FY 17 Output SHC 2.61 Practical Strategies for Assessing Final Ecosystem Goods and Services in Community Decision Making United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/R-18/183 June 2018 http ://www. e pa. g o v/s i U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY GULF ECOLOGY DIVISION ------- Table of Contents Introduction 1 Practical Strategies for Integrating a FEGS Approach into Community Decision Making 5 Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: Human Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation 7 Model Application Niche Analysis: Assessing the Transferability and Generalizability of Ecological Models 9 Evaluation of the Use of FEGS in Regional Valuation Studies 10 How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods and Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and Revitalization Projects 12 Eco-Health Linkages: Assessing the Role of Ecosystem Goods and Services on Human Health using Causal Criteria Analyses 14 Spatiotemporal Modeling of Ecological and Sociological Predictors of West Nile Virus in Suffolk County, NY, Mosquitoes 15 National and Regional FEGS Metrics and Indicators 16 Staging FEGS for Coordinated Case Studies 17 SHC Project 2.61 Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Strategic Communication Plan 18 Managed Vocabulary for use of Ecosystem Goods and Services in Decision Making 20 References 21 Acknowledgements 22 Appendix A: SHC 2.61 Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Project Overview 23 Appendix B: Coordinated Case Studies 27 San Juan, Puerto Rico Coordinated Case Study 27 Pacific Northwest Coordinated Case Study 30 Great Lakes Coordinated Case Study 32 Gulf of Mexico Coordinated Case Study 35 Southern Plains Coordinated Case Study 37 ------- Introduction Output Description This report, Practical Strategies for Assessing FEGS in Community Decision Making, describes the U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development's (ORD) research to incorporate the sustainability of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) production and benefits into community-scale decisions across the U.S. This report discusses research in the Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Project in the Sustainable and Healthy Communities National Research Program that demonstrates the importance of articulating the decision contexts, the utility of decision support tools, the types of ecosystem service metrics examined, the types of ecological modeling of FEGS production examined, human benefits endpoints and estimation, and the utilization of these suites of tools and approaches by communities. This report summarizes how community-based studies have previously utilized ecosystem services to inform aspects of their decision making, to identify best practices that may be transferred to other communities, and to identify gaps in those practices that need to be addressed. This report builds upon a 2017 report, Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services, into Community Decision Making by Yee et al. (2017) and a number of other deliverables and ongoing research in this project covering work through FY 17. This report includes summaries and excerpts from those deliverables and ongoing research. Agency Relevance This report, and the research upon which it is based, was developed for U.S. EPA Regional Offices, Office of Water, Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Land and Emergency Management, to support their efforts to help communities across the U.S. develop sustainable practices for their environments, economies, and the well-being of their citizens. Other notable U.S. EPA Program Offices that have significant interest/roles in ecosystem services research include the Office of Policy, Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Sustainable Communities, Office of International and Tribal Affairs, and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Additionally, this report is intended to inform colleagues involved with ecosystem services science within U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development. Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework for ORD's Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services research focuses on the process of informing decision making through the use of ecological production functions (EPFs), final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS), and indicators of human health and well-being. The elements of the FEGS conceptual model shown in Figure 1 (e.g., stakeholder engagement/decision context, FEGS, EPFs, and measures of benefit) represent efforts to support community-level decision making by incorporating quantitative information on the production and benefits of ecosystem goods and services. This conceptual model identifies critical linkages among the respective elements that brings about a novel integration of science and policy to yield highly effective measures of decision outcomes. Place-based studies provide an opportunity to explore the application of this conceptual 1 ------- model. The key science produced in this project in FY 17, and summarized in this report, are mapped onto the elements of the conceptual model in Figure 1. Staging FEGS for Coordinated Case Studies ^Res., page 18*. National and Regional FEGS Metrics and Indicators Res., page 17 Moon et al. 2017 Man., page 9 O'Dea et al. 2017 Bell et al. 2017 Man., page 10 Social and Economic Services A Biophysical State of the Ecosystem (includes intermediate EGS) Benefit Functions Decisions, Alternatives A Human Weil-Being Mgmt Actions EPFs A Final EGS Myer et al. 2017 Man., page 16 Johnston et al. 2017 Ext., page 7 Information for Decision Support SHC Project 2.61 Strategic Communication Plan „ Res., page 19 . Yee et al. 2017 Ext., page 5 Managed Vocabulary for use of EGS in Decision Making Res., page 21^* Williams et al. 2017 Ext., page 13 de Jesus Crespo and Fulford 2017 Man., page 15 Figure 1. The conceptual framework for ORD's Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services research focuses on the process of informing decision making through the use of ecological production functions, ecosystem goods and services, and indicators of human well-being. Recent (FY 17) research products described in this report are mapped onto elements of the conceptual model (colored ovals around the perimeter). The bold ovals highlight the two major FY17 deliverables presented first in this report. Man. = manuscript; Rep. = EPA Report; Res. = Ongoing Research. Different elements of the conceptual model showed in Figure 1 are echoed throughout each of the studies described. These studies represent critical contributions of science for establishing effective measures of decision outcomes of ecosystem services. Yee et al. (2017) describe a suite of practical strategies (both application of tools and approaches) for integrating ecosystem services into a decision- making process. 2 ------- Additionally, the 2017 research summarized in this Output report includes work across several broad topics: • Tool Development and Application: de Jesus Crespo and Fulford (2017); Johnston et al. (2017); Moon et al. (2017); Myer et al. (2017); Williams et al. (2017); Yee et al. (2017); FEGS Scoping Tool - ongoing research • FEGS Frameworks: Bell et al. (2017); de Jesus Crespo and Fulford (2017); Johnston et al. (2017), O'Dea et al. (2017); Yee et al. (2017); Staging FEGS for coordinated case studies - ongoing research • Benefits: de Jesus Crespo and Fulford (2017); Johnston et al. (2017); Williams et al. (2017) • Targeted FEGS and Case Study Assessments: Johnston et al. (2017); Williams et al. (2017); National and regional FEGS metrics and indicators - ongoing research • Stakeholder Engagement and Structured Decision Making: Johnston et al. (2017); Williams et al. (2017); Yee et al. (2017); Staging FEGS for coordinated case studies - ongoing research • Communication and Outreach: SHC Project 2.61 Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Project strategic communication plan - ongoing research; managed vocabulary for use of ecosystem services in decision making - ongoing research The studies summarized in this report represent efforts to support community-level decision making by incorporating quantitative information on the production and benefits of ecosystem services. These efforts, mapped onto the conceptual model in Figure 1, look to clarify the decision context to help scientists and stakeholders identify and prioritize information needed for decision making. ORD scientists are working to improve a community's decision-making process through incorporation of ecosystem goods and services elements into decision support tools and frameworks. 3 ------- Select Key Findings in this Synthesis Report • Practical strategies for guiding the use of ecosystem goods and services in community decision making are highlighted in Yee et al. (2017). These practical strategies can improve utility of information and communication, and foster development and better evaluation of alternatives. • Human systems, including urban and other developed systems, are a part of the ecosystem. ORD researchers are developing public health and other tools that focus on this more integrative view of ecosystems, which is a critical step to valuation ecosystem services. • Effective use of tools at multiple locations requires that we can quantify the transferability of those tools. ORD researchers have developed metrics of transferability that can ease the process for stakeholders choosing tools for decision support. • Connections between human-induced stressors and their impacts on human well- being can be complex with many intermediate steps. These pathways can be clarified with the STEPS (Stressor-Ecological Production Function-Final Ecosystem Goods and Services) Framework and this can greatly aid in assigning value to decision options under consideration. • The FEGS Scoping Tool helps users identify and prioritize stakeholders, beneficiaries, and environmental attributes in a structured, transparent, repeatable process for selecting the more relevant environmental attributes for use as decision criteria in a larger decision context. • A complete set of beneficiary relevant metrics will help improve social analysis by ensuring a broad group of benefit classes is covered, which will facilitate communication of ecosystem changes in a way that is meaningful and salient to beneficiaries and decision makers. • Using social science methodologies, a new organizational framework has been developed to sort and classify data and identify ecosystem services collected through inductive methods like participant observation and document analysis. • Causal criteria analysis techniques can be used to help determine whether existing literature supports cause and effect relationships between ecosystem goods and services and human health (termed eco-health relationships). • A generalizable strategic communication framework can support the goals of strategic communication beyond simple transfer of information by focusing on the three interlinked pillars of message, audience, and vehicle that rests on the common foundation of clearly articulated communication goals. ------- Practical Strategies for Integrating a FEGS Approach into Community Decision Making Product Description The synthesis report entitled Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community Decision Making is the synthesis of recent place-based, community-scale ecosystem services studies conducted by the U.S. EPA. Citation: Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, R. de Jesus Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M. Harwell, J. Hoffman, CJ. Littles, J.M. Johnston, R.B. McKane, L. Green, M. Russell, L. Sharpe, N. Seeteram, A. Tashie, and K. Williams. (2017). Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/6GG/R-17/266. Background The concept of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) explicitly connects ecosystem services to the people that benefit from them. This report presents a number of practical strategies for incorporating FEGS, and more broadly ecosystem services, into the decision-making process. Whether a decision process is in early or late stages, or whether a process includes informal or formal decision analysis, there are multiple points where ecosystem services concepts can be integrated. Ecosystem services conceptual models help organize our thinking around how decisions and human actions lead to changes in ecosystem state and function, availability of ecosystem goods and services, and ultimately the human well-being benefits derived from them. While multiple ecosystem services conceptual models are available, each are tailored to specific practitioner needs, such as conducting ecosystem service assessments, linking ecosystem changes to economic valuation and cost benefit analysis, assessing social impacts, or completing cumulative trade-off analysis on multiple components of human well-being. Communities therefore need practical strategies for operationaiizing conceptual models of ecosystem services within their decision-making processes. Summary of Results This report presents numerous tools and approaches for integrating ecosystem services into decision making. Advantages of integrating ecosystem services concepts into values-focused thinking include implementing elements of Structured Decision Making (SDM), expanded stakeholder engagement, improved information collection and communication, creative development and evaluation of alternatives, interconnected decisions, and strategic thinking. Early consideration of ecosystem services can bring to light beneficiaries that might otherwise have been overlooked as stakeholders in the decision process. Making decisions based on what is important to stakeholders is the basis of values- focused decision making and is fundamentally distinct from the more common alternative-focused decision making. Objectives related to ecosystem services should be considered in the broader context of other stakeholder objectives. Information about stakeholder values helps to prioritize collection of 5 Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community Decision-Making ------- scientific information based on what is most relevant to decisions. Stating values explicitly promotes a more inclusive, transparent, and defensible process, which creates an environment for fostering options with better prospects for desired outcomes and minimal negative impacts. Ultimately, the concept of ecosystem services can facilitate decision making based on what stakeholders value, regardless of what tools are used. Conceptual models can be applied to quantitatively evaluate alternatives through the use of ecological production and benefit functions. They may need to be applied or developed to adequately estimate effects of alternatives on stakeholder objectives. The complexity of models needed depends on the level of uncertainty that decision makers are comfortable with incorporating into their processes. Tools such as objectives hierarchies and means-ends networks can help clarify what is meant by objectives. Structured conceptual models or hierarchies can provide a starting point for guiding discussions or providing examples. In some cases, measures of ecosystem services may be useful surrogates for what stakeholders value. In other cases, ecosystem services may provide a means to achieving other objectives, and may provide novel solutions to finding areas of agreement among stakeholders with a variety of different objectives. Structured decision analysis provides an approach for evaluating trade-offs in a way that encourages public participation and collaborative decision making, and allows for consideration of multiple attributes. Integrating the concept of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into decision making can help provide a direct link from environmental conditions to social and economic benefits, ensuring that key stakeholders, key objectives, and creative alternatives are not overlooked. Ultimately this will lead to more inclusive decision making that promotes more sustainable approaches to balancing the economic, environmental, and social trade-offs in decisions that communities face every day. List of Practical Strategies Examined • Apply FEGS concepts to explicitly connect EGS to people • Apply principles of Structured Decision Making that emphasize flexible approaches to FEGS • Incorporate EGS concepts at any point in the decision process • Use FEGS to identify beneficiaries as potential stakeholders • Use conceptual models as a scaffold to visualize cause and effect • Use objectives hierarchies to define what is important about FEGS • Use structured systems as a starting point to identify measurable objectives • Consider EGS as means to achieve stakeholders' objectives • Use structured paradigms to link EGS alternatives to broader objectives • Prioritize information and analysis to what is actually needed • Use conceptual models to visualize relationships • Quantify FEGS with ecological production functions • Let objectives drive the choice of methods for FEGS benefits analyses • Use decision support systems to organize and link FEGS analyses • Compare alternatives and gain insights with consequence tables • Consider tradeoffs in FEGS benefits relative to other kinds of objectives • Monitor impacts to FEGS benefits after a decision to inform future decisions 6 ------- Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: Human Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation Product Description The report entitled Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: Human Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation presents research on translating the provisioning of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) into community health and well-being. Whereas there is broad scientific consensus that ecosystems provide a wide diversity of benefits to the public, there is not broad consensus among researchers regarding the best way to determine the value of these benefits. In a series of studies, the report explores several multidisciplinary approaches to non- monetary FEGS valuation, consider what aspects of these approaches were successful, identify areas where the approach can be improved, and discuss important future research areas. Citation: Johnston, J.M., R. de Jesus Crespo, M.C. Harwell, C. Jackson, M. Myer, N. Seeteram, K. Williams, S. Yee, and J. Hoffman. (2017). Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: Human Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, EPA/600/R-17/309. Background This report provides a summary of three research projects: 1) an evaluation of the quality of scientific evidence associating green spaces with health benefits, along with ensuing research in San Juan, Puerto Rico; 2) a Health Impact Assessment of a Long Island sewering pilot program in Suffolk County, NY that revealed health benefits associated with control of sewage- and effluent-related EGS; and 3) a community case study that used ethnographic methods to characterize how a Great Lakes community values FEGS affected by aquatic ecosystem remediation and restoration. Although the approach presented in each study is distinct, a number of common findings emerged. First, ecosystem goods and services do factor into community decision making, and are important to communities and states. Second, ecosystem goods and services contribute to human health and well-being in many ways, and characterizing the entire pathway between ecosystem state and health is important to aid decision making. However, to improve the application of eco-health relationships in decision making, researchers need to address the whole pathway connecting FEGS to human health and well-being outcomes (whether directly or indirectly) Third, the ability to include and value FEGS in decision making can be improved by including approaches from the social and public health sciences such as HIA and ethnographic methods. These approaches can complement monetary valuation of FEGS, and can be used now to incorporate a wide range of community values related to FEGS, as well as their connection to human health and well-being (Figure 2). The three local, place-based studies presented in this report demonstrate how FEGS, benefits, and community values were brought into the conversation successfully and practically - including what worked well and what could be improved in the future. 7 ¦?/EPA Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: Human Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation SHC PROJECT 2.61 ------- Summary of Results The report concludes that a thorough documentation and understanding of the causal pathways between a community's decision, the FEGS that are involved, and the benefits that FEGS provide to people in the community, combined with an appropriate decision-support process, can contribute to decisions that result in healthier, more resilient communities. Public health and ethnographic methods and tools provide a variety of approaches to integrate human beings and their collective values into ecosystems, including urban and other developed systems. In the first study, it was found that the evidence linking EGS to human health mainly supports intermediate steps, and very few published studies address the entire pathway from ecosystem quality to disease. Specifically, multiple research needs were identified regarding eco-health linkages between green space and health. In the second study, a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) was used to evaluate how a proposed municipal code change regarding onsite sewage disposal systems in Suffolk County, New York might affect human health. This study demonstrates the use of HIA to identify FEGS and health impacts that were of interest and concern to the community as a tool for building mutual trust and understanding with the community. In the third study, researchers sought to understand how citizens, community groups, and a municipality (City of Duluth, Minnesota) value FEGS. Ethnographic methods were used to create a conceptual map of a neighborhood to identify and characterize the different values placed on an ecosystem and its services. The community model is a tool to facilitate translation of goals and values between resource agencies and communities. This report offers specific recommendations regarding how to conduct future research that addresses the link between FEGS, their value, and their benefit to communities. First, FEGS valuation should be conducted by an interdisciplinary team, including those with expertise in social science, public health, and ecology. Notably, researchers need to be aware that perspectives and language grounded in different disciplines can impede communication. The research team should plan how to manage and analyze multidisciplinary data, and establish a common terminology when working with conceptual models. Moreover, integration must be designed into both the research and decision support from the outset of project conception. Second, communities and states require access to, and support from, practitioners of social, economic, human health, and ecological sciences to make this a reality. These practitioners can build trust with stakeholders and decision makers by producing data with the community, and using a decision support process that is built upon concepts of transparency and equity. Expertise can be recruited from amongst the community's own staff, from universities and non-profit organizations, from industry, and also from federal staff, but each should be represented. Societal Elements Eco-Health Analyses (Causal-Criteria) Tool: Eco-Evidence Health Impact Analyses (Impact Assessments) Tool: HIA Pathway Diagramming Neighborhood-Scale Analyses (Ethnographic) Tool: Community Modeling Framework Figure 2. Examining the benefits from EGS to human health and well-being among ecosystem, societal, and human health elements. 8 ------- Model Application Niche Analysis: Assessing the Transferability and GeneralizabiIity of Ecological Models Product Description The journal article entitled Model application niche analysis: Assessing the transferability and generalizability of ecological models presents an approach that creates model performance curves and decision landscape plots to guide the model selection process when transferring an ecological model. Citation: Moon, J.B., T.H. DeWitt, M.N. Errend, R.J.F. Bruins, M.E. Kentula, S.J. Chamberlain, M.S. Fennessy, K.J. Naithani. 2017. Model application niche analysis: Assessing the transferability and generalizability of ecological models. Ecosphere 8(10). Background The use of models by ecologists and environmental managers to inform environmental management and decision making has grown exponentially in the past 50 years. Due to logistical, economical, and theoretical benefits, model users frequently transfer preexisting models to new sites where data are scarce. Models are always imperfect representations of systems and are constrained by the contextual frameworks used during their development. Thus, model users need better ways to evaluate the possibility of unintentional misapplication when transferring models to new sites. This journal article presents a methodology for describing a model's application niche for use during model selection. Summary of Results The methodology was demonstrated using an empirical model developed to predict the ecological condition of plant communities in wetlands. The model's transferability and generalizability was examined for: (1) riverine wetlands across the contiguous U.S.A. (spatial transfer); (2) wetland types within the Appalachian Highland physiographic region (organizational unit transfer); and (3) wetland types across the contiguous U.S.A. (spatial-organizational transfer). A model performance heat map can be used to simultaneously assess the spatial and organizational transferability of a model to evaluate a model's application niche across contextual dissimilarity gradients. The power of the methodology lies in its flexibility and ability to leverage pre-existing datasets (and/or model results) to inform the model selection process. This methodology can be used for both empirical (e.g., statistical, indices) and process-based models, where the model user chooses what contextual variables to assess, and what dissimilarity and validation metrics to use. An additional critical step in this methodology involves collecting and synthesizing quality validation data from model application sites across the contextual dimension(s) of interest. Validation data can be taken directly from the literature, when a model has already been transferred to application sites, or be calculated, by synthesizing information from databases, and/or previous studies, that contain predictor and response variables. This model transferability assessment methodology can be applied to models useful for predicting the stocks or production of ecosystem services, or other environmental models. 