DSS (whether just a framework or a fully implemented platform) should play a central 

role in the ESRP. This is a long-term very complex and highly integrated program of research 

involving multiple interdependent projects. The goal of the program is to provide the 

ecosystems sciences base for EPA to make wide range of decisions and policies. It is essential 

that traditional ecological research be transformed, as the ESRP envisions, into a 

multidisciplinary framework that focuses on ecosystems services—the ecological systems, 

processes and endpoints that promote human health and wellbeing. Moreover, this transformed 

research program must be fully integrated into the decision and policy making contexts of the 

Agency. A carefully crafted and effectively implemented DSS is the best, perhaps the only way 

effectively to achieve these important ends. 

The patchwork of special temporary hires and partnerships with other agencies is a practical way 

to fill the needs for DSS development expertise, in the face of the existing limitations of the 

ORD-ERP and the inadequacy of funding for more substantially expanding the needed expertise. 

It will be difficult, but also very important to hold this patchwork together over the course of the 

ESRP. The DSS should provide guidance early on for the development of the various 

components of the overall research program—especially for assuring consistency and relevance 

among the various data collection and model building enterprises within the program. In the 

43
end, the DSS will be needed to effectively integrate the many “tools” that are being selected, 

created and refined into a form that is accessible and useful for decision makers. 

44
Comments from Drs. Otto Doering and William Moomaw

Charge Question 1 

Charge Question 1.1. 

The ESRP appears to have developed a more complete understanding of the reframing of 

environmental problems in terms of ecosystem services. However, it still appears that EPA is 

constrained by its legislative mandate and is still working within the framework of its 

legislated mandate of media and issue specific issues. How can these be reconciled? 

Charge Question 1.2. 

It is difficult for me to evaluate whether this goal to create a more balanced focus has been 

successful or not. 

Charge Question 1.3. 

 Yes, with some adjustments, the current elements are definitely worth keeping. 

Charge Question 1.4. 

 The partnership approach that is being developed represents a new approach to EPA operations 

to protect human health and environment or ecosystem services. The approach is less 

confrontational, and needs to engage parties early in the process. It is worth considering the 

Dutch model, where the goals are set by policy makers, and then the means for meeting those 

goals is negotiated with the party that is being regulated. 

Charge Question 2. 

Here are four questions that come to mind that are based upon discussions that have taken place 

within the Integrated Nitrogen Committee of SAB. 

1. Since nitrogen cascades chemically through different media and ecosystems, does the systems 

modeling that EPA id conducting help to identify the "most effective" point of intervention, or is 

EPA locked into its legislative mandate to evaluate Nr medium by medium and problem by 

problem? 

2. Which metrics or combination of metrics are most effective in setting priorities for managing 

reactive nitrogen within a framework of ecosystem services? 

3. Are there effective ways to enhance denitrification without creating additional amounts of 

N2O? 

45
4. Is attention being given to reduced forms of Nr such as NH3 and ammonium? 

46
Comments from Dr. Wayne Landis

Introduction 

These notes are the comments and questions that I have regarding the Ecological Services 

Research Program status report document and the charge questions. 

 

Good expansion of the scope 

The update reveals a program of greater scope than at the first review. It is clear that the 

program has been hard at work to implement some of the suggestions of the last EPEC review. 

The program is in its early stages and has made good progress and that is admirable. My 

comments on based upon reading the progress reports supplied by EPA and my experiences in 

conducting studies of multiple stressor systems with multiple endpoints at a variety of scales. 

General notes on update report and charge questions 

The phrase “Ever more complex” shows up in the document many times. Do you mean that we 

know understand that ecological structures are complex systems in the modern sense of the 

word? Do you mean that we were naïve in the past about the complications that we would find 

in the answers? 

One of my deep concerns with reading the update and the reports is the lack of looking outside 

the Federal government. A general impression of mine over the last 6 years is that the United 

States has lost much of its leadership role in the environmental sciences in innovation, 

integrating stressors at a variety of scales, and in the use of analytical tools. Yet there seems to 

be little incorporation of lessons learned or research results from researchers outside of the U. S. 

If EPA is to establish itself as a leader in this area then it needs to clearly understand where the 

current state of the art is in this field. It is not clear to me from these documents that EPA knows 

where that edge is. 

Update Report Page 2 Conceptual Models. I am not sure what is trying to be communicated 

in the conceptual model diagram Figure 1. I have seen a lot of diagrams such as this in EPA and 

other programs, but these mix up sources, stressors, endpoints, regulations and so forth. My first 

inclination in seeing something called a conceptual model is to think about how I would write an 

equation to describe the relationships. I cannot do that with this diagram. Is the green box an 

effects box? It shares a lot of the terminology with the ecosystem services box. Is all you are 

attempting to say is that human cultural systems and ecological systems are coupled? Isn’t this 

well known? 

The other item that is important but that I am not reading in this discussion is the importance of 

context and place. A strong conceptual model for the understanding of ecological services must 

include an understanding of social and ecological context and spatial relationships. The 

economies of many regions of the United States were set in part by historical events and by the 

already present ecological services. The Puget Sound’s economy was set because of good harbor 

and the natural resources of timber and fishing. The cultures of many of the original European 

47
immigrants were amenable to those industries as well, so that the region has a distinctive set of 

values compared to other areas in the West. There are numerous examples across the U.S. of 

that interaction between ecological setting, cultural beginnings and current perceptions of 

ecological services. How is this program going to accommodate those differences?

Update Report Page 17. Recommendation 7—Bayesian tools—It will be interesting to see 

what direction this takes in the various research groups. It is neat that EPA is beginning to apply 

these tools to ecosystem management problems. There are two families of Bayesian tools that 

are applicable. First, there are analogues to frequentist statistics for hypothesis testing, curve 

fitting and so forth. Second, there are the Bayesian belief networks that are designed to 

accommodate deterministic and stochastic processes within a modeled system. I have found 

Bayesian tools to be very informative in some of our recent research, and also find them 

complimentary to our regional risk assessment tools. 

The US Forest Service and others have also used Bayesian networks to examine a number of 

resource management issues (see Marot et al 2006, McCann et al 2006). Reckow, one of your 

listed Special Government Employees) is also very knowledgeable about the application of such 

tools to watershed management. 

Charge Questions 

There are two key questions in this research program. 

“What are the effects of multiple stressors on ecosystem services, at multiple scales, over time? 

This has been the subject of a great deal of research over the last years in a variety of fields. 

Forest management plans attempt to examine this question. There are now more cases of 

ecological risk assessments dealing with this exact issue across the world. How have these 

results influenced the proposed studies? 

“What is (are) the impact(s) of changes in these services on human well-being and on the value 

of these services expressed in both monetary and non-monetary terms? 

This may be the more challenging question given the current makeup of the ESRP team. Again 

this has been an area of active research in the risk analysis field. 

Life Cycle Analysis is a process that can give great insight into how changes in industrial or 

other processes affect a number of variables. EPA ORD and the group at Cincinnati were some 

of the earliest developers of LCA. How is the current conceptual model going to incorporate that 

means of analysis? 

Charge Question 1. Current Status and Direction of the Ecosystem Services Research program 

(ESRP). 

Charge Question 1.1. 

Progress has been made but is still so diverse in studies that it is not clear what the target is at 

times. 

48
Charge Question 1.2. 

There is some additional balance in the program. 

Charge Question 1.3. 

My experience in conducting or in collaborating on studies at regional scales has shown that a 

huge issue is data analysis and trying to model the risks from multiple stressors. I do not see a 

risk approach being taken and it is not clear what the data analysis effort will be. The human 

well being aspect is in part a social science segment I that area is still not funded-supported to the 

extent that it requires. I understand the history of the program and that acid rain and EMAP had 

very defined focuses, but if human well being is the goal then that has to be a research and 

analysis focus as well. 

Charge Question 1.4. 

I see lots of potential partnerships and that is a good thing. It is not clear to me how these 

partnerships will work in the ESRP. What are the responsibilities of the partners? What 

researchers will be a part of the program? How will the input of the partners be integrated into 

the research? 

Charge Question 2: Implementation of Integrated Pilot for Reactive Nitrogen 

Is this project consistent with the primary research question of the ESRP? There is one stressor 

involved here (reactive N)? What will this program specifically contribute to the goal of dealing 

with multiple stressors from multiple sources? Reactive N will have multiple impacts so perhaps 

this area would be the area of emphasis? 

Charge Question 3: Implementation of Mapping, Monitoring, and Modeling Themes 

Charge Question 3.1. 

Whose questions are you trying to answer with the Atlas? At the local level the managers 

generally have mandated ecological services to manage and are aware of them. Water must meet 

standards, flooding is generally bad, industrial areas are important for economic development 

and residential areas need to be safe. These maps are useful if they had information about how 

stressors affected ecological services. That can of cause effect information would be useful but 

that does not appear to be the current goal. 

Charge Question 3.2. 

Monitoring without specific questions to be answered is often a waste of energy. My 

requirements for monitoring to be useful are: 

49
Are there measurements that will provide information regarding cause-effect relationships in the 

study area? Often there is not a sufficient conceptual model that adequately addresses cause and 

effect to guide sampling. (See notes on conceptual models for Charge Question 4). 

Is the time interval adequate to be able to gather enough signal to ensure that the observed 

relationships are not spurious? 

Does the monitoring incorporate enough spatial information to allow reasonable extrapolation to 

the rest of the landscape of interest? In so many sites only a small portion of the area is sampled 

and often is not representative of all the kinds of ecological structures in the landscape, 

extrapolation to the rest become an issue. 

In the report I saw hierarchical Bayesian modeling as one of the techniques discussed. I 

understand that in our previous comments that we encouraged Bayesian tools to be incorporated 

into the ESRP. However there are many other tools that are available. Bayesian networks can 

be very powerful in some areas, especially when coupled with other techniques. Marcot et al 

(2006) and McCann et al (2006) provide an excellent introduction of the use of Bayesian 

networks for natural resource management. Gibbs (2007) is an excellent example of the use of 

both Bayesian networks and agent based models to conduct a risk assessment regarding 

aquaculture (a source of multiple stressors) to shorebird production. 

I am having difficulty find risk-based approaches in the ESRP? The Willamette Basin project is 

the exception. Why is that? There are now multiple examples of the use of risk-based 

approaches that deal with multiple stressors and ecological services over wide areas. I will 

discuss these further under Question 4. 

Charge Question 4: Implementation of Place-based Studies. 

Charge Question 4.1. 

I am happy to note that in the conceptual models that contaminants are not an issue. Therefore 

CERCLA sites, long-range transport of a number of materials (PCBs and other organics, Hg) and 

NRDA sites undergoing restoration are not part of the conceptual models. Of the models 

presented the Tampa Bay stressors-drivers example would probably be the easiest to turn into a 

cause effect model. However, I note that contaminants, disease, and invasives (a huge issue in 

FL and in many coastal regions) are not included. The conceptual model of human well being 

(page 11) is unreadable and I am not sure believable. There are almost more indexes that inputs. 

As the authors suspect the complexity will fall away but I will still not be sure what it will mean. 

Charge Questions 4.2-4.3. 

I do not see a good connection between the studies and the decision makers. One of the great 

lessons of the development of ecological and human health risk assessment is the importance of 

involving stakeholders and decision makers early and often. Their requirements are often to 

meet TMDL requirements, ensure economic growth, provide clean water etc. Since some of the 

conceptual models do not include some of the parameters to be considered at the local or even 

state level the studies may be of limited use. 

