oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/600/R-18/189
June 2018
htt p ://www. e pa. g o v/s i
FY 16 Output SHC 2.61
Ecosystem Goods and
Services Production and
Benefit Functions Case
Studies Report
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
GULF ECOLOGY DIVISION
-------
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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) 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 1). 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
Remediation/Restoration
of Contaminated Sites;
Materials Management
I
Ecosystem Services
Transdisciplinary Integration
Understanding Causal Relationships Between
Human Health, Ecosystems and Well-being
Data Bases, Tools, Models, Interoperability, and Assessments
T
Figure 1 - The SHC research and
development program conceptual
mode! (Plan Years 2016-2019). U.S.
EPA (2015).
SYSTEMS APPROACH to ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY
Total Resource Impacts & Outcomes (TRIO) Applied to Decisions
Affecting Communities
Research and development conducted under the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research
Program 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 tools and approaches to help local
decision-makers understand the effects of alternative policies and actions on sustainability. The SHC
Project 2.61 Community- Based Final Ecosystem Goods and Services 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 ecosystem goods and
services that people directly use, enjoy, or otherwise benefit from; Boyd and Banzhaf 2007); 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
well-being endpoints; 4) examination of the effects of stressors on the production and delivery of FEGS;
and 5) linkages of this research to EnviroAtlas and other decision support tools. The 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 2. 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
Figure 2-SHC
2.61 Project
Structure
showing
integration of
ecosystem
services related
research across
the Project.
2
Benefits
I Task
Ecological
V. Production v..
Functions
(EPFs]
Ecosystem
Goods and
Services
Ecological
Benefit
Function
Policy or
Stressor
f Health &
Economic
Endpoints
Coordinated Case
_ Studies Task
Integratiop^sk
-------
The structure of SHC 2.61 (Figure 2) 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 16 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.
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
(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.
3
-------
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 providing a beneficiary perspective
on advancing Eco-Flealth 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 change 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, Great Lakes Region, Coastal Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Northwest, and Southern Plains
Watersheds.
Output Description
This SHC 2.61.1 Output report (Ecosystems Goods and Services Production and Benefit Functions Case
Studies Report) 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 decision making at several study sites around the U.S. This Output report discusses
research in this Project 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 SHC 2.61.5 Coordinated Case
Studies Task FY 16 Product (Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and Services to Community
Decision Making) and other deliverables in SHC 2.61 covering work through FY 16.
-------
Agency Relevance
This Output report, and the SHC 2.61 research upon which it is based, was developed for U.S. EPA
Regional Offices (Table 1), Office of Water, Office of Air and Radiation, and the 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 the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Additionally, this report is intended to inform colleagues involved with ecosystem services science
within the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development.
Table 1. Locations of SHC 2.61 ecosystem service studies cited in this report across the U.S. EPA
Regional offices.
Lessons
Learned
Report
(2016)
Cooter
et al.
(2017)
Bruins
et al.
(2016)
Jewhurst
and
Mazzotta
(2016)
Fulford
et al.
(2015)
Bradley
et al.
(2016)
Angradi
et al.
(2015)
Fulford
et al.
(2016)
Lewis
et al.
(2016)
Superfund
(2017)
Region 1
/
/
Region 2
V
/
/
Region 3
<
Y
/
Region 4
if
/
/
*
Region 5
/
/
Region 6
¥'
¥
Region 7
/
/
Region 8
Region 9
relevant
Region 10
if
National
Relevance
-------
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for SHC 2.61 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 proposed conceptual model shown in
Figure 3 (e.g., stakeholder engagement/decision context, FEGS, EPFs, and measures of benefit)
represent efforts to support community-level decision making 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 model. The key science produced in SHC 2.61 in FY 16, and
summarized in this report, are mapped onto the elements of the conceptual model in Figure 3.
Cooter et al.
(2017)
Bruins et al.
(2016)
Social and Economic
Services
A Biophysical State
of the Ecosystem
(includes
intermediate EGS)
"" Superfund
(Lipps et al.
2017)
Benefit
Functions
A Human
Weil-Being
Decisions,
Alternatives
Mgmt
Actions
EPFs
A Final EGS
Jewhurst and
Mazzota (2016)
Information for Decision Support
Coordinated Case Studies
-Fulford et al. (2015)
-Pensacola (Lewis et al. 2016)
-Gulf of Mexico (Fulford et al. 2016b)
-Great Lakes (Angradi et al. 2016)
-Guanica Bay (Bradley et al. 2015)
Lessons Learned Report
(Fulford et al. 2016a)
Figure 3 - The conceptual framework for SHC 2.61 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 16) SHC 2.61 research products described in this report are
mapped onto elements of the conceptual model (colored ovals around the perimeter).
6
-------
Contributions to Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Research
Task 2.61.1 integration, Synthesis and Strategic
Communication (ISSC)
Product Description
The synthesis report entitled Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem
Goods and Services to Community Decision Making is the synthesis of
recent place-based, community-scale ecosystem services studies
conducted by EPA at 25 sites across the U.S.
Citation: Fulford, R.S., R. Bruins, T. Canfield, J.B. Handy, J.M. Johnston
P. Ringold, M. Russell, N. Seeteram, K. Winters, and S. Yee.
2016a. Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and
Services to Community Decision Making. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/136.
Background
The U.S. EPA has been particularly active in developing research methods to incorporate ecosystem
goods and services (EGS) into decision making to protect human health and the environment. The
ecosystem goods and services concept has become increasingly valuable for identifying and evaluating
important tradeoffs among diverse beneficiary groups and, by extension, has become a central element
of decision-support for both public and private institutions. Fulford et al. (2016a) proposes a conceptual
model of local decision making which is broken down into four key elements: stakeholder
engagement/decision context, metrics and indicators of Final Ecosystem Good and Services (FEGS),
Ecological Production Functions (EPFs), and measures of benefit (Figure 3). Place-based studies offer an
opportunity to explore the conceptual model to real-world issues and are a link in U.S. EPA research into
community-based decision support and the fostering of human and environmental health. Fulford et al.
(2016a) describes results from 25 place-based studies (Figure 4) on how they have applied elements of
EGS-based conceptual model for decision support.