9 Mean Model Error NA 0 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 Spatial MD Index Modified from Moon et al. Ecosphere (2018). ------- Evaluation of the Use of FEGS in Regional Valuation Studies Product Description The Product entitled Evaluation of the use of FEGS in Regional Valuation Studies includes results from multiple manuscripts. As part of this Product, two journal articles published in 2017 explore a STEPS (Stressor-Ecological Production function-final ecosystem Services) Framework that links changes in a biological indicator of a stressor to final ecosystem services. Citations: Bell, M.D., J. Phelan, T.F. Blett, D. Landers, A.M. Nahlik, G. Van Houtven, C. Davis, C.M. Clark, and J. Hewitt. (2017). A framework to quantify the strength of ecological links between an environmental stressor and final ecosystem services. Ecosphere 8(5). O'Dea, C.B., S. Anderson, T. Sullivan, D. Landers, and C.F. Casey. (2017). Impacts to ecosystem services from aquatic acidification: Using FEGS-CS to understand the impacts of air pollution. Ecosphere 8(5). Background Two articles, Bell et al. (2017) and O'Dea et al. (2017), present a STEPS Framework. The STEPS framework produces "chains" of ecological components that explore the breadth of impacts resulting from the change in a stressor. Chains are comprised of the biological indicator, the ecological production function which uses ecological components to link the biological indicator to a final ecosystem service), and the user group who directly uses, appreciates, or values the component. The framework uses a qualitative score (high, medium, low) to describe the strength of science for the relationship between each component in the ecological production function. The Bell et al. (2017) study examines how stressors such as climate events, increased fire frequency, and pollution drive shifts in ecosystem function and resilience. Scientists generally rely on biological indicators of these stressors to signal that ecosystem conditions have been altered. However, these biological indicators are not always capable of being directly related to ecosystem components that provide benefits to humans and/or can be used to evaluate the cost-benefit of a change in health of the component (ecosystem services). The STEPS Framework was tested within a workshop setting using the exceedance of critical loads of air pollution as a model stressor, and the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) to describe final ecosystem services. The O'Dea et al. (2017) study examines how considerable effort has been invested into the development of critical loads of aquatic acidification, as well as effort into implementing this science into policy and land management. O'Dea et al. (2017) compiles, reviews, and characterizes the science underpinning connections between critical load exceedances and human beneficiaries of ecosystem goods and services in order to better communicate the relevance and importance of critical load exceedances to the general public, and organize and characterize the science for possible future economic efforts to conduct an ecosystem services valuation analysis. Specifically, the authors: (1) highlight the association 10 ECOSPHERE SPECIAL FEATURE: AIR QLAUTYAhffl EC0SYSTB1 SBV1CB Impacts to ecosystem services from aquatic acidification; using FEGSC5 to understand the impacts of air pollution CmmBODu.' Hwwr Suuws." Dbct, U«r\* «d Cfu* Gar Ecosphere SPECIAL FEATURE: AR QUALITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES A framework to quantify the strength of ecological links between an envirorenental stressor and final ecosvstem services kOMiaouM i if <»*< «i6e* ()k» <<<» Qi«l«)r ¦< in ]01h' ! j*xm ZTVIII\A ------- between exceedances of aquatic acidification critical loads with initial impacts to biological indicators; (2) identify and characterize the science surrounding the ecological chain reactions that occur following initial impacts to biological indicators; and (3) identify the impacted ecological endpoints valued by humans, as well as the human beneficiaries that are harmed by these impacts. Summary of Results The STEPS Framework can be adapted to any system in which a stressor is modifying a biological component. The results of the analysis can be used by the social science community to apply valuation measures to multiple or selected chains, providing a comprehensive analysis of the effects of anthropogenic stressors on measures of human well-being. Similarly, a separate FEGS-approach based framework can be applied to conducting end-to-end policy analysis. In the Bell et al. (2017) paper, researchers identified chains for four modes of ecological response to deposition: aquatic acidification, aquatic eutrophication, terrestrial acidification, and terrestrial eutrophication. The workshop participants identified 183 unique ecological production functions linking a change in a biological indicator to a FEGS, and a total of 1,104 chains when accounting for the multiple beneficiaries. Chains were identified with the highest confidence ranking, based on strength of science scores, as well as those where more research is needed. In the O'Dea et al. (2017) paper, an expert workgroup was convened to synthesize information on acidic deposition-induced aquatic acidification from the published literature and to link critical load exceedances with ecosystem services and beneficiaries, using the STEPS Framework and the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). Experts identified and documented the sensitive aquatic ecosystem ecological endpoints valued by humans, and the environmental pathways through which these endpoints may experience degradation in response to acidification. Beneficiary groups were then identified for each sensitive ecological endpoint to clarify relationships between humans and the effects of aquatic acidification, and to lay the foundation for future research and analysis to value these FEGS. Aquatic acidification occurring as a result of atmospheric deposition, and associated with the exceedance of critical loads of aquatic acidification, impacts a variety of freshwater aquatic ecosystem components, such as aquatic vegetation, aquatic insects, crayfish, shellfish, brook trout, bass, otters, mink, and loons. These components can negatively impact other ecosystem components, creating a cascade of negative ecosystem effects. These effects were documented in the ecological production functions, along with a qualitative assessment (strength of science scores) of the current evidence supporting each link. The researchers identify a demonstrative, but not exhaustive list of ecosystem goods and services that humans care about and that would be impacted by aquatic acidification via the ecological production functions. They also identify a list of the human groups that likely place value on these FEGS. This information can allow researchers to better communicate the meaning and implications of critical load exceedances, and to identify the appropriate audiences for this information. 11 ------- How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods and Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and Revitalization Projects Product Description The report entitled How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods and Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and Revitalization Projects presents results from an EPA ORD Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences (RESES) research project focused on understanding the relationships between Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC)1 restoration and adjacent communities from an ecosystem goods and services perspective. Citation: Williams, K., J. Hoffman, D. Bolgrien, T. Angradi, J. Carlson, R. Clarke, A. Fulton, H. Timm-Bijold, M. MacGregor, A. Trebitz, and S. Witherspoon, (2017). Mow the community value of ecosystem goods and services empowers communities to impact the outcomes of remediation, restoration, and revitalization projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. ORD-023046. Background The U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office uses the term "Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R)" to characterize the process of remediating contaminated sediments and restoring aquatic habitat to help revitalize coastal communities. This question is important because there are 43 AOC areas in the U.S. and Canada that either have in the past, or currently, fail to meet the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The R2R2R approach is a place-based practice that requires ongoing communication amongst agencies, local governments, and citizens. In order to understand the dynamics of R2R2R, data were collected between June 2015 and December 2016 and analyzed through content analysis as part of a RESES project in order to better understand the relationships between AOC restoration and adjacent communities. Objectives include: 1) Determining how communities (both local governments and citizens) perceive and value EGS, as expressed through routine activities. 2) Determining how EGS or human well-being is incorporated or utilized in the various associated planning and community outreach processes, including EPA and state agency programs, local planning, and agency decision tools. 3) Applying findings from this research to create guidance strategies for AOC communities to demonstrate how EGS can be used to advance community revitalization following sediment remediation and aquatic habitat restoration projects. The ultimate goal is to illustrate how knowledge of EGS or human well-being could be used to facilitate two-way knowledge exchange between agencies, community decision makers, and scientists. 1 An Area of Concern is a "An AOC is a geographic area designated by the Parties where significant impairment of beneficial uses has occurred as a result of human activities at the local level" (Government of Canada and Government of the United States of America 2012). https://binational.net/7wp- content/uploads/2014/05/1094 Canada-USA-GLWQA- e.pdf. 12 SERA How the community value of ecosystem goods and services empowers communities to impact the outcomes of remediation, restoration, and revitalization projects RESES FINAL REPORT ------- Summary of Results Participant observation was conducted at AOC management, St. Louis River Habitat Committee, City of Duluth St. Louis River Technical Advisory Committee, and City of Duluth St. Louis River Corridor park planning public meetings, as well as community group meetings. In addition to regular attendance at meetings and document analysis, ongoing consultation with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, City of Duluth, and USEPA Region 5 and Great Lakes National Program Office officials provided opportunities for consideration of partner research interests, as well as dissemination of findings. Themes that emerged in the analysis as forces that shaped decisions, participation and the inclusion of stakeholders and the public values were: disconnected and isolated decision contexts; variable opportunities for citizen input; opportunities to share knowledge embedded in practical settings; an educational approach to reducing barriers; and the importance of boundary spanning. Because both tools and people are important to spanning institutional and thematic boundaries, a framework was developed to sort and classify data and identify ecosystem services collected through inductive methods like participant observation and document analysis These categories reflect the relationship people have with the environment. Sustainability or resilience Aesthetics These categories reflect the neighborhood attributes with which people most engage. Parks or public spaces Neighborhood or spatial unit of analysis Safety These categories reflect the personal attachments to self, community, and identity that might motivate action. Trails or connections Participation Housing Identity or place attachment Infrastructure Natural features Schools or education Economy Local businesses Social cohesion Governance or rules Anchor institutions Demographics Crime The structural dimensions of the community that shape how people and organizations navigate their neighborhood. Physical environment is in this category Figure 3). Figure 3. A Community Model framework to organize the collection of data and information from inductive methods such as participant observation and document analysis. The framework emerged from the analysis includes neighborhood components that individuals, organizations, agencies, and local governments may discuss in the context of a physical space. The characteristics included in the tool are a mix of built environment types, structural dimensions, personal experiences, and human-environment relationships and include: parks/open spaces; trails or connections; housing; schools; infrastructure; local businesses; macro-economy; natural features; governmental rules or regulations; demographics/crime statistics/health care facilities; safety; self- determination or participation; identity; social cohesion; sustainability; and aesthetics. This framework is intended to be utilized as a "decoder ring" to interpret distinct values, and facilitate communication or comparison across boundaries of experience or responsibility. 