50
One of the best place based studies I have seen has been for the Northern Tropical Watersheds of 

Australia (Bartolo et al 2008a). These studies examined 51 catchments across the northern part 

of Australia and were supported by extensive sampling, stakeholder participation, the derivation 

of cause-effect relationships and so forth. In chapter 3 risks to the 51 catchments were identified 

and ranked across this broad area. In chapter 4 and more detailed analysis of the Daley River 

area was conducted using Bayesian networks and other modeling tools. The outcomes of these 

studies included maps of relative risks to a variety of sources in this area to multiple endpoints, 

many of which are important to the economy of the region. The summary chapter is also very 

straightforward about the strengths and limitations of the study and the need to better include the 

aboriginal people as stakeholders. Perhaps this study could be used as an example of what placebased studies should include. 

Charge Question 4.4. 

Many areas do have written goals or futures documents that were created by stakeholders. The 

Willamette Basin is one example. Many areas have wildlife and fisheries management plans 

especially for marine reserves and parks. I do not see (or perhaps just can not find) this 

information being incorporated into these conceptual models. Often this information is very 

specific (so many tons of fish per year). 

Charge Question 5: Implementation of Ecosystem Specific Studies: Wetlands 

Invasives are a huge issue in the wetlands and salt marsh coastal areas that I am familiar with yet 

I do not see (or can not read the models well enough) this being a significant issue in the 

wetlands studies. Invasives often completely alter the structure of the wetland or salt-water 

marsh altering sunlight, temperature, flows and habitat within the region. 

Charge Question 6: Implementation of Decision Support Activities 

Charge Question 6.1. 

EPA has a very different mission compared to a group such as NSF. NSF’s Long-term 

ecological research sites are more of a basic research model. The exceptions are the Baltimore 

and Phoenix LTER sites that are looking more closely at the urban-eco interface. 

If EPA’s ESRP does not aid the decision making process then does the research fit the mission of 

the agency? There is a great deal of experience in EPA at making decisions regarding 

environmental management. As far as using risk assessment tools there is experience in ORD 

and in the regions. 

 Charge Question 6.2. 

 As I tried to say in the comment to 6.1 having tools so that on the ground environmental 

decisions can be made is essential. The ESRP needs to consider its resource allocation and to 

use the experience of other researchers and agencies. 

51
Citations 

Bartolo R, Bayliss P, van Dam R 2008a. Ecological risk assessment for Australia’s northern 

tropical rivers. Sub-project 2 of Australia’s Tropical Rivers – an integrated data assessment 

and analysis (DET18). A report to Land & Water Australia. Environmental Research Institute 

of the Supervising Scientist, National Centre for Tropical Wetland Research, Darwin NT. 

Accessed at http://www.environment.gov.au/ssd/tropical-rivers/publicationsreports.html#final July 9 2009. 

Bartolo R, van Dam R, Bayliss P.2008b. Chapter 3 – van Dam R Semi-quantitative risk 

assessments – The Relative Risk Model. Sub-project 2 of Australia’s Tropical Rivers – an 

integrated data assessment and analysis (DET18) (Bartolo R, Bayliss P & van Dam R). A 

report to Land & Water Australia. Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising 

Scientist, National Centre for Tropical Wetland Research, Darwin NT, 164-270. Accessed at 

http://www.environment.gov.au/ssd/tropical-rivers/publications-reports.html#final July 9 

2009. 

Bayliss P , Bartolo R , van Dam R 2008. Chapter 4 –Quantitative ecological risk assessments for 

the Daly River. Sub-project 2 of Australia’s Tropical Rivers – an integrated data assessment 

and analysis (DET18) (Bartolo R, Bayliss P & van Dam R). A report to Land & Water 

Australia. Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, National Centre for 

Tropical Wetland Research, Darwin NT, 273-415. Accessed at 

http://www.environment.gov.au/ssd/tropical-rivers/publications-reports.html#final July 9 

2009. 

Gibbs, Mark T. 2007. Assessing the Risk of an Aquaculture Development on Shorebirds Using a 

Bayesian Belief Model', Hum Ecol Risk Assess, 13:1, 156 – 179 

Marcot BG, Steventon JD, Sutherland GD, McCann RK. 2006. Guidelines for developing and 

updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Can J 

For Res 36:3075-3086 

McCann RK, Marcot BG, Ellis R. 2006. Bayesian belief networks: applications in ecology and 

natural resource management. Can J For Res 36:3063-3074. 

Landis additional comments 7/23/09 

General Comment. 

1) During the discussion and as noted in my comments, I am struck by the narrowness of the 

literature search that has been conducted for this program. 

As was noted in the discussion there is a large literature on valuation in environmental risk 

assessment. Valuation and ecological services are very closely related topics and that literature 

should inform the ESRP. 

52
Over more than a decade there has been a developing literature on how to assess risks at large 

scales. These risk assessments are also tied to stakeholder values, another area where the ESRP 

needs experience. 

2) Data analysis, where is it? None of the presentations dealt with the huge data analysis issues 

that come with observations over such large scales. Spatial correlations are rampant, ruining 

assumptions about independent observations. A number of continua exist within the terrestrial 

and aquatic landscapes, producing gradients across the landscape. There a number of tools that 

can be used to look at the datasets that EPA and other agencies have gathered, but I can not find 

them in the current materials. 

3) My biggest concern with this program is that it is still isolated in its thinking and even in its 

interactions. If part of the goal is to address management issues the program needs to evolve 

beyond the academic ecology approach to something else more goal oriented. 

53
Comments from Dr. Judith Meyer

Charge question 1. Current Status and Direction of the Ecosystem Services Research program 

(ESRP) 

Charge Question 1.1. The SAB previously reviewed the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan 

and recommended improvements in the strategic direction and focus of the Program, the 

research goals and questions, and the program implementation strategy. Given the current status 

and direction of the ESRP, please comment on whether the Program has been responsive to the 

intent of the Committee’s primary recommendations? 

The Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) has been responsive to EPEC’s primary 

recommendations. The documents and presentations provided for this consultation provided 

clearer justifications for the research directions as well as documenting research progress. As 

recommended, ESRP is focusing its attention on the ecological side of ecosystem services, and 

on determining ecological production functions. ESRP has revised its approach to decision 

support. The addition of the southwest study captures an important aspect of the US landscape 

that had been ignored in the previous design. ESRP has been able to hire relevant experts as 

Special Government Employees in disciplines not represented by existing staff, and these 

individuals have added impressive talent to the program. Consultation with EPA program 

offices (e.g., Water, Air, Superfund) has occurred and affected development of implementation 

plans. ESRP has excelled in development of partnerships. ESRP implementation plans have 

been or are being peer reviewed, although we have not seen any implementation plans or their 

reviews, so it is difficult to comment much further. ESRP has also shown how this research 

direction is responsive to recommendations made in previous SAB reports (e.g., CVPESS and 

Ecological Risk Assessment). The Coastal Carolinas project used the principles EPEC suggested 

to demonstrate why this is a good choice for place-based research. It would be useful if the other 

place-based studies would do the same. All of these actions demonstrate responsiveness to 

EPEC’s earlier recommendations. 

Several aspects of ESRP have incorporated the risk assessment paradigm into their conceptual 

models, and Appendix B provides a detailed listing of ways in which advice in the EPEC 

Ecological Risk Assessment report has been incorporated. However, I had a hard time seeing the 

forest for the trees. A clear one paragraph statement of how an assessment of ecosystem services 

will improve risk assessment and risk management at EPA would make the benefits of this 

program more apparent to the Agency. Showing how the conceptual models in the place-based 

studies relate to the risk assessment paradigm might also help convince skeptics of the relevance 

of this research. 

None of the programs appear to have taken up the suggestion to use life-cycle analyses, although 

responses to our questions implied that this is being done. More clearly identifying where these 

analyses are being done and identifying them as life cycle analyses would benefit the program. 

Charge Question 1.2. In the SAB advisory report on the EPA Ecological Research Program 

Multi-Year Plan there was considerable discussion about ESRP’s focus on Long-term Goal 1: 

valuation, human well-being, and decision support. The SAB commented that predicating the 

54
whole program on this goal had set the bar too high for success. Has the Program achieved a 

more balanced focus at this stage of development, or are more adjustments recommended? 

The role of LTG1 in the entire program is more appropriate in the current ESRP than it was in 

the MYP previously reviewed. However, the balance may have shifted a bit too far. In 

particular, I would have liked to see more progress in the linkages between ecosystem services 

and human health. I see promise in development of the index of well-being and hope to learn 

more about that in future reviews. ESRP should consider hiring an expert in the relationship 

between environmental conditions and human health (e.g., an SGE as has been done for other 

LTGs; someone at CDC?) who could bring prestige and advice to this aspect of the program. 

Although it is appropriate that most of the emphasis in ESRP be on quantifying ecosystem 

services, the research is really incomplete until the benefits can also be incorporated. And this 

requires some attention to the linkages to human health and well-being. I recognize that this is a 

difficult nut to crack, but it is important to the ultimate success of the program. 

Charge Question 1.3. Please assess the progress the Program has made in the15 months since 

the SAB review of the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan in light of budget and staffing 

constraints. Has sufficient progress been made to warrant maintaining the current elements 

within the program? 

 

Considerable progress has been made despite significant resource constraints. The ESRP is 

clearly making progress, but more needs to be done to publicize its existence and demonstrate 

the products of the program. The written materials had some citations for papers, and several 

submitted or in preparation. It is time for the program to get out there in the literature. 

 

There are several groups working on ecosystem services both nationally and internationally. The 

unique niche of the ESRP in this field is that this assessment of ecosystem services is being done 

in an agency with regulatory authority; that is what makes it different from academic research on 

the subject. This gives ESRP the opportunity to demonstrate the applicability of the concept of 

ecosystem services. Providing a demonstration of its applicability (e.g., to Superfund, to 

wetlands mitigation) should be a high priority for the program. Having a demonstrated success, 

even in just one area, will be beneficial to the program. 

Charge Question 1.4. Please comment on the partnership approach being developed in the 

ESRP. Would the proposed future investments be likely to advance: integration across EPA; 

adoption of ESRP concepts by the Agency; and the science of ecosystem services, including 

improved management of ecological risks? 

The documents provide multiple examples of innovative partnerships (e.g., National Geographic, 

NSF denitrification network, Global NEWA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Business for 

Social Responsibility, Public-Private Partnership for Ecosystem Services). Inter-agency 

partnerships are also an important aspect of the program (e.g., USGS, USDA, USFS). The 

program has excelled in developing partnerships. 

Charge Question 2. Implementation of Integrated Pilot for Reactive Nitrogen. Using the 

nitrogen pilot as an example of ESRP’s approach to integration, please comment on how well 

55
the ESRP has succeeded in conceptualizing a systems-approach for analysis of ecosystem service 

impacts. Does the project take appropriate advantage of all the other projects in the ESRP? 

Have major uncertainties been adequately clarified and addressed to meet Program goals? Are 

there additional primary gaps or uncertainties that you see as important? 

The N program has established linkages with other aspects of the program – wetlands and placebased studies in particular. It will be important to emphasize how N can influence (both 

positively and negatively) the effects of other pollutants so that the program clearly demonstrates 

an alternative to a pollutant by pollutant approach to regulation. This program offers the 

opportunity to illustrate the concept of tradeoffs in decision-making. I saw no mention of N 

cascade in the documents provided, although the presentation demonstrated that the program is 

aware of it. Linkages between this program and the modeling program will be essential as there 

are real problems with linking models together and the compounding of uncertainties. 

Charge Question 3. Implementation of Mapping, Monitoring, and Modeling Themes 

Charge Question 3.1. Focusing specifically on the Mapping theme, please comment on the 

usefulness of the proposed products. For example, please comment on the potential for 

ecosystem service atlases to communicate the status, changes, and locations of ecosystem 

services to EPA clients and the public? Similarly, please comment on whether ecosystem service 

atlases will inform decision makers about: 1) issues related to social equity and social choice; 2) 

innovative valuation methods (e.g., by providing information on location, availability of 

substitutes, and changes over baseline conditions); 3) issues related to environmental and land 

management, including public and private investments to conserve ecosystem services. 

