United States
Environmental Protectior
kl m * Agency
EPA 542-R-17-004
June 2017
Engineering Fomm Issue P®pw
Jewel Lipps
Agriculture-to-wetland project at the Lower Basin ofCoeur d'Alene River, Superfund cleanup site in northern Idaho.
Ecosystem Services at Contaminated Site Cleanups
Contents
1.	Purpose
2.	Ecosystem Services
3.	Considerations During Cleanup
4.	Community Involvement
5.	Ecosystem Services Evaluation Tools
6.	Best Management Practices for Ecosystem
Services
7.	Summary
8.	Acknowledgements
9.	Notice and Disclaimer
10.	Selected Resources
11.	Cited References
Appendix A. Ecosystem Services Evaluation Tools
The Technical Support Project (TSP) Engineering Forum issue
papers provide information on remediation technologies or
technical issues of concern. The information is not guidance or
policy.
"Ecosystem goods and services are the many life-
sustaining benefits we receive from nature— clean air
and water, fertile soil for crop production, pollination,
and flood control."
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017
www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecosystems-services
1. Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
developed this issue paper to provide cleanup site
teams with information about ecosystem services.
These concepts and tools are useful in communicating
the positive results of cleanup in addition to achieving
the goals of cleanup. Information about ecosystem
services may be considered in characterization of
future land use options or design of a cleanup that is
consistent with anticipated ecological reuse,
depending on the regulatory authority of the cleanup
program. This document does not provide guidance
on how ecosystem services may or may not be
factored into specific cleanup programs.
1

-------
2. Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem services (ES) are the outputs of ecological processes that contribute to human health and well-being
or have the potential to do so in the future (Munns et al., 2015). Ecosystems provide services to humans, such as
pollination or flood control, that typically are not fully accounted for in economic markets, policy decisions or
individual projects (Costanza et al., 1997). Ecosystem goods and services (EGS) is a synonymous variation of the
term ecosystem services. "Goods" refer to products like food and timber, while "services" refer to processes like
water purification and coastal protection (US EPA, 2017a). Practitioners, researchers and policymakers use both
the ES and EGS terms. In this paper, ES terminology is used to reflect both goods and services.
The EnviroAtlas Eco-Health Relationship Browser illustrates how ecosystems contribute to human health:
www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-eco-health-relationship-browser
Many decisions and actions influence ecosystems and their production of services. Understanding and
evaluating ES at a site informs environmental decision-making, ultimately leading to more comprehensive
environmental protection and better articulation of its benefits to the public (Munns et al., 2017). Text Box 1
defines concepts useful in the discussion and evaluation of ES.
Text Box 1. Common Terminology for Ecosystem Services Discussion and Evaluation
Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries are "the interests of an individual that drive active or passive consumption and/or appreciation of
ecosystem services resulting in an impact on their welfare." Example beneficiaries are experiencers and
viewers, anglers, researchers, farmers and residential property owners (Landers et al., 2013).
Final and Intermediate
Humans directly consume, use or enjoy final ES. General examples include water supply, recreation and raw
materials. Humans indirectly benefit from intermediate ES. Nutrient cycling is an example of an important,
intermediate ecosystem service that supports many final ES (US EPA, 2017b).
Millennium Assessment Categories
The United Nations' 2005 Millennium Assessment defined four categories of ecosystem services: provisioning
(e.g. water supply), regulating (e.g. erosion control), cultural (e.g., recreation) and supporting (e.g., habitat).
These categories help communicate how ecosystems contribute to human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005).
Ecological Production Functions
Ecological production functions (EPFs) are usable expressions (i.e., models) of the processes that occur within
an ecosystem to produce ES. Useful EPFs estimate final ES, yield quantitative outcomes and respond to
management scenarios (Bruins et al., 2017).
Indicators
Evaluation of ecosystem goods and services requires the selection of relevant indicators. For a site with
birdwatching recreational opportunities, for example, bird species richness may be selected as an indicator
(National Ecosystem Services Partnership, 2016b).
2