Summary of Results
The Fulford et al. (2016a) report offers a complete conceptual model for an EGS approach at the
community level that has been evaluated in the context of existing and previous place-based studies
(PBS) with an eye towards how this model has been used, and what gaps exist that might be filled to
increase its successful use in future PBS. The model provides linkages to each respective element that
can bring integration of science and policy resulting in more effective decision outcomes. Each element
represents significant efforts to support community-level decision making as evidenced by their
successful use in one or more of the place-based studies.
Lessons Learned In Applying Ecosystem
Goods and Services
to Community Decision Making
-------
In the case studies examined, environmental management decisions were often made with simple end
goals in mind (e.g., economic development) that only encompassed the input from a small select group
of professionals that drove the decisions on the basis of their expertise. Fulford et al. (2016a) recognize
that stakeholders bring further understanding of actions and desired outcomes while science brings an
understanding of how actions can translate to desired outcomes. As a result, common stakeholder
engagement lessons were characterized. Future place-based studies will benefit from applying a
structured decision-making approach to better integrate stakeholder priorities with data on ecosystem
services and linked human welfare.
Each of the place-based studies characterized ecosystem goods and services at their sites, but few
explicitly linked them directly to human use or benefit, which is the hallmark of the FEGS concept.
Reliance on so-called "intermediate EGS", which support the production of FEGS but are not linked to
human benefits, limited the capability of most of the PBS to estimate the value of changes to the
production or availability of ecosystem services. A key recommendation of this study is that future PBS
utilize FEGS concepts and metrics to facilitate linking changes of the environment to human well-being.
Place-based studies most frequently used multiple ecological production functions (EPFs; ecological
models that estimate the availability or production of EGS) in a coordinated fashion (via linkage to one
another or execution within decision-support tools) to estimate multiple EGS. Some EPFs that are useful
for estimating EGS are simple models (e.g., five or fewer input variables), but most require linkage to
more complex models for simulation of management alternatives. Fulford et al. (2016a) conclude that
more work is needed to standardize EPFs for particular problems and effectively link EPF outputs to
independently derived measures of human benefit. Further, the conceptual model proposed by Fulford
et al. (2016a) (Figure 3) can be effective in overcoming challenges of matching EPFs to the decision
context and use of short-term objectives as measures of benefits.
Stakeholder Engagement Conclusions
• Engage stakeholders and local decision-makers early in the process
• Take the time with stakeholders to formally define the decision context
• Use conceptual models and systems thinking to uncover unintended
consequences
• Work with diverse groups of experts to integrate multidisciplinary sources of
information
-------
4-
22 23
CD
MapJD Site
1 Duluth, MN
2 Chesapeake Bay, VA
3 Narragansett Bay
4 Tampa Bay, FL
5 Woodbine, IA
6 Birmingham, AL
7 Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico
8 Pensacola, FL
9 Vero Beach, FL
10 Thibodaux, LA
11 Opelousas, LA
12 Pascagoula, MS
13 Lewisville, NC
14 Dania Beach, FL
15 Freeport, NY
16 Suffolk County, Long Island, NY
17 New Bedford, MA
18 Woonasquatucket River Watershed, Rl
19 Windsor locks, CT
20 The Taunton Watershed, MA
21 Lawrence, MA
22 Southern Willamette Valley Groundwater Managemett Area, OR
23 Blue River Watershed, OR
24 Superior, Wl
25 Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa reservation, Wl
Figure 4 - Map showing locations and names for all the place-based studies participating in the
information request on the use of an EGS approach from Fulford et al. (2016a).
The elements of the conceptual model (Figure 3) each represent significant efforts to support
community-level decision making as evidenced by their successful use in one or more of the PBS
examined by Fulford et al. (2016a). Stakeholders bring an understanding of both potential actions and
the desired outcomes from those actions, and the conceptual model proposed in Fulford et al. (2016a)
provides a defendable, robust approach for linking intentions to desired outcomes. Barriers to such an
integration of science and policy include a lack of stakeholder involvement and understanding of an EGS
approach, challenges of matching EPFs to the FEGS metrics of interest, use of inadequate short-term
objectives as measures of benefit, and failure to integrate multiple issues into a common decision
framework. An EGS-based conceptual model for decision support, such as the one proposed here, can
overcome these challenges by linking the decision process together in a clear way. Place-based studies
offer a rich opportunity to explore the application of this conceptual model to real-world issues and, as
such, are a vital way to integrate EGS research in SHC 2.61 to community-based decision support to
foster the sustainability of environment, economy, and human well-being.
9
1
250
24
MS
15
-------
2.61.3 Ecological Production Functions for Quantifying Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services (EPF)
Product Description
The manuscript entitled Exploring a United States maize cellulose
biofuel scenario using an integrated energy and agricultural markets
solution approach presents research on ecosystem services modeling
to explore management solutions for Mid-western agricultural sources
of excess nutrients, along with other non-point nutrient sources, can
fuel hypoxia in the U.S. Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Citation: Cooter, E.J., R. Dodder, J. Bash, A. Elobeid, L. Ran, V. Benson,
and D. Yang. 2017. Exploring a United States maize cellulose
biofuel scenario using an integrated energy and agricultural
markets solution approach. Annals of Agricultural & Crop
Sciences 2(2).
Background
In recent years, there have been significant improvements in air, land, and water quality, yet because of
complexity of the physical and chemical processes that operate across multiple media and a wide range
of temporal and special scales, there are still serious air, land, and water pollution problems facing most
communities in every state. These complex issues are further complicated by the diversity of interests
among stakeholders, as well as potential multiple sources of contaminants which can be considerable
distances from the location of adverse effects. A "one-biosphere" modeling approach integrates several
multi-media modeling tools together to examine modeling scenarios to address management solutions
for complex environmental challenges. The modeling framework includes the incorporation of the
decision context, stakeholders, the environment itself, and the interaction of ecosystem and humans
(through connecting ecological production functions all the way through to economic, social, health,
and/or well-being human endpoints), similar to the FEGS causal conceptual framework (Figure 3)
described in Fulford et al. (2016a).
Summary of Results
Cooter et al. (2017) demonstrates a one-biosphere modeling approach to evaluate alternative scenarios
for managing nitrogen and phosphorus loading (e.g., EPF response variables) in the Mississippi River
Basin as it relates to hypoxia impairment of the U.S. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Their scenario approach
applies benefit endpoints for present and future agricultural and energy markets linked to nutrient fate
and transport models in turn linked to coastal eutrophication models (i.e., EPFs) (Figure 5).
