Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring and Assessment: Frameworks, Tools, and Examples

vvEPA

United States

Environmental
Protection Agency

EPA/600/R-22/080 | August 2022 | www.epa.gov/research

Incorporating Ecosystem Services
into Restoration Effectiveness
Monitoring & Assessment:
Frameworks, Tools, and Examples



Office of Research and Development

Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment

-------
© g-pA
wtrn

United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

E PA/600/ R-22/080
August 2022
www.epa.gov/research

Incorporating Ecosystem Services
into Restoration Effectiveness
Monitoring & Assessment:
Frameworks, Tools, and Examples

by

Chloe Jackson, Connie Hernandez, Matthew Harwell,
Theodore DeWitt, William Ainslie, Walter Berry, Amy
Borde, Heida Diefenderfer, Richard Fulford, Joel Hoffman,
Michael Kravitz, Jim Lazorchak, Brooke Mastervich, Tammy
Newcomer-Johnson, Ryann Rossi, Eric D. Stein, Susan Yee

Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460

-------
Notice/Disclaimer Statement

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) through its Office of Research and Development
(ORD) funded and collaborated in the research described herein. Aspects of this project were supported
in part by interagency agreements between the U.S. Department of Energy (i.e., Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory and the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education participant research program)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 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. The views expressed here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of USEPA. Cover page photos were retrieved from EPA's Stock Photos Gallery.

The citation for this report is: Jackson, CA, CL Hernandez, MC Harwell, and TH DeWitt (editors). 2022.
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring & Assessment: Frameworks,
Tools, and Examples. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-22/080.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to several people who contributed ideas, information, and review during the
development of this report, these include: Michele Mahoney, Carlos Pachon (USEPA Office of Land &
Emergency Management); Palmer Hough, Brian Topping (USEPA Office of Water); Jonathan Essoka
(USEPA Region 3); Joe Morgan (USEPA Region 9); Lisa Chang (USEPA RIO); Kyle Buck, Ted Angradi,
Mary Kentula, Mike Kravitz, Patti Meeks, Paul Ringold, Marc Russell, Leah Sharpe (USEPA Office of
Research & Development); Katelyn Barrett (Oak Ridge Institute for Science & Engineering); Kelly
Moroney, Khem So (US Fish & Wildlife Service); Kristi Foster (Tillamook Estuaries Partnership). Sara
Mason and Ron Thom provided valuable technical reviews of this report.

Credits

Figures 1.1, 1.4, 3.4, 4.13, and 5.1 are used with permission from the Society of Ecological Restoration.
Figure 3.2 is used with permission from the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke
University. Figure 4.5 is used with permission from permission from the Washington State Dept. of
Ecology. Photographs of great heron and of people bird watching in Box 1, Box 1.1, and Figure 6.1 are
Creative Commons CCO Public domain images, free for use without attribution, obtained from
https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1622309 and https://pixnio.com/people/birdwatching, respectively. The
photograph of an Oregon tidal wetland in Box 1, Box 1.1, and Figure 6.1 was taken by Ted DeWitt,

USEPA.

li

-------
Table of Contents

Notice/Disclaimer Statement	ii

Acknowledgments	ii

Table of Contents	iii

List of Figures	vii

List of Tables	x

Author Affiliations	xii

Acronyms	xiii

Executive Summary	1

Chapter 1: Introduction	10

1.1	Introduction	11

1.2	Restoration, Ecosystem Services, and Social Ecological Systems	13

1.3	Operationalizing an Ecosystem Services Approach in REMA	17

1.4	References	20

Chapter 2: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into REMA: Concepts and Resources	23

2.1	Introduction	24

2.2	REMA Frameworks	24

2.3	Resources to Facilitate Including Ecosystem Services in REMA	31

2.4	Incorporating Ecosystem Services into REMA Framework Elements	36

2.4.1	Identify Boundaries and Constraints	39

2.4.2	Assess Existing Knowledge	40

2.4.3	Identify Goals & Objectives	43

2.4.4	Select Metrics	51

2.4.5	Collect and Analyze Data	55

2.4.6	Assess Restoration Outcomes	60

2.4.7	Synthesize and Communicate Findings	62

2.4.8	Practice Adaptive Management	64

2.5	Conclusion	65

2.6	References	66

iii

-------
Chapter 3: Additional Considerations for Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Conservation-based

Restoration	79

3.1	Introduction	80

3.1.1	Goals	80

3.1.2	Historical Perspective and Terminology	81

3.1.3	The REMA Framework and Conservation Considerations	83

3.1.4	Chapter Content	85

3.1.5	Intended Audience	85

3.2	Organizing Principles and Related Research	85

3.2.1	Frameworks Integrating Conservation-based Restoration and Ecosystem Services	86

3.2.2	Special Challenges in Ecosystem Services and Restoration	87

3.2.3	Social Benefit Frameworks	88

3.2.4	General Applicability: Water Quality, Forest Restoration, and Estuary Program Examples	90

3.3	Special Considerations for Practice: Conservation-based Restoration	91

3.3.1	Boundaries & Constraints	91

3.3.2	Goals, Objectives, and Conflicts	93

3.3.3	Issues and Opportunities	94

3.3.4	Monitoring and ES	95

3.4	Case Studies Literature Review and Analysis	98

3.4.1	Introduction of the Case Studies	98

3.4.2	Methods: Literature Review	99

3.4.3	Results: Analytical Overview of the Literature	101

3.4.4	Approaches to Goal Setting, Ecological Condition and Socio-Economic Metrics, and
Restoration in Case Studies	104

3.4.5	Implications and Opportunities	112

3.5	Conclusions	113

3.6	References	114

Chapter 4: Additional Considerations for Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Cleanup and Restoration
of Contaminated Sites	127

4.1 Introduction	129

4.1.1	Goals	129

4.1.2	The REMA Framework and Contaminated Site Considerations	130

iv

-------
4.1.3	Chapter Content	130

4.1.4	Intended Audience	131

4.2	Organizing Principles	131

4.2.1	Introduction	131

4.2.2	Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR)	132

4.2.3	Translational Science	133

4.2.4	Ecosystem Services, Beneficiaries, and Contaminated Sites	135

4.2.5	The Importance of a Social-Ecological System (SES) Framework	136

4.2.6	Audiences	138

4.3	Special Considerations	139

4.3.1	Introduction	139

4.3.2	Identify Boundaries & Constraints	139

4.3.3	Opportunities	154

4.3.4	Monitoring and Ecosystem Services	159

4.4	REMA Framework Example Case Study	166

4.4.1	Learning from Case Studies	166

4.4.2	Case Study Overview	166

4.4.3	Boundaries and Constraints	166

4.4.4	Assess Existing Knowledge	167

4.4.5	Identify Goals and Objectives	167

4.4.6	Select Metrics	167

4.4.7	Collect and Analyze Data	168

4.4.8	Assess Restoration Outcomes	168

4.4.9	Synthesize and Communicate Findings	168

4.4.10	Practice Adaptive Management	169

4.5	Conclusions	170

4.6	References	170

Chapter 5: Additional Considerations for Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Compensatory
Mitigation Programs	177

5.1	Introduction	178

5.1.1. Goals	181

5.2	Organizing Principles	182

v

-------
5.3	Special Considerations	185

5.3.1	REMA Framework	185

5.3.2	Identify Boundaries and Constraints	186

5.3.3	Assess Existing Knowledge	188

5.3.4	Identify Goals and Objectives	190

5.3.5	Select Metrics	191

5.3.6	Collect and Analyze Data	193

5.3.7	Assess Restoration Progress and Success	194

5.3.8	Synthesize and Communicate Findings	195

5.3.9	Practice Adaptive Management	196

5.4	Gaps, Needs, and Recommendations for Incorporating ES into Compensatory Mitigation
Evaluation and Assessment	197

5.5	References	201

Chapter 6: Common Threads, Challenges, and Operationalizing the Incorporation of Ecosystem Services
into REMA	204

6.1	Introduction	204

6.2	Common Threads	208

6.2.1	Overall Suite of Benefits	208

6.2.2	Core Messages of this Report	209

6.3	Challenges and Recommendations to Operationalize the Incorporation of ES into Restoration .. 212
Glossary	216

Terms and Definitions	216

References	231

Appendix A. Chapter 2 REMA Literature Search & Analysis	237

Appendix B. Tables of Findings from Chapter 3 Case Study Literature Review	245

vi

-------
List of Figures

Figure 1.1. SER's Social Benefits Wheel meant to "assist in tracking the degree to which an ecological
restoration project or program is attaining its social development targets and goals" (Gann et al. 2019).

Figure 1.2. A general social-ecological system framework for restoration, nesting a project within
ecological and social systems. The dynamic ecosystem processes that ultimately produce ecosystem
services supply the social system and contribute to well-being, the governance systems that set and
implement policies relating to use and management of natural resources, and the consequent impact on

the dynamics of ecosystem processes. Figure modified from Piet et al. (2020) 15

Figure 1.3. Translational science models for envisioning the progression of an idea from conception to
application to practice, in general (top row of chevrons), for restoration (middle row), and for

restoration that includes ES (bottom row) 16

Figure 1.4. A modified "restorative continuum" diagram from the Society for Ecological Restoration
(Gann et al. 2019) describing (bottom) restoration action goals (i.e., reducing, improving, repairing,
initiating, recovering) and resultant improvement in ecosystem outcomes (bottom bars). This report's
three communities of practice, including contaminated sites, compensatory mitigation, and

conservation-based restoration, are outlined in boxes at the top 19

Figure 2.1. A general REMA framework 30

Figure 3.1. Sections of Chapter 3 that discuss the special ES-related considerations for conservation-
based restoration (right) mapped onto the REMA framework (left). An understanding of regulatory (e.g.,
federal, state, or local organizations), and legal (e.g., laws, private landowners) authorities, and relevant

terminology, is assumed at all stages 83

Figure 3.2. The components of an ES causal chain, and example of ES causal chain for wetland

restoration and water availability for crops. Modified from NESP (2014) Vol. 3 96

Figure 3.3. Timeline considerations for monitoring and ES 98

Figure 3.4. A modified "restorative continuum" diagram from the Society for Ecological Restoration
(Gann et al. 2019) describing (bottom) restoration action goals (i.e., reducing, improving, repairing,
initiating, recovering) and resultant improvement in ecosystem outcomes (bottom bars). This report's
three communities of practice, including conservation-based restoration, are outlined in boxes at the

top 99

Figure 3.5. The number of research articles and US federal reports identified by iterative keyword
searches for restoration and conservation, case studies, and ES, with the final screened number of 138

articles/reports included in this review 100

Figure 3.6. Fraction of articles or reports that discussed a given step of a restoration process, and

whether that step included consideration or assessment of ES 102

Figure 3.7. Number of articles/reports each year that described or assessed ES, or something other than
ES (e.g., ecological condition) as part of identifying goals of restoration, a pre-restoration assessment, or

a post-restoration assessment 102

Figure 3.8. Correspondence between restoration goals, as described for each case study, and pre-
restoration assessment, monitoring plan, or post-restoration assessment, including for case studies

-------
where both pre- and post-restoration planning or assessments were conducted. Correspondence (blue
or yellow solid bars) indicates the assessment or monitoring plan matched the identified goals, either for
ES (blue) or ecological condition goals (yellow). Diagonal hatching indicates a mismatch between goals

and at least one step of pre- or post-restoration assessment. Orange bars indicate restoration goals

were not specified clearly enough to assess correspondence	103

Figure 4.1. Sections of Chapter 4 that discuss the special ES-related considerations for contaminated

sites (right) mapped onto the REMA framework (left)	130

Figure 4.2. Organizing principles for special consideration of ES in contaminated sites. References: 1 -
USEPA 2008b; 2011a; 2 - USEPA 2017a; Harwell et al. 2021; 3 - Yee et al. 2017; 4 - Pettibone et al.
2018; 5 - Williams and Hoffman 2020; 6 - DeWitt et al. 2020; 7 - Williams and Hoffman 2020; 8 -

Sharpe et al. 2021	131

Figure 4.3. A modified "restorative continuum" diagram from the Society for Ecological Restoration
(Gann et al. 2019) describing (bottom) restoration action goals (i.e., reducing, improving, repairing,
initiating, recovering) and resultant improvement in ecosystem outcomes (bottom bars). This report's

three communities of practice, including contaminated sites, are outlined in boxes at the top	132

Figure 4.4. Stakeholder engagement at the core of translational science	133

Figure 4.5. Opportunities for "public participation" in Washington state's cleanup process identified by

the orange "speak bubble" (Source: WDOE 2016)	135

Figure 4.6. Social-ecological systems approach to incorporating ES into adaptive management of

ecological restoration projects. Monitoring endpoints are shown as metrics-A: project-scale ecological
metrics for project effectiveness (environmental quality, species, habitat, ecological integrity, function);
B: project-scale ES impact metrics - environmental; C: project-scale ES impact metrics - social,
governance; D: system-scale ES impact metrics - environmental; E: system-scale ES impacts - social,

economic, governance. See Table 4.7 for supporting information on metrics	137

Figure 4.7. General process for contaminated site cleanups	141

Figure 4.8. The CERCLA Cleanup Pipeline	141

Figure 4.9. The RCRA Corrective Action Process	142

Figure 4.10. Generic Risk Assessment Process	142

Figure 4.11. The Beneficial Use Impairment Removal Process	144

Figure 4.12. Example of general approach for moving from contaminated site risk assessment
characterization (left) to developing remediation goals (middle) and subsequent monitoring endpoints

(right)	160

Figure 4.13. The addition of a beneficiary perspective helps inform the additional consideration of
stakeholder goals (dark green on right) to the larger suite of cleanup goals, creating the opportunity to

expand the consideration of monitoring endpoints from an ES perspective (light green)	160

Figure 4.14. The addition of a beneficiary perspective creates opportunities to increase the suite of
remediation and restoration benefits (far right) assessed	160

Figure 4.15. A Sankey network diagram visualizing management action types (left) considered in RAPs
stages, the ES documented within the RAPs (middle right) and the beneficiaries of those services (far
right). Boxes (nodes) are connected by lines (edges); the size of the edges reflects the contribution from
one node to the next. For example, the beneficiary of birds was identified as non-use beneficiaries,

-------
followed by recreational beneficiaries. The absence of an edge indicates no connection between nodes.