-------
Ecosystem services evaluations have been applied in a variety of natural resource management and decision
contexts, such as urban planning, wildlife conservation and wetland restoration. Evaluation of ES may be
qualitative or quantitative; however, replicable quantitative evaluation facilitates communication of the
decision process (National Ecosystem Services Partnership, 2016a). Below are a few of the ecosystem
processes and services that have been quantified:
•	Removal of air pollutants such as nitrogen-oxygen, ozone or particulate matter.
•	Quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater.
•	Interception and infiltration of storm water.
•	Regulation and reduction of flood risk.
•	Retention of soil and sediment and reduction of erosion.
•	Hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing.
•	Crop production due to wild pollinators.
For examples of ecosystem services quantification by several federal programs and agencies, refer to the Federal
Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook (National Ecosystem Services Partnership, 2016a).
3. Considerations During Cleanup
Contaminated media are removed or remediated for the protection of human health and the environment in
accordance with the regulatory requirements under which the cleanup operates. During the cleanup process,
additional results of interest to the public and stakeholders may arise, including protection of existing habitat or
creation of habitat that provides ES. Ecological considerations during cleanup vary based on the legal
stipulations, stakeholder and community interest and site-specific issues. Text Box 2 provides examples of
opportunities and limitations under the Superfund cleanup process.
Many contaminated site cleanups incorporate considerations of the remedies' impact on ecosystems and their
services. For example, ES assessment endpoints may be incorporated into ecological risk assessment to inform
remediation decisions (US EPA Risk Assessment Forum, 2016b). Ecological revitalization, the technical process
of returning land from a contaminated state to one that supports functioning and sustainable habitat, may occur
at sites with anticipated ecological reuse (US EPA, 2009a). Likewise, an environmental footprint analysis of
remedy implementation and greener cleanup best management practices (BMPs) may inform the development
of site management approaches consistent with anticipated ecological reuse (US EPA, 2009b). Figure 1
illustrates conceptual connection between ES in ecological risk assessment and approaches for ecological reuse.
Formerly contaminated sites in ecological reuse provide ES to the surrounding communities and geographic
region. For site-specific examples of ecological revitalization and reuse, refer to case study profiles on
Contaminated Site Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) webpages: www.clu-in.org/greenremediation/profiles and
www. clu-in. org/ecotools/case. cfm.
3

-------
Text Box 2. Ecological Considerations Relevant to Superfund Cleanups
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establish EPA's responsibilities during Superfund
cleanups (US EPA, 2017d; Legal Information Institute, 2017). Superfund response actions are limited to what is
needed to achieve protection of human health and the environment. During Superfund site cleanups,
ecosystem services concepts may arise during discussion of the following processes:
•	Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA responsibility)
Ecological risk assessment (ERA) evaluates the likelihood that adverse effects to ecological entities may
occur as a result of exposure to site contaminants (US EPA, 1997). Ecological risk assessors select site-
specific assessment endpoints that serve to focus the risk assessment design and analysis. Assessment
endpoints establish the risk basis of a cleanup action. Ecological risk assessors have the option to develop
assessment endpoints from a set of conventional generic ecological assessment endpoints (C-GEAEs) and a
set of generic endpoints based on ecosystem services (ES-GEAEs) (US EPA Risk Assessment Forum, 2016b).
•	Natural Resource Damage Assessment (Natural Resource Trustee responsibility)
The US EPA Risk Assessment Forum explains how ES-GEAEs may translate information about natural
resources: "CERCLA provides authority for remediation of contaminated sites and restoration of injured
natural resources. Site remediation decisions are informed by ERA, whereas restoration and compensation
decisions are informed by the natural resource damage assessment (NDRA) process. The goals of NRDA are
to return natural resources injured due to the release of hazardous substances to their uninjured or baseline
condition (i.e., the condition prior to the release of hazardous substances) through direct restoration or
replacement of injured resources, and to compensate the public for ecosystem service losses occurring until
those injured resources are restored. Ecological injuries are quantified in terms of the reduction in the
physical, chemical or biological ecosystem services that the natural resources provide. Compensation for
those injuries is claimed in terms of damages (monetary) or directly as restoration actions. Damages are
calculated using various market and nonmarket economic techniques. Damages and direct restoration
projects are scaled to the magnitude of the injury claim. The objectives for ERA conducted under CERCLA
and similar state statutes are to identify and characterize the current and potential threats to the
environment from a hazardous substance release and identify cleanup levels that would protect those
natural resources from additional adverse effects." (US EPA, 1997; US EPA Risk Assessment Forum, 2016a)
•	Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Use (Collaborative responsibility)
Ecological revitalization and reuse provides a variety of environmental, economic and social benefits (i.e.,
ecosystem services). Notably, as explained in the EPA publication Ecological Revitalization: Turning
Contaminated Properties into Community Assets, "under the Superfund Program, EPA cannot fund
ecological enhancements (that is, activities not necessary for the protection of human health and the
environment); rather, it can encourage enhancement activities funded by other stakeholders and can fund
aspects of a cleanup project that are necessary for the anticipated future uses of a property. Under the
Superfund Program, EPA can fund activities to better understand the reasonably anticipated future land use,
which informs remedy selection and implementation and helps support long-term protectiveness.
Anticipating the future use of a Superfund site after cleanup completion is of key importance in selecting
and designing a remedy that will be consistent with that use. In general, most ecological revitalization efforts
are not considered enhancements if the activities are necessary for the anticipated future ecological use of
the property." (US EPA, 2009a)
4