The mapping program seems closest to producing a useful product. The maps should be able to 

show the locations, status, and changes in ecosystem services, although it is not clear how they 

will be able to demonstrate the more dynamic aspects of ecosystem services, i.e. ecological 

production functions and tradeoffs. To be able to address issues of social equity and social 

choice, the maps will need to be linked with socioeconomic information, and it was not clear 

how this is being done. To be able to map benefits, the human dimension needs to be captured. 

The focus on land use decisions in the mapping program seems somewhat unusual territory for 

EPA, particularly since the monitoring program seems to be focusing on water-related ecosystem 

services. This is a potential disconnect. 

We were told that dams would be one layer in the map, which is appropriate given their profound 

influence on ecological services. In addition to showing dam location, the program could 

consider how to indicate alteration of flow regime. The Heinz Center has developed methods to 

indicate the degree of alteration of flow regime. Perhaps these could be used or modified so that 

this could also be represented in the Atlas. The flow regime obviously provides services such as 

channel maintenance, and an altered flow regime results in altered channels as well as a 

reduction in other ecological services. 

56
Charge Question 3.2. What advice does the Committee have for the next steps in Monitoring and 

Modeling? In particular, are there pitfalls that the Office of Research and Development should 

be sensitive to as it develops this part of the ESRP? 

I have significant concerns about the status of the modeling program. Other programs in ESRP 

are relying on models, yet we were provided with no information on how the modeling program 

is progressing. I cannot provide advice on next steps for modeling because I have no idea where 

they are now. Given the centrality of models in all other aspects of the program, the apparent 

lack of progress in this area is threatening the success of the ESRP. The modeling program 

should be one of the areas where program integration is most obvious, so the apparent lack of 

progress here is most troubling. The modeling program is also a place where issues of 

uncertainty should be addressed. 

The decision of the monitoring program to focus on water-based services seems appropriate 

given the current monitoring programs of the agency. How will it link with the mapping 

program’s emphasis on land? The need to better map the nation’s small streams and 

geographically isolated wetlands is acute. I would hope that the monitoring, mapping and 

wetlands programs could jointly work on doing this. The attempt to link condition with services 

could make a significant contribution to a long-standing and basic ecological quest to link 

structure and function. 

The conceptual model looks really scanty and doesn’t incorporate most ES (focus is on 

provisioning services, not regulating, cultural or supporting). The main question seems to be 

whether current condition monitoring can be used to assess ecosystem services. They have used 

the CWA to define services: drinking, fishing, swimming, quantity – but does this miss the 

processes needed to produce these services? Some of the potential products mentioned here are 

listed as accomplishments above (e.g., Relationship between forest cover and reduced chemical 

water treatment costs; Reduction in N assimilation capacity of streams). How is aquatic habitat 

being mapped? 

Charge Question 4. Implementation of Place-based Studies. 

Charge Question 4.1. Given the goals of the Program, please comment on whether the 

conceptual models in the Place-based studies are missing any critical elements? 

 

What is missing in the conceptual models is any consistency. The national program needs to 

exert some direction so that conceptual models have a consistent framework. The diversity of 

approaches in the different studies is indicative of a young science, and it may be useful at this 

stage to encourage this diversity, which is a reflection of local priorities and a result of listening 

to the needs of local decision makers. At the same time, some national direction is essential so 

that cross-system comparisons can be made. For example, the concept of a base year as used in 

the Midwest seems to be something useful to be incorporated into other place-based studies. It 

would also be helpful to incorporate some more uniform consideration of what is meant by the 

future, i.e., possible agreement on at least one year (2050? 2030?) to consider at all sites. Some 

national guidance on stressors and services to consider could also help; clearly all stressors and 

57
services are not appropriate at all sites, but it would be good to know that all were considered for 

possible inclusion at each site. 

All the place-based studies seem to be struggling with how to quantify ecosystem services and 

how to develop ecological production functions. It seems that there should be further national 

guidance/coordination to assist in these efforts so each study doesn’t reinvent the wheel. 

Charge Question 4.2. Please comment on whether, at the current level of development, the 

Place-based Studies will make good demonstration projects for a variety of decision makers at 

the local to regional scale? Are there additional ecosystem services that should also be 

considered in these studies? 

With the experience from the range of place-based studies, the ESRP should be thinking about a 

framework for implementation of place-based analyses of ecosystem services. If a community or 

region were to want to do this kind of analysis, how could it be done? 

Charge Question 4.3. Please comment on whether progress in the ESRP is improving the 

opportunity to compare and contrast methods and results across the five sites of the Place-based 

studies. What recommendations does the committee have for further integration and crosscomparison and testing among these five sites, either now or in the future? 

See response to 4.1. There will always be a creative tension between receptivity to local 

concerns and the need for national synthesis/integration. That tension has been part of the LTER 

network from its beginning. Rather than trying to make all aspects of the place-based studies 

comparable, focus on a couple services to compare. 

Charge Question 4.4. Please comment on whether there are omissions of key partners in any of 

the place-based studies? 

The southwest study should be in contact with the Phoenix LTER based at ASU (They have a 

strong social science component, and one of the lead PIs – Nancy Grimm – is an aquatic 

ecologist with considerable expertise in N cycling). 

Place-based studies are where innovations are likely to take place, also where 

collaborations/partnerships are likely to develop. 

Charge Question 5. Implementation of Ecosystem Specific Studies: Wetlands. Please comment 

on the benefits that can be derived by EPA from the implementation of the wetlands research 

theme. Have these benefits been made clear? Is the “top down” strategy for designing the 

wetlands research theme evident and is EPA conducting research that will move the Agency to a 

national perspective on wetland production functions? Are the proposed analyses missing any 

stressors that are expected to have a broad impact on the services provided by wetlands? 

This is one of the themes with the greatest potential for providing an immediate (or at least fairly 

rapid) example of a useful product coming from the ESRP. The need for assessment of 

ecosystem services and benefits from wetlands protection and mitigation has been identified in 

58
the wetlands mitigation rulemaking. The current methods for assessing services and benefits 

(e.g., as proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers) are fundamentally flawed. This is an area 

where research to develop methods to quantify ecosystem services would have an immediate 

benefit to those in the agency who are having to write permits and consider the appropriateness 

of proposed mitigation banks. In its earlier advisory, EPEC noted that importance of ESRP 

producing something useful for decision-makers in the Agency. This program provides the 

opportunity to do just that. 

I found the critical path analysis used in the wetlands study to be particularly useful in 

illustrating their conceptual model. 

The legal issues around wetlands (e.g., which ones are covered under the Clean Water Act) 

strikes me as one of the critical legal stressors enabling the Agency to protect the ecological 

services that wetlands provide. How is this being addressed in this research program? 

It was not clear from the written material whether headwater streams are included in this effort, 

although responses to my questions stated that they were. ORD has had a strong research effort 

demonstrating the role of headwater streams in river networks, and it is important that this be 

continued. The inclusion of headwater streams in the wetlands research theme is appropriate and 

essential. 

Charge Question 6 Implementation of Decision Support Activities 

Charge Question 6.1. Please comment on the defined and anticipated challenges to achieving the 

goals of the Decision Support Framework. What recommendations does the Committee have to 

overcome the most significant of these challenges? 

See my response to charge question 1.2. 

Charge Question 6.2. How does the EPA reconcile Decision Support as a significant need for 

the Ecosystem Services Research Program with the Program’s relative inexperience and 

minimal resources? 

Collaboration with programs (e.g. air agreement in Appendix G) are basically creating a position 

that is a science-policy liaison with a foot in each program. I see that as an important mechanism 

for ensuring that research results are relevant to program needs. 

General comments 

So many of EPA’s regulatory actions deal with chemical stressors. Yet there is so little emphasis 

of this in any of the studies with the exception of reactive N. The program needs to show how 

ecosystem services research will contribute to regulatory decisions being made under regulations 

such as TSCA. 

59
Comments from Dr. Charles Rabeni

Response to Charge Questions #5 ( LTG # 4) Wetlands. 

A. Benefits that can be derived by EPA from implementation of wetlands research theme. 

The wetland topic is current, understandable by a wide variety of clients and stakeholders, with 

known and quantifiable stressors and services. It has the possibility of serving as the best model 

for the research effort and ultimately demonstrating the advantages of the ecosystem services 

approach. 

The wetlands issue could be an opportunity to contrast how the Ecosystem Services approach 

might succeed where the current regulatory approach has – in many instances – failed to protect 

wetlands and associated headwaters. 

B. Have these benefits been made clear? Not as well as could be. Especially where benefits are 

well known and quantifiable – recreational fisheries, waterfowl production, pollution 

remediation, hydraulic (flood) control). More could be done so services are expressed in clear 

and unambiguous terms to excite end users? 

C. Is the “top down” strategy for designing the wetlands research theme evident and is the 

research being conducted adequate to move the agency to a national perspective? 

Attacking the problem at various spatial scales is certainly appropriate, but it would be more 

evident if the agency had a better rationale linking the relation of spatial scale to first, the 

questions being asked, and second, to the appropriate decision makers. 

Perhaps the agency could rank and prioritize possible users of this information so as to better 

target research efforts. 

 

The LTG 4 document states a challenge to providing appropriate production functions is due to 

the variability in “hydrology and other functions”. Would there be a benefit to separating 

wetlands into “freshwater” and “not fresh water” (coastal, estuarine, tidal) in making 

production functions and ultimate services more homogeneous for each group. The agency 

might consider a plan to incorporate particular results from place-based studies into a more 

comprehensive national effort. 

One question is whether the program is advanced enough to generate expectations of the 

“national office” for coordination and support of the place-based studies. (For example – Would 

broad coordination at the Washington level among agencies – NRCS, USFWS, USGS, be useful 

to all place-based projects.) 

D. Are proposed analyses missing any important stressors expected to have broad impact on 

services provided by wetlands?

The LTG 4 document is necessarily presented in broad, very general terms. There is no mention 

of specific stressors in the narrative. Only in Figure 1 are some very general stressors listed 

(e.g., flow alteration). The “examples of future products” indicates linkages between stressors 

and ecosystem services are being pursued, but no details are given. 

60
(Note: In general, the site specific demonstration projects reports have done a good job of 

relaying their specific objectives relating to wetlands) 

General Issues: 

The broad, general presentation of the LTG Wetlands is appropriate and probably necessary 

given the scope of the project. Nevertheless, the success of this program is set up along the 

weakest link concept, where specific objectives must all be met. A better articulation of the 

objectives and which ones are met already, which ones require research, and which ones are 

problematical would be helpful. Particularly interesting is the reemphasis – quite appropriate - 

of the ecological research steps, but deemphasizing the social science, outreach aspects (with 

one notable exception). The EPEC review was quite critical of the disparity between the 

importance of this program and the resources supplied, a disparity which stills continues. The 

daunting tasks inherent in this endeavor do not coincide with the fact that many (most? all?) 

personnel within the ERSP Wetlands programs are “part time”, including the theme lead. 

These folks on staff clearly do not have many of the expertise required, and there is little or no 

resources to close these gaps, with either EPA personnel or additional consultants. The wetlands 

initiative could profitably address some of these issues by more aggressively seeking 

partnerships from other federal agencies – e.g., FWS NA Waterfowl initiative, or the adaptive 

management decision support group in the Biological Division of USGS. This seems an 

appropriate task for the national program to take the initiative to assist the regional projects. 

The wetland initiatives of the place-based projects is quite impressive, and those groups should 

be commended for integrating ecosystem services thrusts into ongoing ecological research. 