10
^Aust n Publishing ***
Exploring a United States Maize Cellulose Biofuel
Scenario Using an Integrated Energy and Agricultural
Markets Solution Approach
-------
Agriculture
Management
NO,
voc
Air Quality
Combustion
Water Quality)
Meteorology
Hydrology
Ecosystem
Health;
Economic
Health
Recreation -
Aesthetics;
Groundwater
Nitrate — Health;
Biodiversity
03, PM2 5 -
Health;
Visibility -
Aesthetics
Greenhouse
Gas (N20) —
Climate
. N,P Load
Figure 5 - A one-biosphere general framework to explore coastal zone eutrophication from
Cooter et al. 2017 (diagram created by E. Cooter and used here with permission).
This demonstration of the one-biosphere approach utilized integrated markets modeling to bridge the
gap between economic/societal actions and biogeophysical system responses. Models examined in the
Cooter et al. (2017) study include atmospheric nutrient deposition (CMAQ; accessed 16 January 2018),
agro-economic (Market Allocation Model; Lenox et al. 2013), and agro-ecosystem (EPIC; accessed 16
January 2018) models.
This application of the one-biosphere approach presented by Cooter et al. (2017) leverages a number of
important research goals across the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE), Safe and Sustainable Water
Resources (SSWR), and Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) National Research Programs.
The one-biosphere approach requires the inclusion of
stakeholder actions, reactions, and outcomes. This approach is
in the beginning steps of developing process-based tools and
methodologies capable of supporting environmental decision
making.
11
-------
2.61.3 Ecological Production Functions for Quantifying Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services (EPF)
Product Description
The journal article entitled Using ecological production functions to
link ecological processes to ecosystem services presents nine key
attributes of ecological production functions that determine the
utility and relevance of EPFs for decision making.
Citation: Bruins, R.J.F., T. Canfield, C. Duke, L. Kapustka, A. Nahlik,
R. Schafer. 2016. Using ecological production functions to
link ecological processes to ecosystem services. Integratea
Environmental Assessment and Management 13(1):52-61.
Background
Ecological production functions (EPFs) link ecosystems, stressors, and management actions to ecosystem
service (ES) production. Though acknowledged as being essential to improve environmental
management, relatively little attention has been directed toward the use of EPFs in ecological risk
assessment. EPFs are operationally defined as usable expressions (i.e., models) of the processes by
which ecosystems produce ecosystem services, often including external influences on those processes.
This operational definition is an assumption that EPFs should be useful for decision making. Bruins et al.
(2016) identify nine key (desirable) attributes of EPFs that determine the utility and relevance of EPFs for
decision making. In general, EPFs can be a useful tool for framing current knowledge and fostering new
research by highlighting knowledge gaps. As an example, Bruins et al. (2016) discuss both actual and
idealized examples of their use to inform decision making related to pesticides.
Utlng Ecological Production Functions to Link Ecological
Processes to Ecosystem Services
•i-aiJJij.u.-1-i '."Mm, j Clifford Duit.f Uny «A£u«eU,. MMi U ruhft
Summary of Results
Ecosystem processes that represent final ES are directly used by human beneficiaries, and thus are most
readily connected to human health and well-being. As a result, these often best serve the needs of
decision makers. While qualitative descriptions of ES may suffice for some management decisions, semi-
quantitative or quantitative ES are preferred where possible in the context of rational decision making
on technical grounds.
EPF variables that are more descriptive of ecosystem processes can better capture ecosystem condition
and can improve EPF accuracy as it informs impacts of decision alternatives. Likewise, models that
examine ES must contain variables that can reflect the influence of stressor levels or potential
management decisions.
Ecological processes that produce ES occur across markedly different scales of space and time having
different rates and controlling feedbacks. The use of multiple, linked EPFs can illustrate trade-off
complexity arising from differential ES responses across management scenarios.
12
-------
Unless decision making occurs in areas that are already data-rich, or where new data can be acquired
easily, EPFs have to perform using data of less than ideal resolution and quality. For practical reasons,
therefore, EPF developers must make compromises among dynamism, scale optimization, and data
requirements.
In decision-making situations, models are often used to address hypothetical scenarios (for example,
projected future change, management alternatives) for which performance cannot be evaluated until
after the fact. Therefore, the number of previous situations in which performance has been evaluated
and the similarity of these situations to that facing the decision-maker could be considered as proxies of
performance.
Ideally, potential end-users and all affected stakeholder groups would be consulted in model
development, a process called participatory modeling. Regardless of model design, most useful models
should have a user-friendly interface (accessible documentation), where all default initial values of
variables and parameters that pertain to stakeholder interests should be accessible and modifiable.
Finally, developing models from scratch may not be feasible for most situations. While existing models
have largely been developed for different purposes and may not meet the management requirements
listed here, they often contain variables that relate to the ES approach. Importantly, user manuals,
documentation, and access to code provide considerable transparency, offering users the ability to tailor
their assessments to the particular features of their project.
Desired Attributes of Informative EPFs
• Estimate indicators of final ecosystem services
• Quantify ecosystem service outcomes
• Respond to ecosystem condition
• Respond to stressor levels or potential
management scenarios
• Appropriately reflect ecological complexity
• Rely on data with broad coverage
• Are shown to perform well
• Are practical to use
• Are open and transparent
13
-------
2.61.4 National and Community Benefits of Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services (Benefits)
Product Description
The report entitled Economic Tools for Managing Nitrogen in Coastal
Watersheds examines several economic approaches for
characterizing the benefits of the wetland ecosystem service of
nitrogen load reduction.
Citation: Jewhurst, S., M. Mazzotta. 2016. Economic Tools for
Managing Nitrogen in Coastal Watersheds. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-16/036.
ABRA
Economic Tools
for Managing
Nitrogen
in Coastal
Watersheds
«...
Background
Increasingly, community leaders wish to understand the economic value of ecosystem goods and
services produced within their political domain so as to have an objective and relevant basis for
assessing the costs and benefits of resource-use decisions. Additionally, the economic/monetary value
of ecosystem goods and services are often easier to communicate to the general public than the
environmental value alone. However, valuation of EGS can be challenging, and the success of
incorporating EGS into community decision making requires practical approaches for assessing changes
in their economic value due to changes in EGS quantity, quality, or production.