-------
Figure 1. Conceptual Process for Considering Ecosystem Services During Cleanup Activities
Analysis of the Environmental Footprint of a Remedy
Evaluate effects of remedy operations on ecosystem services
Planning
Set management goals according to regulatory authority
Problem Formulation *
Consider generic ecosystem service endpoints
Consider future ecological use options
Identification and Implementation of Greener Cleanup BMPs
•	Minimize the potential impacts on ecosystem services
•	Revitalize ecosystem services necessary for anticipated future
ecological use
Analysis and Risk Characterization **
Quantify relevant case-specific ecosystem service endpoints
Estimate nature and likelihood of effects of contaminant
stressors on ecosystem service endpoints
Cleanup Completion and Ready for Ecological Reuse
* See Valuing the Protection of Ecosystem Systems and Services (US EPA, 2009c).
** Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs)for Ecological Risk Assessment: Second
Edition with Generic Ecosystem Services Endpoints explains how to consider ES in an ERA
and demonstrates the utility of incorporating ecosystem service endpoints (US EPA Risk
Assessment Forum, 2016b).
5

-------
4. Community Involvement
Identification of beneficiaries is essential to the identification of ES (Text Box 1). Community groups, tribes,
municipalities and other stakeholders are examples of beneficiaries of a cleanup site's ES. Their knowledge and
values inform ecological reuse considerations.
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative reuse assessment process is an example of gathering information about
community interests in future land use (US EPA, 2001). For sites with planned ecological reuse, the community
may share which ES they want from the site. Highlight 1 illustrates how a citizens advisory group shared their
interest in pollinator habitats.
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative provides tools and resources for site reuse:
www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment-initiative/supporting-current-and-future-use
Highlight 1: Community Involvement Informs Ecological Reuse
Chemical Commodities Inc.
Superfund National Priorities List, Region 7 (US EPA, 2017e)
The former. (CCI) operations contaminated the soil and
groundwater next to a suburban neighborhood in Olathe,
Kansas. Residents formed the CCI Citizens Advisory Group
(CAG), Inc. to actively engage in the Superfund cleanup
process. With technical support from the US EPA and The
Boeing Company, the CCI CAG, Inc. conducted a surveyof
residents' opinions about the site's redevelopment. The
CAG reported that the residents valued green space and
parks. Boeing enlisted the expertise of organizations such
as Monarch Watch and the Pollinator Partnership to
transform the former chemical recycling facility into
pollinator habitat and green space. Now called the
Pollinator Prairie, the site supports birds, bees and
butterflies (including the monarch) while providing
education, research and recreation benefits to the
community. In 2013, the Pollinator Prairie was certified
through the Corporate Lands for Learning program by the
Wildlife Habitat Council and highlighted in a US EPA video
(US EPA, 2013).
Photos from: http://www.pollinator.org/polliriotor-prairie
6