61
Comments from Dr. Amanda Rodewald

Specific Charge Questions 

Charge Question 1. Current Status and Direction of the Ecosystem Services Research program 

(ESRP) 

Charge Question 1.1. The SAB previously reviewed the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan 

and recommended improvements in the strategic direction and focus of the Program, the 

research goals and questions, and the program implementation strategy. Given the current status 

and direction of the ESRP, please comment on whether the Program has been responsive to the 

intent of the Committee’s primary recommendations. 

ESRP has done a fine job in addressing most of the recommendations of the SAB. In particular, 

I’m pleased with the ways they have: 

a) clarified the organizational structure, including inter/intra-program coordination, personnel 

responsibilities, and sources of additional expertise, 

b) explicitly linked the Multi-year Plan’s Long-term Goals to recent SAB recommendations 

about ecological risk assessment and the application of environmental decision-making (though 

these links also need to be somehow articulated in the actual plan too), 

c) developed an innovative strategy to promote and facilitate partnerships needed to accomplish 

goals (i.e., public-private National Ecosystem Services Research Partnership) 

d) strengthened collaborative ties with other EPA offices. 

That said, the responsiveness of ESRP in other elements is more difficult to assess given that we 

did not have access to the Research Implementation Plans. For example, it was difficult to assess 

the extent to which program scope/goals had been focused to be more achievable within the 

timeframe.

Charge Question 1.2. In the SAB advisory report on the EPA Ecological Research Program 

Multi-Year Plan there was considerable discussion about ESRP’s focus on Long-term Goal 1: 

valuation, human well-being, and decision support. The SAB commented that predicating the 

whole program on this goal had set the bar too high for success. Has the Program achieved a 

more balanced focus at this stage of development, or are more adjustments recommended? 

Perhaps I am reading the wrong area, but it seems that the LTG 1 articulated in the “Summary 

Descriptions of ESRP Themes and Projects” document, was identical to that in the February 

2008 draft. For the Decision Support Framework, the timeline was increased by 2 years, which 

is a relatively small change. 

The central challenge of limited resources remains, though there is hope that the partnerships and 

experts will augment the EPA’s fiscal and intellectual contributions. 

 

 I am confused by the organization of the LTG1 and the “themes”. Separating “decision support 

framework” and “human well-being” into (a) and (b) bullets following the overarching goal

seems odd given that LTG1 is focused on developing the framework (so it is not one aspect but 

62
THE goal) and improving human well-being is the ultimate aim (not one focus). To me, it seems 

that these are/should be highly integrated components. Were there the need for themes, it would 

seem that (1) sustainability of ecosystem services, (2) their value, and (3) human-well-being 

would be the three. 

Charge Question 1.3. Please assess the progress the Program has made in the 15 months since 

the SAB review of the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan, in light of budget and staffing 

constraints. Has sufficient progress been made to warrant maintaining the current elements 

within the program? 

As a whole, I am impressed by the progress that ESRP has made, especially in the areas noted in 

1.1. The research conducted in support of the human well-being theme of LTG1 is exciting and 

seems to be proceeding well. The productivity of EPA staff in terms of presentations, 

workshops, reports, and publications is strong and in alignment with the Plan goals. 

Charge Question 1.4. Please comment on the partnership approach being developed in the 

ESRP. Would the proposed future investments be likely to advance: integration across EPA; 

adoption of ESRP concepts by the Agency; and the science of ecosystem services, including 

improved management of ecological risks? 

I find the public-private partnership to be exciting, and I very much like the three-part framework 

(the ecology frame, the economic-ecologic frame, and the institutional frame) that has been 

advanced to guide the partnership efforts. That said, the specific nature of the partnerships 

remains rather vague. For example, do partners receive any direct funding? What was the 

outcome of the initial solicitation? Given that each partner will differ somewhat in 

goals/approaches/needs, what are the needs of partners to create & maintain viable partnerships? 

Charge Question 2: Implementation of Integrated Pilot for Reactive Nitrogen. Using the 

nitrogen pilot as an example of ESRP’s approach to integration, please comment on how well 

the ESRP has succeeded in conceptualizing a systems- approach for analysis of ecosystem 

service impacts. Does the project take appropriate advantage of all the other projects in the 

ESRP? Have major uncertainties been adequately clarified and addressed to meet Program 

goals? Are there additional primary gaps or uncertainties that you see as important? 

The authors did a fine job explaining the Nitrogen-Theme project. In particular, the conceptual 

model was clear, and the links to mapping, monitoring, and place-based studies were strong. I 

also liked the hierarchical illustration in Appendix A. In terms of future directions, I felt that the 

amount of detail was insufficient for evaluation. 

Do the measurements/indicators used in this Theme align with N-related indicators that will be 

used in the Report on the Environment? 

Charge Question 3: Implementation of Mapping, Monitoring, and Modeling Themes 

Charge Question 3.1. Focusing specifically on the Mapping theme, please comment on the 

usefulness of the proposed products. For example, please comment on the potential for 

ecosystem service atlases to communicate the status, changes, and locations of ecosystem 

63
services to EPA clients and the public. Similarly, please comment on whether ecosystem service 

atlases will inform decision makers about: 1) issues related to social equity and social choice; 2) 

innovative valuation methods (e.g., by providing information on location, availability of 

substitutes, and changes over baseline conditions); and 3) issues related to environmental and 

land management, including public and private investments to conserve ecosystem services. 

Is the mapping/monitoring piece part of the Decision Support Tool? I would think that it would 

be, but I was unclear about this. 

Related to decision support, when will decision-makers be included in the process? Some 

understanding of the type of data that they need to make decisions would provide important 

guidance about the structure of the Atlas. I am concerned that the development of the Atlas will 

reach a relatively advanced state of development before they receive substantial input from 

decision-makers. 

One cautionary note about the informal responses of decision-makers to the presentations (as 

Anne Neale explained) is that the structure and application of the Atlas is still relatively general 

in concept. The enthusiasm of the audience may be inflated because each person naturally casts 

his/her own projections on the “to-be-determined” areas. The actual Atlas may be very different 

in the end. 

I am unclear about the spatial scale and level of resolution that will be used in the Atlas. Are a 

priori units delimited (i.e., will a user be constrained to having ecosystem services estimated for 

particular HUCs or watersheds or by EPA Region), or will users be able to define the geographic 

area or ecosystem type for which they wish to estimate ecosystem services? 

The mapping group might consider using the place-based studies as the context for working out 

the kinks, so to say. This would be especially helpful in involving decision-makers to comment 

on the usefulness and suggest revisions. 

Charge Question 3.2. What advice does the Committee have for the next steps in Monitoring 

and Modeling? In particular, are there pitfalls that the Office of Research and Development 

should be sensitive to as it develops this part of the ESRP? 

I am curious why the monitoring component does not explicitly integrate with the questions 

articulated in the Report on the Environment. Coordination with ROE as the monitoring 

program is developed would provide an excellent opportunity to not only advance ESRP, but 

also for ESRP to be one of the primary sources of data on indicators and endpoint measurements 

used in the ROE. Perhaps the links are already present, in which case the plan might better 

highlight them. On that note, I was struck that ESRP is collecting a variety of regional data as 

part of the monitoring program and the ecosystem & place-based studies. While I have no 

objections to this, ROE avoids the use of regional data (explained in their indicator criteria 

guidelines). What a missed opportunity if the regional data collected by ESRP were not used in 

ROE! In light of this, some further discussion between the two groups is suggested. 

64
In section 1.4.1, ESRP explains that they are currently analyzing/synthesizing data from 

Humboldt Bay, Lagoon Pond, and Weeks Bay. I’m curious why these efforts are not initially 

focusing on the site-specific/place-based studies. 

Charge Question 4: Implementation of Place-based Studies. 

Charge Question 4.1. Given the goals of the Program, please comment on whether the 

conceptual models in the Place-based studies are missing any critical elements. 

As I reviewed the demonstration projects, I wondered why they each did not use similar 

conceptual models, at least in basic architecture or level of detail. In particular, using the same 

conceptual model as proposed in Linthurst & Goodman’s status report (page 2) would be useful. 

The use of completely different models for each element of the Multiyear Plan is confusing and, 

at times, laborious for the reader. Using similar conceptual models would facilitate crosscomparisons and testing. 

Future Midwestern Landscapes: Aesthetics presumably would influence recreation, and 

recreation would also directly link to human health via mental & physical benefits of outdoor 

exercise and, alternatively, the risks associated with exercising in areas with polluted air. Of 

course, the models are representations and could be made ever-increasingly complex, but this 

may obscure the point and necessary foci. The FML model seems a bit too complex and difficult 

to interpret. 

Tampa Bay: I was unclear why “landscape connectivity” was a value derived from ecosystem 

services, and the model component determining human well-being. Why would landscape 

connectivity not be a driver or an attribute of ecosystems? 

Willamette: There seem to be two completely different conceptual models; the first titled, 

“WESP Conceptual Framework” on page 1 and the second titled “Conceptual Model” in 

Appendix B. This needs clarification. Regarding the Appendix B conceptual model, the center 

circle lists “biological greenhouse gas regulation, air quality regulation, water quality & quantity 

regulation, and habitat & biodiversity”. The boxes of EPA Regulatory Authority, Staff Expertise 

& Resources, Client Needs, and Stakeholder Interests” all point to the center circle. I am unclear 

about the nature of the relationship. Do the links illustrate that these different groups will affect 

how we measure those endpoints? Or perhaps how we evaluate them? Perhaps how we define 

them? Clarification would be helpful. 

Coastal Carolinas: As a reader, I like this simple model best among the demonstration projects. 

Southwest: There is a lot of redundancy in the model with several differently-placed boxes for 

plant growth & composition, recreation, wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration. Finding a 

way to reduce redundancy would simplify the model and make it easier to read. 

A minor point – consistent terminology would be helpful. Currently the documents refer to these 

studies as “place-based studies” and “site-specific demonstration projects”. 

65
Charge Question 4.2. Please comment on whether, at the current level of development, the 

Place-based Studies will make good demonstration projects for a variety of decision makers at 

the local to regional scale. Are there additional ecosystem services that should also be 

considered in these studies? 

Additional support for (1) how these particular locations are widely representative of major 

ecosystems upon which humans rely in the US and (2) the extent to which findings of placebased investigations can be generalized to other systems or geographic areas is needed. 

One concern that cuts across all projects is that the future scenarios are still to be determined. 

Exactly how specific future scenarios are formulated or constructed seems to be a critical piece 

that will ultimately determine the usefulness of the projects. Currently, there is insufficient 

information upon which to evaluate the relevance/likelihood of the scenarios. 

For each demonstration project, the listed cross-cuts seem more like explanations of topical areas 

that overlap rather than descriptions of ways in which the projects will attempt to directly link. 

The decision support framework team would probably do well to work closely with the placebased studies to “try out” their approaches. Really, these place-based projects are where ESRP 

could bring everything together – mapping, monitoring, decision-supporting tool development. 

I’m also wondering if it might be possible to communicate with the ROE team to see how the 

data collected might be applied to the next ROE. Although ROE avoids use of regional 

indicators, there might be opportunities to standardize certain measurements/data from which 

ROE could derive national indicators. 

Specific comments & questions: 

FML – 

• Which drivers are considered? 

• What are the 10 agricultural conservation practices considered in the MS landscapes, and 

how are they selected? 

• Which approach will be used to “value” ecosystem services and how will this be applied 

to “critical habitat” and “sensitive species”? In these two cases, if the value of a 

particular location lies heavily within habitat/sensitive species areas, then it is not 

necessarily appropriate to quantify the value by summing across all services because 

there may be no opportunity for tradeoffs (i.e., if one location is the ONLY location 

where Endangered Species X lives, then the cumulative numerical value based on ALL 

ecosystem services will not reflect the true ecological value of that area). 