Jewhurst and Mazzotta (2016) provide information for watershed managers and community decision-
makers on practical economic tools for managing nitrogen in coastal watersheds. In particular, they
provide an overview of methods that can be applied to determine the most cost-effective means to
reduce nitrogen pollution and to evaluate the economic benefits of improving the extent or condition of
coastal ecosystems. The Jewhurst and Mazzotta report also summarize the needs of watershed
managers for economists who may be interested in pursuing relevant research and analysis. The report
provides an overview of approaches to economic analyses that can be used to answer a range of
questions on watershed management, which could provide watershed managers with sound economic
bases for evaluating ecosystem-change proposals (e.g., development, restoration, and remediation).
Economic values are an explicit way to evaluate, quantify and present
the trade-offs that people are actually willing to make to protect or
clean up the environment.
Summary of Results
From a survey analysis, Jewhurst and Mazzotta (2016) conclude that watershed managers need
proactive support from trained economists to achieve economic assessment goals. Based on the specific
14
-------
watershed management question, different economic methods may be used: cost-effectiveness
analysis, economic contribution analysis, economic impact analysis, or economic benefits analysis. Each
of these approaches are described by Jewhurst and Mazzotta (2016) along with the types of information
needed and the utility of each method for different purposes. Additionally, the authors examine the
challenges associated with the use of "total value" ecological economic studies (i.e., the value of an
ecosystem estimated by monetizing the total flow of goods and services from that ecosystem). For
example, substitution of one ecosystem type for another (e.g., due to development or restoration) or
the reduction in the condition of an ecosystem will not likely result in a wholesale change in the quantity
or production of the original system's EGS; hence most policy relevant changes to ecosystems would not
be appropriately accounted for using value of the entire system. Consequently, the "total value" method
is not generally recommended by economists for watershed management decisions.
In general, Jewhurst and Mazzotta (2016) conclude that watershed managers would benefit from better
access to trained economists who understand their needs and can advise them in plain language about
how to conduct valuation analyses. Consultation with economists who understand watershed
management needs prior to commissioning economic analysis ensures adequate review of methods and
promotes more accurate results. Watershed managers may also face restrictions on their access to
critical data required for many of these analyses. Overall, data availability had a large influence on the
scope and types of the economic analyses that could be conducted, and consequently, watershed
managers should appreciate how data limitation affects the types of economic valuation assessments
that they can achieve.
"Direct use values refer to ecosystem goods and services that are used directly by human beings.
They include the value of consumptive uses such as harvesting of food products, timber for fuel or
construction, and medicinal products and hunting of animals for consumption; and the value of non-
consumptive uses such as the enjoyment of recreational and cultural activities that do not require
harvesting of products. Direct use values are most often enjoyed by people visiting or residing in the
ecosystem itself.
Indirect use values are derived from ecosystem services that provide benefits outside the ecosystem
itself. Examples include natural water filtration which often benefits people far downstream, the
storm protection function of mangrove forests which benefits coastal properties and infrastructure,
and carbon sequestration which benefits the entire global community by abating climate change.
Option values are derived from preserving the option to use in the future ecosystem goods and
services that may not be used at present, either by oneself (option value) or by others/heirs (bequest
value). Provisioning, regulating, and cultural services may all form part of option value to the extent
that they are not used now but may be used in the future.
Non-use values refer to the enjoyment people may experience simply by knowing that a resource
exists even if they never expect to use that resource directly themselves. This kind of value is usually
known as existence value (or, sometimes, passive use value)."
(Source: The World Bank, 2004, pp. 9 - 10)
15
-------
2.61.5 Coordinated Case Studies
Product Description
The journal article entitled Human well-being differs by community
type: Toward reference points in a human well-being indicator useful
for decision support presents an approach for classifying communities
based on the three sustainability pillars (social, economic, and
environmental) for the coastal counties of the conterminous U.S.
Citation: Fulford, R.S., L.M. Smith, M. Harwell, D. Dantin, M. Russell,
and J. Harvey. 2015. Human well-being differs by community
type: Towards reference points in a human well-being
indicator useful for decision support. Ecological Indicators
56:194-204.
Background
One way to examine sustainability is to measure net delivery of ecosystem goods and services (EGS) to
human beneficiaries. Suites of indicators used to hoiistically measure human well-being (HWB) show
promise as a synergistic measure of the outcome of net EGS production and delivery to humans (Smith
et al. 2014). The challenge in applying HWB measures at the community level is in linking such a broad
indicator to community specific issues and values as different communities have difference social,
economic, and environmental dependencies. Fulford et al. (2015) present an EGS- based community
classification system (CCS) to address whether a classification system is informative by asking whether
HWBI type indicator values differ by community type as a potential measure of sustainability.
Summary of Results
Fulford et al. (2015) presents a community classification system (CCS) constructed from three sources of
data intended to describe a community with respect to three pillars of sustainability (social, economic,
and environmental). They analyze publicly available data for coastal communities in the contiguous
United States (662 counties nationwide) to look at differences in their weli-being to provide local well-
being reference points informative for measuring changes in well-being.
16
-------
Overall, 70 variables from existing national databases (covering the period
from 2006-2010) were analyzed to examine the social (community
social/demographic composition), economic (local employment
dependencies), and environmental (ecological region data) pillars of
sustainability.
Bayesian model analysis identified a total of eight primary groups for classification, delineating coastal
counties first by population density, and then by resource dependence and socio-economic
composition. While high population density was a general descriptor, additional delineation was realized
with examination of economic dependence (as defined by employment information) and local resource
dependence. Overall, differences in community type were strongly driven by economic and social
dependence on local environmental resource issues either (through employment or land use)
demonstrating a clear link between environmental service flows and human well-being.
Fulford et al. (2015) examine how HWB differs across different community types. Geographic
differences in county-level HWB Index scores were observed in high population densities (high HWB
scores and low dependence on local resources) compared to rural, high local dependence groups.
Overall, U.S. coastal counties increase in HWB as they increase in population density and socio-economic
diversity. More rural counties along the coast had higher scores for specific HWB domains (social
cohesion and leisure time) suggesting there are elements of HWB that are not associated with high
density. Two important conclusions arose from this research. First, community decision makers can use
this type of community classification approach to identify baseline well-being from which to assess
effects of potential management decisions. Second, trajectories of human well-being over time may
change as a function of community dynamics so both need to be examined over time to inform
community decision making.