	167

Figure 5.1. A modified "restorative continuum" diagram from the Society for Ecological Restoration
(Gann et al. 2019) describing (bottom) restoration action goals (i.e., reducing, improving, repairing,
initiating, recovering) and resultant improvement in ecosystem outcomes (bottom bars). This report's
three communities of practice, including compensatory mitigation, are outlined in boxes at the top... 179
Figure 5.2. Sections of Chapter 5 that discuss the special ES-related considerations in compensatory

mitigation (right) mapped onto the REMA framework (left)	186

Figure 6.1. Illustration of the triplet of features that compose a single FEGS. Inspired by Amanda Nahlik.
	208

IX

-------
List of Tables

Table 2.1. Elements of REMA frameworks found in restoration guidance documents. See Section 2.4 for

further description of each element 25

Table 2.2. Descriptions of resources to facilitate incorporating ES into REMA. Websites were accessed in

December 2021. *Developed by the USEPA's Office of Research and Development 31

Table 2.3. Resources (rows) that support incorporating ES into REMA framework elements (columns). 35

Table 2.4. Considerations for including ES into the elements of REMA frameworks 37

Table 2.5. Translation of hypothetical restoration goals into FEGS and corresponding components within
the NESCS Plus classification (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020) illustrated for a hypothetical freshwater
wetland restoration project. *These subclasses could be further refined to identify individual or
communities of species. EEP = ecological end product - the relevant biophysical components of nature

that are directly used or appreciated by humans 46

Table 2.6. Practical considerations for prioritizing ES for a REMA plan 48

Table 2.7. Hypothetical REMA goals and objectives derived from the tidal wetland restoration goals and

their associated FEGS from Table 2.5 50

Table 2.8. Descriptions for study designs for REMA data collection and analysis. Descriptions are

modified from the original sources 58

Table 3.1. Example of FEGS indicators, realized functions, and realized services that can be measured at

a wetland restoration site (adapted from Mazzotta et al. 2019) 97

Table 3.2. Ecosystem services assessed within eight major ecosystem types in reviewed case studies. 105
Table 3.3. Examples of impairments and restoration activities mentioned in case studies for different
ecosystems, and components of ecological condition or socio-economic factors mentioned as

restoration goals or assessed pre- or post-restoration 110

Table 4.1. Examples of ES relevant topics for different phases of ecological risk assessments (modified

from Maurice et al. 2019) 143

Table 4.2. Examples of ES-relevant lists of green and sustainable BMPs, using the ASTM International

(2016) as a guide 146

Table 4.3. Examples of ES-relevant activities in a generic Brownfield context 148

Table 4.4. Crosswalk between 14 BUIs in the Great Lakes AOCs to their designated uses and two ES

classification systems 149

Table 4.5. Examples of core terminology to inform site cleanup teams. Drawn from the Glossary 157

Table 4.6. Elements of reflective practice inform communication effectiveness 158

Table 4.7. Monitoring-related activities, special considerations in contaminated cleanups, and example
of potential ES related endpoints for environmental, social, economic, and governance assessments of

restoration success for different periods of a cleanup project 163

Table 5.1. Twelve constituent elements required by the 2008 Mitigation Rule to be included in a

mitigation plan, and potential for incorporating ES into review process 1839

Table 5.2. Examples of ecological functions (after Hydrogeomorphic Approach (Smith et al. 1995)) and
services with common indicators/performance standards for forested, riverine wetlands 192

-------
Table 6.1. Entry points for ES consideration for each step in REMA. Restoration communities of practice:
Conserv. = conservation-based restoration; Cont. Sites = contaminated sites restoration; Comp. Mit. =
compensatory mitigation-based restoration. Numbers in the "Learn More" column refer to sections of

this report	205

Table 6.2. Benefits of using ES in restoration	209

Table 6.3. Challenges and recommendations to facilitate the incorporation of ES into REMA	212

XI

-------
Author Affiliations

Bill Ainslie US Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA

Walter Berry

US Environmental Protection Agency, Narraganset, Rl

Amy B. Borde

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA

Theodore H. DeWitt

US Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR

Heida L. Diefenderfer

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland WA

Richard S. Fulford

US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL

Matthew C. Harwell

US Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR

Connie L. Hernandez

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Newport, OR

Joel C. Hoffman

US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN

Chloe A. Jackson

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Gulf Breeze, FL

Michael Kravitz

US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH

Jim Lazorchak

US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH

Brooke Mastervich

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Gulf Breeze, FL

Tammy Newcomer-Johnson

US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH

Ryann Rossi

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Gulf Breeze, FL

Leah Sharpe

US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL

Eric D. Stein

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA

Dalon White

US Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC

Susan Yee

US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL

-------
Acronyms1

AM

Adaptive Management

AOC

Area of Concern

ARIES

Artificial Intelligence for Environment and Sustainability

ASTM

American Society for Testing and Materials

AWQC

Ambient Water Quality Criteria

BA study

Before-After study

BACI study

Before-After Control Impact study

BARI study

Before-After Reference Impact study

BARR study

Before-After Reference Restoration study

BACI PS study

Before-After Control Impact Paired Series study

BERA

Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment

BMP

Best Management Practices

BUI

Beneficial Use Impairments

CESR

Corporate Ecosystem Services Review

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CFLRP

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CI study

Control-Impact study

CICES

Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services

CoP

Communities of Practice

CSM

Conceptual Site Model

CWA

Clean Water Act

DST

Decision Support Tools

DWH-NRDAT

Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees

EBM

Ecosystem Based Management

ECSM

Ecosystem Services Conceptual Models

EEP

Ecological End Product

EF

Ecological Function(s)

EGS

Ecosystem Goods and Services

EHRB

Eco-Health Relationship Browser

EJSCREEN

Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool

EPA

US Environmental Protection Agency

ER

Ecological Revitalization

ERA

Ecological Risk Assessment

ES

Ecosystem Services

ESII

Ecosystem Services Identification and Inventory Tool

ESML

EcoService Models Library

1 See also the Glossary for definitions of key terms

xill

-------
EU	European Union

FEGS	Final Ecosystem Goods and Services

FEGS-CS	Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System

FRMESG	Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook

FST	FEGS Scoping Tool

GLRI	Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

GLWQA	Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

GIS	Geographic Information System

GSR	Green and Sustainable Remediation

HIA	Health Impact Assessment

HWBI	Human Weil-Being Index

ILF	In-lieu Fee

InVEST	Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs

ITRC	Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council

LIDs	Low-impact Development Programs

NARS	National Aquatic Resource Surveys

NASEM	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

NEI	Net Ecosystem Improvement

NEP	National Estuary Program

NEPA	National Environmental Policy Act

NESCS Plus	National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus

NESP	National Ecosystem Services Partnership

NOAA	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES	National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

POTW	Publicly Owned Treatment Works

ppm	Part Per Million

PRM	Permittee-responsible Mitigation

R2R2R	Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization

RAP	Remedial Action Plan

RBI	Rapid Benefit Indicators

RCRA	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RECOVER	Restoration Coordination and Verification

REDD	Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

REMA	Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring and Assessment

RGL	Regulatory Guidance Letter

SARA	Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SALT	Strategy, Action, Learning, Tools

SBLRBRA	Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act

SDM	Structured Decision Making

SER	Society for Ecological Restoration

SES	Social-ecological Systems

SLERA	Screening level ecological risk assessment

xiv

-------
SMART (criteria)

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Results-oriented, Time-sensitive

SolVES

Social Values for Ecosystem Services

TBNEP

Tampa Bay National Estuary Program

TEEB

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

TESSA

Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment

TS

Translational Science

UN

United Nations

USACE

US Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA

US Environmental Protection Agency

USFS

US Forest Service

USFWS

US Fish and Wildlife Service

VELMA

Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments Model

WIIN

Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act

WRDA

Water Resources Development Act

WRRDA

Water Resources Reform and Development Act

-------
Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that incorporating ecosystem services (ES) in restoration
effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA) is feasible, practical, and provides strategic value that
can enhance the success of restoration projects. Ecosystem restoration is pursued for a variety of
reasons, typically to improve the condition of the ecological structure and/or function of a parcel of
land. Philosophically, it may be argued that the ultimate reason for restoration is to increase the flow of
benefits from nature to people who use or care about that parcel. Although the explicit inclusion of ES
as part of a restoration project's goals has been recommended in several influential restoration guides,
relatively few restoration projects have done so. Possible reasons for the slow adoption of ES in
restoration include perceptions that measuring them is difficult, costly, requires special expertise, that
goals to improve ES for people are contrary to goals to improve nature for its own sake, and/or the lack
of guidance on how to identify, quantify, or assess ES. Those challenges are met directly with this report
which provides general approaches for identifying and prioritizing ES, particularly via stakeholder
engagement, for transforming those into project goals and monitoring metrics, for using ES to assess
restoration effectiveness, and to communicate progress toward restoration goals in terms that resonate
with different audiences (i.e., communities, landowners, tribes, agencies, regulators, and other
stakeholders). Additionally, this report provides in-depth consideration for incorporating ES into three
restoration communities of practice (CoP): conservation based-restoration, contaminated site cleanup-
based restoration (where terminology used includes remediation and revitalization), and compensatory
mitigation-based restoration. The audience for this report includes

restoration/remediation/revitalization practitioners, project or program managers, stakeholders
(including nearby communities), regulators, and research scientists.

Chapter 1 (Introduction) sets the stage by building the case that ES are useful for linking restoration
project goals to the interests and values of stakeholders, including people in adjacent communities.
Ecosystem restoration projects can be viewed as social-ecological systems in which the motivation to
invest in and sustain a project, particularly the monitoring and assessment phases, results from the
benefits that the site can yield for stakeholders. Final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) are a subset
of ES and defined as the biophysical attributes of an ecosystem that people directly use, consume,
enjoy, or revere, are particularly useful for connecting people's interests to the outcome of restoration
(Box 1).

1

-------
Box 1. Where, for Whom, What - characteristics and examples of final ecosystem goods and services

Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS): The ecosystem products and processes that are directly
used, enjoyed, or appreciated by people and that need minimal translation for relevance to human well-
being. A FEGS represents a subset of all ecosystem goods and services distinguished as the final
"endpoints" in nature's production networks that people directly use. The production of FEGS is
dependent on "supporting" and "regulating" ecological structures and functions; these intermediate
goods and services are critically important to human well-being, for without them, FEGS would not exist
(adapted from Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

FEGS: final ecosystem goods & services

The components of nature within an environment that are
directly enjoyed, consumed or used to yield human well-being

Ecological End
Product

Environment type

Beneficiary

Recreational

Fauna	Wetlands	Experiencers &

Viewers

The FEGS in this example: fauna in wetlands that people enjoy viewing for recreation
Inspired by Amanda Nahlik

Ecological End-Product: The relevant biophysical components of nature that are directly used or
appreciated by humans in FEGS.

Environment type: An area with defined biophysical characteristics, classified through a hierarchical
system for distinguishing areas with similar biophysical characteristics applicable to the entire surface of
the Earth (including all terrestrial and aquatic environments) in EPA's National Ecosystem Services
Classification System (NESCS) Plus.

Beneficiary: An individual or group that directly enjoys, uses, consumes, or appreciates some aspect of
the environment for the betterment of their well-being (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Final Ecosystem Good



Ecological End



Environment

or Service



Product



Type

— Beneficiary

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5

Commercially important
crab species

Adult crab

Estuary

Commercial
crabbers

Charismatic bird species —

i i

Charismatic bird

Forested

Recreational

species

wetlands

birdwatchers

, 	

Water for growing crops

Water quantity

Streams and
rivers

Agricultural
irrigators

-------
Chapter 2 introduces a generic framework for REMA (Figure A.l) that was developed from a synthesis of
38 restoration monitoring methodologies, and this formed the backbone for the rest of the report. A
rich set of 32 ES resources (i.e., guides, classification systems, decision-support tools, mapping tools,
simulation and forecasting models) is reviewed in context of general considerations for incorporating ES
into each element of the REMA framework, with examples given. Chapters 3-5 address special
considerations, challenges, and opportunities for incorporating ES into REMA for the three restoration
CoPs.

Figure A.l. A general REMA framework.

Since its inception, practitioners of conservation-based ecological restoration have recognized the
importance of the socially valued ecosystem functions provided by conservation and restoration.
However, the rapid expansion of publications about ES and conservation-based restoration in recent
years does not necessarily mean that ES are fully incorporated at all stages of conservation-based
restoration. Based on an assessment of the state of the science and practice recorded in the literature,
Chapter 3 provides a conceptual basis, examples, and practical methods to extend REMA approaches
beyond measuring ecosystem structure and functions, to emerging methods that more intentionally
incorporate measurable benefits to human beneficiaries. A review of the scientific literature revealed
that while ES are frequently mentioned or included as a goal in conservation-based restoration,
monitoring and assessment seldom includes ES that people directly use or benefit from. Opportunities
exist to increase public support for conservation-based restoration projects by including stakeholders,
including local communities, in REMA planning wherein their interests can be articulated as ES that
produce ecological attributes that they wish to use, enjoy, or revere. This holds for community initiated
or community led ecosystem restoration projects. Finally, there are opportunities to reconcile perceived

-------
trade-offs between ecological and social goals by realization that ES production depends on healthy and
well-functioning ecosystems.

Chapter 4 focuses on the value-added perspective ES can bring to inform and enhance cleanup
monitoring and assessments, including remedy effectiveness assessments. Consideration of concepts of
ES in the cleanup of contaminated sites has evolved over the past two decades. Efforts have focused on
informing principles of greener cleanup activities, sustainability endpoints in remediation, restoration,
and revitalization, and informing ecological risk assessments. Additional ES related efforts have been
advanced on stakeholder engagement and the use of decision support tools. Consideration of how ES
can support contaminated cleanups has resulted in the potential for integrating ES assessments into
various components of a cleanup, including the use of ES metrics. Focusing on a "beneficiary
perspective" connects ES to those receiving direct benefits of a given remediation or restoration effort.
This chapter details these elements using examples of tools and approaches that can be used in
contaminated cleanups, and it uses case study examples to illustrate the concepts, approaches, and
tools presented.