-------
5. Ecosystem Services Evaluation Tools
Publicly available tools can be used to document and quantify ES at a cleanup site, as consistent with regulatory
cleanup authority or voluntary stakeholder interest. In some cases, ES evaluation tools may be used as part of a
cleanup's environmental footprint analysis. Several positive outcomes may result from the use of ES evaluation
tools:
•	Engagement with the public and stakeholders about anticipated future ecological use.
•	Communication of the societal relevance of ecological risk-based cleanups.
•	Transparent documentation of the ecosystem conditions onsite "before and after" cleanup.
•	Replicable, defensible selection of greener cleanup BMPs.
Many ES evaluation tools have been developed for different ecosystems, levels of technical expertise,
management questions and result outputs. Types of tools include maps (Highlight 2), software models and
spreadsheet kits. Appendix A describes a curated list of ES evaluation tools.
Highlight 2: Service Providing Area Maps of Contaminated Areas
St. Louis River U.S. Steel Site
Cooperative Areas of Concern-Superfund National Priorities List, Region 5 (Angradi et at., 2016)
The U.S. Steel Superfund site is part of the St. Louis River Estuary Area of Concern (AOC)+ on the Minnesota-
Wisconsin border at Lake Superior. Remediation plans involve excavating contaminated sediment and
constructing a confined disposal facility. A team led by the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development created
a service providing area (SPA) map as a tool to understand the impact of remedial actions on ES. Based on the
St. Louis River Habitat Plan drafted by the citizen's action committee, available data and relevance to AOC
delisting targets, the team identified 23 ES in the St. Louis River estuary. They selected biophysical indicators for
each final ES and used ArcGIS spatial models to map indicator presence or absence at high resolution. The SPA
map displayed areas of the St. Louis
River estuary with the most or
fewest final ES (Figure 2). Then the
team quantified changes in SPA (km2)
for ES by predicting biophysical
changes resulting from proposed
remedial actions. The map and
quantitative information may be
used to communicate the effect of
cleanup activities on ES with the
public and to inform coordinated
action among Superfund and AOC
authorities.
+ The US EPA oversees AOC restoration under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
with Great Lakes Legacy Act and Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative funding (US EPA, 2017c)
Figure 2. SPA map of St. Louis River estuary with inset of U.S.
Number of Services
Boundary of aquatic
Graphic from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brent_Bellinger/puhlication/301757266/figure/fig3/AS:
357729559433216@1462300781249/Fig-5-Composite-SPA-map-for-the-SLRE-showing-the-
number-of-final-ecosvstem-services-for.ipa
7

-------
6. Best Management Practices for Ecosystem Services
As part of considering reasonably anticipated future land use, ES revitalization may be factored into
remedy implementation. Remedial activities may contribute to soil compaction, loss of natural
contours and drainage patterns, sediment runoff into waterways, habitat loss and noise or light
pollution (Slack, 2010). These effects alter the quality and/or quantity of ES. Site management
approaches can be developed to manage the effects of remedy operations on ES. Greener cleanup
BMPs that address ES may be considered.
Table 1 provides examples of greener cleanup BMPs. Example greener cleanup BMPs are linked to
three example ES commonly impacted at cleanup sites. Highlight 3 describes an example of the
responsible party voluntarily implementing greener cleanup BMPs for ecological reuse.
Find descriptive information about ecological considerations for cleanups in:
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties into Community Assets
Find BMPs in the "land and ecosystems" category of "Table X3.1 Greener Cleanup BMPs" in:
ASTM Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups (E2893)
Table 1. Examples of Greener Cleanup BMPs Related to Ecosystem Services


Example Ecosystem Services

Example Greener Cleanup BMPs
Habitat
Erosion
Control
Recreation
Site
Assessment
Phase
Consider and document property characteristics for
habitat connectivity, topography, site access, etc.
S
s
V

Design works zones, traffic plans and construction
V
V
s

phases to avoid habitat disruption.

Retain existing habitat and vegetation, especially
V
V
s

habitats with high ES value and large trees.

Eradicate invasive plant species on site and use



Remedial
Phase
control measures to prevent invasion of non-
native plants.
s


Place mulch and metal grates over traffic corridor

V


surfaces.



Construct long-term ecological structural controls
s
s


such as bio-swales and vegetated riprap.