13 ------- Eco-Health Linkages: Assessing the Role of Ecosystem Goods and Services on Human Health using Causal Criteria Analyses Product Description The journal article entitled Eco-Health linkages: Assessing the role of ecosystem goods and services on human health using causal criteria analyses provides an analysis of the literature examining relationships between ecosystem goods and services and human health (termed eco- health relationships). Citation: de Jesus Crespo, R. and R. Fulford. (2017). Eco-Health linkages: Assessing the role of ecosystem goods and services on human health using causal criteria analyses. International Journal of Public Health. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-017-1020-3. Background Where the emerging body of literature relating EGS to human health has been compiled in review articles and captured in interactive tools, such as U.S. EPA's Eco-Health Relationship Browser, the literature to date do not necessarily support causality, but rather focus on establishing plausible associations. There are few papers tracing the full pathways from ecosystem, to EGS processes, to health outcomes, which further limit the ability to demonstrate causality. This paper uses causal criteria analysis to determine whether the existing literature supports cause and effect relationships between green spaces, its effects on buffering ecosystem goods and services, and the impact on human diseases. Summary of Results The evidence directly linking green spaces to health includes papers on respiratory conditions, heat morbidity, and cardiovascular disease. This study found sufficient support for the role of green spaces in reducing heat morbidities and cardiovascular disease. The evidence linking green spaces to respiratory illness was inconsistent; most of the inconsistencies were associated with the response of asthma and/or allergies to green space cover. No papers were found associating green spaces with Gl disease. Green spaces are causally linked to clean water and water hazard mitigation. There was sufficient evidence linking clean water and water hazard mitigation to Gl disease. The authors did not find studies addressing direct linkage between green space and Gl disease, even though there is sufficient evidence supporting intermediate processes leading to this association. There was support for the role of green spaces in water hazard mitigation and clean air. The evidence linking water hazards to respiratory illness was less clear. From the studies assessing linkage between clean air and respiratory illness, those using asthma as a response showed inconsistent evidence for causality, likely due to the types of indicators used to measure cause and effect. The study found inconsistent evidence linking green spaces to asthma and allergies. The authors found inconsistent evidence for the link between clean air and cardiovascular disease, but found support for a direct link between greenspace and cardiovascular disease. The link between green spaces and heat hazard mitigation is unequivocal, both for direct health outcomes and for the intermediate steps. In terms of management for heat hazard mitigation, the amount of green space is the most important factor, but there are other design considerations. 14 Ktii'lirallh Ihtkiiues: uv.rv.1111: tlir mlr id iimnlriii ismmK and »rnir« ml hunt.ill Ita-allh uunj> t'lilKOl irilrria anahsU ------- Spatiotemporal Modeling of Ecological and Sociological Predictors of West Nile Virus in Suffolk County, NY, Mosquitoes Product Description The journal article entitled Spatiotemporal modeling of ecological and sociological predictors of West Nile virus in Suffolk County, NY, mosquitoes examines the connections between West Nile virus presence and ecosystem functions and services from open water and wetlands in Suffolk County. Citation: Myer, M.H., S.R. Campbell, and J.M. Johnston. (2017). Spatiotemporal modeling of ecological and sociological predictors of West Nile virus in Suffolk County, NY, mosquitoes. Ecosphere 8(6). Background An estimated 74% of housing units in Suffolk County, Long Island, are not served by a sewer system. Septic and cesspool systems contribute to nitrogen pollution of the aquifer and are also known to provide a predator-free and sheltered habitat for mosquito breeding. West Nile virus (WNV) is an arbovirus, vectored by mosquitoes, and is an emerging health threat in the United States. Myer et al. (2017) used a Bayesian approach to fit a spatiotemporal model of WNV infection rates in Suffolk County. Summary of Results By utilizing easily obtained covariates from public data sources along with a county-provided mosquito trapping dataset, Myer et al. (2017) presents a model that can be used by local municipalities to prioritize and target WNV-preventive efforts. The authors found that land cover classified as open water and woody wetlands had a negative association with WNV incidences in mosquitoes, and the count of septic systems was associated with an increase in WNV. Model results confirm the results of previous studies in the region, and uncover a positive association between septic systems and WNV that was previously seen only in the tropics. In addition to informing traditional research in disease ecology and human health studies on rare events, the study identifies important connections between West Nile virus and ecosystem services associated with wetlands with important land-use management implications. The study confirms previously found associations between weather conditions and WNV and suggests that wetland cover has a mitigating effect on WNV infection in mosquitoes, while high septic system density is associated with an increase in WNV infection. A robust set of models for predicting WNV prevalence in vectors and reservoir hosts will contribute to identification of potential hotspots before outbreaks occur, allowing preventive action to be taken. The presence of woody wetlands, and to a smaller degree, emergent herbaceous wetlands, had a negative association with WNV infection, in agreement with earlier work that found a similar association in the northeastern United States. Further, the authors propose that non-seasonal wetlands can function much like permanent open water areas in reducing the number of endemic transmission events between birds and mosquitoes by providing greater habitat area and reducing overall population density. 15 CM ECOSPHERE SpjUotempk*j1 modeling ol cvulopfjl jtftd topological pn-dnlors erf Wtst Nile vtni> in Suffolk County. NY, moMpiiton ------- National and Regional FEGS Metrics and Indicators Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) have been embraced as a means to identify biophysical features that best link ecosystem changes to human well-being (Boyd et. 2016). Metrics and indicators that describe the state of FEGS to non-experts and beneficiaries with salience and meaning are necessary for effective communication and social analysis. Definition of these metrics requires the integration of expertise from researchers familiar with particular ecosystems and the diverse ways in which people directly interact with, and benefit from, these ecosystems. A methodology that strives to achieve this result through the development of beneficiary specific metrics and indicators, was initially developed for stream ecosystems Ringold et al. 2009, Ringold et al. 2011). Subsequent work has focused on expanding FEGS metrics and indicators for other ecosystem types, including wetlands, estuaries, forests, agro-ecosystems, lakes, and streams. In 2016, a FEGS workshop was conducted to: 1) define biophysical metrics and indicators that are more directly relevant to human welfare and experience (i.e., FEGS); 2) identify the gaps preventing scientists from defining welfare relevant biophysical measures; and 3) review and refine a proposed methodology to support the development of welfare relevant metrics and indicators. Twenty-two natural and social scientists provided expertise for development of metrics and indicators of ecosystem services for each ecosystem type as well as overall expertise on metric and indicator development from both social science and natural science perspectives. This research on advancing the science on FEGS metric and indicator identification (Figure 4), concludes: • While FEGS are meant to capture "final ecological" outcomes, the boundary between what is "ecological" and "not ecological" can be murky. • Pathogens and contaminants in ecosystems impact humans, but there is some confusion about how to represent them as FEGS. • Reliably measuring aesthetics is necessary to examine these FEGS, but current data sets on aesthetics are few, and issues relating to how to measure and define aesthetics persist. • Data sets are often not available to measure the FEGS attributes of interest. • There has been some confusion about how beneficiaries extrapolate out to population-level analysis in a way that avoids double counting. • Translation of available metrics into something meaningful to beneficiaries might be affected by the beneficiary type, expectations, and intended usage. • Further guidance on non-use values is needed to identify a finite list of metrics that reflect non- use values. • The intended purpose of the metrics and indicators should determine whether a multi-metric index, or individual component metric is used. 1. Identify Beneficiaris ~ 2. Identify Attributes ~ 3. Identify Desired Metrics ~ 4. Identify Available Metrics ~ 5.Translation • Classiciation • Reporting D 6. Identify Barriers Figure 4. Outline of proposed methodology for FEGS metric and indicator identification. 16 ------- Staging FEGS for Coordinated Case Studies The Final Ecosystem Goods arid Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool (Figure 5) is a decision-support tool designed to be used at an early stage of decision making, when decision-makers are aware a decision needs to be made, but before any actions are taken. The tool helps users identify and prioritize stakeholders, beneficiaries, and environmental attributes in a structured, transparent, repeatable process. The relevant and meaningful attributes can then be used to evaluate decision alternatives. ////s,y FEGS Classification System I Stakeholder prioritization literature The FEGS Scoping Tool has three elements that build upon each other: stakeholder prioritization, beneficiary profile development, and key attribute identification. The stakeholder prioritization steps focuses on: review and weight of stakeholder prioritization criteria; identify stakeholder groups; and score those stakeholder groups on the prioritization criteria. The beneficiary profile development component focuses on identifying the beneficiary groups making up each stakeholder group to develop a prioritized set of beneficiaries and a beneficiary profile for the decision context. The key attribute identification component focuses on identifying the ecosystem attributes of concern for each beneficiary type to develop a prioritized set of environmental attributes. The tool was designed to be easily transferable among a wide range of decision-makers to be used in the scoping phase for any decision with an environmental context. The goal of the FEGS Scoping Tool is to provide a transparent, repeatable, defendable approach for selecting the more relevant environmental attributes for use as decision criteria in that larger decision. The FEGS Scoping Tool is currently being tested by various internal audiences within the EPA. It is expected that the first publicly available version of the tool will complete development by the end of FY18 and will, at that point, begin the clearance process to be made available for use outside the EPA. FEGS Scoping Tool Stakeholder Prioritization Beneficiary Profile © Key Attribute Identification Figure 5. The FEGS Scoping Tool is built upon three elements: stakeholder prioritization, beneficiary profile, and key attribute identification. 