FY07-09 proposal 200732200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Ecosystem Economics Model for Willamette Basin Restoration and Conservation |
Proposal ID | 200732200 |
Organization | David Evans and Associates, Inc. |
Short description | This project will develop an system dynamics model of the Willamette Basin to map the ecosystem benefits of restoration and conservation scenarios and their associated economic value. |
Information transfer | The model will be available for stakeholder/funder use. Model scenarios can be run by individuals to determine their preferred options, or to identify potential funding sources. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Daniel Heagerty | David Evans and Associates, Inc. | ddh@deainc.com |
All assigned contacts |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Lower Columbia / Willamette
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Willamette River Subbasin |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Upper Willamette River ESUprimary: Coastal Cutthroat Upper Willamette River ESU
primary: Steelhead Upper Willamette River ESU
secondary: All Anadromous Salmonids
secondary: Pacific Lamprey
secondary: River Lamprey
secondary: All Wildlife
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Institutional Strategies | Identify multiple funding opportunties | Willamette | Improve habitat on private lands, consistent with their inherent objectives to produce revenue, including by: Expanding and improving voluntary incentives programs, and increasing the capacity of local groups (especially watershed councils and districts |
Institutional Strategies | [BO Description left blank] | Willamette | Improve coordination among all those working to manage Willamette subbasin habitats at site, watershed, subbasin, and regional scales by: Promoting frequent communication among landowners, local governments, watershed groups, agencies, and ngos. |
Institutional Strategies | Identify strategic investment partners | Willamette | Promote more strategic targeting of restoration investments throughout all scales of management by increasing consultation among stakeholders, community leaders, and public and private conservation organizations. |
Institutional Strategies | [BO Description left blank] | Willamette | Promote improved regulatory coordination especially with regard to the federal Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts. |
Institutional Strategies | [BO Description left blank] | Willamette | Increase effective communication and outreach to stakeholders, decisionmakers and the public. |
Institutional Strategies | [BO Description left blank] | Willamette | Improve management of environmental data and information, including establishing improved means to coordinate in its collection and dissemination. |
Institutional Strategies | [BO Description left blank] | Willamette | Improve understanding of conservation economics by establishing a conservation and restoration investment strategy that accounts for existing assets and forecasts future needs; and developing improved metrics for the economic contributions from natural |
Institutional Strategies | [BO Description left blank] | Willamette | Recognize the benefits of a regional coordinating body for facilitating the effective implementation of Willamette strategies. |
Institutional Strategies | [BO Description left blank] | Willamette | Increase the diversity, amount and effective use of conservation resources, including through improved efficiencies or enhanced funding, to assist with strategy implementation, including:Protecting lands through conservation easements |
Systemwide Coordination | Successful Restoration of Fish and Wildlife Resources | None | This modeling can be used in other subbasins and can be scaled up to encompass the entire Columbia River Basin. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Produce Inventory or Assessment | Build an expert systems tool for use by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and other interested parties. | Build an expert systems tool for use by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and other interested parties. | 1/1/2007 | 12/30/2009 | $62,024 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Inventory or Assessment | Describe a portfolio of opportunities based on mutually advantageous trades between different consumers/users of ecosystem services in the system, using plan priorities. | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 1/1/2007 | 12/30/2009 | $80,400 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Characterize and specify the functional relationships between water stocks and flows in the basin, the landscape, and various water users. | Characterize and specify the functional relationships between water stocks and flows in the basin, the landscape, and various water users. | 1/1/2007 | 12/30/2007 | $85,435 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Estimate the value of ecosystem services in the basin, differentiating by user groups. | Estimate the value of ecosystem services in the basin, differentiating by user groups. | 1/1/2007 | 12/30/2009 | $142,397 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Build a dynamic, spatially explicit model for the Willamette Basin ecosystem | Build a dynamic, spatially explicit model for the Willamette Basin ecosystem | 1/1/2007 | 12/30/2009 | $85,400 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Submit/Acquire Data | Build a comprehensive spatially explicit dataset of ecosystem information for the Willamette River Basin, including current conditions and locations of restoration/mitigation activities. | Build a comprehensive spatially explicit dataset of ecosystem information for the Willamette River Basin, including current conditions and locations of restoration/mitigation activities. | 1/1/2007 | 12/30/2007 | $113,913 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Personnel | [blank] | $220,450 | $0 | $0 |