Plant regionally native vegetation and pollinator
s
s
s

habitats on bare soil and caps.
8

-------
Highlight 3: Greener Cleanup BMPs Support Ecological Reuse
Bayou Verdine
Superfund Non-Time Critical Removal Action, Region 6 (US EPA, 2016)
When the US EPA site team and Phillips 66 began discussing closure of a waste containment cell, the site team
recognized an opportunity to revitalize ES at the Bayou Verdine cleanup site in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Phillips
66 collaborated with the US EPA and community stakeholders to complete a work plan that supported
ecological land reuse. During cleanup, the US EPA and Phillips 66 implemented a greener cleanup strategy with
BMPs to protect the existing ecosystem. BMPs included: minimizing activity along the shore to preserve riparian
habitat, keeping large trees by adjusting access road construction or by pruning them, reusing cleared trees
onsite to create new habitat, and relocating fish before constructing the containment cell from an existing pond.
To repair and revitalize the ecosystem, Phillips 66 created pond and wetland habitat around the containment
cell and constructed a bio-swale to hydraulically connect the new habitat to Bayou Verdine. Additionally, they
established a pollinator habitat on the capped containment cell. The revitalized Bayou Verdine site now provides
habitat for wetland birds, fish, aquatic wildlife and pollinators. The functional ecosystem, in turn, contributes to
human well-being (US EPA, 2017f).
The new wetland habitat supports	Wildflowers on the cap provide pollination The site team reused cleared trees onsite as
migratory birds.	services.	habitat features.
Photos provided by: Chris McGowan, Project Manager, Phillips 66
7.	Summary
This issue paper introduces ES concepts and tools to managers of contaminated site cleanups. ES
terminology explains how ecosystems connect to human health and well-being. The discussion and
evaluation of ES at Superfund sites may help improve site management, communication with the public
and engagement with stakeholders. Likewise, a site's ecological risk assessment may utilize ES as
assessment endpoints. Quantitative information about ES at a site supports the characterization of
reasonably anticipated future land use and selection of greener cleanup BMPs for ecological reuse.
8.	Acknowledgements
This issue paper was prepared by the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation (OSRTI) with collaboration among the Technical Support Project (TSP) Engineering Forum, the
Ecological Risk Assessment Forum (ERAF), the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the 2015
Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences (RESES) Ecosystem Services project team.
9

-------
Recognition as primary author of the paper is due to Jewel Lipps, as part of the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education (ORISE) internship with U.S. EPA OSRTI. Contributing authors are Matthew Harwell
(ORD, RESES), Michael Kravitz (ORD, ERAF, RESES), Kira Lynch (ORD, TSP Engineering Forum, RESES),
Michele Mahoney (OSRTI, RESES), Carlos Pachon (OSRTI, RESES) and Bruce Pluta (Region 3, ERAF, RESES).
9. Notice and Disclaimer
The Engineering Forum, a component of the U.S. EPA Superfund Technical Support Project, has authored this
issue paper. Information and opinions contained in this paper are technical in nature, and represent the
professional opinions of the participants. This issue paper underwent US EPA expert review and was approved
for publication as a US EPA document. The information is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create
any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States or any other party. Use or mention of
trade names does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
A PDF version of this issue paper, Ecosystem Services at Contaminated Site Cleanups, is available to view or
download at the US EPA TSP - Engineering Forum website, www.epa.gov/remedytech/technical-support-
project-cleaning-contaminated-sites-engineering-forum.
10. Selected Resources
www.clu-in.org/ecotools is regularly updated with resources for ecological issues at contaminated sites.
Ecological Revitalization and Reuse at Contaminated Sites
•	Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties into Community Assets. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA 542-R08-003. February 2009.
•	Superfund Redevelopment Initiative. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/superfund-
redevelopment-initiative.
•	Superfund Sites with Green Space Reuse-Sites with Ecological Reuse. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment-initiative/superfund-sites-green-space-reuseffecological.
•	Superfund Regional Redevelopment Contacts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment-initiative/regional-redevelopment-contacts.
Greener Cleanup Best Management Practices
•	ASTM Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups (E2893-16). ASTM International. Available through the US
EPA CLU-IN Green Remediation Focus website, at clu-in.org/greenremediation/standard.
•	Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated
Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA542-R-08-002. April 2008.
•	Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA542-R-12-002. February 2012.
•	The Incorporation of an Ecosystem Services Assessment into the Remediation of Contaminated Sites. Slack,
S. National Network for Environmental Management Studies. August 2010.
10

