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