Chapter 5 focuses on considerations for ES integration in compensatory mitigation-based restoration.
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to aquatic resources in the United States is required under Clean
Water Act §404 and guided by the 2008 Mitigation Rule which is largely focused on how the restoration
of aquatic ecosystem functions is overseen. Additionally, language in the Rule defines "services" as "the
benefits that human populations receive from functions that occur in ecosystems," or ES. Aspects of
defining objectives, site selection, collecting baseline information, determining credits, developing a
work plan, performance standards, monitoring long term, and adaptive management from the Rule
have many overlaps with the REMA framework and therefore are amenable to incorporating ES.
Although regulatory language in the Rule includes terms and concepts pertaining to ES, detailed
language about specifically incorporating them is lacking. Gaps that need to be filled before ES can be
fully incorporated into compensatory mitigation practice are identified and discussed.

Each chapter provides a set of core messages at the outset for a quick synopsis of the major take-away
lessons. Chapter 6 provides a synthesis of the preceding chapters by identifying cross-cutting core
messages, challenges, and recommendations. The main take-away message for this report is that
incorporating ES into restoration is feasible and that there are methods, tools, guides, and examples
available to help restoration practitioners. The full suite of lessons-learned is as follows:

Cross-cutting core messages

1. Incorporating ES into restoration is doable. Examples of incorporating ES in restoration planning,
monitoring, and assessment are presented for each of the steps in the REMA process (Chapter 2)
and each of the CoPs (Chapters 3, 4, 5). The number of restoration projects including ES is increasing
exponentially. A rich array of resources (i.e., handbooks, guides, online or stand-alone tools,
modeling tools, databases) are available to facilitate the incorporation of ES (Chapter 2).

2. Including representatives from all stakeholder groups, including nearby communities, in
restoration planning can help build trust and public support for the project. Ultimately, restoration
of a site is conducted to satisfy goals defined by people. In most cases, the groups who will come to

-------
care about the restored site (and hence, the restoration project) includes neighboring property
owners and businesses, nearby residents (including renters), downstream residents, businesses and
other concerns, and people and businesses in surrounding communities. Many of those groups will
benefit from a site's restoration and can become advocates or supporters of the project. Others may
be concerned that a restoration project will adversely affect their interests yet be unaware of ways
the project could be beneficial. The FEGS Scoping Tool and other resources (Chapter 2) can help
reveal common interests among stakeholders with respect to the benefits that can be derived from
nature at a restored site.

3. Selecting ES that are relevant to stakeholders helps to link the outcome of restoration projects to
benefits those groups care about. That can help build public support for the project. This is a
corollary to the previous point. If a project includes improving the ecological attributes that produce
benefits that people care about, then those people will value the restoration project and its
outcome. This starts with including stakeholders to identify and prioritize the social-ecological
benefits (i.e., ES) that the restored site could produce, incorporating those into the restoration goals
and to identify monitoring metrics, and then communicating the progress of the restoration toward
providing those benefits to stakeholders. Conversely, if stakeholders or the public do not
understand or value the goals of a restoration project, it seems unlikely that they will support the
project.

4. Restoring sites for the benefit of people is not incompatible with restoring them for nature. Many
nature-focused goals can be expressed as ES goals by realizing that some group of people cares (i.e.,
has placed value on) the aspects of nature on which the goals center. For example, a restoration
goal to increase the abundance of a rare or imperiled species can be expressed as a FEGS for people
who wish to view, create art, or revere those species, or who wish to know that those species exist
now or into the future. Discovery of the links between nature-based and social-ecological goals is
facilitated by asking "why is a given nature-based goal important" and "for whom is it important."
Furthermore, ecological structures and processes necessary to produce ES often greatly overlap
those typically considered in ecological restoration. Hence, many metrics used in restoration site
assessment can also inform the production of ES. Conceptual models and ecological production
functions are useful for understanding linkages between ecological processes and ES production
(see Chapter 2).

5. Tools are available to facilitate the inclusion of ES (including FEGS) into restoration planning,
monitoring, and assessment. Many resources are available to help restoration teams identify and
prioritize ES for their project, identify or develop ES metrics, forecast and assess progress of
restoration toward the desired provision of ES, and communicate the purpose and progress of
restoration in terms of social-ecological benefits that will flow to nearby communities and other
stakeholders; see Chapter 2. Examples of applications of these and other tools are provided in
Chapters 2-5. Many of those tools are also being applied in other environmental management
contexts and used in academic and agency research. Consequently, expertise and experience in

-------
using these tools and applications in social-ecological systems contexts are growing, and
knowledgeable help is available.

6.	Legal bases for considering ES are present in the laws governing restoration activities pursued in
each CoP. Numerous authorities and state and federal laws can utilize ES (including FEGS) concepts
for management of natural resources including remediation, restoration, and revitalization of
damaged lands. In conservation-based restoration, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
operates with restoration authorities and has been working to incorporate ES into restoration
planning for a decade. The US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Science Advisory Board
recommended investing in activities to advance consideration and assessment of ES as an approach
to enhance steps in remediation and redevelopment processes. Finally, in a mitigation context, ES
consideration could be used to ensure that ES lost at the impact site are produced at the
compensation site. The USACE and the USEPA updated regulations (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332; 40
CFR Part 230) on compensatory mitigation in 2008 stating "mitigation...should be located where it is
most likely to successfully replace lost...services".

7.	Successful restoration of ES should be assessed relative to defined targets and points of reference.

Evaluation of restored ES performance requires a framework for establishing a basis of comparison
that can be used to objectively gauge success, performance, or compliance. Clear articulation of
desired outcomes establishes shared expectations among stakeholders with often disparate
interests and determines the metrics and assessment methods against which success can be
measured. Performance (or success) should be assessed relative to a defined target and should
include an expected timeframe to meet that target. For example, a target reference expectation
might be based on conditions at reference sites (e.g., pristine, minimally impacted, or best
attainable) or relative to regional or ambient condition (e.g., comparable to a percentile of the range
of ambient conditions).

Additionally, each CoP identified an over-arching core message, as follows:

Conservation-based Restoration: Early and continuous inclusion of ES throughout the
restoration planning and monitoring process, with attention to maintaining congruence among
these stages, would help to ensure the greatest success in producing stakeholder-driven ES
outcomes from conservation-based restoration.

Contaminated Site Cleanup-based Restoration: Deliberative investments in connecting ESto
support contaminated cleanups has resulted in the potential for integrating ES assessments into
various components of a cleanup. Any remediation site involving ecological considerations, or
reuse that creates access to nature, may be a potential site for inclusion of ES.

Compensatory Mitigation-based Restoration: Aspects of defining objectives, site selection,
collecting baseline information, determining credits, developing a work plan, performance

6

-------
standards, monitoring long term, and adaptive management from the 2008 Mitigation Rule have
many overlaps with the REMA framework and therefore are amenable to incorporating ES.

Challenges & recommendations

Concerns expressed by restoration practitioners and scientists about the feasibility of including ES in
restoration planning, monitoring and assessment are described into the list below (e.g., Challenges)
along with suggestions for solutions (e.g., Recommendations). The latter reference sections of this
report that provide more detail.

CHALLENGE 1: A narrow consideration of which ESto include in a restoration plan can lead to
unintended, undesired diminishment of other ES. RECOMMENDATION: Engage with all stakeholders
to systematically and transparently identify and prioritize which ES to restore. This can be facilitated
with resources such as the FEGS Scoping Tool (Chapter 2). Knowing which are the priority ES can
focus the assessment of potential conflicts in the ecological production of ES and the social
consequences of diminished priority ES. That assessment provides an informed basis for making
decisions on managing tradeoffs in goals, such as whether conflicts in ES-based goals can be avoided
(i.e., by changing elements of the restoration plan) or mitigated. See Sections 2.4, 3.2, 4.3, and 5.4.

CHALLENGE 2: Some practitioners contend that adding ES into restoration plans will lower the
ecological integrity of the restored site. RECOMMENDATION: Restoration can be used to both
improve biodiversity, ecological functioning, and system resilience, and improve human well-being
through production of ES. Full production of many ES endpoints requires a healthy, well-functioning
ecosystem. Conceptual models and ecological production functions (Chapter 2) can identify
opportunities to link ecological structural features and processes of the restored site to the
production of desired ES. See also Sections 3.2, 4,3, 5.1, and 5.4.

CHALLENGE 3: Identifying the needs of stakeholders and the public and assessing their attitudes
toward the restoration progress is outside the wheelhouse of restoration ecologists and engineers.
RECOMMENDATION: Include social scientists on the restoration team. Additionally, having new
perspectives can improve the project (i.e., articulation of goals, monitoring and assessment,
communication of results). See Sections 2.4, 3.2, 4.2, and 5.3.

CHALLENGE 4: Stakeholders may have different ideas about ES, distinct benefits, and end-use
interests that may not accord amongst groups, and balancing varied group interests can be one of
the most important aspects of planning, garnering wide support, and ensuring sustainability.
RECOMMENDATION: Stakeholder engagement is an important step when identifying the ES of
greatest importance to the community. This report introduces tools (Chapter 2) that can help
managers and decision makers transparently identify and prioritize the ES (and their associated
environmental attributes) that are of greatest common interest among stakeholders. See Sections
2.4, 3.2, 4.2, and 5.3.

CHALLENGE 5: Ecosystem services are often articulated in goals but are rarely included in
monitoring or assessment. RECOMMENDATION: From the literature, it is clear that the science of ES
has developed where ES can now become a meaningful component in restoration planning, goals,

-------
monitoring, and assessment. Operationalizing the intersection between ES science and ecosystem
restoration has been identified as a need in other restoration guidebooks too, and tools are now
available to facilitate doing this (Chapter 2). See Sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.3, 5.3, and 5.4.

CHALLENGE 6: What if the stakeholder and the public wish to prioritize a different set of ES for a
mitigation site than were prioritized at the impacted site? RECOMMENDATION: Beneficiaries and ES
likely differ between the impact site and the mitigation site (which may merit including
consideration of ES and beneficiaries at landscape or watershed scales within which those sites are
embedded), so prioritization will likely differ as well. Also, restoring a wetland to its historical
condition may involve deliberately reducing one function (e.g., surface water storage) to enhance
another (e.g., export of organic matter and nutrients). Such tradeoffs are often desirable, especially
when striving to meet goals of improving overall watershed condition. Clearly identifying and
mapping out ES and their associated beneficiaries at both the impact and mitigation site allows
explicit consideration of ES in goal setting and provides a mechanism to assess tradeoffs in a
transparent manner. See Section 5.4.

CHALLENGE 7: Funding for long-term post-construction monitoring of ecological endpoints is a
recurring problem for most restoration projects. Adding a set of metrics for ES will increase
monitoring costs. RECOMMENDATION: Inclusion of ES metrics that are linked to restoration goals
can help build trust and public support for long-term monitoring and assessment if the results of
restoration are communicated to those parties, emphasizing the changes (hopefully increasing) in
nature-based benefits resulting from the restoration. Additionally, funders are increasingly calling
for restoration projects that meet both ecological and social/human well-being goals. Beyond the
conventional physical, chemical, and biological endpoints in typical ecological restoration
monitoring, the use of ES metrics, ES proxies, or benefits of ES may be relevant for assessing and
communicating the success of meeting restoration goals (from a stakeholder's perspective).
Depending on which ES are deemed of priority for a restoration project, some "conventional"
ecological metrics may be indicators for ES. While some ES may be easier to measure than others,
that doesn't necessarily make those more important to measure than other ES. For example,
cultural ES are often those that people care the most about but can be the most difficult to measure
and/or are the ES that people feel least comfortable quantifying. Whereas it may be impossible or
impractical to identify an appropriate metric for difficult-to-quantify ES, stakeholders should be
consulted about decisions to exclude identifying or using metrics, particularly for ES that people
value highly. Additionally, including ES in REMA may build support for long-term monitoring if the
restoration leads to increases in nature-based benefits that the stakeholders and public care about.
See Sections 2.4, 3.2, 3.3, and 4.3.

CHALLENGE 8: Ecosystem services weren't originally included in projects goals or metrics
development. RECOMMENDATION: Even if ES aren't originally included in the monitoring plan,
evaluating each goal/metric and identifying who this might benefit and how they might benefit from
it, either directly or indirectly, can lead to project assessment from an ES lens. For example, if a key
indicator for a project's success is overall habitat health, such as water quality, this might be a good
indicator for benefits such as fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water (which are FEGS) or other
ES-focused goals. See Sections 2.4, 3.2, 3.3, and 4.4.

8

-------
CHALLENGE 9: Disseminating results of a project is often given low priority by restoration projects.
RECOMMENDATION: Directly engaging and communicating with stakeholders and the public on the
benefits of restoration can help garner support and can increase the likelihood of future restoration
implementation. Inclusion of ES, including FEGS, in the REMA goals, metrics, and assessment
provides an opportunity to communicate the progress (or success) of the restoration project in
terms that matter to stakeholders, including communities near the site. See Sections 2.4, 3.2, 4.3,
and 5.3.

CHALLENGE 10: Restoration-related terminology and definitions differ among the three CoPs. This
hampers the exchange of knowledge and methods and cross-fertilization of ideas.
RECOMMENDATION: Authors of restoration-related handbooks, manuals, and tools should
recognize the existence of different CoPs, respect the differences in vernacular and practices (some
of which are mandated by law), and make good-faith efforts to present their information in ways
that are relevant and respectful of other CoPs. This can lead to wider use of the author's work and
help advance the science and practice of restoration over-all. See Sections 1.3, 3.1, 4.3, and 5.3, and
the Glossary.

9

-------
Chapter 1: Introduction2

Chloe A. Jackson, Connie L. Hernandez, Theodore H. DeWitt

Abstract

Restoration is pursued for a variety of stated reasons, typically to improve the condition of the
ecological structure and/or function of a parcel of land or marine/aquatic area. Ultimately, this may also
be expressed as increasing the flow of benefits from nature to people who use, rely on, or care about
that parcel/area. The human benefits from restoration projects are rarely tracked by monitoring
frameworks. This report explains how indicators of ecosystem services (ES), including final ecosystem
goods and services (FEGS), can be incorporated into restoration projects, particularly in the restoration
effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA) phase. Key considerations for incorporating ES
indicators into REMA are explored for three restoration communities of practice: conservation-based
restoration; cleanup and restoration of contaminated sites; and compensatory mitigation. The audience
for this report includes restoration/remediation/revitalization practitioners, project or program
managers, and research scientists.

Core Messages

•	Benefits to people are often identified as restoration goals but are not tracked by most
monitoring frameworks.