-------
Ecosystem Services
•	Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press. 2005.
•	Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) for Ecological Risk Assessment: Second Addition with
Generic Ecosystem Services Endpoints Added. US EPA Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/100/F15/005. July
2016.
•	Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. Durham: National Ecosystem Services
Partnership, DukeUniversity. 2014.
•	Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). DH Landers and Nahlik, AM. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914.
August 2013.
•	Valuing the Protection of Ecosystem Systems and Services. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of the Administrator, Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-09-012. May 2009.
11. Cited References
Angradi, T.R., Launspach, J.J., Bolgrien, D.W., Bellinger, B.J., Starry, M.A., Hoffman, J.C., Trebitz, A.S., Sierszen,
M.E. and Hollenhorst, T.P. 2016. Mapping ecosystem service indicators in a Great Lakes estuarine Area of
Concern J. Great Lakes Res. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jglr.2016.03.012
Bruins, R.J., Canfield, T.J., Duke, C., Kapustka, L., Nahlik, A.M. and Schafer, R.B. 2017. Using ecological
production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13: 52-
61. DOI 10.1002/ieam.l842
Costanza R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V.,
Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services
and natural capital. Nature 387:253- 260
Landers, D.H. and Nahlik, A.M. 2013. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS).
EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development.
https://gispub4.epa.gOv/FEGS/FEGS-CS%20FINAL%20V.2.8a.pdf
Legal Information Institute. 2017. 40 CFR 300.430 - Remedial investigation/feasibility study and selection of
remedy. Cornell University Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/300.430
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press,
Washington, DC. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
Munns, W.R., Jr., Rea, A.W., Suter, G.W., II, Martin, L., Blake-Hedges, L., Crk, T., Davis, C., Ferreira, G., Jordan,
S., Mahoney, M., Barron, M.G. 2015. Ecosystem Services as Assessment Endpoints for Ecological Risk
Assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag. DOI 10.1002/ieam.l707
Munns, W. R., Poulsen, V., Gala, W. R., Marshall, S. J., Rea, A. W., Sorensen, M. T. and von Stackelberg, K. 2017.
Ecosystem services in risk assessment and management. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13: 62-73. DOI
10.1002/ieam.l835
National Ecosystem Services Partnership. 2016a. Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services
Guidebook. 2nd ed. Durham: National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University, https://
nespguidebook.com
National Ecosystem Services Partnership. 2016b. Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services
Guidebook. 2nd ed. Using Indicators Effectively. Durham: National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke
University, https://nespguidebook.com/assessment-framework/indicators
11

