considering ecosystem services in restoration decisions on the upper mississippi river system

Considering Ecosystem Services in Restoration Decisions

on theUpper Mississippi River System

ACES, 2008

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

Yesterday’s -

- Fish or ducks?- To stock? Set bag limits?

River Management Questions

- Can we fix some pieces of the system without jeopardizing others? (fishes AND ducks AND mussels?)- How much restoration is enough?

Today’s -System level

Project level

- Build project X?- Build project X before project Y?

Problem: Navigation Pool “aging”Symptoms: Altered hydrograph, loss of depth, sediment re-suspensionOne solution: DRAWDOWNSJustification: Good for aquatic vegetation, good for waterfowl

Our multi-objective dilemma

BUT …

Mussel mortality?

II. Ecosystem services progress on the UMR

- workshop results

Conceptual Framework adapted from the National Research Council (2004)

Initial List of UMR Ecological Services

Regulating Services

Biological regulation

Disturbance (Flood) regulation

Nutrient regulation

Soil retention

Waste regulation

Provisioning Services

Food

Genetic resources

Raw materials

Water Supply (including transportation)

Cultural Services

Aesthetics

Recreation

Science/education

Spiritual/historic

Terrestrial Environment/

Land Use

Climate

Drinking Water

Food

Fiber

Flood Mediation

Waste Assimilation

Recreation

Navigation

FloodplainConnectivity

FlowRegime

WaterChemistry

Energy Type& Quantity

HabitatStructure

BioticInteractionsRiver

Plants, AnimalsAnd

EcologicalProcesses

External,Large-Scale

Driving Factors

Essential River EcosystemCharacteristics

SomeEcosystem ServicesFluvial

Dynamics

BASIC FLOODPLAIN ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS

VegetationSunlight

Water

SedimentPhysical Floodplain Template

Animals

Decomposers

(Source: Lubinski 2007)

Animals

HUMANS

(Source: Lubinski 2007)

The “Horse”

The “Cart”HUMANS

Water SupplyRawMaterialsFood

WasteRegulation

EcosystemServices

Aesthetics

EcosystemStructures & Functions

Without projectsMeasurements/Values

With projectsMeasurements/Values

A Hypothetical but Likely Assessment of Benefits

ES1 ES2 ES3 ES4 ES5

0

+1

+2

-1

-2

0

+1

+2

-1

-2

- To maximize or optimize?- Can we afford to lose any service completely?

?

Good News: Managers are embracingthe concept of ecosystem services. System Goal 5: Viable populations of native species

Limiting Factor – Loss of historical forest plant community

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

Species intolerant of saturated soils survive

and expand range

Exotic grasses and forbs less

competitive with diverse native

species present

Forest plant species

complexity increases;

habitat & food resources for

wildlife enriched

ECOSYSTEM SERVICEImproved wildlife viewing,food foraging,aesthetics

Impounded water tableLowered water table

III. Outlook: - what seems to fit, what doesn’t

Project

System (UMRS)

Policy

Scale ofDecisions

Relative Value of Ecosystem ServicesAs Decision Criteria

?

++

?

Technically measureable?Countable withinframework?

Outside Corpsguidance?

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

Movingon …..