•	Incorporating ecosystem services (ES) and/or final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) and
relevant metrics into restoration effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA) links the
project goals to the values of stakeholders, including nearby communities. It also helps to
identify and quantify the return on investment of funders and regulatory programs in terms of
understanding how the benefits of restoration are distributed across local communities.

•	Restoration projects can be viewed as part of a social-ecological systems in which the
motivation to invest in and sustain a project, particularly the monitoring and assessment phases,
results from the benefits that the site can yield for stakeholders.

•	Including ES indicators in restoration goals and monitoring does not diminish the importance of
other, commonly used ecological goals and metrics. Ecosystem services depend on many
ecological attributes and processes for their production.

•	Ecosystem services indicators and metrics facilitate measuring how different groups of people
may directly benefit from the project, thereby helping to quantify the return on investment for
various programs and efforts and how returns (i.e., benefits) are distributed across local
communities.

2 Suggested citation: Jackson, C.A., C.L Hernandez, and T.H. DeWitt. (2022). Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Jackson et
al. Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring & Assessment: Frameworks, Tools,
and Examples. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Newport, OR.
EPA/600/R-22/XXX. pp. 26-38.

10

-------
• Ideally, these guidelines and the ability to determine benefits will help promote distributional
justice and equitable realization of benefits among stakeholders.

• Three distinct restoration communities of practice (CoP) - conservation-based restoration,
contaminated site cleanup and restoration, and compensatory mitigation-based restoration -
operate under different mandates, authorities, and constraints but share many intentions and
employ practices that can be compared and shared for the betterment of each CoP.

• The audience for this report includes researchers, restoration practitioners, and restoration
managers interested in incorporating ES into REMA as appropriate for each CoP.

1.1 Introduction

Why does society invest in restoring, revitalizing, or compensating for damaged lands? Restoration is
pursued for a variety of reasons, typically to improve the condition of the ecological structure and/or
function of a parcel of land or marine/aquatic area. This may include removal or remediation of
contamination or mitigation to help offset the damage done to other parcels/areas. Certainly, a lot of
money is spent on restoration, revitalization, and compensation. For conservation-based restoration in
coastal states, Li et al. (2019) estimated that over 665 million USD were spent on 1,620 restoration
projects in 23 states from 1992 to 2014. These investments resulted in 243,064 acres of coastal
restoration projects in the US (Li et al. 2019). Annually, US ecological restoration directly employs about
126,000 workers (and undoubtably thousands of volunteers), and indirectly generates an additional
95,000 jobs (Li et al. 2019). Ecological restoration in the US directly generates approximately 9.5 billion
USD annually in economic activity and an additional 15 billion USD through business activity and
household spending (BenDor et al. 2015). For contaminated sites, the Superfund program generates
more than 16 billion USD in annual employment income (USEPA 2021). In Fiscal Year 2020, an estimated
894 million USD was spent on federal Superfund site cleanups and an estimated 54 million USD was
spent on state Superfund site cleanups (USEPA 2021). For compensatory mitigation, an estimated 2.9
billion USD is spent on mitigation projects; the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) annually permits an
estimated 20,000 acres of wetland losses, with a required 40,000 acres of wetlands or other aquatic
resources to be restored, enhanced, established, or preserved (Vepraskas et al. 2013).

It is increasingly recognized that the ultimate reason society invests in restoration is to increase the flow
of benefits from nature to people who use, rely on, or care about attributes of that natural space,
including the landowners, neighboring communities, and other stakeholders. For example, while the
proximal goal may be to improve habitats for a particular species, the ultimate goal may be to increase
the abundance of species that people enjoy (e.g., viewing), materially use (e.g., hunting or harvesting),
or appreciate (e.g., spiritual reverence or caring). Also, improving an ecological function such as nutrient
cycling or reducing air pollution can be viewed through a "nature's benefits" lens as intermediate steps
toward providing clean air and water for humans and other species. Ecosystem services (ES; also
referred to as ecosystem goods and services) are the outputs of nature that contribute to human well-
being (Munns et al. 2015; Gann et al. 2019). An ES approach to environmental management helps
planners and decision makers identify how people use the environment, what specific biophysical
attributes people use, and what metrics to select to monitor and assess environmental condition
(DeWitt et al. 2020). Metrics of ES—unlike many traditional metrics—help restoration practitioners

-------
enhance communication about how changes to the environmental quality of a site can lead to benefits
for stakeholders and the public. This is important because it helps quantify the return on investment
(i.e., the benefits) of various programs and efforts, and how returns are distributed across local
communities. Equally important, the intended benefits to be obtained via restoration (i.e., goals) can be
expressed as ES endpoints and metrics by which to measure progress toward achieving those goals.

While benefits to people are often identified as restoration goals, human benefits from restoration
projects are rarely confirmed or even assessed by monitoring (Martin and Lyons 2018). In many cases,
there is more information available about project construction than project outcomes (Li et al. 2019).
One of the United Nations' six restoration strategies for the current Decade on Ecosystem Restoration,
2021-2030, is to "study and show the relationships between ecosystem health and human health"
(Aronson et al. 2020). The Society of Ecological Restoration's (SER) most recent report on International
Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration states that "social and human
wellbeing goals, including those that reinstate or reinforce ecosystem services, must be identified
alongside ecological goals during the planning state of a restoration project" (Gann et al. 2019). The SER
report incorporated a Social Benefits Wheel (Figure 1.1) meant to complement the Ecological Recovery
Wheel and was used to track the degree to which a restoration project is reaching "social goals," or
human benefits (Gann et al. 2019).

The purpose of this report is to demonstrate: 1) the value that ES concepts and measurement can bring
to restoration projects; and 2) approaches and resources to that incorporate ES concepts in restoration,
illustrated with examples. Here, the term "restoration" is used broadly to mean the process of assisting
the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or
destroyed. Restoration focuses on establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological

processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under
current and future conditions (USDA 2020). While restoration occurs from the beginning of a restorative
process for some (e.g., conservation-based restoration), for others it follows remediation to remove or

-------
sequester chemical toxicants (e.g., contaminated site cleanup). For some projects, the goal of
restoration is to produce an ecologically self-sustaining site, whereas for others it may be a site that
includes natural and human-built infrastructure that provides a range of ES and human-produced
benefits. Whereas a considerable jargon exists to parse the differences in restorative processes and
outcomes, this report attempts to take a step back and address the issue of incorporating ES into
restoration broadly, attempting to be relevant to the conservation-based restoration, contaminated site
cleanup-based restoration, and compensatory mitigation-based restoration communities of practice.
And whereas the process of developing and implementing a restoration project includes critical steps
that are not addressed in this report (e.g., project design, construction, risk assessment), the planning
and implementation of restorative actions, obtaining funding, monitoring and assessment, and adaptive
management, this report focuses on incorporating ES into the restoration effectiveness monitoring and
assessment (REMA) phase, including the development of the objectives and goals that form the basis for
monitoring and assessment of restoration success. The audience for this report includes
restoration/remediation/revitalization practitioners, project or program managers, stakeholders
(including nearby communities), regulators, and research scientists, and the recommendations offered
apply restorations of sizes (e.g., hectare-sized pocket marshes to the 47,000 km2 of Everglades
restoration).

1.2 Restoration, Ecosystem Services, and Social Ecological Systems

Ecosystem services (ES; also referred to as ecosystem goods and services) are the outputs of nature that
contribute to human well-being (Munns et al. 2015; Gann et al. 2019). The ecosystem products and
processes that are directly enjoyed, used, or appreciated by people are final ecosystem goods and
services (FEGS) (Landers and Nahlik 2013; Yee et al. 2017; DeWitt et al. 2020). "Final" in this context
means that the biophysical attributes or services that people use are the culmination of a suite of
natural process, much as an automobile is the final product of a chain of industrial and commercial
processes (Boyd and Banzhaf 2006). A subset of all ES are FEGS, distinguished by explicitly identifying
the role or activity of people who use a particular biophysical attribute or process and the type of
ecosystem where that is produced (Landers and Nahlik 2013; Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2021). The
description of FEGS should require minimal translation to understand their direct relevance to human
well-being. For example, Box 1.1 highlights fauna in wetlands that people enjoy viewing for recreation.
This particular FEGS can be quantified by measuring the number of birds that are in the wetland, which
is a measurement of the benefit bird watchers may receive. The production of FEGS is dependent on
"supporting" and "regulating" ecological structures and functions; these intermediate ES are critically
important to human well-being, for without them, FEGS would not exist (Landers and Nahlik 2013; Yee
et al. 2017; DeWitt et al. 2020). Thus, FEGS are particularly useful for environmental decision making
and communications because they relate changes in the environment directly to what people care
about (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; DeWitt et al. 2020; Box 1.1).

Benefits to people are often identified as restoration goals but are not
tracked by most monitoring frameworks.

-------
Box 1.1. Characteristics and Examples of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services

Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS): The ecosystem products and processes that are directly
used, enjoyed, or appreciated by people and that need minimal translation for relevance to human well-
being. A FEGS represents a subset of all ecosystem goods and services distinguished as the final
"endpoints" in nature's production networks that people directly use. The production of FEGS is
dependent on "supporting" and "regulating" ecological structures and functions; these intermediate
goods and services are critically important to human well-being, for without them, FEGS would not exist
(adapted from Newcomer-Johnson et ai. 2020).

FEGS: final ecosystem goods & services

The components of nature within an environment that are
directly enjoyed, consumed or used to yield human well-being

Ecological End	.	.

Product	Environment type	Beneficiary

Recreational

Fauna	Wetlands	Experiencers &

Viewers

The FEGS in this example: fauna in wetlands that people enjoy viewing for recreation
Inspired by Amanda Nahlik

Ecological End-Product: The relevant biophysical components of nature that are directly used or
appreciated by humans in FEGS.

Environment type: An area with defined biophysical characteristics, classified through a hierarchical
system for distinguishing areas with similar biophysical characteristics applicable to the entire surface of
the Earth (including all terrestrial and aquatic environments) in EPA's National Ecosystem Services
Classification System (NESCS) Plus (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2021).

Beneficiary: An individual or group that directly enjoys, uses, consumes, or appreciates some aspect of
the environment for the betterment of their weli-being (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Final Ecosystem Good



Ecological End



Environment

or Service



Product



Type

— Beneficiary

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5

Commercially important
crab species

Adult crab

Estuary

Commercial
crabbers

Charismatic bird species

Charismatic bird

i

i Forested

Recreational

species

| wetlands

] birdwatchers

Water for growing crops

Water quantity

Streams and 	

rivers

Agricultural
irrigators

-------
At their heart, ES helps us recognize the connections and dependencies between ecosystems and
human societies, which are tied directly back to the arguments raised at the outset about why
ecosystems are restored, conserved, and valued. The concepts of ES, which tend to compartmentalize
components of natural systems, can be jarring to indigenous worldviews. Many indigenous cultures see
ecosystem structures and processes as earth's gifts and hold that reciprocity between people and nature
is a fundamental responsibility of humans (Kimmerer 2011). Social-ecological systems (SES) frameworks
conceptualize the interactions between ecosystems and human society mediated by the aspects of
nature that people use, consume, and in turn, describe the impacts that people have on ecosystem
structures and processes (Ostrom 2009; Piet et al. 2020). The SES frameworks by Ostrom (2009) and Piet
et al. (2020) embedded ecological functions/processes and natural resources used by people in a larger
system of social, economic, and political settings that influence one another. Ideally, the guidelines in
this report and the ability to determine benefits will help promote distributional justice and equitable
realization of benefits among stakeholders.

An SES approach can be useful to understand how ES are an integral part of translating human
dependencies on nature and the cycles of adaptive management among social groups (stakeholders,
policies, and actions, Figure 1.2) associated with the management of ecosystems (Piet et al. 2020).

Figure 1.2 illustrates a generic SES that nests a restoration project within the wider suite of ecosystems
and human communities surrounding the site and idealizes the ecological dynamics that generate the ES
used by people, some of which result from restoration. Consideration of restoration from an SES
perspective is discussed later in the contexts of conservation-based restoration (Chapter 3) and
restoration of contaminated sites (Chapter 4; see Figures 4.2 and 4.6).

-------
Ideally, these guidelines and the ability to determine benefits will help
promote distributional justice and equitable realization of benefits

among stakeholders.

Conceptualizing a restoration project through an SES perspective also helps with developing a strategy
for translating the ecological changes observed or expected at a site into the benefits that stakeholders
(including nearby communities) do or will receive via ES produced at the site. Linking ecological
condition to human well-being and then to restoration success can also be conceptualized as a
"translational science" process (Figure 1.3; Pettibone et al. 2018) emphasizing that results obtained at
one level (e.g., restoration outcomes) can propagate forward to meaningfully inform broader social
goals. Furthermore, the approach used in one restoration project ideally can be translated or
transferred to inform other projects.

Translational Science (TS)

Theory

^Approach

V> Results Meaning

TS in Ecosystem Restoration

Ecology

Design

\ \ Restoration

> > Results > -Assessment > > > J
// Success

Ecosystem Services Value Added

\ Ecology + v
/ Humans ,

\ Ecosystem
z Services

X> > Benefits Well-Being

Figure 1.3. Translational science models for envisioning the progression of an idea from conception to
application to practice, in general (top row of chevrons), for restoration (middle row), and for
restoration that includes ES (bottom row).

Finally, it is important to emphasize that including ES in restoration goals, monitoring, and assessment
does not diminish the importance of other, conventionally used ecological goals and metrics. The same
goes for using FEGS with respect to the broader set of ES. Final ecosystem goods and services depend on
many ecological attributes and processes to be produced; those are often called intermediate ES. As
examples, the wildlife that are appreciated or used as FEGS depend on habitat features and food
resources, etc. and wetlands that protect coastal property depend on native vegetation extending over

-------
some area, appropriate soils, inundation schedules, etc. Identifying the ES or FEGS that are of greatest
interest to the stakeholders can help guide the selection of the supporting ecological attributes and
processes to monitor and thus provide context for interpreting changes in the associated metrics.

For the sake of simplicity and clarity, this report refers to ecosystem services broadly, but specific
beneficiaries or benefits to people are invoked, the reader should understand those ES to be FEGS.
Where appropriate, FEGS will be used in reference to FEGS-specific approaches, tools, or other
resources.

Including ES indicators in restoration goals and monitoring does not
diminish the importance of other, commonly used ecological goals and
metrics. Ecosystem services depend on many ecological attributes and

processes for their production.