17 ------- SHC Project 2.61 Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Strategic Communication Plan The goals of a strategic communication effort may go beyond simple transfer of information; those communicating may want to achieve other ends such as changes in behavior or increased support. Implementing a strategic communication approach can be an effective way to communicate with stakeholders about the results and conclusions of a scientist's research (Barker 2006). A strategic communication program recognizes the limitations of the most common communication models (e.g., "one size fits all", "presenting everything and letting the audience decide what is important", and "thinking that communication ends once the information has been presented") and specifically focuses on building a communication framework 1. Set Project Goals and Objectives 2. Set Communication Goals 3. Identify Audience(s) 4. Develop Messages 5. Select Vehicles 6. Define Metrics for Success 7. Implement Plan 8. Monitor & Evaluate Steps 2-6 can be done by using a Strategic Communication Matrix Figure 6. Generalizable Strategic Communication Conceptual Framework using a Strategic Communication Matrix. that is composed of three interlinked pillars - message (the "what" of a message), audience (the "who"), and vehicle (the "how") - resting on the common foundation of clearly articulated communication goals (the "why" of a communication effort). Traditionally, the work of strategic communication has been done by individuals and organizations other than those conducting the basic research. Scientists need to recognize that crafting a science message involves describing the content and context, both of which are dependent on the type of audience and how the message is communicated. Identifying the right target group for a given communication goal, developing the right message for achieving that goal, and selecting the right vehicle for delivering that message, allows scientists to convey information about a science message and its context. The three interlinked pillars of message, audience, and vehicle, resting on the common foundation of clearly articulated communication goals, form the core of a generalizable strategic communication framework (Figure 6). A strategic communication matrix is also presented as one way to implement a plan (Table 1). The ORD Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Project is working on an effort to tailor communication guidance, using the elements of strategic communication, for a group typically charged with producing information for others to communicate. 18 ------- Table 1. Example template of a Strategic Communication Matrix. This matrix can be expanded or collapsed based on project needs to include as many communication goals, audiences, messages, vehicles, and metrics are necessary to aid in accomplishing a project goal. Project Goal Insert Proiect Goal 1 here. This template can be adiusted to fit vour project needs based on the identified Proiect Goal. Project Sub- Goals Insert Proiect Sub-Goal 1 here. This is the first sub-eoal necessary in aidine and accomplishine Proiect Goal 1. Communication Goals Insert Communication Goal 1 here. This is the first communication eoal necessary in aiding and accomplishing Sub-Goal 1. Ask 'what are you trying to achieve?' Insert Communication Goal 2 here. This is the second communication soal necessary in aiding and accomplishing Sub-Goal 1. Ask 'what are you trying to achieve?' Audiences Insert Audience 1 here. This is the first group targeted to achieve Communication Goal 1. Insert Audience 2 here. This is the second group targeted to achieve Communication Goal 1. Insert Audience 1 here. This is the first group targeted to achieve Communication Goal 2. Insert Audience 2 here. This is the second group targeted to achieve Communication Goal 2. Messages Insert list of messaees here. These messages are appropriate in aiding and accomplishing Communication Goal 1 and are specific to the targeted group identified as Audience 1. Insert list of messaees here. These messages are appropriate in aiding and accomplishing Communication Goal 1 and are specific to the targeted group identified as Audience 2. Insert list of messaees here. These messaees are appropriate in aidine and accomplishing Communication Goal 2 for both Audience 1 and Audience 2 and are specific to the targeted groups identified as Audience 1 & 2. Vehicles Insert a list of vehicles here that is specific to Audience 1 and their messages. Insert a list of vehicles here that is specific to Audience 2 and their messages. Insert a list of vehicles here that is specific to Audience 1 & 2 and their messages. Metrics Insert a list of metrics for success. These metrics aid in monitoring and evaluating the success of communicating Communication Goal 1 with Audience 1. Insert a list of metrics for success. These metrics aid in monitoring and evaluating the success of communicating Communication Goal 1 with Audience 2. Insert a list of metrics for success. These metrics aid in monitorine and evaluating the success of communicating Communication Goal 2 with Audience 1 & 2. 19 ------- Managed Vocabulary for use of Ecosystem Goods and Services in Decision Making In general, there is a need for standardized vocabulary to improve collaboration and information sharing within and among different scientific disciplines (Salafsky et al. 2008). A term may have different meanings for different disciplines, so it is important for a research project to establish understandable definitions when referring to a certain term, and keep up-to-date with the latest terms. Additionally, recognizing the importance of consistent use of terminology, the definition of a given term needs to be understandable by multiple users representing different disciplines (Villa et al. 2017). In the field of ecosystem services, it is important to provide a common understanding of ecosystem services studies and research results to advance ecosystem services research, better inform policy making, and promote collaboration and communication between disciplines (Munns et al. 2015). The growing field of ecosystem services science includes a large range of disciplines and practitioners. The ORD research efforts on ecosystem services include sub-disciplines in the natural, health, and social sciences (Figure 7). Munns et al. (2015a) provided a starting place for standardizing ecosystem services terminology with the recognition that definitions would continue to evolve (e.g., many definitions from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2009) have been expanded/enhanced as the field of ecosystem services has evolved). The ORD Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services research project is expanding beyond the core elements of ecosystem services to incorporate vocabulary from overlapping disciplines and is working to provide a standard, managed vocabulary for natural and social scientists to agree on common and useful vocabulary for the use of ecosystem services in decision- making. By developing standardized ES terminology, scientists and decision-makers can better collaborate and communicate how to measure, quantify, and value ecosystem services in a reliable and repeatable manner (Landers and Nahlik 2013). Economics Ecosystem Goods and Services Human/Public Health Ecosystem Services Decision Science Communicatio Geography Benefits Human Weil-Being Place-Based Studies Strategic Communication Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Ecological Production Functions Figure 7. Conceptual diagram showing the science of ecosystem services that includes a suite of related disciplines (petals) and related concepts (boxes). 20 ------- References Barker, S. (2006). Environmental Communication in Context. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(6):328-329. Bell, M.D., J. Phelan, T.F. Blett, D. Landers, A.M. Nahlik, G. Van Houtven, C. Davis, C.M. Clark, and J. Hewitt. (2017). A framework to quantify the strength of ecological links between an environmental stressor and final ecosystem services. Ecosphere 8(5). de Jesus Crespo, R. and R. Fulford. (2017). Eco-Health linkages: Assessing the role of ecosystem goods and services on human health using causal criteria analyses. International Journal of Public Health. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-017-1020-3. Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America. (2012). Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Accessed 10, August 2017 from https://binational.net//wp- content/uploads/2014/05/1094_Canada-USA-GLWQA-_e.pdf. Johnston, J.M., R. de Jesus Crespo, M.C. Harwell, C. Jackson, M. Myer, N. Seeteram, K. Williams, S. Yee, and J. Hoffman. (2017). Valuing Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: Human Health and Ethnographic Approaches as Complements to Economic Valuation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, EPA/600/R-17/309. Moon, J.B., T.H. DeWitt, M.N. Errend, R.J.F. Bruins, M.E. Kentula, S.J. Chamberlain, M.S. Fennessy, K.J. Naithani. (2017). Model application niche analysis: Assessing the transferability and generalizability of ecological models. Ecosphere 8(10). Munns, Jr., W.R., A. Rea, M.J. Mazzotta, L.A. Wainger, and K. Saterson. (2015). Toward a standard lexicon for ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management ll(4):666-673. Myer, M.H., S.R. Campbell, and J.M. Johnston. (2017). Spatiotemporal modeling of ecological and sociological predictors of West Nile virus in Suffolk County, NY, mosquitoes. Ecosphere 8(6). O'Dea, C.B., S. Anderson, T. Sullivan, D. Landers, and C.F. Casey. (2017). Impacts to ecosystem services from aquatic acidification: Using FEGS-CS to understand the impacts of air pollution. Ecosphere 8(5). Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A.J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S.H.M. Butchart, B. Collen, N. Cox, L.L. Master, and S. O'Connor. (2008). A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22(4):897-911. Villa, F., Balba, S., Athanasiadis, I.N., and C. Caraccilo. (2017). Semantics for interoperability of distributed data and models: Foundations for better-connected information. FlOOOResearch (6):686. Williams, K., J. Hoffman, D. Bolgrien, T. Angradi, J. Carlson, R. Clarke, A. Fulton, H. Timm-Bijold, M. MacGregor, A. Trebitz, and S. Witherspoon. (2017). How the community value of ecosystem goods and services empowers communities to impact the outcomes of remediation, restoration, and revitalization projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. ORD-023046. Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, R. de Jesus Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M. 21 ------- Harwell, J. Hoffman, C.J. Littles, J.M. Johnston, R.B. McKane, L. Green, M. Russell, L. Sharpe, N. Seeteram, A. Tashie, and K. Williams. (2017). Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-17/266. Acknowledgements This report could not have been prepared without the support of the SHC 2.61 Integration, Synthesis and Strategic Communication Task leadership team for their valuable contributions to the Project (Matt Harwell, NHEERL/GED; Ted DeWitt, NHEERL/WED; Marc Russell, NHEERL/GED; Paul Ringold, NHEERL/WED; Randy Bruins, NERL/SED; Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, NERL/SED; John Johnston, NERL/CED; Rich Fulford, NHEERL/GED; Susan Yee, NHEERL/GED; Bob McKane, NHEERL/WED; Joel Hoffman, NHEERL/MED; Tim Canfield, NRMRL/GWERD). Additional report content contributions came from Project team members identified as co-authors on the numerous project deliverables summarized in this report. Tammy Newcomer-Johnson and Mike Lewis served as additional reviewers for this report. Photos on cover page courtesy of U.S. EPA. Notice and Disclaimer The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development (ORD) funded and collaborated in the research described herein. This document has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement or recommendation for use. This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. The citation for this report is: Harwell1, M.C. and C. Jackson2. FY17 Output (2018) - SHC 2.61.2 Practical Strategies for Assessing Final Ecosystem Goods and Services in Community Decision Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-18/183. 