Natures Intrinsic Value

I too agree with Rolston's idea that nature has intrinsic value. I think that he does an excellent, albeit complicated, job of explaining why. I feel that nature has value all its own, devoid of the instrumental value that humankind places on it. Yet, there are a few points that caused me to question his ideas.
One was the cohesion of the idea that value is in place even when the subject is unaware of that value. The wolf that values her young was one example. Or the value she places on deer that she can hunt and use for sustenance was another. I don't know if there is any real value from the perspective of the wolf, at least not in the way we humans use the term. She would seek out food or naturally care for her young, yes, but to say that she values them I believe is incorrect. They are of value to her, but she cannot place any such value on them herself. If we go by this, then how can we accurately be using the term "value"?
He talks about the dragonfly's wings and how they are of value to the dragonfly. I think that this is true also, but I doubt that the dragonfly itself values the wings. We as cognitive beings can understand that they hold value for the creature, but what does it mean if the creature which we are focusing on does not or rather, cannot comprehend that value? The value is only coming from us as the observers placing it there, even if it is not valuable to us. Therefore I'm not sure if the term value is the correct one in the sense we commonly use.
Another problem toward the end of the reading was the idea that things in nature only have value if there is "positive creativity". He used the example of Jupiter and stated that it had no intrinsic value because it lacked this "postitive creativity". I would argue against this point for the fact that Jupiter still holds value. Entertain the notion that on one of Jupiter's moons, say Europa, primitive life may exist. Does Jupiter not hold any value for this life? While there is no "positive creativity" on Jupiter itself, the value is in it's existence for the possible life on it's moon. If it was not for the existence of Jupiter, the moon would not be orbiting it and therefore no life could exist. I suppose we could say that Jupiter is instrumentally good to the life but then is the wing of the dragonfly also instrumental to the dragonfly?
Nonetheless, I like the idea of there being an intrinsic value in the natural world and appreciate the insights that Rolston puts forth.