1.3 Operationalizing an Ecosystem Services Approach in REMA

In addition to building the conceptual and social case for including ES in restoration broadly (and REMA
particularly), this report provides guidelines, resources, and examples to operationalize an ES approach
in REMA (Box 1.2). General approaches and resources for measuring and assessing ES in REMA programs
are explored in Chapter 2. Many excellent ecosystem-specific and organization-specific restoration
handbooks have been written, and several have advocated that ES be included in restoration goals,
metrics, and assessments (e.g., Tolvanen and Aronson 2016; NASEM 2017; Gann et al. 2019). Building
from those sources, Chapter 2 presents a general framework for restoration effectiveness monitoring
and assessment (REMA) and identifies resources for incorporating ES into each step of the framework.
Those resources include methods and tools for identifying, prioritizing, measuring, modeling, and
mapping ES, identifying the people who benefit from them, and the attributes of ES that from which
reliable metrics may be derived.

Box 1.2. Advantages of an ES Approach in Restoration

• Enhance articulation of the social relevance of restoration goals

• Add to existing assessment approaches to measure restoration success

• Provide evidence and data to help support the claim that restoration leads to enhanced
human well-being

• Understand and communicate for whom restoration benefits are being provided

• Enhance communication to include the realized benefits of restoration for stakeholders

• Integrate stakeholder interests into adaptive management to ensure restoration success

-------
Chapters 3-5 of this report discuss considerations for operationalizing ES concepts and approaches in
REMA programs for three communities of practice (CoP): conservation-based restoration (Chapter 3),
contaminated site cleanup and restoration (Chapter 4), and compensatory mitigation-based restoration
(Chapter 5). Each CoP operates under different mandates, authorities, and constraints, but often share
goals, restoration approaches, and tools. For example, the overarching goal for a restoration project
within any of these CoP's may include the following:

•	Creation - bringing into being a new ecosystem that previously did not exist on the site (NRC
1992);

•	Enhancement - any improvement of a structural or functional attribute (NRC 1992);

•	Re-establishment - return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its previously existing
condition, such as to historical or pre-historical conditions.

•	Conservation - maintenance of biodiversity and natural ecosystem processes.

•	Protection - exclusion of activities that may negatively affect the system.

•	Resilience - enhancement or creation of habitats that provide a protective buffer against
external stressors for other ecosystems or built environments (e.g., storms, flooding, climate
change; see TAFB 2020 and NRC 2021)

This report identifies commonalities among CoPs to show how approaches and tools used by one may
be useful for another CoP.

Adding the ES perspective to restoration practice provides an additional way to think about the outcome
of a restoration project by motivating monitoring and assessment linking project goals and outcomes
directly to beneficiaries. Figure 1.4 illustrates that changes to the environment through restoration in
the different CoPs can lead to production of various ecological end products benefiting beneficiaries.
Consequently, in this example, all the ES are FEGS. Through various levels of environmental activities
and interventions, from simply reducing societal impacts (e.g., removing contaminants) all the way to
fully recovering native ecosystems (e.g., conservation-based restoration), there are measurable health
and biodiversity outcomes and changes in ES production. The ES consist of ecological end products that
provide direct benefits to beneficiaries, such as water quality for municipal drinking water plant
operators and fish for recreational and commercial anglers.

18

-------
Compensatory Mitigation

Contaminated Sites

Conservation-Based Restoration
Contaminated Sites >

IMPROVING

INITIATING PART1AU.Y
NATIVE RECOVERING

RECOVERY NATIVE

KOSYSTVMI

{CHANGES TO)
ENVIRONMENT
i.e., restoration of:

• Wetlands

• Estuaries

• Forests

Reduced Impacts

Remediation

Rehabilitation

Water quantity

Birds

Fish stocks

Municipal Drinking
Water Plant Operators

Hunters

Recreational &
Commercial Anglers

BENEFICIARY

A big challenge in addressing this report to three CoPs is to bridge differences in restoration related
terminology. The Glossary and this report recognize and respect those differences and translate terms
between CoPs. Undoubtably, opportunities will be missed for translation or mis-translate terms;
hopefully readers will excuse these errors and focus on the underlying context to bring meaning to these
messages and their applications.

The report concludes (Chapter 6) with a synthesis of the common issues, approaches, knowledge gaps,
major challenges, and consequent to advance the practice of incorporating ES into REMA. Appendices
follow that provide more detailed information relevant to sections of Chapters 2 and 3. While some
readers may choose to focus on their own CoP, they are encourages to review the general approaches
described in Chapter 2 and then how other CoPs have approached the use of ES in restoration as their
lessons may be broadly relevant.

-------
1.4 References

Aronson, J., N. Goodwin, L. Orlando, C. Eisenberg, and A.T. Cross. (2020). A world of possibilities: Six
restoration strategies to support the United Nation's Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration

Ecology 28(4):730-736.

Audubon. (2016). Restoring Freshwater Flows to Biscayne Bay: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1
Factsheet. Retrieved from:

https://fl.audubon.org/sites/default/files/audubon biscaynebaycoastalwetlands bbcw factsheet augu
st2016.pdf.

BenDor, T., T.W. Lester, A. Livengood, A. Davis, and L. Yonavjak. (2015). Estimating the size and impact
of the ecological restoration economy. PloS one 10(6):e0128339.

Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics 63(2-3):616-626. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.

Charkhian, B. (2017). 2018 South Florida Environmental Report - Volume III. Appendix 2-3: Annual
Permit Report for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project. Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP).

DeWitt, T.H., W.J. Berry, T.J. Canfield, R.S. Fulford, M.C. Harwell, J.C. Hoffman, J.M. Johnston, T.A.
Newcomer-Johnson, P.L. Ringold, M.J. Russel, L.A. Sharpe, and S.J.H. Yee. (2020). The Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services (FEGS) Approach: A Beneficiary-centric Method to Support. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago,
& T. H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity:
Theory, Tools and Applications (pp. 127-148). Amsterdam: Springer.

Gann, G.D., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J.G. Hallett, C. Eisenberg, M.R.
Guariguata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C. Echeverrfa, E. Gonzales, N. Shaw, K. Decleer, and K.W. Dixon. (2019).
International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition.
Restoration Ecology 27(S1):S1-S46.

Kimmerer, R. (2011). Restoration and reciprocity: the contributions of traditional ecological knowledge.
In: Human dimensions of ecological restoration (pp. 257-276). Island Press, Washington, DC.

Landers, D.H., and A.M. Nahlik. (2013). Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-
CS). US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914.

Li, S., T. Xie, S.C. Pennings, Y. Wang, C. Craft, and M. Hu. (2019). A comparison of coastal habitat
restoration projects in China and the United States. Scientific Reports 9(1):1-10.

Martin, D.M., and J.E. Lyons. (2018). Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration. Restoration
Ecology 26(6):1045-1050.

20

-------
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.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2017). Effective Monitoring to
Evaluate Ecological Restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
DOI: 10.17226/23476.

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological
systems. Science 325(5939):419-422. DOI: 10.1126/science.ll72133

Pettibone, K.G., D.M. Balshaw, C. Dilworth, C.H. Drew, J.E. Hall, M. Heacock, A.R. Latoni, K.A. McAllister,
L.R. O'Fallon, C. Thompson, N.J. Walker, M.S. Wolfe, D.S. Wright, and G.W. Collman. (2018). Expanding
the concept of translational research: Making a place for environmental health sciences. Environmental
Health Perspective 126(7):074501. DOI: 10.1289/EHP3657.

Piet, G., G. Delacamara, M. Kraan, C. Rockmann, and M. Lago. (2020). Advancing Aquatic Ecosystem-
based Management with Full Consideration of the Social-ecological System. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, &
T. H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory,
Tools and Applications (pp. 17-37). Amsterdam: Springer.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). (2021). Restoring Coastal Wetlands for Climate Resilience: A Case Study
at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu. Retrieved from:

https://www.scienceforconservation.org/assets/downloads/TNC NBVC Report Aug21 FINAL.pdf.

Tyndall Air Force Base (TAFB). (2020). Coastal Resilience & Sustainability Strategies. Retrieved from:

https://www.tvndallifs.com/images/Overview/TAFB CRSS 20200930 Final LOWRES STRATEGIES.pdf.

Tolvanen, A. and J. Aronson. (2016). Ecological restoration, ecosystem services, and land use: A
European perspective. Ecology and Society 21(4):47. DOI: 10.5751/ES-09048-210447.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2011). South Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1: Final Integrated Project
Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1-Main Report. West Palm
Beach, FL, USA: South Florida Water Management District; Jacksonville, FL, USA: US Army Corps of
Engineers.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021). Superfund FY 2020 Annual Accomplishments
Report. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/1000028Q3.pdf.

Vepraskas, M.J., et al. (2013). Towards a National Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Sites: A
Proposed Study Methodology. Retrieved from:

https://www.aswm.org/pdf lib/restoration webinar/towards national evaluation of compensatory
mitigation sites.pdf.

Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, R. de Jesus-Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M.C.
Harwell, J. Hoffman, C.J. Littles, J.M. Johnston, R.B. McKane, L. Green, M. Russell, L. Sharpe, N.

21

-------
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.

22

-------
Chapter 2: Incorporating Ecosystem
Services into REMA: Concepts and
Resources3

Theodore H. DeWitt, Chloe A. Jackson, Connie L. Hernandez, Matthew C. Harwell, Richard S. Fulford

Abstract

Multiple monitoring and assessment frameworks are used in environmental restoration, all of which
follow a similar progression of steps. This chapter examines 38 restoration monitoring guidance
documents to identify the common elements among monitoring and assessment frameworks and it
describes these elements in detail. Using these common elements, this chapter proposes a flexible and
transferable, step-wise framework for restoration effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA) that
includes: 1) Identify boundaries and constraints; 2) Assess existing knowledge; 3) Identify goals and
objectives; 4) Select metrics; 5) Collect and analyze data; 6) Assess restoration outcomes; 7) Synthesize
and communicate findings; and 8) Practice adaptive management. This chapter also suggests where
ecosystem services, including final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS), can be incorporated into REMA
frameworks.

Core Messages

• Establishing a framework for restoration effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA) is
necessary for a robust and defensible plan by which to track and communicate progress toward
achieving restoration project goals.

• For any REMA framework, explicit consideration of relevant ecosystem services (ES) can link
changes in the ecological condition of a site to the sustainable well-being of stakeholders,
including future users of the site.

• Communicating restoration goals and progress in terms of potential benefits to stakeholders,
including nearby communities, can build trust in the project and garner support for adequate
investment in monitoring and assessment.

• Several handbooks, online applications, and methods have been developed to facilitate
inclusion of ES into each step of the REMA framework.

3 Suggested citation: DeWitt, T.H., C.A. Jackson, C.L. Hernandez, M.C. Harwell, and R.S. Fulford. (2022).
Chapter 2: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into REMA: Concepts and Resources. In: Jackson et al.
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring & Assessment: Frameworks,
Tools, and Examples. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Newport, OR. EPA/600/R-22/XXX. pp. 39-94.

-------
2.1 Introduction

Restoration projects approach the task of monitoring and assessing site condition using a similar set or
progression of steps, either following an established framework or through an ad hoc process. A
framework refers to a logical structure for classifying and organizing complex information (USGAO
2003). This chapter reviews several of the established frameworks to identify their common elements
and proposes a flexible and transferable framework for restoration effectiveness monitoring and
assessment (REMA) based on the common elements. The chapter considers how ecosystem services (ES)
and/or final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS), can be incorporated within REMA frameworks,
starting with a summary of resources useful for identifying, prioritizing, and quantifying ES and the
benefits people receive from nature.

2.2 REMA Frameworks

Searches for REMA frameworks described within scientific journal articles, reports, and books were
conducted using Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases, and several websites of
environmental organizations and agencies that engage in ecological restoration. Search terms used
included "restoration monitoring," "restoration effectiveness," and "restoration success." Screening
starting with reviewing titles, then abstracts, and finally the full text. This identified articles and reports
that included methods, guidelines, or a strategy for monitoring the success or effectiveness of a
restoration project. The search found a sample of REMA frameworks representative of contemporary
approaches used by a wide range of organizations for a diverse array of ecosystem types.

The 38 US and international documents were analyzed to extract the restoration monitoring and
assessment steps. Although most documents focused on conservation-based restoration, two
documents focused on cleanup and restoration of contaminated sites and two on restoration related to
compensatory mitigation. Eight provided general REMA guidance applicable to a wide range of
ecosystem types and restoration practitioners (e.g., NAVFAC 2004; Clewell et al. 2005; Herrick et al.
2006; RECOVER 2006; Diefenderfer et al. 2016; Gann et al. 2019; USEPA 2019a). Other documents were
either ecosystem-specific (e.g., Clarkson et al. (2003) for wetlands, Hill and Wilkinson (2004) for coral
reefs, Woolsey et al. (2007) for rivers, Bonfantine et al. (2011) for riparian forests, and Baggett et al.
(2014) for oyster reefs). Others were restoration-type specific (e.g., Keenleyside et al. (2012) for
protected areas, USACE (2015) for compensatory mitigation, Hooper et al. (2016) for contaminated
sites, and GLRI (2019) for Great Lakes Areas of Concern). See Appendix A for details.

Several of the frameworks were designed to be scale-independent (e.g., Niedowski 2000; Thayer et al.
2003; NAVFAC 2004; Clewell et al. 2005; Rice et al. 2005; Ehler and Douvere 2009; Keenleyside et al.
2012; Fitzsimmons et al. 2019; Gann et al. 2019; GLRI 2019), allowing them to be scaled up to the
ecosystem or landscape level or down to the project site extent as needed. Some restoration
frameworks were intended for spatial boundaries defined by single site (for example, riparian sites in
arid and semi-arid landscapes [Guilfoyle and Fischer 2006], or coral gardening sites in the Seychelles
[Frias-Torres et al. 2019]), while others addressed restoration encompassing multiple sites across large
spatial extents (e.g., Columbia River estuary [Diefenderfer et al. 2016]), and a watershed-approach for

24

-------
compensatory mitigation projects [USACE 2015]). Other frameworks were intended for integrating site-
specific restoration projects into regional-scale restoration (e.g., restoration of coastal Gulf of Mexico
sites damaged by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (DWH-NRDAT 2017 & 2019)), recognizing ecological
connections across spatial scales (e.g., IWWR 2003; Herrick et al. 2006; RECOVER 2006; Roegner et al.
2008; Thom et al. 2010; Bonfantine et al. 2011; NASEM 2017). Regardless of the scale of the project,
most documents commented on the need for monitoring plans that can address site-scale ecological
attributes and responses.