• There is insufficient information for me to evaluate the extent to which the FML project 

aligns with and will inform Greenhouse Gas Rule and future regulatory decisions. 

• Appendix A: FML Hierarchy of Values and Ecosystems Services was very confusing to 

read. Without lines or compartments, I was unable to discern which variables were 

linked (e.g., does Min Pests link with Min water-related illness or air-related illness? Is 

only Pests linked to Biodiversity, not the others? 

66
• Appendix A: Is Minimizing reduced potential for industrial productivity an appropriate 

goal? This might directly conflict with many of the natural 

resource/recreational/environmental values that we want to maintain. 

• Appendix B is impossible to read. 

WRB – of the demonstration projects, this one seems the most narrow in geographic focus and 

the potential of results to be applied to other ecosystems/geographic regions. I might be 

mistaken in this opinion, which suggests that additional justification of how WRB serves as a 

“demonstration” project. Perhaps the national relevance is to demonstrate the approach and 

methodology, rather than transfer the socio-ecological findings. 

Charge Question 4.3. Please comment on whether progress in ESRP’s Cross-Place-based theme 

is improving the opportunity to compare and contrast methods and results across the five sites of 

the Place-based studies. What recommendations does the committee have for further integration 

and cross-comparison and testing among these five sites, either now or in the future? 

Clearly, ESRP has begun to carefully think about cross-place integration. As I try to consider 

opportunities for integration, the use of widely different conceptual models (in terms of structure, 

organization, and level of detail) makes it difficult to identify points of integration. Therefore, I 

suggest use of similar conceptual frameworks to be one important starting point for the crossplace-based coordination. 

Both integration and the contribution of the studies to the field, as a whole, would likely be 

enhanced if overarching questions were identified – not descriptive questions (e.g., how does 

stressor X influence service Y in ecosystem Z), but more mechanistic ones. For example, 

perhaps the demonstration projects can be used to answer questions like: 

- how does the structure (e.g., link density, compartmentalization) of the human-ecological 

network affect the resilience of ecosystem services to particular stressors? 

- how do patterns of land ownership influence the level of dependency upon certain ecosystem 

services? 

- are there particular combinations of stressors that are most detrimental to certain services? 

One also could examine applied overarching questions related to the goals of ESRP. For 

example: how does socioecological context or management/regulatory attributes of particular 

regions constrain the type of decision-support framework that is useful? 

The above questions are quick examples and not necessarily well-conceived, but they might 

illustrate how questions could drive collaboration/coordination across places. 

Charge Question 4.4. Please comment on whether there are omissions of key partners in any of 

the place-based studies. 

I don’t notice any obvious omissions. Regarding partners, I really like the way that the Tampa 

Bay Project has involved potential end users of products as a way to prioritize research efforts. 

Other projects may be using similar approaches, but simply haven’t described this. 

67
Charge Question 6: Implementation of Decision Support Activities 

Charge Question 6.1. Please comment on the defined and anticipated challenges to achieving the 

goals of the Decision Support Framework. What recommendations does the Committee have to 

overcome the most significant of these challenges? 

One of the key steps to make the Decision Support Framework useful is to engage the wide 

range of stakeholders & decision-makers to understand exactly how they would use the 

framework and the type of data needed. 

Another issue relates to how you can make decision-makers aware of the tool. After Ann Vega 

mentioned that a similar tool had been developed for brownfield revitalization, I quickly 

searched the web and immediately found The Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology 

Support Center. Despite EPA being one of the members providing this web resource, I could find 

no links or reference to SMARTe. It took time and deliberate searching of various spellings of 

SMARTe to locate the tool. Though my searches might have missed the links, I suspect that 

they are reasonably similar to typical searches conducted by potential users of the tool. Long 

way of making the point – be sure that the tool is visible and easily accessed. 

I agree that the issue of cumulative impacts is huge, but I don’t have any clear insight about how 

this can be resolved. 

Charge Question 6.2. How does the EPA reconcile Decision Support as a significant need for 

the Ecosystem Services Research Program with the Program’s relative inexperience and 

minimal resources? 

Engaging non-EPA experts as SGEs is a great start. It sounds like they also are trying to 

organize an NCEAS working group to focus on particular issues, which would be very helpful. 

I am unclear why there isn’t a tighter collaboration between the DSF and place-based study 

teams. It would seem that those place-based studies would provide excellent opportunity to 

work closely with the decision-maker/science/manager groups and to demonstrate how the DSR 

can operate. 

68
Comments from Dr. James Sanders

Charge Question 1.1. Has the program been responsive to SAB comments and 

recommendations? 

Overall, I believe that the ESRP has shown an understanding of the recommendations made, has 

adjusted their priorities and workloads to some extent, and through additional funds, appears to 

have made progress in obtaining some help to add to the in-house expertise. One of the SAB’s 

comments, seen throughout the last review, dealt with the lack of detail, and at present 

implementation plans have been and are being developed. Without seeing those plan details, it is 

impossible to judge their overall value, but it does appear that progress is being made. The 

ESRP group either did not understand the SAB’s concern with the attention on coral reefs, or 

chose to ignore it. I found the progress report for this section to be mostly defensive. 

Charge Question 1.2. LTG 1 too ambitious? 

No comment. 

Charge Question 1.3. Progress over the past 15 months. 

There is evidence of considerable progress toward all goals. Overall funding constraints remain 

a concern, and discussions of priorities within the Program should be occurring. Without seeing 

the detailed implementation plans, it is impossible to ascertain whether the available resources 

can achieve what is necessary. 

Charge Question 1.4. Partnerships. 

I continue to be positive about the partnerships being formed. There is better evidence in these 

progress reports of true collaborations. It is difficult at this point to assess whether these 

partnerships will lead to EPA adoption of ESRP concepts or integration across the agency, but 

they will lead to a better understanding of ES across the nation. 

Charge Question 2. Nitrogen. 

N was a good choice for pilot studies, as it can exert both positive and negative impacts, is 

widely studied, and is important to all media that are under EPA’s purview. The overall concept 

for this study is well described, but the actual implementation for this study remains unknown. 

The use of the LTER conceptual framework appears to be appropriate, and the “roadmap” 

concept for integration also seems appropriate. However, concern remains that the actual staff 

time allocated to this effort is too small to accomplish all the tasks necessary. Progress has been 

made, the implementation plan has been reviewed, but the committee has not yet seen that plan. 

In addition, it appears that the ESRP has not utilized members of the Integrated Nitrogen 

Committee for this review; their comments would be of value. While some mention of the N 

study appeared in the place-based progress reports, there did not appear to be adequate 

coordination, nor was there evidence of an overarching plan to link planned studies in each 

69
place, to ensure overall integration. Again, these concerns may be addressed by the individual 

implementation plans for the place-based studies, which the committee has not seen. The 

apparent lack of integration between the overall N program and the wetland program and the 

place-based program is a significant gap in planning. 

70
Comments from Dr. Kathleen Segerson

Charge Question 1. 

• The Agency has generally been responsive to the Committee’s primary recommendations. 

In some cases it is hard to tell because we do not have a revised plan (i.e., a new, complete 

document to review), nor do we have the detailed implementation plans. In some cases, it is 

simply too early to tell. However, the Agency certainly seems to have tried to move in the 

directions recommended by the Committee, where feasible (given resource constraints). In 

particular, ORD has recognized its lack of expertise in the area of ecosystem valuation, and 

has sought to shift its focus appropriately (given its expertise) and supplement its expertise 

with outside experts. 

• Based on this, the Plan has achieved a more balanced focus. It retains some of the work on 

the Decision Support platform but has scaled this back to a more feasible plan, with a more 

realistic timetable (but see comments on Charge Question 6). In addition, it has scaled back 

its overly ambitious goals regarding valuation and contributions to human well-being. 

However, the Charge document doesn’t adequately reflect this rebalancing. It still states: 

“The general research questions for the program are: 

• 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 

value of these services expressed in both monetary and non-monetary terms?” 

I don’t think this is accurate. The second question is now no longer a major focus of the plan. 

And the first question is too narrow to describe the plan’s focus. The description of the focus 

following these questions (“...the Program is focused on developing quantitative, operational 

definitions.....”) is a more reasonable (and realistic) description of the plan’s focus. I would add 

that the plan attempts to determine the tradeoffs in the provision of ecosystem services (i.e., how 

more of one service might imply less of another), which can be an important input into policy 

decisions, but it is not the same as valuing services in monetary or non-monetary terms. 

• In terms of progress, the Agency has made substantial progress along some dimensions. For 

example, it has taken important steps to try to establish partnerships to leverage resources, 

and it has brought outside experts on board to supplement its limited expertise in some areas. 

Both of these actions are responsive to the SAB’s previous comments. The Agency also 

appears to have made progress on the Decision Support Framework, collecting information 

(data, models, etc.) that might be useful to policymakers concerned about ecosystem services. 

It is hard to tell how useful this information is (see response to Charge Question 6). The 

Agency appears to be trying to assess the needs of decision makers. These efforts should 

help ensure that the information is provided in a useful form, but it is hard to tell based on the 

documents provided. 

• ORD appears to be making efforts to partner with other units, primarily within the Agency. 

There seems to be some attempt to partner across agencies, but this does not appear to be as 

71
extensive as the intra-agency efforts. The charge question asks specifically about adoption of 

ESRP concepts by the Agency. As noted, the Agency continues to be focused on chemicals 

and human health. One way to get other parts of the Agency to be more concerned about 

ecosystem services would be to show a link with human health. Yet this part of the ESRP is 

minimal at best (“opportunistic” was the phrase used), simply reflecting work being done for 

other purposes. Perhaps the interest or concern about ecosystem services would increase in 

other parts of the Agency if stronger links with human health could be established. If so, the 

part of the Plan devoted to this should be enhanced. 

• At several points during our July meeting, the committee raised the need to have an overarching framework for use in all of ORD’s ecosystem services work, including the placebased and pollutant-specific studies. This is a key recommendation of the committee. There 

are several existing frameworks from which ORD could draw. These include the risk 

assessment/risk management paradigm and the framework proposed in the CVPESS report 

(which would link the ORD program more closely to other things the Agency has been 

interested in). Rather than putting such a framework at the end (as it was, for example, in the 

presentation on “Implementation of Place Based Studies: Coordination with ESRP Themes”), 

it should be at the forefront and guide each piece of the ESRP. Starting with this framework, 

the individual projects (whether place-based, or pollutant based) can then ask what specific 

data, models, etc. are needed to operationalize the framework in that particular context. This 

should include identification not only of the biophysical data and models, but also the 

socioeconomic and other related information. Even if ORD focuses on the biophysical data 

and modeling, it needs to do so with a general recognition and understanding of the broader 

picture in which the research must be embedded in order for it to be useful for decision 

making. 

Charge Question 6. 

The comments here reflect reactions to both the written materials received on LTG1 Decision 

Support, and the presentation made during the July 14 meeting, which contained information not 

included in the written materials. 

• The charge question asks specifically about how to handle challenges. There are serious 

challenges here, which the Agency recognizes. ORD does not have the expertise to provide 

complete decision support. So the question is: what type of decision support can ORD 

reasonably provide through the ESRP? One avenue that is alluded to in the documents but 

not emphasized is the tradeoffs involved in providing ecosystem services. ORD’s strength is 

in identifying and quantifying ecosystem services, and presumably in predicting how the 

provision of these services would change in response to stressors. A key part of this is 

tradeoffs. As emphasized in the Millennium Assessment, more of one ecosystem service 

might imply less of another. ORD should have the expertise to provide information about 

these tradeoffs (without the need to explicitly value any of the associated changes, for which 

it does not have the necessary expertise). In economics, this is equivalent to providing 

information about a “production possibilities frontier”, which shows combinations of 

different goods (or services) that can be provided. Information about these tradeoffs (i.e., 

ways to identify and quantify them) would be an important input into policy discussions that 

72
would be within the realm of what ORD could provide, given its expertise. Of course, in the 

longer run with more resources, ORD could expand its ability to assess or value these 

tradeoffs. But in the short run, with its limited resources, it could at least seek to identify 

them. 