Personnel | [blank] | $0 | $75,000 | $0 |
Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $88,180 | $30,000 | $0 |
Supplies | [blank] | $2,500 | $500 | $0 |
Travel | [blank] | $14,000 | $5,000 | $0 |
Capital Equipment | [blank] | $2,500 | $0 | $0 |
Overhead | [blank] | $98,289 | $33,150 | $0 |
Totals | $425,919 | $143,650 | $0 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $569,569 |
Total work element budget: | $569,569 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 12/31/07
Comments:
Final deliverables: Model platform for use on sttandard PC systems w/ either Stella or Powersim software (to be determined w/ stakeholders). Report on menhtodolgies, data sources, analyses, bibliography etc.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
Comments: Also reviewed by the MSRT. |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This is an inadequate proposal that describes an overly general approach to a very large undertaking, without specific links to ongoing work in the subbasin. The problem this proposal states is the need to take a systematic approach to coordination and decisionmaking in the use of natural resources, given competing demands, growing population, and the need for sustainability. The project would develop a system dynamics model for evaluating investment in fish and wildlife recovery on the basis of ecosystem functions and services. The background states that instead of project-level assessments, it is important to take a long-term look at repair and restoration of ecosystem functions provided by terrestrial and aquatic habitat, with a recognition that these systems are linked through water quality and quantity, and that the ecosystem functions provide value to humans and wildlife. The systems model proposed would use spatial and dynamic modeling to assess the portfolio value of ecosystem services in the Willamette Subbasin and provide a means to estimate ecosystem functional return on investments in fish and wildlife. The analytical challenge is to identify spatial locations of water stocks and flow, their ecosystem services, and their alteration by human uses. A diagram of a conceptual model illustrates this point. The utility of spatial systems modeling is described in general terms. Literature on GIS-based, dynamic spatial models, human dynamics, ecosystem service valuation, etc. is cited. The value of ecosystem services is discussed in general terms. A table associates ecosystem functions with services. The proposal provides a lengthy but general description of how the project would approach the valuation and modeling of ecosystem services. It gives examples of conservation investment areas that could be addressed in a portfolio framework: stormwater management, flood management, restoration employment, etc. Publications and documents related to the Willamette Subbasin are not cited. The general discussion is of the need to take a long-term integrated approach to resource sustainability, given that ecosystem services are valuable and are the subject of competing demands. This is not a novel point, and the section does not establish the nature of the problem beyond a general statement of needs. What would have been more compelling is to tie the discussion directly to the Willamette Subbasin where this project will be situated. Is there a gap in the way the futures planning under the Willamette Subbasin Plan will be addressed by this project? Beyond a general description and hypothetical examples, what is the nature of the problem this proposal addresses? Where is the specific value-added by this work? The absence of coordinated decisionmaking is not established. The proposal cites restoration priorities and the need for coordinated planning, as presented in the subbasin plan. It relates the proposed model to increased institutional capacity, opportunities for cost-effective partnering, etc., but does not describe how specifically it will do this. The proposal does not tie the proposed work to ongoing work in the subbasin; connections with other projects are only potential and only briefly described The proposal has six objectives relating to building a model: developing a data set, characterize functional relationships, build model, estimate values of ecosystem services, describe portfolio of opportunities based on trades among consumers of ecosystem services, build expert systems tools. These are generally articulated but without timelines or metrics. Methods are generally described as processes of working with existing and ongoing efforts in the region. Some existing databases from which they intend to extract data are cited; the assumption is made that existing data will be close to sufficient for modeling, with gaps addressed through expert opinions or other approaches. The data sets are enormous. Constructing the Influence Diagram (stocks and flows within a boundary) will be the most challenging - and exciting - part of this project, demanding a huge range of expertise, and a lot of time and coordination. Using existing programs will no doubt help, but their boundaries will inevitably under- and overlap, with a lot of stitching needed once the gaps and laps are confirmed. The model will need to have several scales of definition (e.g. picturing the Willamette subbasin from 10,000ft, 1,000ft and 100ft). Drawing boundaries around the area will be a great challenge as the socio-economic issues are considered. The value of ecosystem services will be estimated theoretically using existing methods left undescribed except for the benefit-transfer method (in which resource values estimated in one setting are applied in another), which is highly problematic and subject to transfer error because of differences in characteristics between the two settings. The sponsors propose to address weaknesses in this method by supplementing with interviews with academic researchers in ecosystem services. Work elements under the portfolio assessment objective and the expert systems tool development are quite generally described. The proposal does not provide a clear specific picture of how the project will produce products of value.