1 U.S Environmental Protection Agency, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL. 2 Student Services Contractor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NHEERL, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL. 22 ------- Appendix A: SHC 2.61 Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Project Overview Background In the complex arena of sustainability, where the costs of failure can be high and stakeholders have multiple and sometimes conflicting interests, communities need measurement tools to characterize their current state, develop meaningful goals and quantifiable objectives for the future, understand the consequences of alternative investment strategies, track their progress, and confirm that their investments are yielding the intended results. The Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program outlines the Office of Research and Development's role in achieving U.S. EPA's objectives for cleaning up communities, making a visible difference in communities, and working toward a sustainable future. It was developed with considerable input and support from partners within U.S. EPA Program and Regional offices, as well as from outside stakeholders such as community leaders, other federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and colleagues across the scientific community. It includes research and development to generate and provide access to environmental science on health, well-being, and the environment, and to place that science in the context of the critical decisions facing communities (Figure 8). Ecosystem services research under ORD's SHC Research Program addresses: (1) how to estimate current production of ecosystem goods and services, given the type and condition of ecosystems; (2) how ecosystem services contribute to human health and well-being; and (3) how the production and benefits of these ecosystem services may be reduced or augmented under various decision scenarios and in response to regional conditions. Sustainable & Healthy Communities Research Program Community-Based Human Health Remediation/Restoration of Contaminated Sites; Materials Management i Transdisciplinary Integration Understanding Causal Relationships Between Human Health, Ecosystems and Well-being Data Bases, Tools, Models, Interoperability, and Assessments J SYSTEMS APPROACH to ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY Total Resource Impacts & Outcomes (TRIO) Applied to Decisions Affecting Communities Figure 8. The SHC research and development program conceptual model (Plan Years 2016-2019). Research and development conducted under SHC is intended to inform and empower decision makers to equitably weigh and integrate human health, socio-economic, environmental, and ecological factors to foster sustainability in the built and natural environments. The primary focus of SHC is on developing 23 ------- tools and approaches to help local decision makers understand the effects of alternative policies and actions on sustainability. The SHC 2.61 Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Project uses scientific knowledge of ecosystem services, economics, and human health to promote community well-being and maintain or restore high environmental quality. Research in SHC 2.61 focuses on: 1) the specification, classification, measurement, and modeling of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS; those components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being); 2) linkages of delivery of FEGS to beneficiaries within communities (including to members of vulnerable populations); 3) measurement of the benefits of FEGS with particular attention to human health and human well-being endpoints; 4) examination of the effects of climate and other co-occurring stressors on the production and delivery of FEGS; and 5) linkages of this research to EnviroAtlas and other decision support tools. SHC Project 2.61 involves the development and integration of these research elements, in part, through the utilization of coordinated case studies for conducting research to help inform communities about making decisions with sustainable outcomes, and assess the transferability of FEGS-based decision support tools to other locations. Project Goals and Research The overall structure for the SHC 2.61 Project is outlined in Figure 9. Practical applications of incorporating ecosystem services science into community sustainability activities requires an evaluation of the decision context for that particular activity. Clarifying the decision context is critical to bring focus to a problem and define the scope of information that will be needed. Establishing ecosystem services concepts within a decision context is thus a crucial step that helps both scientists and stakeholders to identify and prioritize the information necessary to support decision making. Examples of community issues for which ecosystem services assessments were performed include watershed management, climate resiliency, development of resource sustainability plans, water quality regulation, and land-use development. Outlining the Decision Context Helps • Frame the problem • Bring clarity to the scope and bounds of decision-making capabilities • Prioritize information needs • Focus on, and more effectively evaluate, the most relevant potential tradeoffs 24 ------- Final EGS Task EPFs Task Benefits I Task Coordinated Case . Studies Task Integratioj ' Health & Economic Endpomts Policy or Stressor Human Well-being Ecosystem Goods and Services Ecological V-.. Production .r Functions ^ (EPFs) Ecological Benefit Function Figure 9. SHC 2.61 Project Structure showing integration of ecosystem services related research across the Project. The structure of SHC 2.61 (Figure 9) allows for the decision context to be articulated at multiple parts of the process, whether setting the stage for characterizing the actions/decisions, shaping the types of beneficiaries, and thus the relevant final ecosystem goods and services metrics to be studied, or understanding the human health and well-being endpoints that ecosystem services assessments can help inform at a given case study location. Research activities across five Tasks in SHC 2.61 have been completed to accomplish the goals related to the FY 17 Output for this Project: SHC 2.61 Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Tasks 2.61.1 Integration, Synthesis and Strategic Communication 2.61.2 Final Ecosystem Goods and Services 2.61.3 Ecological Production Functions for Quantifying Final Ecosystem Goods and Services 2.61.4 National and Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services 2.61.5 Coordinated Case Studies 2.61.1 Integration, Synthesis and Strategic Communication (Matthew Harwell NHEERL/GED) The scope of the Integration, Synthesis, and Strategic Communication (ISSC) Task includes the facilitation, internal coordination, and external dissemination of results of original research that utilize connections between community decisions, stressors, production functions, FEGS, and benefits. 25 ------- 2.61.2 Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (Paul Ringold NHEERL/WED) Final ecosystem goods and services, or FEGS, are aspects of ecosystems that directly affect human well- being. The scope of the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Task includes: identification of metrics and indicators of FEGS for multiple environmental classes and individual communities; identification of a FEGS approach that supports a complete national FEGS system; and the development and testing of methods for transferring metrics and indicators of FEGS among places and ecosystems. 2.61.3 Ecological Production Functions for Quantifying Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (Tammy Newcomer-Johnson NERL/SED; Randall Bruins (retired) NERL/SED) Ecological production functions, or EPFs, are mathematical representations (i.e., models) of the production of ecosystem goods and services. The scope of the Ecological Production Functions for Quantifying Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (EPF) Task is to: develop approaches and tools for helping communities find or develop the ecological production functions (and associated data) needed to inform their decisions; provide an overview of existing and needed EPFs; and further develop, adapt, and utilize an existing online EcoService Models Library to address the needs of Coordinated Case Studies and other aspects of the Project. 2.61.4 National and Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (John M. Johnston NERL/CED) The scope of the National and Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (Benefits) Task focuses on how the benefits of FEGS are delivered to different populations through: supporting primary and secondary benefits studies involving community-based preferences and values for natural resources; identification of opportunities in the Coordinated Case Studies Task to conduct quantitative modeling of FEGS and their benefits to human health outcomes; and provide a beneficiary perspective on advancing Eco-Health relationships. 2.61.5 Coordinated Case Studies (Richard Fulford NHEERL/GED) The scope of the Coordinated Case Studies (CCS) Task is to develop approaches and test the utility of FEGS concepts within community-level structured decision making. This will be done through a national coordinated study designed to address how transferable a FEGS approach to decision support is across different water resources and climate resiliency related issues and different community types. The work is conducted across a series of community-based case studies sharing several common elements: a set of methods to identify decision contexts, metrics and indicators of FEGS for relevant beneficiaries; models to estimate production of those FEGS, including the impacts of stressors; and resulting benefits to human health and well-being. This task also tests the utility of decision support tools for facilitating these methods across community types and decision contexts. The five case study locations are San Juan, Puerto Rico, Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes Region, Coastal Gulf of Mexico, and Southern Plains Watersheds. More information about the individual Coordinated Case Studies are presented in Appendix B. 26 ------- Appendix B: Coordinated Case Studies There are five Coordinated Case Studies (CCS) within the ORD Community-Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services project. The CCS are applying principles of structured decision making to develop approaches and tools to integrate ecosystem goods and services (EGS) concepts into community-level decision making. SHC 2.61.5 Coordinated Case Studies Task 2.61.5a San Juan, Puerto Rico (Susan Yee NHEERL/GED) 2.61.5b Pacific Northwest (Bob McKane NHEERL/WED) 2.61.5c Great Lakes (Joel Hoffman NHEERL/MED) 2.61.5d Gulf of Mexico (Rich Fulford NHEERL/GED) 2.61.5e Southern Plains (Tim Canfield NRMRL/GWERD) An overview of each CCS is presented below, including a description of the ecosystem services related issues at each CCS, the research approaches involved, objectives and measures of success of ecosystem services focused research, and impact of the CCS work are presented below. San Juan, Puerto Rico Coordinated Case Study Figure 10. San Jose Lagoon, San Juan, Puerto Rico (Source: U.S. EPA). Issue The San Juan Bay Estuary watershed, Puerto Rico, is a predominately urban watershed comprising a number of freshwater, estuarine, and coastal ecosystems. Watershed management decisions (e.g., dredging canals, restoration of mangrove buffers, and sewage discharge interventions) are being implemented to target priority pressures (e.g., urbanization, aquatic debris, habitat loss, stormwater runoff, sewage discharges, and flooding) that affect the condition of the estuary, as well as associated terrestrial and coastal ecosystems. The goal of this case study is to develop tools and approaches to investigate the potential impacts of alternative watershed management decisions on ecosystem services and their social and economic benefits to the greater San Juan community. Potential impacts on vulnerable populations (e.g., children, 27 ------- impoverished urban neighborhoods) will be investigated, as well as the broader context of ongoing economic issues and population decline throughout the island (Figures 10, 11, and 12). Research Approach Research in this case study follows a five-step structured decision-making framework with high potential for transferability to other communities within estuarine watersheds, and communities in general: 1. Clarify the decision context. Document reviews and stakeholder engagement are being applied to: a) identify key stakeholder and beneficiary groups; b) identify key economic, social, health, and environmental concerns of stakeholders; c) develop conceptual models linking decisions to ecosystems to benefits; and d) identify areas of research to reduce key uncertainties. The case study is investigating the applicability of systems-thinking frameworks (e.g., Driver-Pressure- State-Impact-Response [DPSIR]) and decision analysis support tools (e.g., Decision Analysis for Sustainable Economy, Environment, Society [DASEES]). 2. Characterize community sustainabilitv goals and identify metrics to quantify key economic, social, and environmental concerns. This research is engaging key stakeholders and reviewing existing planning documents to identify the priority ecosystem services endpoints relevant to watershed management. Emphasis will be on characterizing potential shared benefits or tradeoffs. The relevance of metrics in the FEGS Classification System (FEGS-CS), EnviroAtlas, Rapid Benefits Indicators (RBI), and the Human Weil-Being Index (HWBI) is being investigated. 3. Develop data, information, and models to link decision scenarios and stressors to impacts on ecosystem services. Researchers are reviewing methods for quantifying ecosystem services production (ecological production functions [EPFs]), drawing from the EcoService Models Library (ESML) where applicable. Relevant ecosystem services include flood mitigation, aesthetic and recreational opportunities, water quality regulation, and carbon sequestration. Researchers are collecting field data to characterize carbon storage and anthropogenic nitrogen flow through the estuarine system. 4. Develop data, information, and models to link decision scenarios and stressors to impacts on human health and well-being. Scientists are reviewing and developing methods for quantifying benefits derived from ecosystem services (ecological benefits functions [EBFs]). These include human health, economic benefits, and human well-being. The case study is investigating the Eco-Health Relationship Browser, Health Impact Assessments (HIA), and the HWBI as potential frameworks for linking ecosystem services to human health and well-being. Researchers are collecting field data linking flooding and water quality to impacts on asthma and vector-borne illnesses. 