-------
Slack, S. 2010. The Incorporation of an Ecosystem Services Assessment into the Remediation of Contaminated
Sites. National Network for Environmental ManagementStudies. https://clu-
in.org/download/studentpapers/sarah-slack-ecosystem-services.pdf
US EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting
Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim final. EPA540-R-97-006. https://www.epa.gov/risk/ecological-risk-
assessment-guidance-superfund-process-designing-and-conducting-ecological-risk
US EPA. 2001. Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement the Superfund Land Use Directive. OSWER 9355.7-06P.
https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/175564.pdf
US EPA. 2009a. Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties into Community Assets. EPA 542-
R08-003. https://www.epa.gov/remedytech/ecological-revitalization-turning-contaminated-properties-
community-assets
US EPA. 2009b. EPA Principles for Greener Cleanups, https://www.epa.gov/greenercleanups/epa-
principles-greener-cleanups
US EPA. 2009c. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services. EPA-SAB-09-012
US EPA. 2013. Superfund Redevelopment Videos. Plants, People, Pollinators: Environmental Education
and Stewardship Chemical Commodities, Inc., Superfund Site in Olathe, Kansas.
https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment-initiative/superfund-redevelopment-
videos#pollinators
US EPA. 2016. Ecological Revitalization on the Bayou:Bayou Verdine in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative, https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/500024318.pdf
US EPA. 2017a. EnviroAtlas. Ecosystem Services in EnviroAtlas. http://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/ecosystem-
services-enviroatlas. Accessed June 1, 2017
US EPA. 2017b. EnviroAtlas. More Information on Ecosystem Services and EnviroAtlas.
https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/more-information-ecosystem-services-and-enviroatlas. Accessed June 1, 2017
US EPA. 2017c. Restoring the Great Lakes AOCs. https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs/restoring-great-lakes-
aocs. Accessed June 1, 2017
US EPA. 2017d. Summary of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(Superfund). Laws & Regulations, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-
environmental-response-compensation-and-liability-act. Accessed June 1, 2017
US EPA. 2017e. Superfund Sites in Reuse in Kansas. Chemical Commodities, Inc.
https://www.epa.gOv/superfund-redevelopment-initiative/superfund-sites-reuse-kansas#chemical. Accessed
June 1, 2017
US EPA. 2017f. Superfund Sites in Reuse in Louisiana. Bayou Verdine. https://www.epa.gov/superfund-
redevelopment-initiative/superfund-sites-reuse-louisiana#verdine. Accessed June 1, 2017
US EPA Risk Assessment Forum. 2016a. Ecosystem Services as Assessment Endpoints in Ecological Risk
Assessment: Technical Background Paper. EPA/100/F15/004.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/ecosystem_services_technical_paper.pdf
U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Forum. 2016b. Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs) for Ecological
Risk Assessment: Second Addition with Generic Ecosystem Services Endpoints Added. EPA/100/F15/005.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/geae_2nd_edition.pdf
12

-------
Appendix A. Ecosystem Services Evaluation Tools
This appendix lists ecosystem services (ES) evaluation tools that have been curated for potential applicability
to contaminated sites. The ES evaluation tools described in the following two lists are included because (1)
they are publicly accessible for no charge, (2) they can be used in any region of the United States, (3) they are
intended for use in land management, and (4) they have outputs to share with general audiences. This
information is not an exhaustive listing of all ES evaluation tools and it should not be considered endorsement
of any one tool or resource.
Table A-l. List of ES Evaluation Tools Developed by the US EPA
Name
Description
FEGS-CS Query Tool
List of services and indicators
https://www. epa. gov/eco-research/final-
ecosystem-goods-and-services-classification-
system
The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-
CS) Query Tool is an identification tool with a standard process. It
includes a total of 352 specific FEGS provided by 15 environmental
subclasses and utilized by 38 beneficiary subcategories. The Query
Tool helps guide the user through customizing the FEGS Matrices for
a particular site. The Query Tool allows the user to query by
environmental sub-class, beneficiary subcategory or category of
FEGS. (ORDSHC 2.61.2)
Level of expertise: Low
NESCS Classification Structure
Identification system
www.epa.gov/eco-research/national
-ecosystem-services-classification-
system-framework-design-and-
policy
The National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS)
supports the identification step of analyses. Its Classification
Structure provides a four-group structure composed of
environment, end-product, direct-use and direct user. This allows
the user to trace a unique and comprehensive set of pathways from
the ecological systems that generate ES to the humans who use or
appreciate them. (ORD SHC 2.61)
Level of expertise: Low
EnviroAtlas
Interactive map
www. epa.gov/en viroatlas
EnviroAtlas is designed to help anyone interested in learning the
benefits or impacts of a decision that influences ecosystems.
EnviroAtlas layers include intermediate and final ecosystem
services. The layers correspond to ES indicators, which can be
analyzed to depict how various decisions can affect ecological and
human health outcomes. (ORD SHC 1.62)
Level of expertise: Low-Moderate
EPA H20
GIS application
www.epa.gov/water-research/
ecosystem-services-scenario-
assessment-using-epa-h2o
The EPA H20 Tool allows users to create maps of the spatial
arrangement of ecosystem goods and services at regional to local
scales. Land managers can gain understanding of how land use
change affects the provision of ecosystem services.
Level of expertise: Moderate
13