Community Classification System Types
for U.S. Coastal Counties (n=662)
l.
Urban/suburban
2.
Suburban, older citizens, working class
3.
Rural, high local dependence, farther from coast
4.
Rural, highest local dependence, high ethnic
diversity
5.
Rural, high local dependence, working class
6.
Rural, higher local dependence, working class,
farther from coast
7.
Rural, central Florida, older citizens
8.
Suburban, high throughput, north central U.S.
17
-------
2.61.5 Coordinated Case Studies
2.61.5a Puerto Rico Case Study
Product Description
The EPA report entitled Application of a Structured Decision
Process for Informing Watershed Management Options in Guanica
Bay, Puerto Rico summarizes the results of community-based
workshops examining the importance of ecosystem services to
land-use decision making by multiple stakeholders in coffee-
growing coastal watersheds of south-western Puerto Rico.
Citation: Bradley, P., W. Fisher, D. Dyson, S. Yee, J. Carriger, G.
Gambirazzio, J. Bousquin, and E. Huertas. 2015. Application of a Structured Decision Process for
Informing Watershed Management Options in Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, Rl, EPA/600/R-15/248.
Background
The importance of the overall decision context (i.e., defining what is the problem, issue, or reason for
making a decision, in part, through the inclusion of ecosystem services science) is an important element
throughout the structure of SHC 2.61 (see Figure 2). Ecosystem services science can be incorporated into
decision making through a number of decision science approaches. Structured decision making (SDM) is
an organized approach to allow stakeholders to share their perspectives and objectives regarding a
given problem with a broader group, with the end goal of informing decision makers. It is particularly
useful in complex decision situations.
Figure 6 - The structured
decision making (SDM)
formal decision process
steps; modified from
Bradley et al. 2015.
18
-------
SDM has six steps (Figure 6): 1) clarify the decision context; 2) define objectives and evaluation criteria;
3) develop alternatives; 4) estimate consequences; 5) evaluate trade-offs and select alternatives; and 6)
implement, monitor, and review. Key to the SDM process is the engagement of stakeholders, experts,
and decision-makers in a deliberative environment that deals rigorously with facts and values in decision
making.
Summary of Results
Research under the SHC 2.61.5a Ecosystem Services for San Juan, Puerto Rico Task, involves the
application of decision science and ecosystem services science to inform watershed management efforts
for identifying and evaluating natural resource use alternatives in a collaborative manner that engages
the interests of multiple stakeholders, and which results in a range of transparently-determined choices
in a complex decision situation. Bradley et al. (2016) explore the use of SDM to address watershed land-
use management issues in Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico through a series of workshops designed to examine
fundamental goals and values of the community, and tradeoffs in coffee-growing practices and water
runoff management as it related to reducing sediment runoff impacts to local coral reefs.
Advantages of Using Decision Science Approaches
• Guides information collection
• Improves communication
• Increases stakeholder involvement
• Supports interconnecting decisions
• Guides strategic thinking
• Facilitates creation and evaluation of
management alternatives
In merging the two fields of ecosystem services and decision science, Bradley et al. (2016) expand on
two important concepts: systems thinking and the use of decision frameworks. Systems thinking refers
to a problem-solving approach focused on the importance of relationships and interactions among
component parts of a system rather than focusing on those parts in isolation. Decision frameworks can
represent any of a number of organizing/communicating approaches for characterizing complex
environmental issues. Bradley et al. (2016) explore the development of a Drivers/Pressures/State/
Impacts/Responses (DPSIR) framework in their case study. They advance environmental assessments of
coral reefs beyond ecological endpoints to include the social and economic values of stakeholders.
Through facilitated workshops, they map stakeholder- and expert-identified ecological, economic, and
social objectives associated with coral reef protection to corresponding ecosystem goods and services.
Bradley et al. (2016) also translate their experience with Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico into lessons learned
and provide generic guidance on the use of SDM processes depending on resources available
(budgets/timelines) and different types of decision support tools for community engagement.
19
-------
2.61,5 Coordinated Case Studies
2.61.5c Great Lakes Case Study
Product Description
The journal article entitled Mapping ecosystem service indicators in a
Great Lakes estuarine Area of Concern presents an approach for
quantifying the distribution and abundance of ecosystem goods and
services, demonstrated in the St. Louis River (MN) Area-of-Concern
(AOC) of Lake Superior.
Citation: Angradi, T.R., D.W. Bolgrien, J.L. Launspach, B.J. Bellinger,
M.A. Starry, J.C. Hoffman, M.E. Sierszen, A.S. Trebitz, and T.P.
Hollenhorst. 2016. Mapping ecosystem services of a Great Lai
decision-making. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42(3):717-727.
Background
There has long been a recognition among the ecosystems services community of practitioners regarding
the importance of incorporating ecosystem services into the decision-making process. However, it has
been only within the last decade or so that there has been a significant increase in the number of local-
scale case studies (< 100 km2 area) that have mapped final ecosystem services within the decision
context of informing local management decisions. Recent research by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research and Development has focused on advancing local-scale ecosystem services
research with the intent of providing community decision makers with tools and information specifically
for informing management tradeoffs and decisions.
Summary of Results
There are 27 Great Lakes coastal systems in the United States and Canada designated as Areas of
Concern (AOC) because of legacy chemical contamination, degraded habitat, and non-point-source
pollution. The impacts in these ecosystems diminish the benefits current and future human
communities can receive from these ecosystems, but are the focus of ecosystem "remediation to
restoration" (R2R) attention. In recognizing the limited scientific literature over the past decade in
characterizing the ecosystem services in local-scale case studies (< 100 km2 area), Angradi et al. (2016)
explore mapping and enumeration of twenty-three final ecosystem services as they could potentially
inform multiple management objectives, including restoration priorities, project siting, and defining
engineering specifications in management decisions related to AOC restoration.
20
lACjLR
WHAMS*- III «fi il 1 • ¦ TfcT' fi B11 IT TV ' 1 1 in '¦ » "aril 11 TtfcTi '
(««: Mm»'
-== _
estuary can support local
-------
Angradi et al. (2016) anchor their ecosystem services assessments to the decision context to inform
tradeoff analyses among management alternatives through the applicability of a final ecosystem
service/management action matrix (e.g., Table 2).