5. Integrate data, information, and models into a spatially-explicit modeling framework to evaluate tradeoffs under alternative scenarios. Information, models, and tools are being integrated into a modeling framework (e.g., energy and materials flow, urban metabolism, Envision) to investigate the impacts of alternative decision scenarios on priority ecosystem services and associated benefits to human health and well-being. 28 ------- Objectives and Measures of Success Objectives of this case study are to develop information and tools to assist communities in the San Juan Bay estuary watershed making decisions toward increasing ecological integrity, social well-being, economic prosperity, and environmental stewardship (Figure 13). The case study will emphasize collaborative development of information and approaches between EPA, Puerto Rico agencies, and community groups. Figure 11. San Juan street art (Source: U.S. EPA). Figure 12. San Jose Lagoon, San Juan, PR (Source: U.S. EPA). Impact This case study will improve understanding of the relationships and tradeoffs involved in estuarine watershed management, and identify decisions and management options that support economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable communities. Coordination with other case studies will allow exploration and identification of approaches for integrating ecosystem services into community decision making that are scalable and transferable to other communities. i ^ Dengue Cases per Person by Zip Code (2000-2015) 0 000540 - 0 004705 w- 0 004706 • 0 009085 0009086 - 0 010936 [^¦ 0 010937 - 0 013432 — 0 013433 - 0 017361 Mexlco jfj I I SJBE Outline Puerto Rico Outline 0 12 5 25 50 Kilometers 1 i i i I i i i I fuK^ Figure 13. Dengue fever (cases per person by zip code) in the San Juan Bay Estuary, PR, is an example of vector-borne disease being studied to understand connections between ecosystem services related to flooding and water quality and impacts to human health and well-being. Dengue data was provided by the CDC Dengue branch; Puerto Rico outline (United States Postal Service); Caribbean Map (DeLorme, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS community). 29 ------- Pacific Northwest Coordinated Case Study ho Tillamook Bay Case Study Site 1 i1 Tillamook Bay Netarts Bay Figure 14. PNW case study sites in the Mashel and Tolt River watersheds in Washington's Puget Sound Basin (Source: Puget Sound Partnership; Assessed 21 June 2018), and in Oregon's Tillamook Bay estuary (Source: USEPA). [A separate but associated project is being conducted in urban watersheds in Seattle, WA]. Issue The PNW is a region of diverse and highly valued natural resources that provide a variety of ecosystem goods and services vital to human well-being. However, these resources and services are being strained by population growth, land use change, climate, and other stressors. This has fundamentally altered the natural functioning of ecosystems and their capacity to sustainably provide essential goods and services for communities. Provisioning of clean drinking water, flood protection, fish and shellfish habitat, and recreational and cultural opportunities have been significantly degraded in many locations. Economic and sociological impacts have been especially damaging to rural communities dependent on the once thriving fishery and forest industries. Many PNW communities, tribes, and State agencies are seeking assistance for mitigating and/or adapting to projected changes in climate and land use. The PNW case study includes three distinctly different watersheds, two in Washington's Puget Sound Basin and one on the Oregon coast (Figure 14). While each of these involves a unique set of stakeholders and watershed impairment issues (see below), results suggest that community-based restoration planning goals can be addressed through a common decision support approach that uses a transferable set of modeling tools. Decision Context The PNW case study will identify ecosystem-based management solutions that consider the linkages between terrestrial and aquatic systems for whole watersheds. Stakeholder partners are directly involved in developing alternative model-based decision scenarios. Scientists with EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) are working with these stakeholders to demonstrate and transfer tools and/or information that can be used to assess scenario outcomes. The primary objective is to develop practical strategies that stakeholders can implement to achieve their economic, human health, and cultural goals. 30 ------- For the Tolt and Mashel River watersheds in Puget Sound, research will focus on identifying forest management practices that most effectively restore populations of endangered salmonids, while also providing clean drinking water, forest sector jobs and cultural benefits for local tribes and communities (Figure 15). For the Tillamook Bay watershed, research will focus on identifying floodplain, urban, and forest management practices that most effectively reduce inputs of nutrients, sediments, and fecal matter to the estuary, and how these practices can be prioritized to best protect multiple objectives - human health, shellfish production, clean drinking water, and sustainable local economies (Figure 16). Objectives and Measures of Success ORD scientists are working with case study stakeholders to identify: (1) impairments to intermediate EGS and FEGS deemed essential to community well-being; and (2) methods and measures for restoring those services at relevant spatial and temporal scales. Methods and measures range from empirical field and laboratory studies (e.g., sampling and analysis of stream nutrients and pathogens) to application of systems-based watershed, and estuarine/ocean models (VELMA; Accessed 25, June 2018; and the Coastal General Ecosystem Model, or CGEM). These methods and models are being used to quantify impacts of land use and climate on a comprehensive suite of ecosystem goods and services provided by terrestrial, stream, and estuarine habitats. Impact The VELMA and CGEM models are being applied in collaboration with case study community groups, tribes, and natural resources agencies of the States of Oregon and Washington seeking to address restoration of hydrological and ecological processes critical to salmon and shellfish recovery, and more broadly, to the functioning of entire watersheds and the final ecosystem goods and services they provide. Model results and training in the use of these tools are being provided to stakeholders to help them identify practical watershed management strategies for mitigating and adapting to changes in climate. Stakeholders are currently using model results to address their objectives, such as the establishment of a Nisqually Community Forest that sustainably supports local forest-sector jobs, recreation, and tourism — see EPA Research: August 1, 2017. Visualization training is a key part of our ongoing stakeholder engagement efforts. For example, VELMA incorporates various visualization tools - charts, graphs and animations - designed to help stakeholders evaluate and communicate complex model outputs in ways that are intuitively useful for environmental decision making. Figure 15. The Tolt River provides critical salmon habitat and 1/3 of Seattle's drinking water (Source: Seattle.gov Accessed 17, August 2012). Figure 16. Dairy lands and Tillamook Bay estuary (Source: TillamookBav.org Accessed 17, August 2012). 31 ------- Great Lakes Coordinated Case Study St. Louis River AOC Duluth Hermantown Superior Cloquet V horn son I Rrver or Stream Highway Lake or River AOC Boundary Municipality St.-Louis' River AOC Counly Boundary! Figure 17. St. Louis River Area of Concern (Source Minnesota Sea Grant. Accessed 21, June 2018). Issue The EPA Area of Concern (AOC) program began in the late 1970s and is an early example of an ecosystem-based management approach founded on the maintenance of ecosystem integrity and recognition of human use of, and benefits from, nature (Figure 17). Great Lakes AOCs were established in response to crises of legacy contamination of heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins, as well as combined sewage overflows and storm-water runoff in Great Lakes coastal communities. The AOCs are defined as "geographic areas that fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use of the area's ability to support aquatic life" (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 2012). The vision is to restore the beneficial uses of the aquatic ecosystem that have been impaired in the most degraded sites within the Great Lakes, particularly industrial and population centers along the Great Lakes shoreline. In all, 43 AOCs were identified in Canada and the U.S. Today, 27 AOCs remain on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes (Figure 19). Federal funds administered by EPA Great Lakes National Program Office under the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) and Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) provide funding for sediment remediation and aquatic habitat restoration in AOCs. In some cases, economic revitalization has been a desired result of those activities. The governance structure of the AOC program as established under the bi-national Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is comprised of federal, tribal or First Nation, state, and local agencies working with 32 ------- local stakeholders through a Public or Citizen Advisory Committee. Ultimately, de-listing is approved by the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. The foundation of the AOC program is that Great Lakes coastal ecosystems provide beneficial uses for humans such as drinking water, clean sediment, and fish to eat. Beneficial use impairments (BUIs) were established for environmental problems such as beach closures, fish consumption advisories, dredging restrictions, and excess nutrients and sediment. These beneficial use impairments were identified by stakeholders within Great Lakes coastal communities and are analogous to ecosystem services. Ultimately, 14 possible BUIs are identified. Most AOCs identify the presence of a subset of those 14 possible BUIs, though a few identify all 14 impairments. SWFs Ecosystem mediated processes Community revitalizabon A FES SWFs (A) R2R project design AOC delisted A Ecosystem benefits A Biophysical stale of the ecosystem Information for decision-makers: SPA maps, tradeoff analyses, benefit tracking Figure 18. Conceptual model for the use of ecosystem service mapping and associated analysis to support decision making in an estuarine Great Lakes AOC. R2R = Restoration to Remediation; FES = Final Ecosystem Services; BUI = Beneficial Use Impairment; SWFs = Social Welfare Function; SPA = Service Provisioning Area. Decision Context This case study aims to expand existing AOC processes to include broad consideration of ecosystem services, including engaging larger and different group of stakeholders, into decision making (Figure 18). The goal of an AOC is to remove identified BUIs through sediment remediation, water quality improvements, and aquatic habitat restoration. Each AOC must determine the management actions that are needed to remove their BUIs, for example identify remediation sites, establish goals for combined sewage overflow reductions or nutrient concentration, or determine the area and type of aquatic habitat to be restored). Ultimately, the AOC is accountable for completion of all the identified management actions to achieve removal of the identified BUIs. At this point, it may take multiple years for the AOC to observe improvements from the management actions. Finally, after the AOC determines that BUIs have been successfully removed (i.e., the BUI removal targets have been met), the AOC petitions EPA for de-listing. The AOC program requires that each step (BUI identification, developing and completing management actions, removing BUIs, and AOC de-listing) requires stakeholder input and participation. The goal of this SHC research project is to incorporate ecosystem services into decision making by providing information regarding how AOC decisions affect ecosystem services, but done in a way to preserve the previously existing programmatic targets agreed upon from the AOC governance structure. 33 ------- Objectives and Measures of Success The objectives of this ecosystem services case study are to: 1) Expand an explicit consideration of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) while preserving the current, previously existing programmatic targets agreed to by EPA through the AOC governance structure. 2) Provide a forum for stakeholders to discuss direct and indirect connections between remediation or restoration activities (or both) and ecosystem services. 3) Conduct participatory mapping and co-development of spatially-explicit ecological production functions to demonstrate how removal of BUIs can improve ecosystem services. 4) Provide analysis results to stakeholders who provide comments on various trade-offs to decision makers. 