Despite the above-described variation among the 38 documents, there was similarity in the core
elements of their REMA frameworks (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Elements of REMA frameworks found in restoration guidance documents. See Section 2.4 for
further description of each element.

REMA Element

Description

Number of
Relevant
Documents

Examples from Restoration Documents

Identify
boundaries and
constraints

Identify the legal,
financial, logistical,
data, and cultural
contexts and
constraints that set
the boundaries for
developing the
monitoring and
assessment plan.

32

Board and NASEM (2017) identified site access,
equipment and resource availability, and
personnel limitations as constraints on
sampling.

Clewell et al. (2005) and DWH-NRDAT (2017)
cited legal covenants and laws as constraints on
accessing existing data and the need to obtain
permits prior to engaging in some restoration
activities.

Gann et al. (2019) identified on-going
anthropogenic stressors as constraints on
restoration success.

IWWR (2003) noted that lack of support from
adjacent landowners or local communities can
limit success of a restoration project.

Woolsey et al. (2007) suggested that lack of
suitable reference sites can limit the ability to
assess restoration outcomes.

Assess existing
knowledge

Identify, collect,
and interpret
background
information about
the site.

30

Bailey (2012), Clewell et al. (2005), Herrick et al.
(2006), and Thayer et al. (2003) described
processes for conceptual planning and
development of a monitoring plan, including in-
depth descriptions of existing knowledge
components.

25

-------
REMA Element

Description

Number of
Relevant
Documents

Examples from Restoration Documents







Bonfantine et al. (2011) showed how to create
a site map.

Ehler and Douvere (2009) discussed
considerations for defining and analyzing
existing conditions.

IWWR (2003) suggested information to collect
to understand the landscape and project site
context.

USEPA (2019a) provided steps to take when
preparing to define restoration project goals
that entail the collection of existing knowledge.

Identify goals
and objectives

Identify monitoring
goals and

objectives based on
overall project
vision, key
questions the
project aims to
answer, and the
desired ecological
conditions and
acceptable risks.

38

Gann et al. (2019) recommended principles for
developing goals at multiple scales and for
incorporating social well-being and ecological
targets into goal setting.

GLRI (2019) provided objectives related to
contaminants and measures of progress tied to
each objective.

Keenleyside et al. (2012) discussed broader
ecosystem functioning, multi-scale policies and
regulations, and community and socio-
economic needs for goal development.

NASEM (2017) provided language for
developing goals and objectives.

Select metrics

Based on specific
restoration goals,
identify and select
metrics to assess
the condition of a
component or
process.

38

Baggett (2014) and Fitzsimmons et al. (2019)
distinguished between universal and habitat-
specific metrics.

Clarkson et al. (2003) provided a handbook
with an approach for developing metrics for
wetlands, analyzing metrics results, addressing
monitoring questions using the results, and
comparing selected metrics among projects.

USFWS (1999) gave examples of objectives and
parameters specific to each objective for
wetland monitoring.

26

-------
REMA Element

Description

Number of
Relevant
Documents

Examples from Restoration Documents

Woolsey et al. (2009) described a process for
selecting indicators to determine river
restoration success.

NOAA (2017) provided guidance for data
collection in four of the most common coastal
restoration project types: fish passage barrier
removal, coral restoration, hydrologic
reconnection, and oyster restoration.

Collect and
analyze data

Depending on study
design, collect all
necessary data at
restoration site and
for reference
expectations4.
Establish data
management plan
and data quality
criteria.

Roegner et al. (2008) described a sampling
sequence of sampling events for pre- and post-
construction and monitoring specific to
ecosystem restoration in the Lower Columbia
River Estuary.

Sleggs and VanDruff (1997) listed
recommended practices for both routine
assessments and comprehensive assessments
for wetland restoration surveys.

Thayer et al. (2005) provided methods for
coastal habitat, along with a review of methods
to select reference expectations.

USEPA (2019a) provides thorough guidelines on
establishing data collection methods and
preparing for the data collection process.

Assess
restoration
outcomes

Evaluate data to
determine whether
monitoring goals
have or are being
met and identify
whether changes
need to be made to
meet goals.

Guilfoyle et al. (2006) provided a table with
common statistical tools used in restoration
and explanations of example success criteria.

RECOVER (2006) presented example
approaches for assessing restoration data. In
addition to assessing individual metrics, they
present an approach for assessing hypotheses

4 Reference Expectation (definition): Generic term for the set of field measurements, modeled
estimates, benchmarks, or standards against which to compare a metric of a biophysical attribute,
ecological process, or ES measurements in order to assess change in the direction and magnitude of that
metric. This is used as the generic term for terms used variously and often inconsistently in restoration
assessment, such as "reference condition," "control," "performance standard," and "benchmark."

-------
REMA Element

Description

Number of
Relevant
Documents

Examples from Restoration Documents







about how the ecosystem should respond pre-
and post-restoration to directly inform adaptive
management options.

USEPA (2019a) provided information on how to
analyze and interpret results from a quality
assurance/control perspective.

Synthesize and
communicate
findings

Synthesize and
disseminate results.
Apply results to
current and/or
future restoration
projects.

25

Diefenderfer et al. (2016) provided a process
for an evidence-based evaluation of the
cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration.

NASEM (2017) provided rationale and
approaches for synthesis and the integration of
this process into monitoring designs for
ecological restoration in the Gulf of Mexico
following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Thom and Wellman (1996) provided an
example outline for a restoration monitoring
report.

USACE (2008) provided a regulatory guidance
letter on the contents of monitoring reports,
including the narrative for compensatory
mitigation-based restoration.

Practice adaptive
management

Throughout the
monitoring process,
use an iterative
adaptive
management
approach to
communicate/share
learning, assess and
make necessary
adjustments, and
decide on
management
options.

28

Hooper et al. (2016) provided an example of
adaptive management used in a project with
uncertainty associated with residual
contaminant risk in ongoing restorations of
marsh tidelands in the South San Francisco Bay
estuary.

Li (2008) described how USDA is incorporating
adaptive management into stream restoration
maintenance and monitoring processes.

NASEM (2017) provided an example outline for
an adaptive management plan, and an example
of adaptive management used in an
Apalachicola Bay subtidal oyster fishery project.

28

-------
REMA Element

Description

Number of
Relevant
Documents

Examples from Restoration Documents

Thom et al. (2010) illustrated the links among
components of an adaptive management
program for ecosystem restoration.

USEPA (2019a) discussed adaptive
management strategies in relation to quality
assurance.

Develop an
overall
monitoring plan

Sources that
provide a helpful
reference for how
to build a
monitoring plan.

Thom and Wellman (1996) and Clewell et al.
(2005) offered monitoring advice for ecological
restoration; Comer et al. (2017) for wetlands
restoration; Hooper et al. (2016) for
contaminated sites; Board and NASEM (2017)
for ecological restoration in the Gulf of Mexico;
DWH-NRDAT (2017 & 2019) for restoration
following the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill;
USACE (2015) for compensatory mitigation.

All the frameworks examined contained guidelines on identification of goals and objectives,
identification and selection of metrics for monitoring, data collection for monitoring, and assessment of
restoration success. Methods for assessing restoration included comparison of a site's post-restoration
condition to its pre-restoration condition, to the condition of one or more reference or control sites, or
to modeled reference expectations (see footnote in Table 2.1). The latter may also consider attributes
important for traditional, cultural practices at the site (Gann et al. 2019). Most of the frameworks
included using historical data or knowledge about the restoration site to identify pre-existing ecological
condition, modifications to the landscape, and geomorphological and ecological constraints. Most also
discussed summary and interpretation of monitoring data and data management. Several of the
documents discussed the value of adaptive management in the REMA to allow the incorporation of new
information to improve conditions at sites or improve the monitoring and assessment processes (e.g.,
examples in Table 2.1). Twenty-five documents specifically addressed the importance of communicating
the progress or success of restoration projects to stakeholders which can sustain and build support for
continuation of work at a site (e.g., monitoring and assessment) or for new restoration projects. Harwell
et al. (2020) provide a generalized framework and guidelines for developing strategic communication
efforts in the natural sciences that are relevant for REMA.

Borrowing from documents describing general restoration monitoring frameworks, the elements
identified in Table 2.1 are connected into a generalized REMA framework (Figure 2.1). This generalized
framework serves as a roadmap for conducting restoration monitoring and assessments, and it provides
us with a template to discuss general ways that ES can be integrated into REMA (Section 2.4). On this
foundation, challenges for integrating ES into REMA are discussed that may vary among communities of
practice (i.e., Chapters 3-5). While this general framework is not intended to replace any of the others, it
may be suitable for projects that have not adopted one. For projects that have existing frameworks, a

-------
review and consideration of the elements of the REMA framework may suggest areas for future
consideration or investment.

For any REMA framework, explicit consideration of relevant ES can
link changes in the ecological condition of a site to the sustainable
well-being of stakeholders, including future users of the site.

c

CD

E

CD
M
(0

c

(0

CD
>
•jz
a.
m
~o
<

a
o
•jz
o
(0

Identify Boundaries
& Constraints

Assess Existing
Knowledge

\ 11	/

\ i

Identify Goals
& Objectives

Select
Metrics

Collect & Analyze Data

Assess Restoration
Outcomes

Synthesize &
Communicate Findings

Figure 2.1. A general REMA framework.

30

-------
2.3 Resources to Facilitate Including Ecosystem Services in RE MA

Building upon the generalized REMA framework, this section discusses resources to facilitate the
incorporation of ES into REMA. To set the stage, Table 2.2 lists several resources developed to facilitate
inclusion of ES in environmental decision-making. While new ES resources are constantly being
introduced and applied in various contexts, those listed in Table 2.2 represent a cross-section that are
frequently referenced; however, this list is not exhaustive. Many of those resources may facilitate
inclusion of ES into more than one REMA framework element (Table 2.3). Examples of resources are
provided in the following sections. Readers may be interested in reviews of selected ES tools by Piracha
and Marcotuillo (2003), Neugarten et al. (2018), Ochoa et al. (2017), Ding et al. (2018), or the ValuES
Project's Methods Navigator Database. Additionally, Hanson et al. (2012), NESP (2016), Gret-Regamey et
al. (2017), and Yee et al. (2017) describe how ES can be incorporated into decision making in general, for
the corporate world, and for federal agencies.

Table 2.2. Descriptions of resources to facilitate incorporating ES into REMA. Websites were accessed in
December 2021. *Developed by the USEPA's Office of Research and Development.

Resource

Description (modified from the original resource)

mrtificial intelligence for Environment and
Sustainabilitv (ARIES)

Link: aries.integratedmodelling.org
Martinez-Lopez et al. 2019

An artificial intelligence platform for performing ES assessments that identifies
the set of ES models and data that best addresses a problem and its ecological
and social contexts as defined by the user. The scope and capabilities of ARIES
grows through contributions of ES modelers to the project. Operates at
multiple scales.

BlueValue

Link: bluevalue.org

Harte Research Institute 2020

An online database that provides a searchable inventory of valuation studies
for ES that focus on an identified ecosystem and provides monetary value for
these services. Operates at multiple scales.

CoSting Nature

Link: www.policysupport.org/costingnature
Mulligan et al. 2010

A web-based, spatial policy support system for natural capital accounting and
analyzing the ES provided by natural environments (i.e., nature's benefits),
identifying the beneficiaries of these services, and assessing the impacts of
human interventions. Operates at multiple scales.

Common International Classification of Ecosystem
Services fCICESl Ver. 5.1
Link: cices.eu

Haines-Young & Potschin 2018

A hierarchical system to classify the contributions that ecosystems make to
human well-being that arise from living processes. The definition of each ES in
CICES identifies both the purposes or uses that people have for the different
kinds of ES and the particular ecosystem attributes or behaviors that support
them. Scale independent.

Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (CESR)
Link: wri.org/research/corporate-ecosystem-
services-review
Hanson et al. 2012

Presents a structured methodology to help managers proactively develop
strategies to manage business risks and opportunities arising from their
company's dependence and impact on ecosystems. It is a tool for strategy
development, not just for environmental assessment. The CESR methodology
includes a qualitative analysis of potential business impacts on ES which may
be transferable to other decision contexts, such as restoration. Operates at
local scales.

Cumulative Effects of Restoration Success
Diefenderfer et al. 2021

Provides a conceptual framework and case study examples of eight modes of
cumulative effects of restoration success organized across spatial, temporal,
and systemic domains. Examples of tools are provided for understanding and
managing cumulative effects to help restoration practitioners enhance
restoration benefits. Operates at watershed or larger scales.

-------
Resource

Description (modified from the original resource)

Document analvsis to identify priority ES*

Yee et al. 2019

An automated method to assess the degree to which environmental
management programs consider ES, their beneficiaries, and ecological end
products (EEP). Uses a script written in R to search each document for the
keyword concepts associated with each ES environment, beneficiary, and EEP
category, and identifying which ES keywords occur most frequently across the
documents. Operates at multiple scales.

Eco-Health Relationship Browser (EHRB)*

Link: epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-eco-health-
relationship-browser
Jackson et al. 2013

A tool that displays and annotates the scientific evidence for linkages between
human health and the benefits provided by nature, or ES. The information
illustrated in the EHRB is based on an extensive literature review and highlights
statistically significant, plausible associations. The tool is interactive and
designed to invite exploration of the services that ecosystems provide and how
those services affect human health and well-being. Scale independent.

Ecosvstem Services Conceptual Models (ECSM)
Link:

nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/project/ecosystem-
services-toolkit-for-natural-resource-management
Olander et al. 2021

An approach for envisioning how a management intervention cascades
through an ecological system and results in ES and other human welfare
impacts, which may facilitate incorporation of ES considerations into a
program or project. Suites of ESCMs have been developed for forest, coastal,
and other environments and applications. Operates at multiple scales.

Ecosvstem Services Identification and Inventory

tool (ESN)

Link: esiitool.com

Guertin et al. 2019

An iPad app and web interface that lets people map the extent and condition
of multiple ES within a property in order to help them understand the benefits
that nature provides and incorporate the value of nature into decision making.
Modeling tool users need to investigate the expected levels of ES performance
across a given site, under a variety of conditions. Operates at multiple scales.