Table 2. Hypothetical final ecosystem service/management action matrix examining potential effects
of proposed management actions (right columns) on final ecosystem services (left column) in a given
study area. Responses: 0 = no effect; + = more area of service created; -= areas of service lose; ? =
response depends on context.
Management Action ->
Final Ecosystem Service 4-
Increased
public access
Removal of
contaminated
sediments
Wetland
habitat
Target Fish A
o
¦
0
Power Boating/
Cruising Areas
9
¦
o
¦
Wave Attenuation
Areas
0
Public Beaches
+
+
0
Angradi et al. (2016) also examine the importance of quantifying changes in final ecosystem services
(e.g., acres of restored habitat) that can directly inform the existing restoration governance structure
(i.e., the information is within the institutional capacity of local management agencies or AOC advisory
groups to use). By examining ecosystem services research within an important decision context, Angradi
et al. (2016) demonstrate how the overall goals of assessment of final ecosystem services in the Great
Lakes can support decision making at the local scale.
The mapping approaches used in characterizing final ecosystem services
indicators is within the institutional capacity of local management
agencies. They are useful for designing and planning management
actions, and for communicating the ecosystem service implications (i.e.,
tradeoffs) of management actions to beneficiaries and to policy makers.
21
-------
2.61.5 Coordinated Case Studies
2.61.5d Gulf of Mexico Case Study
Product Description
The EPA report entitled SustainabiHty at the Community Level:
Searching for Common Ground as a Part of a National Strategy for
Decision Support examines analysis from multiple, community-
based case study ecosystem services and decision science research
activities.
Citation Fulford, R.S., M. Russell, J. Harvey,, M. Harwell. 2016b.
Sustainability at the Community Level: Searching for Common Ground as a Part of a National
Strategy for Decision Support. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL,
EPA/600/R-16/152.
Background
One primary goal of U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development's Sustainable and Healthy
Communities (SHC) research program is to
support sustainable decision making at the
community level, especially in providing
scientifically sound and user-friendly guidance
on the sustainability of current and projected
activities to stakeholder groups at the
community level, including planners, decision
makers, and the general public. Ail communities
have important differences in composition,
priorities, and issues that create challenges for
forging a coherent national strategy for decision
support. Simply 'recreating the wheel' in each
community is costly and inefficient, and an
important goal is to explore the similarities
among communities in key areas to produce a
roadmap for comparability useful for informing
local decision support in environmental planning
and protection.
Sustainability indicators used by local
communities often serve multiple purposes and are communicated in different ways. The research from
Fulford et al. (2016b) focuses on four key areas for community sustainability comparison: community
composition, stakeholder priorities, availability and quality of ecological resources, and measures of
human well-being. First, the make-up of communities based on socio-demographic, economic, and
ecological composition is examined. Second, the community priorities as reported by the stakeholders
22
oE PA
— —
Sustainability at the Community Level:
Searching for Common Ground as a
Part of a National Strategy for Decision
Support
vmr
A
HI j I Bin
Office of Research and Of
National Health and Emriro
tielopmenl
omental Effects Research Laboratory
Community Based Decision Support
(CBDS) is a national scale issue in that the
collective impacts of multiple local decisions can
have large and pervasive results particularly in
coastal areas. Treating all communities the same is
risky because it allows for avoidable variability in
community characteristics to bias the outcome,
and it may be viewed as 'externally driven', which
limits the acceptability of the support by
stakeholders. In contrast, treating each
community as totally unique is inefficient and
ignores potentially valuable commonalities. As a
result, decision support at the community ievel
can have far-reaching implications for
environmental quality and human health and well-
being.
-------
are considered. Third, a geographic information system (GIS) mapping approach is used to consider
similarities and differences in the availability of important index ecosystem goods and services (EGS).
Finally, similarities are explored in a measure of human well-being as an estimate of the impact of
environmental decisions on overall quality of life. Combined, these four elements of comparison
represent the major components of decision support from factors driving decision priorities, probable
pathways for environmental impacts of decisions, and finally to probable impacts on beneficiaries.
Summary of Results
In this report, communities were compared based on four distinct metrics with the purpose of seeking
common ground for defining and measuring sustainability at the local scale. An analytical community-
classification system (CCS) was developed to delineate communities according to their environmental,
social, and economic composition. Three CCS data types were used to examine the social, economic and
environment pillars of sustainability: Social/Demographic composition; employment Location Quotient;
and Ecoregion. The CCS was evaluated by combining it with the Human Weil-Being Index (HWBI; Smith
et al. 2014) and examining whether HWBI-type indicator values differ by community type as a measure
of potential sustainability. Community type was found to be informative regarding the relative
importance of elements of well-being. Overall, community well-being is a moving target and measuring
human benefit is tied to tradeoffs in access to natural resources and most importantly changes across
the rural to urban gradient. Therefore, a balance is proposed between subjective and objective criteria
in measuring sustainability at the local level that may be best achieved through use of the weighted
HWBI. The collective outcome of this report strongly supports exploration of a balanced approach for
local decision support that begins with identification of community type and the calculation of weighted
HWBI.
Fulford et al. (2016b) also examine two approaches for identifying and classifying community priorities.
The first approach (direct stakeholder engagement) asked how a representative set of stakeholders in
select communities defines their fundamental objectives. The second approach was a more objective
examination of strategic planning documents based on the identification of keywords associated with
pre-defined priority categories. The goal was to use stakeholder input to identify and rank community
priorities in a useful and consistent manner. Examining community priorities benefited from combining
the two approaches.
Based on a series of workshops in communities
across the United States (Figure 7), Fulford et al.
(2016b) develop four types of community
sustainability indicators (Figure 8).
Figure 7 - Stakeholder workshops were held in
four communities in the Gulf of Mexico coastal
region to assess community priorities based on
community type. Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA.
23
-------
Type 1:
Indicators of
External Factors
Affecting the
Community
Type 2:
Indicators of
Consequences
of External
Factors
Intermediate
goals
Core values
Type 3:
Indicators of
Possible
Community
Actions
Action Status
Community
response
Type 4:
Indicators of
Outcomes of
Community
Actions
Intermediate
goals
Core values
Figure 8 - Relationship between four types of EPA-identified community sustainability indicators
from Fulford et al. (2016b).