-------
Name
Description
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
Searchable database
www2.epa.gov/eco-research/
ecoservice-models-library
The EcoService Model library serves as a single site to make
ecological model descriptions more available and informative for
developing tools and models that illustrate the important
connections between healthy ecosystems and people. The ESML is a
website and database for finding, examining and comparing
ecological models that may be useful for estimating ecosystem
goods and services. The ESML was designed for scientists and
economists who provide advice to communities, businesses and
conservation organizations. (ORD SHC 2.61.3)
Level of expertise: Low
Rapid Benefits Indicators (RBI) Approach
Toolkit
www.epa.gov/water-research/rapid-
benefit-indi cators -rbi-approach
The RBI approach toolkit includes an interactive Excel spreadsheet
and fillable checklist form (PDF). It uses readily-available data to
estimate and quantify non-monetary benefits to people around an
ecological restoration site. The analysis will allow site managers and
stakeholders to systematically document and select restoration
actions.
Level of expertise: Low
Table A-2. List of ES Evaluation Tools Developed by Other Agencies or Organizations
Name
Description
TESSA
Toolkit
tessa. tools
The Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment (TESSA) is
designed to provide practical guidance on the entire ecosystem services
evaluation process. It informs how to identify services at the site, what
data are needed to measure them, what methods or sources can be used
to obtain the data, and how to communicate the results.
Level of expertise: Low
ValuES Method Database
Searchable database
aboutvalues.net/
method_database
The ValuES interactive database allows the user to select ecosystem
service evaluation tools and methods that best match the site decision
context. User can filter by purposes, type of method, and ecosystem
services.
Level of expertise: Low
SolVES
GIS application
solves, cr. usgs.gov
The Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) tool incorporates
spatially explicit measures of social values into ecosystem services
assessments. Users can generate social-value maps and derive a
quantitative index score for environments.
Level of expertise: Moderate
Wetland Ecosystem Services
Protocol for the United States
(WESPUS)
Toolkit, wetland sites
www.novascotia.ca/nest/
wetland/docs/
Manual_WESPUS.pdf
The Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for the United States (WESPUS)
is a standardized method to assess ecosystem services at the scale of an
individual wetland. The evaluation requires completing an Excel
spreadsheet which automatically generates scores for wetland functions
and values. Aerial imagery and observations during a single site visit are
needed to fill out the form. Use of a GIS is not required.
Level of expertise: Low-Moderate
14

-------
Name
Description
InVEST
Computer Model
www.naturalcapitalproject.org/
invest
InVEST is a suite of free, open-source software models. The models use
maps as information sources and produce maps as outputs. It requires GIS
software. Models include: Carbon, Crop Pollination, Fisheries, Habitat
Quality, Habitat Risk Assessment, Recreation, Scenic Quality, Sediment
Retention, and Water Purification.
Level of expertise: High
i-Tree Eco
Computer Model, forested sites
www.itreetools.org/eco/
overview.php
i-Tree Eco is a software application designed to use field data
measurements of trees throughout a community along with local hourly
air pollution and meteorological data to quantify urban forest structure,
environmental effects and value to communities. Baseline data can be
used for making effective resource management decisions and setting
priorities. Many U.S. cities use i-Tree Eco to evaluate the services of trees
throughout the city.
Level of expertise: Low-Moderate
Ecosystem Services Identification &
Inventory Tool (ESII Tool)
Field app and web interface
www. esiitool. com
The ESII Field App allows the user to download maps for their site, then
go into the field and collect spatially-explicit ecological data for their site.
In the ESII web interface, the user can review and edit the data, run the
ESII Tool's ecological models, and generate results in a variety of user-
friendly formats. The tool provides the option for several forms of
outputs. It is designed for the non-ecologist.
Level of expertise: Low
To explore more ES evaluation tools, please refer to the following resources:
•	Data and Modeling Paper by the National Ecosystem Services Partnership
https://nespguidebook.com/assessment-framework/data-and-modeling-paper/
•	Appendix: Categories of Tools in Making the Invisible Visible: Analytical Tools for Assessing
Business Impacts and Dependencies Upon Ecosystem Services by BSR
http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Analytical_Tools_for_Ecosystem_Services_2014.pdf
15

-------