Ecosvstem services in European Union (EU)
environmental law

O'Hagen 2020

Sets out the legal bases for ecosystem-based management (EBM) and ES in EU
law and policy frameworks. It traces both concepts with a view to establishing
how their legal status internationally and regionally has influenced their
uptake within national governance frameworks. Scale independent.

Ecosvstem services in US federal environmental
law

Harwell 2020

Provides a summary of US federal environmental laws where ES are relevant,
along with a high-level overview of ES in federal and state agency regulations.
The article directs the reader to resources to find more in-depth legal analyses
of select ES topics. Scale independent.

EnviroAtlas*

Link: epa.gov/enviroatlas
Pickard et al. 2015

An online mapping application to support decision making at all levels.
Ecosystem services data are organized into the following societal benefit
categories: Clean Air; Clean and Plentiful Water; Natural Hazard Mitigation;
Climate Stabilization; Recreation; Culture and Aesthetics; Food, Fuel, and
Materials; Biodiversity Conservation. EnviroAtlas presents data at two primary
extents: national 12-digit hydrologic unit codes and census blocks groups for
selected communities. Operates at multiple scales.

Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping
Tool (EJSCREEN)

Link: epa.gov/ejscreen
US EPA 2019b

Provides users with a nationally (USA) consistent dataset and approach for
combining environmental and demographic indicators. EJSCREEN users choose
a geographic area; the tool then provides demographic and environmental
information, including health risk and hazard information for that area based
on publicly available data. Operates at multiple scales.

EPA H,0*

Link: epa.gov/water-research/ecosystem-services-

scenario-assessment-using-epa-h2o

Russell et al. 2015

A desktop geographic information system (GlS)-based decision support tool for
assessing the provision of ES under different land use scenarios. Users can
explore the spatial arrangement of ES at regional to local scales, complete
spatial queries along hydrological networks, and generate customized reports
for scenario comparisons, all to gain a better understanding of where ES are

32

-------
Resource

Description (modified from the original resource)



produced and how land use change might affect future production. Operates
at multiple scales.

EcoService Models Library (ESMU*

Link: https://www.epa.gov/eco-

research/ecoservice-models-library

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.USEPA

2021b

An online database for finding, examining, and comparing ecological models
that may be useful for quantifying ES. Operates at multiple scales.

Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem
Services Guidebook (FRMESG)

Link: nespguidebook.com

Serves as a training manual that helps to streamline the management of ES.
With the guidebook, resource managers can create plans that identify work
needed to establish and maintain resilient communities. Operates at multiple
scales.

Final Ecosystem Goods & Sere sification
Svstem (FIEGS-CS1*

Landers & Nahlik 2013

Defines and classifies 338 FEGS, each defined and uniquely numbered by a
combination of environmental class or sub-class and a beneficiary category or
sub-category. This systematic approach minimizes double counting and relates
each FEGS to a defined beneficiary, thus linking it specifically to human well-
being. Scale independent.

Final Ecosystem Services (FES) Metrics Report*

Focuses on FEGS metrics and principles for national and regional scales of
analysis. As such, the metrics and the reports based on them are expected to
be more useful for agents acting on behalf of collections of individuals as they
interact with ecosystems. While developed for regional or national scales, the
process and the results used herein, and the metrics identified, are one
approach for identifying or developing community-scale FEGS metrics
development.

USEPA 2020

FEGS Scoping Tool fFSTl*

Link: epa.gov/eco-research/final-ecosystem-goods-

and-services-fegs-scoping-tool

Sharpe et al. 2020

A stand-alone software application designed to help decision by providing a
transparent, repeatable, defensible approach for identifying and prioritizing
stakeholders, the ways in which they use the environment (beneficiaries), and
the most relevant environmental attributes for those uses as part of a set of
decision criteria within a larger decision context. Operates at multiple scales.

Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Service Logic Models
and Socio-Economic Indicators (GEMS) Project
Link: nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/project/gems

The GEMS project focused on laying the groundwork for consistent and
widespread reporting on social and economic impacts of restoration
investments in the Gulf of Mexico post-Deepwater Horizon. Components
include: 1. a database of logic models that show pathways linking over 20
different coastal restoration project types to social and economic outcomes;
and 2. a database of metrics that could be used to monitor the social and
economic outcomes of coastal restoration projects, including links to
monitoring for a set of core metrics common across project types.

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Resource and

Includes tools and resources related to the HIA process itself and those that
can be used to collect and analyze data, establish a baseline profile, assess
potential health impacts, and establish benchmarks and indicators for
monitoring and evaluation. These resources include literature and evidence
bases, data and statistics, guidelines, benchmarks, decision and economic
analysis tools, scientific models, methods, frameworks, indices, mapping, and
various data collection tools. Operates at local scales.

Tool Compilation

Link: epa.gov/healthresearch/health-impact-
assessment-hia-resource-and-tool-compilation
Pope et al. 2016

33

-------
Resource

Description (modified from the original resource)

Human Weil-Being Index (HWBI)*

Link:

gispub.epa.gov/arcgis/rest/services/ORD/HumanW

ellBeinglndex/MapServer

Smith et al. 2014

A composite measure that incorporates economic, environmental, and societal
well-being elements through the eight domains of connection to nature,
cultural fulfillment, education, health, leisure time, living standards, safety and
security, and social cohesion. Twenty-eight ES, represented by a collection of
indicators and metrics, were identified as influencing these domains of human
well-being. County-specific inventories of ES stocks or measuring the results of
an ES are translated into indicators for each domain and subsequently into the
HWBI. Operates at county scales.

Integrated Valuation of Ecosvstem Services and

Tradeoffs (InVEST)

Link:

naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest
Tallis & Polasky 2009

A suite of open-source models used to map and value ES to enable decision
makers to assess tradeoffs associated with alternative management choices
and to identify areas where investment in natural capital can enhance human
development and conservation. The toolset includes distinct ES models
designed for terrestrial, freshwater, marine, and coastal ecosystems, as well as
tools to assist with locating and processing input data and with understanding
and visualizing outputs. InVEST models are spatially explicit, using maps as
information sources and producing maps as outputs. Operates at multiple
scales.

i-Tree Eco
Link: itreetools.org
Nowak et al. 2008

A model that uses measurements of tree attributes and other data to estimate
ES and structural characteristics of the urban or rural forest. It is a complete
package that provides sampling and data collection protocols, flexible data
collection options, automated data processing, and reports, i-tree models are
Integrated into EnviroAtlas. Operates at multiple scales.

National Ecosvstems Classification Svstem-Plus

Web Tool (NESCS Plus)*

Link:

geopub.epa.gov/nescs/application/multipleQuery
Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020

A hierarchical classification system for ES that provides a consistent
architecture and taxonomy, as well as the rationale for and a consistent
delineation of the three dimensions of the FEGS framework: beneficiaries,
environmental classes, and EEPs. It contains tables of the relationships
between these dimensions, and a webtool to help users identify relevant FEGS.
Scale independent.

Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosvstem
Goods and Services into Communitv Decision
Making

Yee et al. 2017

Uses Structured Decision Making (SDM) as an organizing framework to
illustrate the role ES can play in a values-focused decision process. It also
provides examples of tools, approaches, and case studies that decision makers
can use in each SDM step. Operates at multiple scales.

Rapid Benefit Indicators (RBI)41

Link: epa.gov/water-research/rapid-benefit-

indicators-rbi-approach

Bousquin & Mazzotta 2020

An easy-to-use process for assessing restoration sites using non-monetary
benefit indicators. It uses readily available data to quantify benefits to people
around an ecological restoration site, thereby allowing restoration teams and
stakeholders to systematically and equitably incorporate social benefits in
restoration decisions. Operates at local scales.

Social Values for Ecosvstem Services (SolVES)

Link: usgs.gov/centers/gecsc/science/social-values-
ecosystem-services-solves
Sherrouse & Semmens 2020

A tool to evaluate the social value of ecosystems and to facilitate discussions
among diverse stakeholders regarding the tradeoffs among ES. It is designed to
assess, map, and quantify the perceived social values of ES. Operates at
multiple scales.

Strategic Science Communication*
Harwell et al. 2020

Provides a generalized framework and guidance for developing strategic
communication plans to ensure that engagement and communication are
focused on effective science-society dialogue. A strategic communication plan
involves articulating a project's goals and objectives, identifying
communication goals, defining messages, audiences, and vehicles,
characterizing communication flow paths, and developing metrics to assess the
success of the plan. Scale independent.

34

-------
Resource

Description (modified from the original resource)

Toolkit for Ecosvstem Service Site-based
Assessment (TESSA)

Link: tessa.tools
Peh et al. 2013

Helps users identify which ES to assess, what data are needed to measure
them, which methods or sources might be used in different contexts, and how
the results can then be communicated. TESSA facilitates comparing ES
estimates for alternative states of a site so that decision makers can assess the
net consequences of such a change, and hence the benefits for human well-
being that may be gained or lost as a consequence of action or inaction.
Operates at local scales.

ValuES Methods Navigator

Link: aboutvalues.net/method_navigator

Guides users to several web-accessible tools useful for conducting ES
assessments; primarily tools created by other groups. The website also
identifies 10 purposes for examining ES and provides examples and case
studies from six policy areas. Operates at multiple scales.

Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management

Assessments (VELMA) Model*

Link: epa.gov/water-research/visualizing-

ecosystem-land-management-assessments-velma-

model-20

McKane et al. 2014

A spatially distributed ecohydrological model that links a land surface
hydrology model with a terrestrial biogeochemistry model for simulating the
responses of vegetation, soil, and water resources to interacting stressors. For
example, VELMA can simulate how changes in climate and land use interact to
affect soil water storage, surface and subsurface runoff, vertical drainage,
evapotranspiration, vegetation and soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics, and
transport of nutrients to water bodies. Operates at multiple scales.

Table 2.3. Resources (rows) that support incorporating ES into REMA framework elements (columns).

Resource

Identify
boundaries &
Constraints

Assess Existing
Knowledge

Identify Goals
and Objectives

Select Metrics

Collect &
Analyze Data

Assess
Restoration
Outcomes

Synthesize and
Communicate
Findings

Practice
Adaptive
Management

AIRES

BlueValue

Co$ting Nature

CICES ver 5.1

CESR

Cumulative
Effects

Document
analysis

EHRB

ECSM

ESII

ES in EU law

ES in US federal
law

EnviroAtlas

EJSCREEN

-------
Resource

Identify
boundaries &
Constraints

Assess Existing
Knowledge

Identify Goals
and Objectives

Select Metrics

Collect &
Analyze Data

Assess
Restoration
Outcomes

Synthesize and
Communicate
Findings

Practice
Adaptive
Management

EPA H20



X

X

X



X

X

X

ESML



X

X

X

X

X

X

X

FRMESG

X

X

X

X



X

X



FEGS-CS



X

X

X





X

X

FES Metrics
Report







X

X

X

X

X

FST



X

X

X



X

X

X

GEMS

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

HIA



X

X

X

X

X

X

X

HWBI



X

X

X

X

X

X

X

InVEST



X

X

X

X

X

X

X

i-Tree Eco v6



X

X

X

X

X

X

X

NESCS Plus



X

X

X





X

X

Practical
Strategies

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

RBI



X

X

X

X

X

X



SolVES



X

X

X



X

X

X

Strategic
communication





X







X

X

TESSA



X

X

X



X

X

X

VELMA



X

X

X

X

X

X

X

2.4 Incorporating Ecosystem Services into REMA Framework Elements

This section describes each element of the REMA framework and then discusses how ES may be
incorporated into the framework (Figure 2.2). Table 2.4 provides a summary of those considerations.

36

-------
#«s#>

Identify Boundaries
& Constraints A

Assess Existing
Knowledge g

Identify Goals C
& Objectives

Select D
Metrics

Collect & Analyze Data

Assess Restoration F
Outcomes

Synthesize & G
Communicate Findings

REMA Framework - Concepts & Resources

A

Identify Boundaries & Constraints (Section
2.4.1)

B

Assess Existing Knowledge(Section 2.4.2)

C

Identify Goals & Objectives (Section 2.4.3)

D

Select Metrics (Section 2.4.4)

E

Collect & Analyze Data (Section 2.4.5)

F

Assess Restoration Outcomes(Sectfon 2.4.6)

G

Synthesize & Communicate Findings(Sectfon
2.4.7)

H

Practice Adaptive Management (Section 2.4.8)

Figure 2.2. Road map of Chapter 2 discussion of each step of the REMA framework.

Table 2.4. Considerations for including ES into the elements of REMA frameworks.

REMA Element

Description

Considerations for Inclusion of ES

Identify
boundaries and
constraints

Identify the legal, financial,
logistical, data, and cultural
contexts and constraints that
set the boundaries for
developing the monitoring and
assessment plan.

Do authorizing parties (property owners, funders)
care about the production of or use ES at the
restored site? Do the permitting regulations
preclude consideration of ES as part of the goals
of the work? Is there sufficient funding to
monitor for ES at the site? Does the restoration
team have the expertise required to identify and
quantify ES?

Assess existing
knowledge

Identify, collect, and interpret
background information about
the site.

Have ES been identified at the restoration or
reference sites? Review scientific literature for ES
produced in similar habitats elsewhere. Assess
local knowledge of how and why stakeholders,
including nearby communities and the public,
engage with similar habitats elsewhere. Identify
environmental justice concerns and if there is a
need to account for underrepresented or
underserved populations.

37

-------
REMA Element

Description

Considerations for Inclusion of ES

Identify goals
and objectives

Identify monitoring goals and
objectives based on overall
project vision, and the desired
ecological conditions and
acceptable risks.

Working with management goals for similar
habitats, or through engagement with
stakeholders, including nearby and
disadvantaged communities, determine what ES
are of greatest interest (i.e., priority), and include
those in the REMA goals (and in the general
restoration plan).

Select metrics

Based on specific restoration
goals, identify and select
metrics to assess the condition
of a component or process.

Identify or develop and validate metrics for the
priority ES, which may include indirect or proxy
biophysical metrics of ES. Ensure that the ES
metrics will likely respond to the focal restorative
actions. Some ES metrics may be identical to
metrics used for assessing ecological condition.

Collect and
analyze data

Depending on study design,
collect all necessary data at
restoration site and reference
expectations (e.g., sites,
historical data, model
predictions, benchmarks).
Establish data management
plan and data quality criteria.