These four types of community sustainability indicators focus information on core values, associated
near- and long-term goals, and strategies for achieving those goals:
~ Indicators of external factors affecting the community (measures of forces affecting
community sustainability that are beyond a community's direct control)
~ Indicators of consequences of external factors (measures of the effects of external factors on
the ability of a community to sustain or achieve its goals)
~ Indicators of possible community actions (measures of the status and immediate outcomes of
community actions)
~ Indicators of the outcomes of community actions (measures the effect of community actions
on addressing those consequences)
By combining these four types of indicators, a community can assess threats, identify priorities, target
actions, demonstrate accountability, monitor results, make informed mid-course corrections, and
ultimately measure the impact of the actions in terms of the goals that matter most to the community.
The collective outcomes of the Fulford et al. (2016b) report strongly support exploration of a balanced
approach for local decision support that begins with identification of community type and the
calculation of weighted HWBI. Research questions remain about the optimal structure of the CCS and
how well it can be applied in new communities.
This work supports new research and a Coordinated Case Study Task in SHC 2.61 that allows for
examination of this approach to measuring sustainability in multiple communities, and at the national
scale. Community-level decision support is a national scale issue and should be approached from that
point of view. Doing so will maximize the impact of EPA-led efforts and can result in a more effective
and accepted measure of community sustainability.
24
-------
2.61.5 Coordinated Case Studies
2.61.5d Gulf of Mexico Case Study
Product Description:
The EPA report article entitled Environmental Quality of the
Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future
Resource Management and Rehabilitation provides a
summary of ecosystem condition assessments and
ecosystem services in the watersheds of Pensacola Bay,
Florida.
Environmental Quality
of the Pensacola Bay
System: Retrospective
Review- for Future
Resource Management and
Rehabilitation
Citation: Lewis, M.A., J.T. Kirschenfeld, T. Goodhart. 2016.
Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource
Management and Rehabilitation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL,
EPA/600/R-16/169.
Background
Lewis et a! (2016) present an analysis of the environmental quality of Pensacola Bay, the fourth largest
estuary in Florida (with a surface area of 373 km2, 889 km of coastline and an approximate 18,000 km2
watershed). In summarizing the scientific literature over the history of environmental condition
assessments conducted in Pensacola Bay since the late 1600s, the authors note those environmental
metrics which inform the estimation of ecosystem services for the bay. Using peer-reviewed published
values, they present estimates of total non-habitat value for environmental goods and services of
seagrass meadows, oyster reefs, and tidal wetlands and examine how habitat decline over the past half
century has reduced these values. Lewis et al. (2016) uses a total value approach to highlight the
importance of the environment to local decision makers as the region is examining how to best utilize
funding for Gulf of Mexico restoration following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Summary of Results
In the Pensacola Bay area, there are no locally validated models capable of predicting the effects of
different levels of stressors on the economic value of the ecological services and goods produced by the
ecosystem to inform scenario tradeoffs. In developing management recommendations for future cost-
effective and science-based resource management, Lewis et al. (2016) examine data gaps and priorities
among geographic locations, environmental parameters, stressor monitoring, and condition assessment
needs. They conclude that long-term improvement in environmental condition in Pensacola Bay will be
determined by conducting well-designed, goal orientated, financially supported studies, with
accompanying public involvement and active management actions, as the Pensacola Bay system is a
shared resource with multiple Federal, state, regional, and local jurisdictional organizations.
25
-------
Highlights from other SHC 2.61 Ecosystem Services Science
Product Description:
The EPA Engineering Forum Issue Paper report entitled
Understanding Ecosystem Services at Superfund Cleanups
outlines how ecosystem service concepts and metrics
could be used to support Superfund cleanup site
management.
Citation: Lipps, J., M. Harwell, M. Kravitz, K. Lynch, M.
Mahoney, C. Pachon, and B. Pluta. 2017.
Understanding Ecosystem Services at Superfund
Cleanups. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA/542/R-17/004.
Background
In August 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released an issue paper to help
representatives from the Superfund program understand ecosystem services and their relevance to
contaminated sites. In part as a response to the 2015 Executive Memorandum Incorporating Ecosystem
Services into Federal Decision Making, the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation (OSTRI), the Technical Support Project Engineering Forum, the Ecological Risk Assessment
Forum, and a 2015 Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences Ecosystem Services project team
worked with Agency science, including science produced from the SHC 2.61 Community-Based Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services Project. The science examined by the project team was used to outline
how consideration of ecosystem services concepts during site cleanup is consistent with U.S. EPA's
mission to protect human health and the environment with Superfund's goals of revitalization of
contaminated lands. Overall, the evaluation of ecosystem services at Superfund sites has the capacity to
inform multiple steps in the process (Figure 9) including the decision context, community/stakeholder
engagement, and analyses of management alternatives through selection of best management practices
for green remediation and ecological revitalization.
Identify Site-
Specific ES
Relevant ES
Quantify
Target ES &
Identify Green
Remediation
BMPs
Implement
Green
Remediation
BMPs
Protect and
Revitalize
Targeted ES
Figure 9 - A generic framework for examining ecosystem services (ES) in the Superfund process from
Lipps et al. (2016). First, site specific ES are identified. The subset of ES relevant to the cleanup effort is
then quantified. Targeted ES are then examined to identify approaches to mitigate impact on ES or
improve ES. After Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation, the effect of cleanup actions on
targeted ES are examined towards the goal of protecting and revitalizing ES at the site.
26
A ERA
Engineering Forum Issue Paper
Ecosystem Services at Contaminated Site Cleanups
iuiinrutf twntfKi mt IKM* froo rxftrt-OMfl H
-------
Summary of Results
This Engineering Forum Issue Paper articulates, using examples such as the Great Lakes Area of Concern,
that by using ecosystem services characterizations as a tool, site teams are better positioned to develop
approaches to avoid damage to sections of a site with high ecosystem services values, and to revitalize
sections with low ecosystem services values. The issue paper describes the relationship between
ecosystem services evaluation efforts and other environmental protection/cleanup concepts such as
ecological risk assessments (ERA), ecological revitalization, natural resource damage assessments
(NRDA), net environmental benefit analyses (NEBA), and applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). The authors also present a conceptual framework for consideration of ecosystem
services endpoints into the cleanup process (Figure 9), and map an example for an ERA where the ERA
assesses how contaminants affect relevant ecosystem services, while an ecosystem services evaluation
examines how cleanup activities might impact or improve them. The Engineering Forum Issue Paper
gives examples of best management practices (BMPs) that are commonly used to improve ecosystem
services by using green remediation (Table 3).