• There is a difference between providing information for decision makers and helping 

decision makers actually make decisions. The presentation and the emphasis on deliberative 

processes suggests that ORD envisions doing the latter rather than simply the former. This is 

a significant departure from ORD’s previous focus, and, if this is the intention, it should be 

made explicit. ORD does not currently have any comparative advantage in doing this, and 

would need to “contract out” most of this. It has brought in a number of people with 

expertise in decision science/analysis, but it is still not clear that it is a good use of ORD 

resources to do this. It might be better to provide information that would be useful to 

decision makers when they are evaluating alternatives, but then “step back” and allow the 

decision makers to actually evaluate and make policy choices. 

• A key component of decision support is making sure that information that is provided is 

relevant and useful. One way this can be done is through deliberative processes, but not all 

contexts call for this type of process (it may even be infeasible in some) and this is not the 

only way to include stakeholder input. As discussed in detail in the CVPESS report, 

information from stakeholders can be gleaned from a variety of sources or processes and 

used to guide the analysis without engaging in a full deliberative process. For example, 

information about what stakeholders care or are most concerned about can be determined 

from focus groups conducted at the beginning of a policy evaluation process or from other 

sources. This will make the analysis relevant and responsive to stakeholder needs and 

concerns without necessarily invoking a deliberative process or requiring involvement by 

decision scientists. 

• While there is some reference to economics, the role of economics in the current DSF is 

unclear. There is little, if any, mention of “benefits” from the provision of ecosystem 

services, and there are no references to economics or studies by economists in the list of 

references on slide 22. In our previous review, we noted that ORD did not have the expertise 

to conduct ecological valuation. This requires expertise in social sciences, INCUDING 

economics. But the list of experts that ORD has hired for the DSF is almost exclusively 

decision scientists/analysts. As far as I could see, there were no economists on the list of 

“ESRP Experts”, “ESRP Partners”, or the “Expertise yet to be Tapped.” The only reference 

to an economist is the hiring of a macro-economist for the NRMRL, but it is unlikely that 

someone with a macroeconomic orientation will be able to provide the economic expertise 

needed for ecological valuation. Also, in the previous version of the plan, there was 

reference to working with NCEE, but this reference has effectively disappeared from the 

current program (as described in the documents and overheads). 

• In terms of applications, the DSF seems to be closely tied to the Coral Reef group. It is not 

clear why or whether this is wise. It might be better to try to develop the DSF in the context 

of something that is likely to get greater interest, particularly given the committee’s view that 

the usefulness of the DSF needs to be demonstrated quickly. Other possible applications 

73
where the DSF might be developed with greater visibility and interest would be one of the 

place-based studies or the wetlands or nitrogen projects. 

• Slide 14 depicted an organizational scheme for the tools database that is very confusing, at 

best. First, from the categories here, it is unclear what is meant by “tools”. Second, if these 

are the types of categories that will be used to sort the tools, then this is also very unclear. 

For example, what are the 15 “economic models” as distinct from the 15 “empirical models” 

or the 6 “conceptual models”. Any economic model will be either empirical or conceptual. 

If this database is to be useful to decision makers, it needs to be very transparent and userfriendly. 

• There seems to be considerable interest in using social networking tools. In fact, in the tools 

database, there are nearly as many social networking tools as economic tools! But it is 

unclear how social networks will be used to further the research agenda. Information 

collected from SNA represents a biased sample of stakeholders along a number of 

dimensions. Thus, the plan to use these networks to “bring stakeholders and decision makers 

to a common understanding about a topic” might miss the mark. 

• While we have not been asked to comment on the Human Well-Being part of the ESRP, I 

will simply note that this is really the place where the justification for the plan lies. This part 

of the plan needs to occupy a key place in the broad conceptual framework (see comments 

above). In addition, it is imperative that the Agency show the impact of ES on human wellbeing BEYOND simply a connection through things like Lyme disease and near-roadway 

ambient air quality. In fact, just including these two studies weakens rather than strengthens 

the case for ES protection. It leaves the impression that these are the only examples of 

impacts on human well-being that the Agency can come up with. I personally would urge 

the Agency to consider refocusing the human well-being component of the ESRP around the 

work on the index of human well-being, rather than on the Lyme and near-roadway studies. 

This is the over-arching theme here, namely, that ES affect human well-being through a 

number of channels delineated in the index of well-being. So, that index should be the 

primary focus (at least conceptually) of this part of the plan. The other specific studies like 

Lyme can then be placed in this broader framework as illustrations of attempts to quantify 

individual components of the index. 

74
Comments from Mr. Timothy Thompson

Over-Arching Comments 

The overall program goals for defining and applying ecological services is supported and 

endorsed by the SAB EPEC. This effort can have a lasting effect on the way ecological systems 

are evaluated, valued, and used and/or preserved. ESRP builds off of programs that were 

reviewed and endorsed enthusiastically by the SAB beginning in 2005 (see discussion below on 

CrEAM, GISST, and ReVA). Support for these now-combined efforts through the ESRP 

should be continued, and in particular integrating those tools with values of ecosystem services. 

Kudos to the entire ESRP team for its hard work and continuing thoughtful and enthusiastic 

endeavors. 

1. Focus efforts and resources on demonstration projects. ESRP as construed in the MYP and 

updates supplied to the SAB is an overly ambitious program that is in danger of accomplishing 

many incremental steps, but not producing a long-term tool that is broadly used. Like the 

previous EPA GIS-based ecological decision tools, ESRP has as a serious Achilles heel that it 

must work to overcome; lack of a specific regulatory driver and/or demonstrated customer base. 

There existed a prevalent “if you build it they will come” theme throughout the presentations; 

i.e., the existence of the tool(s) will create a use and need. This can and should be done – but an 

over-arching theme of the previous SAB report, and repeated in this review, is that ESRP should 

focus its resources on doing well the five (with a suggested sixth) demonstration projects, and 

forgo for now the larger, costly efforts such as building a national resource inventory. 

2. Update the MYP. ESRP needs to put its plans and objectives on firmer ground by formulation 

of a clear and concise Multi-Year Plan (MYP) that includes the Implementation Plans (IP) for 

the individual projects under the Long Term Goals (LTG) and cross-walks between products and 

services that will be developed to specific uses and/or regulatory applications, and outreach for 

technology decision-tool transfer. The SAB previously commented on this; the material 

provided prior to the meeting did not dispel the feeling of “lack of specificity” in the overall 

program. Having said that, some of the presentations did an excellent job in assisting in the 

SAB’s understanding. Specific comments include: 

• Recommended that the MYP February 2008 Review Draft be revised to incorporate (a) 

the specific comments of SAB in September 2008, and to include any supplemental 

Implementation Plans that have been developed (e.g., ESRP Implementation Plans for 

Wetlands and Coral Reefs cited in the LTG4). (Applies to Charge Question 1.1) 

• Articulation of research priorities for all programs (e.g., LTG4 – see comments to CQ5). 

There needs to be walkway between Regulatory Need →Long Term Goals →Research 

Questions →Work Products →Outreach →Implementation Plans. Schedules for work 

products are offered for some efforts (e.g., coral reefs), but not for others (e.g., wetlands). 

• Given the emphasis on services, clearer discussion of how Multi Criteria Decision 

Analysis tools will be developed and incorporated. 

75
• Clear links with existing/previous intra-Agency programs. There are no links in the 

MYP, or in the June 28 Update Memo to specific examples of similar programs that have 

previously been reviewed by the SAB. These include: 

 

o Review of the Environmental Economics Research Strategy of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (2004); 

o EPA’s Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) Program (2005) 

o SAB Review of the EPA Region 6 Geographic Information System Screening 

Tool (2006) 

o SAB Review of the EPA Region 5 Critical Ecosystem Assessment Model - 

CrEAM (23006) 

o ORD Sustainability Research Strategy and the Science and Technology for 

Sustainability Multi-year Plan (2007) 

• MYP re-write to indicate what LTG each is working on, the specific research being 

conducted, and the specific work product each is tied to. This is also an issue of 

transparency; how and why were these experts selected. The Status Report (June 2009) 

in Appendix D provides a list of “Expert Hires to Complement In-House Expertise”. As 

articulated, this is a recitation of individuals, some qualifications, without a specific need 

or product identified. 

• Strengthening of the individual demonstration project discussions to include expected 

tools, and outcomes, with clearly-defined measures of success for the tool and outreach 

products 

• Identification of user community for the tool(s), potential regulatory programs or efforts 

that the tools will aid, and a defined program for outreach to achieve tech transfer. 

3. Recommend that ESRP continue seeking input from the SAB EPEC and the BOSC. The 

process used to formulate, focus, and review ORD’s Land Preservation and Restoration MultiYear Research Plan: Fiscal Years 2006 to 2011 is a process that might be considered in the 

revision of the ESRP MYP. That plan was reviewed twice by the SAB, and formed a basis for 

subsequent reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC). SAB provided the 

necessary scientific input into the MYP, while the BOSC provided early and mid-cycle reviews 

on whether the plan was achieving its goals, making best use of resources, and input to ORD 

when resource changes were required based on shifting budgets and mandated research needs 

(e.g., reduced program budget combined with the need to assess potential human health risks 

from releases of nanotubes). The SAB should have an opportunity to review the IPs in the 

course of providing comments to EPA. The MYP and subsequent responses to not provide the 

level-of-detail needed to assess the actions taken to incorporate SAB recommendations. 

(Applies also to Charge Questions 1.1 and 1.3) 

4, Building a legacy and a lasting impact. The SAB reviewed several predecessors to ESRP; 

observations from these programs are germane to ESRP in that it appears that these previous 

efforts left a legacy, but no lasting impact. The discussion below highlights the critical need to 

76
build support through demonstration and tech transfer of the tools and methods. The previous 

programs appear to have to have created a legacy of tools, but without a lasting impact in any 

regulatory process. ESRP has the distinct promise of providing this much needed tool if it can 

but focus its efforts and demonstrate utility. Please note the following: 

• CrEAM - SAB provided a review of EPA Region 5’s Critical Ecosystem Assessment 

Model (CrEAM) dated June 22, 2005. The salient elements from this review included: 

o SAB endorsed the tool and approach 

o SAB called for investment of additional resources 

o Model validation was recommended and subsequently attempted by EPA (2008) 

with the finding that data collected using the protocols in field trials in 2005 and 

2006 did not match well with the corresponding CrEAM scores. 

o CrEAM as a program appears to have been dropped within Region 5 and EPA, at 

least in terms of no longer hosting a web site, no tangible demonstration of use in 

regional decision making, and simply not finding reference to CrEAM outside of 

the SAB review on the web and the 2008 summary document. 

Reference: EPA (2008) Quick Assessment Protocols for Measuring Relative Ecological 

Significance of Terrestrial Ecosystems EPA/600/R-08/061 May 2008 

• ReVA – the Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) Program was reviewed by SAB 

in a letter dated October 12, 2005. In that letter SAB acknowledged that development of 

the ReVA has been an extraordinary and elegant effort by a dedicated and highly skilled 

team. Similar to CrEAM the following elements are germane to ESRP and this review: 

o SAB endorsed the tool and approach 

o SAB called for investment of additional resources 

o SAB underscored the need for EPA to provide additional resources and in-house 

expertise to fully develop ReVA and to better leverage outside expertise by 

working closely with other government agencies and academic institutions.

o EPA provided an excellent demonstration of the tool through the Sustainable 

Environment for Quality of Life (SEQL) data set for the Charlotte, North Carolina 

region. 

o ReVA as a tool does not appear to have progressed in terms of application to 

regional problems – at least based upon the lack of citing in the MYP and on EPA 

web sites. 

o ReVA applications were listed in Randy Bruin’s presentation; as these become 

“successes” they need to be documented and disseminated. 