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This is an inadequate proposal that describes an overly general approach to a very large undertaking, without specific links to ongoing work in the subbasin. The problem this proposal states is the need to take a systematic approach to coordination and decisionmaking in the use of natural resources, given competing demands, growing population, and the need for sustainability. The project would develop a system dynamics model for evaluating investment in fish and wildlife recovery on the basis of ecosystem functions and services. The background states that instead of project-level assessments, it is important to take a long-term look at repair and restoration of ecosystem functions provided by terrestrial and aquatic habitat, with a recognition that these systems are linked through water quality and quantity, and that the ecosystem functions provide value to humans and wildlife. The systems model proposed would use spatial and dynamic modeling to assess the portfolio value of ecosystem services in the Willamette Subbasin and provide a means to estimate ecosystem functional return on investments in fish and wildlife. The analytical challenge is to identify spatial locations of water stocks and flow, their ecosystem services, and their alteration by human uses. A diagram of a conceptual model illustrates this point. The utility of spatial systems modeling is described in general terms. Literature on GIS-based, dynamic spatial models, human dynamics, ecosystem service valuation, etc. is cited. The value of ecosystem services is discussed in general terms. A table associates ecosystem functions with services. The proposal provides a lengthy but general description of how the project would approach the valuation and modeling of ecosystem services. It gives examples of conservation investment areas that could be addressed in a portfolio framework: stormwater management, flood management, restoration employment, etc. Publications and documents related to the Willamette Subbasin are not cited. The general discussion is of the need to take a long-term integrated approach to resource sustainability, given that ecosystem services are valuable and are the subject of competing demands. This is not a novel point, and the section does not establish the nature of the problem beyond a general statement of needs. What would have been more compelling is to tie the discussion directly to the Willamette Subbasin where this project will be situated. Is there a gap in the way the futures planning under the Willamette Subbasin Plan will be addressed by this project? Beyond a general description and hypothetical examples, what is the nature of the problem this proposal addresses? Where is the specific value-added by this work? The absence of coordinated decisionmaking is not established. The proposal cites restoration priorities and the need for coordinated planning, as presented in the subbasin plan. It relates the proposed model to increased institutional capacity, opportunities for cost-effective partnering, etc., but does not describe how specifically it will do this. The proposal does not tie the proposed work to ongoing work in the subbasin; connections with other projects are only potential and only briefly described The proposal has six objectives relating to building a model: developing a data set, characterize functional relationships, build model, estimate values of ecosystem services, describe portfolio of opportunities based on trades among consumers of ecosystem services, build expert systems tools. These are generally articulated but without timelines or metrics. Methods are generally described as processes of working with existing and ongoing efforts in the region. Some existing databases from which they intend to extract data are cited; the assumption is made that existing data will be close to sufficient for modeling, with gaps addressed through expert opinions or other approaches. The data sets are enormous. Constructing the Influence Diagram (stocks and flows within a boundary) will be the most challenging - and exciting - part of this project, demanding a huge range of expertise, and a lot of time and coordination. Using existing programs will no doubt help, but their boundaries will inevitably under- and overlap, with a lot of stitching needed once the gaps and laps are confirmed. The model will need to have several scales of definition (e.g. picturing the Willamette subbasin from 10,000ft, 1,000ft and 100ft). Drawing boundaries around the area will be a great challenge as the socio-economic issues are considered. The value of ecosystem services will be estimated theoretically using existing methods left undescribed except for the benefit-transfer method (in which resource values estimated in one setting are applied in another), which is highly problematic and subject to transfer error because of differences in characteristics between the two settings. The sponsors propose to address weaknesses in this method by supplementing with interviews with academic researchers in ecosystem services. Work elements under the portfolio assessment objective and the expert systems tool development are quite generally described. The proposal does not provide a clear specific picture of how the project will produce products of value.