5) Moving forward, better understand how spatial provisioning of ecosystem services and their associated benefits can affect trade-offs. Impact Trade-off analysis provides information to stakeholders about how the remediation and restoration projects will affect water quality, habitat, and human benefits from the site. It can provide information about whether the project is meeting intended goals, and reveal conflicts between objectives. When those trade-offs are mapped, information can be delivered on the importance of where a specific ecosystem service or benefit will be provided. The spatial information is critical when thinking about how people will use the restored site in the future. Great Lakes Areas of Concern Lake Mariisilque River St Marys River Delisted before GLRI Delisted during GLRI A Management actions completed during GLRI Action Plan I Management actions targeted for completion during GLRI Action Han R £ Remaining Areas erf Concern Menominee River Kox River/ £ Lower Green Bay Sheboygan Rtvi-t A Milwaukee Estuary A Waukegan Harbor^^ Saginaw River and Bay NteLlke 0 Muskegon L ake SI. Clair River fc Clinton River SI Lawrence River Kalamazoo River River Raisin "Grand Ca lumet River M aumee Rivei Eigh teen Mile Creek ynr £ PiOsw ego River Niagara RivesQ Rochester Embayment Buff afo River £ Detroit River flfaouge River ^ wesque Isle Bay Ashtabula River October 30,2014 Figure 19. U.S. and bi-national Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Source: USEPA). 34 ------- Gulf of Mexico Coordinated Case Study Pefdido SSPoWll agouia Figure 20. Map showing sub-watersheds adjacent to Mobile Bay, AL (Source: Mobile Bay National Estuary Program). Issue Mobile Bay is the drainage point for a 43,000 square mile watershed that covers portions of three states (Figure 20). However, the quality and quantity of services provided by the Bay is greatly determined by urbanization of land in smaller sub-watersheds along its edge (see map). Sub-watershed restoration is a key objective in the management plan for the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (NEP), including improvements in stream water quality and shoreline health. Yet, these efforts are not currently evaluated with respect to provision of EGS, or in the context of land-use change in the surrounding landscape. Services provided to people are a key measure of success for restoration projects. The goal of this ecosystem services case study research is to examine how planned and implemented restoration activities contribute to EGS production and how that contribution might be impacted by changes in land use. Decision Context Restoration activities are mandated by NEP goals and described in their Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), which is amended and updated every five years. Overarching goals of restoration are to improve and maintain the quality of natural resources in the Mobile Bay watershed with a focus on human benefit in six target categories: access; healthy beaches; fish abundance; preservation of heritage and culture; promote ecosystem resilience; and maintain water quality. Implementation of the CCMP requires that priorities be set and indicators of desired outcomes be defined to allow for evaluation of resource investments. These indicators of success can be defined based on EGS production and thus tie outcomes more directly to human benefit. In addition, value of stream and shoreline restoration may be impacted by changes in the surrounding landscape that are driven not by NEP priorities, but by municipal and county strategic planning. Impacts and outcomes of NEP restoration activities should be evaluated in the context of landscape changes to allow for the most realistic measure of restoration impacts. 35 ------- Objectives and Measures of Success ORD researchers are working with Mobile Bay NEP staff and local municipalities to apply models and tools that relate restoration changes to ecosystem service production and delivery at the subwatershed scale. These are largely tools previously developed by researchers in other coastal watersheds (i.e., Tampa Bay, FL, Pensacola Bay, FL, Willamette River, OR). A secondary goal of the case study is to evaluate transferability of select tools between ecosystems and decision contexts. Initially researchers worked with stakeholders to define broad EGS-based objectives and measures of success facilitated by the formation of an EGS working group sponsored by the Mobile Bay NEP. This group is working to match EGS priorities to the priorities laid out in the current CCMP. In congruence with this effort is the parameterization of key model-based tools for a target subwatershed to be used as a testbed for model application. Initially, work is being conducted in the D'Olive watershed on the eastern shore of Mobile Bay near Daphne, AL, a site of active NEP restoration. This work involves the parameterization of two models. An ecohydrological model (Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments (VELMA); Accessed 25, June 2018) will be used to assess the impact of land cover and land use on water quality and fish habitat. Second, an EGS mapping tool (EPA H2Q; Assessed 25 June, 2018) will be used to directly measure EGS production and delivery to beneficiaries in the subwatershed. Together, these two tools will be used to assess impacts of restoration activities, as well as the interrelationship between stream restoration and changes in land use/land cover. The research objectives of the Mobile Bay CCS are to: • Work with community stakeholders to derive transferable measures of community well-being and link them to the production of EGS that directly benefit the community. • Apply Structured Decision-Making (SDM) approaches to assist communities in identifying their fundamental objectives. • Evaluate transferability of quantitative tools that link delivery of FEGS and community decisions across communities. • Develop decision support based on these quantitative tools to evaluate specific actions associated with fundamental objectives in multiple communities. • Examine similarities and differences across communities in the impact of community decisions on available EGS and community well-being. At the heart of this work is sound ecosystem science building upon past success in this discipline, within the EPA and beyond, to ask how research conducted in specific communities translates to other communities with similar issues and resources. This will include quantitative visualization models of EGS production and delivery developed by EPA researchers to evaluate specific scenarios of community change. Impact This exercise will directly inform future planning by the Mobile Bay NEP. The intended outcome is a broader suite of success indicators that can be linked to multiple stakeholder objectives and better support communities with complex issues and multiple stakeholder groups. 36 ------- Southern Plains Coordinated Case Study Issue In the Southern Plains area, many rural communities rely on and utilize ecosystem goods and services every day to sustain and better their communities. Some of these communities rely heavily on ground water sources as a significant source of municipal water supply while others with little to no access to ground water sources choose to incorporate impoundments of varying sizes to not only provide source water, but to improve numerous ecosystem services such as flood control, recreational activities, irrigation, and wildlife habitat. These small communities have come to rely on these ground water sources and impoundment systems to provide everyday benefits that help sustain their communities. There are many challenges that potentially impact the ability of these systems to provide the services that these communities have come to not only rely on, but in many cases, take for granted. Many of these communities have purposely developed growth and sustainability plans to increase the development potential and ultimately the economic viability of the local area to attract businesses and people to the community. This growth, while good for the community, has impacts on the surrounding area and the potential provisioning of the ecosystem services the community relies upon. Coupled with the frequent conditions of protracted drought and interspersing flooding events, these communities have a strong need to develop and implement community sustainability and resilience approaches that look to understand how economic growth and climatic conditions impact the provisioning of the ecosystem services that support their community viability. As communities continue to grow, strains on resources increase. Often in the Southern Plains, these resources are shared by multiple communities that have their own sets of needs and priorities that rarely consider the needs and priorities of the other communities. This may not be a problem when resource use is far below resource provisioning, but as greater demands on these resources have increased, tension and disagreement about the use of these resources has created concerns between communities that share resources. Developing approaches to provision and share resources between two or more communities is rarely easy and is often contentious as the values and needs of the communities often are at odds with one another. These are extremely difficult problems to address and require approaches that are designed to address the multifaceted, multi-stakeholder planning processes to develop community sustainability and resiliency plans that address the needs and values of all the various stakeholder groups and identify the trade-offs these communities need to make to ensure their sustainable coexistence. Decision Context The Southern Plains case study will focus on working with the City of Ada, Oklahoma. Ada is in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma and has a population of approximately 17,000 people. The total area of Ada is 15.8 square miles, with the developed city occupying 12,655.81 acres (Figure 21). Ada is trisected by three watersheds, with approximately 59 % in the Lower Canadian-Walnut watershed, 37 % in the Clear-Boggy watershed, and 4% in the Muddy-Boggy watershed (Figure 22). While Ada is positioned at the bottom third of the Lower Canadian-Walnut watershed, it is located at the headwaters of both the Clear-Boggy and Muddy-Boggy watersheds. The watershed has a mixed land use - land cover comprised of both urban and rural landscapes. The sole source water supply for Ada is the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer, and is used as a water supply by the cities of Tishomingo, Durant, Sulphur, Mill Creek and Roff, OK. Additionally, this aquifer supports numerous ecosystem services as it daylights and discharges in numerous places supporting fisheries, wildlife, and recreation. Over time all these communities have 37 ------- grown and are continually looking to grow in the future, putting ever greater demands on the aquifer and forcing these cities to starting looking at other options water resources. MUDDY-BOGGY CLEAR-BOGGY Figure 21. Map showing the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer in relation to the City of Ada (Source: USGS National Land Cover Database). Objectives and Measures of Success Figure 22. Three watershed boundary dividing lines encompassing the City of Ada (Source: USGS National Elevation Dataset). A key objective of EPA's SHC research program is to provide decision tools to help those involved with community-based decision making design and choose more sustainable policies and practices that incorporate the concerns, needs, and interests of a broad and diverse range of stakeholders. One of those developing tools is the web-based application Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES). The DASEES application is being used to assist communities in a relatively new practice of 'resiliency planning'. Communities such as Ada, OK that share common ecosystem services such as water supply with multiple communities, have need for assistance in resiliency planning that support and facilitate shared cooperation to address issues including changing climatic conditions (e.g., drought, flood), water resource planning and management, contaminated runoff, sediment impact on water impoundments, and expected population increases with community development expansion. The problems and challenges are known, but the approach to address them is complicated. The Southern Plains case study is being developed to incorporate broad stakeholder involvement from the very start of the project effort using the DASEES process to help the City of Ada to plan for future development and address the challenges of shared resources (e.g., water, land use) impacted by drought and floods. ORD researchers will use the DASEES process to assist the City of Ada and other identified stakeholders with interest in developing community sustainability and resiliency plans. The DASEES five-step iterative decision process is designed to: 1) understand the decision context; 2) define objectives; 3) develop options; 4) evaluate options; and 5) take action. Impact Lessons learned from the City of Ada with the DASEES structured decision-making approach wili be used to apply a management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability and resiliency for Ada that may serve as a model for use by other communities with shared resources that may be facing similar sustainability and resiliency issues as well. 38 ------- oEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development (8101R) Washington, DC 20460 EPA/600/R-18/183 39 ------- |