• GISST - EPA Region 6’s Geographic Information System Screening Tool (GIST) 

provided it’s review in a letter dated September 28, 2006. The same observations 

77
provided above for CrEAM and ReVA are germane to the GISST, including that there 

does not appear to be a long term application of the tool or any remnant of it as an 

independent tool. 

Perhaps the most relevant recommendation of the SAB to the GISST is its note that despite these 

initiatives, the Agency still does not have a unified single accepted approach for using spatially 

explicit information for environmental decision-making. The compartmentalized development of 

GIS-based tools and data by EPA program offices and regions is inefficient, given budgetary 

constraints and the high value of these tools for environmental decision-making. Using spatially 

explicit information for decision-making is a critical need that EPA must address. The SAB 

therefore strongly urges EPA to undertake an initiative to define a unified framework for the 

development of these types of tools across the Agency. A national effort to develop such a unified 

framework will require decision analytic expertise, and the resulting tool should be easy to 

modify to meet local and regional needs. 

As noted above, this is the promise of ESRP, to be that unified program. Without quick and 

confirmed demonstration of the utility, ESRP may also leave a legacy, but no lasting influence. 

Specific Charge Questions 

Charge Question 1. Current Status and Direction of the Ecosystem Services Research program 

(ESRP) 

 Charge Question 1.1. The SAB previously reviewed the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year 

Plan and recommended improvements in the strategic direction and focus of the Program, the 

research goals and questions, and the program implementation strategy. Given the current status 

and direction of the ESRP, please comment on whether the Program has been responsive to the 

intent of the Committee’s primary recommendations. 

On the basis of the presentations made to the SAB it appears that considerable effort and 

progress incorporating SAB comments into the long term goals for many, but not all of the 

LTGs. On the basis of initial material provided, the Agency did not appear to be responsive to 

the SAB’s recommendations. There appears to be a lot of effort expended, but it would have 

been helpful to have been provided with more specific information. The specifics are possibly in 

the 12 Implementation Plans, but those were not made available to the EPEC. Fortunately, many 

of the presentations were helpful in clarifying progress – those are noted accordingly, below. 

Specific comments include: 

1.) Great progress was demonstrated in the presentations on incorporating ecological 

services into the LTGs. The over-arching emphasis appears to still be on resource 

benefits to humans. 

2.) The justification of research priorities are still not clearly articulated for all programs; 

LTGs 1 – 3 and 5 did provide good explanation in the presentations; LTG4 appears to be 

significantly lagging in effort. 

3.) See Overarching Comments 1 and 2 on demonstration projects and MYP 

78
4.) Rather than scaling back the overall ESRP program on focused efforts as suggested by 

the SAB, the program articulated during this review appears to have been expanded. The 

overall program is still too broad for the current resource level. 

5.) Regarding LTG4, the Status Report of June 24, 2009 does not provide sufficient or 

complete information on LTG4 to understand what progress has been made. For 

example, under Recommendation 1, what specifically does “Wetland theme is narrowing 

the list of ecosystem services relevant to EPA programs” mean? It would also be helpful 

if progress under each recommendation (“R”) was noted for all LTGs. LTG4 does not 

have any progress noted under R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, or R12. In the interest of being 

complete, even where a recommendation is not relevant or germane to LTG4, a short 

statement would be helpful indicating so. Having said that, as I read it, most of these 

recommendations have some element pertaining to LTG4. 

6.) The material provided in response to the SAB September 2008 comments to the MYP 

does little to support the continuing need to conduct any Coral Reef-related research. 

Charge Question 1.2. In the SAB advisory report on the EPA Ecological Research Program 

Multi-Year Plan there was considerable discussion about ESRP’s focus on Long-term Goal 1: 

valuation, human well-being, and decision support. The SAB commented that predicating the 

whole program on this goal had set the bar too high for success. Has the Program achieved a 

more balanced focus at this stage of development, or are more adjustments recommended? 

 Given the lack of specific information it is difficult to determine to what “balanced focus” may 

have been achieved for LTG1. That balance may be better reflected in the IPs for the LTGs, and 

specifically for LTG1, but we did not have the opportunity to review those. Hints of balancing 

were certainly provided in the presentations for LTGs 1 – 3 and 5, but we see only the “great Oz” 

and are left to wonder how the levers are being pulled behind the curtain. 

EPEC commented that LTG 1 was too ambitious; principally given the stated high level of 

program goals combined with the lack of in-house and/or external expertise, lack of clear work 

products within reasonable time frames, and the inherent difficulties in developing multi-criteria 

decision support systems that integrate values with science. A strong recommendation by the 

SAB in the previous review, and by several reviewers in our July 2009 meeting, that the most 

critical element is to focus limited resources on the demonstration projects. Dr. Greg 

Biddinger’s comments on CQ 6.1 address this issue, and I endorse his comments here, as well. 

Charge Question 1.3. Please assess the progress the Program has made in the 15 months since 

the SAB review of the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan, in light of budget and staffing 

constraints. Has sufficient progress been made to warrant maintaining the current elements 

within the program? 

Comments are given with the caveat that we are limited by what was provided to review and the 

presentations. 

LTG1 – Generally good progress appears to have been made here. This goal is to some degree 

dependent upon progress in the demonstration projects – and would be expected to progress with 

the overall program. 

79
LTG2 – This program is perhaps the most ambitious of all the LTGs. Over the last 15 months it 

would appear that this group has undertaken a flurry of activities, many of which appear to be 

related to building intra and inter- federal agency support for the National Atlas of Ecosystem 

Services. Perhaps this is one area where the overall effort can be scaled back to adequately 

develop the necessary mapping resources solely to support the LTG5 Demonstration Projects. 

While simultaneously laudable and desirable, this effort should be built in phases over time. The 

resources focused on the national inventory might better be utilized at the regional level, 

including validating ecosystem model predictions from the inventory with on ground data. 

Please note previous Over Arching Comment 4 on the difficulties associated with CrEAM in 

validating model predictions in the field. 

LTG3 – This LTG appears to have made the most progress in the last 15 months. This was 

perhaps also the most concise presentation and road map presented – which could/should serve 

as a model for other LTGs. There is still a need to connect to what products are going to be 

tested and tried here, but citing in particular the ties to the excellent resources in the Future 

Midwestern Landscapes Study, and the Coastal Carolinas Study, it appears this group is making 

substantive progress. In fairness, it appears this group also is taking advantage of the previous 

work done through CrEAM and ReVA in these two area; credit should be given by this group to 

those previous efforts. 

LTG4 – This LTG is of critical importance to the overall assessment of ecosystem services, but it 

appears that this group is lagging far behind in terms of developing and implementing plans. 

Credit can be given to the group for thinking through what wetland services would be important 

to value, but the presentation provided seems like material that should have gone into the 

formulation of the MYP, and certainly should not have taken 15 months to produce. Most of 

what was presented is already known to many of the SAB members who work in/with wetlands, 

so the presentation was not specifically useful. It is somewhat disconcerting that after this time, 

the presentation simply noted that “ORD Staff are gaining experience .... through literature 

reviews, seminars, and exploring data through meta analysis.” This does not seem to be the 

most efficient use of resources; external consultants may be needed here. In addition, there may 

be some leadership and organizational issues here that would benefit from management action to 

correct the lagging LTG. It is curious that we did not see a single presentation from the Coral 

Reefers. 

LTG5 - Comments below on individual plans 

• Implementations of Place Based Studies – this comment is specific to the presentation of 

Hal Walker. The conceptual frameworks shown were a thoughtful attempt to balance 

the multiple elements that need to be considered in these studies, but the SAB 

commented previously that the risk assessment format should be followed. Both the 

Ecological Risk Assessment Problem Formulation paradigm and the Life Cycle 

Assessment model were offered up as unifying structures upon which to construct these 

demonstration projects. It is not necessary, nor should an attempt be made to construct a 

new paradigm – rather adapt the existing paradigm for future presentations. 

80
• Future Midwestern Landscapes - An excellent presentation by Randy Bruins helped 

illuminate the direction this study was taking. It was good to see the ReVA process cited 

here; in fairness much of the underlying data was built under the CrEAM program and 

acknowledgement in future presentations of that would be useful to show continuity. 

Identifying the FML-EDT as the product goal was very good. Two germane questions 

were discussed amongst several SAB members; (1) How to validate the model decisions 

predictions with on-ground data (noting the previous issues with CrEAM), and (2) Are 

biofuel’s an appropriate target scenario given that biofuels are on the decline in the 

Midwest with several refineries being closed down? 

• Tampa Bay – Another good example project and presentation by Marc Russell. It 

provided a sense of where the project was headed, and what kind of decisions might be 

resolved with this set of tools. What was not clear is what tool(s) were being used (e.g., 

ReVA?), what will ultimately be the tool produced, the status of development, and the 

end users. Suspect all of that has been developed – but it would have been helpful to 

have had that presented. Same question on ground-truthing or validating models is 

germane to this project, as well. 

• Willamette River – The only material available to evaluate this project is the summary 

description provided to the SAB. This appears on the base of this description to be a 

very large and ambitious effort. One wonders what research related to hyporheic flow on 

temperature and native fish habitat has to do with defining ecosystem services. The 

project states that as a goal the product will be used to plan river restoration efforts 

between Eugene and Albany OR. Restoration has historically not been an EPA function; 

again is this appropriate use of EPA ESRP resources? On face value that would not 

appear to be the case. A suggestion would be to extend the study area to include the 

Lower Willamette River through Portland. As part of the Superfund and NRDA 

activities there is a more critical need to identify what are the potential habitat sites and 

the limits/constraints to develop those. 

• Coastal Carolina project – again based on the project summary there is insufficient 

information to determine how much work has been accomplished, vs. what was done by 

other programs and being accessed by ESRP now. 

• Southwestern US – no comments here. The program is too early in development to be 

commented upon 

One last thought is directed toward a sixth demonstration site. Loss of coastal wetlands in 

Louisiana is a problem that would seem to be directly suited for the types of tools ESRP is 

attempting to develop. In addition to subsidence and erosion issues, coastal Louisiana also faces 

81
potential serious impacts from sea level rise. Dr. Annie Neale indicated that sufficient data may 

be available to ESRP to begin looking at this as a possibility. 

Charge Question 1.4. Please comment on the partnership approach being developed in the 

ESRP. Would the proposed future investments be likely to advance: integration across EPA; 

adoption of ESRP concepts by the Agency; and the science of ecosystem services, including 

improved management of ecological risks? 

 No. Partnerships, while necessary, will not result in the adaptation of ESRP broadly. The 

overall program lacks definition of an Outreach Program, and as Rick Lindquist stated at our 

meeting, no one at EPA appears to want to address that. A recommendation is that ESRP contact 

Steve Ells in the Contaminated Sediment Program to discuss some of the innovative elements 

they have been coordinating with the Regions to bring tools developed ORD at least to the 

Superfund sites. 

Charge Question 2: Implementation of Integrated Pilot for Reactive Nitrogen. 

Using the nitrogen pilot as an example of ESRP’s approach to integration, please comment on 

how well the ESRP has succeeded in conceptualizing a systems- approach for analysis of 

ecosystem service impacts. Does the project take appropriate advantage of all the other projects 

in the ESRP? Have major uncertainties been adequately clarified and addressed to meet 

Program goals? Are there additional primary gaps or uncertainties that you see as important? 

Based upon the presented materials – the reactive nitrogen program is a model for incorporating 

cross-cutting LTGs. See previous response to LT3, above. 