Table 3. Example of green remediation BMPs which may be used for site assessment
or remediation. From: Lipps et al. 2017.
Example Greener Cleanup BMPs
Example Ecosystem Services
Erosion
Hobttat „ Recreation
Control
Site
Assessment
Phase
Consider and document property characteristics such
as habitat connectivity, topography and site access.
s
~
~
Design works zones, traffic plans and construction
phases to avoid habitat disruption.
-------
Synthesis and Key Findings
Different elements of the conceptual model showed in Figure 3 are echoed throughout each of the
studies described. These studies represent the critical linkages of science and policy needed to establish
effective measures of decision outcomes of ecosystem services. Lipps et al. (2017) describes several
tools that are examples needed to create effective measures of decision making. Understanding the
complexity of stakeholder engagement and the decision-making process, Fulford et al. (2016a), Bruins et
al. (2016), Fulford et al. (2015), Bradley et al. (2016), Fulford et al. (2016b), Angradi (2016) and Lipps et
al. (2017) focus on strategies and approaches needed to accomplish these goals, including development
and utilization of organized frameworks, decision strategies and mapping approaches. Lewis et al. (2016)
focuses on identifying data gaps as an example of a specific case study assessment of ecosystem
services, while Cooter et al. (2017) and Jewhurst and Mazzotta (2016) specialize in the quantitative and
economic information of production and benefits in ecosystem goods and services.
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 3, look to clarify the decision context to help
scientists and stakeholders identify and prioritize information needed for decisions-making.
Key Findings in this Output Synthesis Report
• Stakeholders bring further understanding of actions and desired outcomes while science
brings an understanding of how actions can translate into desired outcomes
• Two important concepts, systems thinking and the use of decision frameworks, merge the
fields of ecosystem, services and decision science
• Place-based studies are a vital way to integrate EGS research to community based decision
support to foster the sustainability of the environment, economy, and human well-being
• Ecosystem processes that represent final ecosystem services are directly used by human
beneficiaries and often best serve the needs of decision makers
• The use of multiple, linked ecological production functions can illustrate trade off complexity
across management scenarios
• Trajectories of human well-being over time may change as a function of community dynamics
so both need to be examined over time to inform community decision making
• Understanding and mapping the changes in final ecosystem services provides information
that is within the institutional capacity of local management agencies for supporting decision
making
28
-------
References
Angradi, T.R., D.W. Bolgrien, J.L. Launspach, B.J. Bellinger, M.A. Starry, J.C. Hoffman, M.E. Sierszen, A.S.
Trebitz, and T.P. Hollenhorst. 2016. Mapping ecosystem services of a Great Lakes estuary can
support local decision-making. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42(3):717-727.
Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics 63:616-626.
Bradley, P., W. Fisher, D. Dyson, S. Yee, J. Carriger, G. Gambirazzio, J. Bousquin, and E. Huertas. 2015.
Application of a Structured Decision Process for Informing Watershed Management Options in
Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Narragansett, Rl, EPA/600/R-15/248.
Bruins, R.J.F., T. Canfield, C. Duke, L. Kapustka, A. Nahlik, R. Schafer. 2016. Using ecological production
functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 13(1):52-61.
Cooter, E.J., R. Dodder, J. Bash, A. Elobeid, L. Ran, V. Benson, and D. Yang. 2017. Exploring a United
States maize cellulose biofuel scenario using an integrated energy and agricultural markets
solution approach. Annals of Agricultural & Crop Sciences 2(2).
Fulford, R.S., L.M. Smith, M. Harwell, D. Dantin, M. Russell, and J. Harvey. 2015. Human well-being
differs by community type: Towards reference points in a human well-being indicator useful for
decision support. Ecological Indicators 56:194-204.
Fulford, R.S., R. Bruins, T. Canfield, J.B. Handy, J.M. Johnston, P. Ringold, M. Russell, N. Seeteram, K.
Winters, and S. Yee. 2016a. Lessons learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and Services to
Community Decision Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL,
EPA/600/R-16/136.
Fulford, R.S., M. Russell, J. Harvey, M. Harwell. 2016b. Sustainability at the Community Level: Searching
for Common Ground as a Part of a National Strategy for Decision Support. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/152.
Jewhurst, S., M. Mazzotta. 2016. Economic Tools for Managing Nitrogen in Coastal Watersheds. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-16/036.
Landers, D. and A. Nahlik. 2013. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System. (FEGS-CS).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914.
Lewis, M.A., J.T. Kirschenfeld, T. Goodhart. 2016. Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System:
Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-16/169.
29
-------
Lipps,J., M. Harwell, M. Kravitz, K. Lynch, M. Mahoney, C. Pachon, and B. Pluta. 2017. Understanding
Ecosystem Services at Superfund Cleanups. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/542/R-
17/004.
Smith, L.M., C.M. Wade, K.R. Straub, L.C. Harwell, J.L. Case, M. Harwell, and J.K. Summers. 2014.
Indicators and Methods for Evaluating Economic, Ecosystem and Social Services Provisioning.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-14/184. pp 174.
The World Bank. 2004. How Much is an Ecosystem Worth? Assessing the Economic Value of
Conservation. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2015. Sustainable and Healthy Communities: Strategic Research Action Plan 2016-2019. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA
601/K-15/006.
Acknowledgements
This Output report could not have been prepared without the support of the SHC 2.61 Integration,
Synthesis and Strategic Communication Task Team for their valuable contributions. Additional report
content contributions came from Jewel Lipps (Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Internship
with OSRTI), and Ellen Cooter (ORD NERL). Tim Gleason and Jennifer Cashdollar served as additional
reviewers for this report. Chloe Jackson provided valuable technical and editorial assistance. 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 J.L. Molleda2. 2018. FY 16 Output SHC 2.61.1 Ecosystem Goods and Services
Production and Benefits Case Studies Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL,
EPA/600/R-18/189.
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
30
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research
and Development
(8101R)
Washington, DC
20460
EPA/600/R-18/189
31
------- |