 Charge Question 3: Implementation of Mapping, Monitoring, and Modeling Themes \ 

Charge Question 3.1. Focusing specifically on the Mapping theme, please comment on the 

usefulness of the proposed products. For example, please comment on the potential for 

ecosystem service atlases to communicate the status, changes, and locations of ecosystem 

services to EPA clients and the public. Similarly, please comment on whether ecosystem service 

atlases will inform decision makers about: 1) issues related to social equity and social choice; 

2) innovative valuation methods (e.g., by providing information on location, availability of 

substitutes, and changes over baseline conditions); and 3) issues related to environmental and 

land management, including public and private investments to conserve ecosystem services. 

 

 There is utility to having a National Atlas of Ecosystem Services. Without seeing the specifics 

of development, the difficulties reside in (a) identifying sources of GIS-based information for 

those services, (b) ensuring the data are current, (d) ground-truthing those data, and the (e) longterm maintenance of the Atlas given the inevitable changes that will occur. It is too large an 

effort to create a National Atlas at this point and it diverts resources away from the important 

ESRP function of developing and demonstrating place-based tools and uses of those tools. As 

stated previously, LTG2 should constrained to supporting the Site-Specific Demonstration 

Projects. A National Atlas can be built in phases over time after the overall ESRP agrees on the 

procedures to acquire and validate data, the tools necessary to query the data, field-validating the 

underlying data and model predictions, and a plan for long term support of the Atlas. 

82
Charge Question 3.2. What advice does the Committee have for the next steps in Monitoring and 

Modeling? In particular, are there pitfalls that the Office of Research and Development should 

be sensitive to as it develops this part of the ESRP? 

The principal comment here is methods to validate the underlying data and field-verification of 

decision model predictions. This has been a fundamental comment of the SAB to the previous 

GIS-based decision support tools developed by EPA, and it remains a concern here. 

Charge Question 4: Implementation of Place-based Studies. 

 

 Charge Question 4.1. Given the goals of the Program, please comment on whether the 

conceptual models in the Place-based studies are missing any critical elements. 

 See previous comment on using the Ecorisk Assessment problem formulation process as a 

unifying approach for all place-based demonstration projects. 

Charge Question 4.2. Please comment on whether, at the current level of development, the 

Place-based Studies will make good demonstration projects for a variety of decision makers at 

the local to regional scale. Are there additional ecosystem services that should also be 

considered in these studies? 

 

 A listing of the ecosystem services to be demonstrated for each of the Place-based Studies was 

not provided to the EPEC. These are likely in the IPs, but we cannot comment on what we have 

not seen. 

Charge Question 4.3. Please comment on whether progress in ESRP’s Cross-Place-based 

theme is improving the opportunity to compare and contrast methods and results across the five 

sites of the Place-based studies. What recommendations does the committee have for further 

integration and cross-comparison and testing among these five sites, either now or in the future? 

 Several SAB members noted that the Place-Based projects require some type of unifying 

conceptual model, and both the Ecological Risk Assessment problem formulation step and Life 

Cycle Analysis were proposed as unifying models. Please refer to the SAB’s Independent 

Report Advice to EPA on Advancing the Science and Application of Ecological Risk Assessment 

in Environmental Decision Making: A Report of the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board for 

specific recommendations on Problem Formulation. 

Charge Question 4.4. Please comment on whether there are omissions of key partners in any of 

the place-based studies. 

 Insufficient information to fully comment on the individual projects. 

Charge Question 5: Implementation of Ecosystem Specific Studies: Wetlands.. Please comment 

on the benefits that can be derived by EPA from the implementation of the wetlands research 

theme. Have these benefits been made clear? Is the “top down” strategy for designing the 

83
wetlands research theme evident and is EPA conducting research that will move the Agency to a 

national perspective on wetland production functions? Are the proposed analyses missing any 

stressors that are expected to have a broad impact on the services provided by wetlands? 

 As noted previously in response to CQ1.3, LTG4 offered the least amount of information to 

evaluate the direction of the program and the benefits they seek to address. Not clear what is 

meant here by a “top down” strategy – a strategy was clearly absent from these materials. 

Charge Question 6: Implementation of Decision Support Activities 

Note: Defer to Drs. Biddinger, Daniel, and Segerson whose initial comments at the meeting I 

agree with and endorse. 

 

Charge Question 6.1. Please comment on the defined and anticipated challenges to achieving the 

goals of the Decision Support Framework. What recommendations does the Committee have to 

overcome the most significant of these challenges? 

Charge Question 6.2. How does the EPA reconcile Decision Support as a significant need for the 

Ecosystem Services Research Program with the Program’s relative inexperience and minimal 

resources? 

84
Enclosure 4: EPA Charge Questions to the Committee 

Charge to the SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee for the Consultation on 

EPA’s Ecosystems Services Research Program and Projects 

June 29, 2009 

Background

 In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

prepared a multi-year plan for research on ecosystem services. The resulting program, the 

Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP), is a focused revision of research related to 

ecosystem services already underway in ORD. The new vision, mission and goal of this plan are 

defined below: 

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. 

The general research questions for the Program are: 

• 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 value of 

these services expressed in both monetary and non-monetary terms?

 To answer these questions the Program is focused on developing quantitative, operational 

definitions for ecosystem services; knowing how these services are distributed throughout the 

landscape, and in what quantity and quality; projecting how these services respond to 

combinations of large and small scale stressors; and determining alternative management options 

that would optimize their sustainability. 

The intent is to inform a wide range of issues related to questions of social choice, with a special 

focus on informing trade-offs among ecosystem services provided under alternative management 

and policy decisions. To achieve this objective, the Program has undertaken a multi-dimensional 

research plan that includes a range of focused investigations as well as integrating, thematic 

elements. The focused investigations look at the provision of ecosystem services from three 

85
different angles: (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 five geographic regions (Midwestern US; 

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

U.S.), that represent a spectrum of ecological and socioeconomic characteristics. The crosscutting themes include the relationship between ecosystem services and human health; landscape 

characterization; ecosystem service inventories; alternative management option modeling 

techniques; and ecosystem service valuation. The ESRP plans to integrate the research outputs 

from the focused investigations and the thematic work into a decision support platform for use 

by clients, and to convey research findings through an organized education and outreach effort. 

The research will have four general types of outputs: 

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

these products 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 models reflect a 

variety of techniques, including statistical, landscape, and process models. Modeling 

techniques are 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 – The Program develops and evaluates 

alternative future scenarios relevant to enhancing, conserving and/or restoring ecosystem 

services. These scenarios are implemented using a suite of modeling tools; results will 

be presented as maps and other visualization tools. 

• Decision Support Platform – A decision support platform is being developed 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. Ideally, the platform will 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 the desired outcome for the Ecosystem Services Research Program, which is to secure the 

integrity and productivity of our ecological systems over space and time. 

Overarching Charge to the SAB

86
 In 2008, the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan was reviewed by the SAB Ecological 

Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC). In turn, the ESRP began revising the Strategy and 

also began developing detailed Research Implementation Plans. The purpose of the 2009 EPEC 

consultation is to: 

• Assess whether the Committee’s recommendations and concerns were appropriately acted 

upon. 

• Review the ongoing work of ESRP for its scientific merit, including its demonstration of 

disciplinary strength in ecology and its transdisciplinary approach to implementing and 

integrating the Program. 

• Assess the progress the Program has made in 15 months, in light of budget and staffing 

constraints. 

• Offer additional recommendations for meeting the challenges facing the Program as the 

projects move forward, including identifying measures of success. 

Specifically, ORD asks the SAB to respond to the following charge questions. 

Specific Charge Questions

Charge Question 1. Current Status and Direction of the Ecosystem Services Research program 

(ESRP) 

1.1 The SAB previously reviewed the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan and

 recommended improvements in the strategic direction and focus of the Program, the 

 research goals and questions, and the program implementation strategy. Given the 

 current status and direction of the ESRP, please comment on whether the Program has 

 been responsive to the intent of the Committee’s primary recommendations. 

1.2 In the SAB advisory report on the EPA Ecological Research Program Multi-Year Plan 

 there was considerable discussion about ESRP’s focus on Long-term Goal 1: valuation, 

 human well-being, and decision support. The SAB commented that predicating the 

 whole program on this goal had set the bar too high for success. Has the Program 

 achieved a more balanced focus at this stage of development, or are more adjustments 

 recommended? 

1.3 Please assess the progress the Program has made in the 15 months since the SAB review 

 of the ESRP’s draft Strategic Multi-Year Plan, in light of budget and staffing constraints. 

 Has sufficient progress been made to warrant maintaining the current elements within the 

 program? 

1.4 Please comment on the partnership approach being developed in the ESRP. Would the 

 proposed future investments be likely to advance: integration across EPA; adoption 

87
 of ESRP concepts by the Agency; and the science of ecosystem services, including 

 improved management of ecological risks? 

Charge Question 2: Implementation of Integrated Pilot for Reactive Nitrogen 

2. Using the nitrogen pilot as an example of ESRP’s approach to integration, please 

 comment on how well the ESRP has succeeded in conceptualizing a systems-

 approach for analysis of ecosystem service impacts. Does the project take appropriate 

 advantage of all the other projects in the ESRP? Have major uncertainties been 

 adequately clarified and addressed to meet Program goals? Are there additional 

 primary gaps or uncertainties that you see as important? 

Charge Question 3: Implementation of Mapping, Monitoring, and Modeling Themes 

3.1 Focusing specifically on the Mapping theme, please comment on the usefulness of 

 the proposed products. For example, please comment on the potential for ecosystem 

 service atlases to communicate the status, changes, and locations of ecosystem services to 

 EPA clients and the public. Similarly, please comment on whether ecosystem service 

 atlases will inform decision makers about: 1) issues related to social equity and social 

 choice; 2) innovative valuation methods (e.g., by providing information on location, 

 availability of substitutes, and changes over baseline conditions); and 3) issues related to 

 environmental and land management, including public and private investments to 

 conserve ecosystem services. 

3.2 What advice does the Committee have for the next steps in Monitoring and Modeling? In 

particular, are there pitfalls that the Office of Research and Development should be 

sensitive to as it develops this part of the ESRP? 

Charge Question 4: Implementation of Place-based Studies. 

4.1 Given the goals of the Program, please comment on whether the conceptual models in the 

 Place-based studies are missing any critical elements. 

4.2 Please comment on whether, at the current level of development, the Place-based Studies 

 will make good demonstration projects for a variety of decision makers at the local to 

 regional scale. Are there additional ecosystem services that should also be considered in 

 these studies? 

4.3 Please comment on whether progress in ESRP’s Cross-Place-based theme is 

 improving the opportunity to compare and contrast methods and results across the 

 five sites of the Place-based studies. What recommendations does the committee have 

 for further integration and cross-comparison and testing among these five sites, either 

 now or in the future? 

4.4 Please comment on whether there are omissions of key partners in any of the place-

 based studies. 

88
89

Charge Question 5: Implementation of Ecosystem Specific Studies: Wetlands 

5. Please comment on the benefits that can be derived by EPA from the implementation of 

 the wetlands research theme. Have these benefits been made clear? Is the “top down” 

 strategy for designing the wetlands research theme evident and is EPA conducting 

 research that will move the Agency to a national perspective on wetland production 

 functions? Are the proposed analyses missing any stressors that are expected to have a 

 broad impact on the services provided by wetlands? 

Charge Question 6: Implementation of Decision Support Activities 

6.1 Please comment on the defined and anticipated challenges to achieving the goals of the 

 Decision Support Framework. What recommendations does the Committee have to 

 overcome the most significant of these challenges? 

6.2 How does the EPA reconcile Decision Support as a significant need for the Ecosystem 

 Services Research Program with the Program’s relative inexperience and minimal 

 resources?