Determine the sampling and measurement
requirements for ES-related metrics (i.e., spatial
and temporal extent and resolution), particularly
if the data will be input into ES models.

Assess
restoration
outcomes

Evaluate data to determine
whether monitoring goals are
being met.

Assessing the condition of a site with respect to
ES goals follows the same process as for other
restoration goals. Evaluate whether changes in ES
metrics are attributable to restorative actions at
the project site. Changes in ES metrics can be
interpreted with respect to the benefits that will
accrue to stakeholders.

Synthesize and
communicate
findings

Synthesize and disseminate
results. Apply results to current
and/or future restoration
projects.

Inclusion of ES in a project's REMA goals, metrics,
and assessment provides an opportunity to
communicate the progress (or success) of the
restoration project in terms that matter to
stakeholders. The application of FEGS is
particularly well suited for this purpose because it
is based on peoples' (i.e., stakeholders) direct
use, enjoyment, or appreciation of nature at the
restoration site.

Practice
adaptive
management

Throughout the monitoring
process, iteratively
communicate/share learning,
assess and make necessary
adjustments, and decide on
passive and/or active
management options.

As with other endpoints and metrics, an adaptive
management plan should periodically assess
whether changes are needed to REMA goals and
associated ES, ES metrics, ES metrics sampling
plan, data analysis or interpretation, presentation
of ES results, or the communication plan.

38

-------
2.4.1 Identify Boundaries and Constraints

Before defining the goals and objectives of a REMA plan, it is important to understand the legal,
financial, logistical, historical, and cultural factors that will limit the scope of the plan. Virtually all
restoration projects will require permits for conducting restorative actions on a property (i.e., removing
or adding materials, altering the hydrology, etc.) per land use regulations set by national, state, or local
environmental laws (Clewell et al. 2005; DWH-NRDAT 2017). Restoration conducted under different
programmatic contexts (e.g., conservation, contaminated site clean-up, compensatory mitigation) may
face different legal requirements that are explored in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Obtaining
permission to access a site or areas within a site may be an additional legal constraint set by the
property owner. Funding is frequently cited as a major constraint for REMA plans, limiting the scope,
frequency, and duration of restoration monitoring (Baggett 2014; Fitzsimons et al. 2019) and
constraining expectations for detecting whether anticipated benefits were generated within the
duration of the REMA program (Fitzsimons et al. 2019). The setting and size of the site (e.g., site
constraints) can limit what rehabilitation can be achieved due to isolation from sources of colonizing
biota or other natural resources (e.g., water, light, sediment, nutrients), the establishment of fully
functional ecological communities due to small size of a site, or the influx of contaminants or noxious
species from surrounding properties (Shreffler and Thom 1993; Rice et al. 2005; Gann et al. 2019).
Logistical factors, such as obtaining the necessary expertise to conduct field measurements or data
analyses, seasonal constraints on sampling activities, or contending with nuisance or dangerous species
can limit the scope and frequency of monitoring and assessment (NAVFAC 2004; Guilfoyle et al. 2006;
Board et al. 2017). Lack of information about the history and antecedent conditions of the site
constrains using pre-disturbance conditions as a baseline for assessing restoration progress
(Diefenderfer et al. 2016). Indigenous cultural practices and jurisdiction associated with the site may
define some restoration goals while also limiting some activities on the site (Keenleyside et al. 2012).

Incorporating ES into Boundaries and Constraints

Whether ES may be considered in a REMA plan depends on the interests of the authorizing parties (i.e.,
are property owners and funders interested in ES?) and constraints imposed by the regulations that
permit the restoration work. Discussion about ES with authorizing parties may encounter a semantic
barrier regarding the term "ecosystem service" which can be misconstrued as the monetization of
nature (Thompson et al. 2016; Diaz et al. 2018). This can be addressed through a shared understanding
that ES refer to peoples' many values of nature, monetizable and otherwise (including caring, reverence,
spiritual, experiential, and economic) (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Costanza et al. 2017; de Groot et al.
2018b; Kenter et al. 2018; O'Higgins et al. 2020; DeWitt et al. 2020). Phrases such as "benefits of
nature," "environmental benefits," and "nature's contributions to people" are sometimes used as
alternatives to "ecosystem services" (Thompson et al. 2016; Diaz et al. 2018), which may help in
discussions where ES terminology is contentious.

Several US federal and European Union (EU) environmental laws are relevant to ES and restoration
(Harwell 2020; O'Hagen 2020). Primary examples include: NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act;
42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.); the CWA (the "Clean Water Act" passed as the Federal Water Pollution Control

-------
Act; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.); WRDA (a series of Water Resources Development Acts; e.g., WRDA 2000,
Pub. L. No. 106-541); and CERCLA (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act - or "Superfund"; 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.). The clean-up activities outlined in the Oil
Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) can support the restoration of a suite of location-specific
ecosystem services (Harwell 2020). The NEPA, CWA, and WRDAs are often relevant to conservation-
based restoration (Chapter 3); CERCLA and NEPA are relevant in restoration of contaminated sites
(Chapter 4); and CWA and NEPA are relevant in restoration associated with compensatory mitigation
(Chapter 5). State and local laws may also provide a context for including ES in restoration planning,
particularly as the benefits of ES impact nearby residents and businesses. At the very least, the
restoration team should determine what permits are required to modify a property in the pursuit of
restoring ecological attributes including ES.

As with all aspects of REMA, funding and availability of expertise to assess ES will affect the scope of
what is included in the restoration monitoring and assessment program. Inclusion of ES in REMA
programs has the prospect of sustaining interest and possibly attracting funding for long-term
monitoring if the project links ES to stakeholder and community priorities. This will likely require
identification of key stakeholders and beneficiaries, including them in setting goals for the restoration
and REMA plan, and communicating the progress and effectiveness of the restoration in terms of their
benefit priorities. Including ES or human dimensions experts on a restoration team may affect project
costs, but the benefits of that investment could pay off by enhancing the relevance of and interest in the
restoration project as just described.

2.4.2 Assess Existing Knowledge

Existing data from and knowledge about the site can provide: 1) a baseline for the pre-disturbance
ecological condition of the restoration site (i.e., habitats, flora, fauna, hydrology, etc.); 2) understanding
of the biophysical connections of the site to the surrounding landscape (i.e., how condition of the site
affects surrounding ecosystems, and vice versa); 3) characterization of processes that damaged the site
(e.g., to identify stressors and stop further damage); 4) ownership and past uses of the property; and 5)
understanding of the social context of the site (i.e., who has used, wishes to use, cares about, or
otherwise may be affected by it; i.e., stakeholders) (Clewell et al. 2005; RECOVER 2010; USEPA 2019a).
In a national review of thirty-nine non-USACE restoration projects, it was determined that the projects
were largely successful when it came to meeting restoration goals (Shreffler et al. 1995). All of the
projects gathered very good information on the environmental conditions of the restoration site during
the planning phase which is critical to meeting restoration performance goals (Shreffler et al. 1995). This
is also an opportunity to learn about metrics and monitoring plans used in previous similar restoration
projects (e.g., to inform approaches that may be used in the current project).

Knowledge about the ecological structure and function/process of the site, drawn from historical
documents, scientific literature, and experts, can be used to develop a conceptual ecological model that
can help identify biophysical features (i.e., soil, terrain, geology, water bodies, vegetation, fauna, etc.)
and processes (i.e., nutrient and carbon cycling, hydrologic flows, trophic linkages, pollination, etc.)
desired at the fully restored site. Conceptual ecosystem models can thus provide a summary of existing
knowledge that can inform goal setting, metrics selection, and assessing restoration progress. In a

-------
Greater Everglades ecosystem restoration project, conceptual ecological models were used to identify
ecological endpoints and to formulate hypotheses about ecosystem responses to change; these models
served as foundations for developing restoration monitoring and assessment plans (RECOVER 2006).
RECOVER (2010) presented an example approach for compiling the scientific knowledge gained after the
original restoration design for the Greater Everglades to inform adaptive assessment and management.
Section 3.5.4, Developing Assessment Criteria, provides an example of a conceptual model causally
linking ecological outcomes with ES through "bridging indicators" (NESP 2016).

Finally, existing knowledge is a resource for every step in REMA, and as the project advances through
each REMA element, additional forays into local history and experience, scientific articles, and
environmental management and restoration documents will undoubtably be used to inform decisions.

Incorporating ES into Assessing Existing Knowledge
Preliminary ES-relevant research about a site includes identifying:

•	Who are the stakeholders and potential beneficiaries of ES produced at the site

•	What ES are presently produced or could be produced after restoration

Identifying Stakeholders and Beneficiaries ofES

Restoration stakeholders include, at least, the site property owner, funders, and immediate neighbors,
particularly regarding the socio-ecological benefits that could flow from ES produced at the site. Even for
sites with restricted access, restoration that increases the abundance and diversity of native fish,
wildlife, and vegetation, removes nuisance species, improves hydrology, etc. will likely be of interest to
people living in surrounding communities by virtue of "downstream" or hydrologically-connected
benefits they would receive, such as increased stocks of game species, opportunities to see charismatic
species, improvements to water and air quality, and desirable natural viewscapes. Inclusion of off-site
stakeholders can reveal potential benefits and beneficiaries who may become advocates for seeing the
REMA process through to completion. Additionally, it will be important to discuss with stakeholders any
tradeoffs that be necessary to achieve a priority ES goal but that may adversely benefits valued by some
stakeholders; for example, restoring populations of an endangered predator (e.g., wolves) may require
tolerating declines in other charismatic native mammals (e.g., prey) and risk to livestock.

Understanding the social, cultural, and economic context within which a site is nested (i.e., the
characteristics of nearby communities) can help identify stakeholders who care about the restoration.
The online EJSCREEN tool provides spatially explicit information about the demographic (i.e., income
level, ethnicity, education, linguistic isolation, age distribution) and environmental (e.g., air quality,
traffic, proximity to hazardous sites) contexts (USEPA 2019b). This tool can identify stakeholders from
communities that are both underrepresented in restoration planning and may prioritize different ES
than property owners and funders. The first steps in the FEGS Scoping Tool (FST) focus on identifying
and prioritizing stakeholders for a given decision context (e.g., restoration project). The Human Well-
being Index (HWBI) is a composite index of well-being at county-scale based on publicly available data
(Smith et al. 2014), albeit from the 2000-2010 period. The HWBI integrates 28 indicators of economic,
environmental, sociologic, and health information, aggregating those into eight domains of well-being
(connection to nature, cultural fulfillment, education, health, leisure time, living standards, safety and
security, and social cohesion) that individually provide insight to the socio-cultural context of an area.

41

-------
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) tools (Pope et al. 2016) can be used to develop a baseline profile of
community health and health determinants which can inform the restoration team whether health-
related ES would be productive to consider as part of REMA. The application of HI As can result in
recommendations for maximizing the potential positive health impacts and minimizing and/or avoiding
the potential negative health impacts of the decision.

When looking specifically at FEGS, two resources for identifying the beneficiaries (Box 1.1) are the
National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020) and the
FST (Sharpe et al. 2020). In both tools, dozens of beneficiary categories are identified by the actions
people engage in while interacting with nature within an ecosystem (e.g., farmers, foresters, residential
property owners, recreational viewers and experiencers, and recreational anglers). Ultimately, each
beneficiary role helps to specify the biophysical attributes needed to provide the benefit sought from a
given ecosystem (i.e., the ecological end product (EEP)). The NESCS Plus defines 10 main categories and
37 sub-categories of beneficiaries of FEGS. It also has a webtool that can be used to winnow this to a
specific list of beneficiaries by identifying the types of ecosystems present at the project site
(Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020). The NESCS Plus is the successor of the FEGS Classification System
(Landers & Nahlik 2013), which also defined beneficiary classes, and the National Ecosystem Services
Classification System (USEPA 2015). The FST (Sharpe et al. 2020) guides project teams (and stakeholders,
optionally) through a "bottom-up" process to identify the FEGS beneficiaries associated with each
stakeholder as a step toward identifying common interests in complex, multi-party decision-making
situations.

Identifying ES Produced at Site

The restoration team may be keenly interested to know what ES were (i.e., pre-disturbance), or are
presently produced, at the site to inform what ES the site might be capable of producing in the future
and what ES might be reduced as a result of restoration. Local expert knowledge of pre-disturbance
conditions and how people have used the site is of course an excellent source of information but may
not be available. A review of ecosystem- or habitat-specific ES production would be useful to get a
general idea of what could be produced locally; for example, de Groot et al. (2018a) for wetlands,
Principe et al. (2012) for coral reefs, and Binder et al. (2017) for forests. Where such reviews are not
available or are too general, restoration teams may wish to conduct an inventory of documents using
automated document analysis (Yee et al. 2019). This method uses a script written in R to search
documents sentence-by-sentence for the ecosystem or habitat type, beneficiary type, EEP, or ES-related
synonyms for the specific project.

The Ecosystem Services Identification and Inventory (ESII) tool (Guertin et al. 2019) produces a spatially
explicit inventory and map of multiple ES at a site based on field observations entered into an Apple
iPad® application. The ESII tool can be applied in terrestrial, wetland, aquatic (riverine, lake, beach), and
urban/developed settings. It can also be used to estimate past inventories and distributions of ES if
reliable data are available for inputs. The Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA)
(Peh et al. 2013) provides guidance for project teams to work with stakeholders to identify five ES
classes based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification of ES (MEA 2005), a selection of
low-cost methods (including field-based) for quantifying those ES, and guidance for developing scenarios
of land-use change and potential impact to the ES.

-------
Tools are available to map the past or present distributions of ES at a site based on existing land cover
and use information. The EnviroAtlas contains hundreds of data layers related to the production of ES,
ES indicators, environmental context (i.e., habitat features, climatic variables, etc.), socio-economic
context, and factors that could diminish ES production (such as pollution) (Pickard et al. 2015) which can
be used to produce US national-scale maps with 12-digit hydrologic-unit resolution or finer resolution
(e.g., census block group) for 30 US communities (and counting). The EnviroAtlas may be especially
useful for back casting the extent of ES by examining ES currently produced at nearby areas with similar
environmental characteristics. The Rapid Benefits Indicator (RBI) (Mazzotta et al. 2019; Bousquin &
Mazzotta 2020) approach uses existing data to estimate benefits that could flow to people in the vicinity
of a wetland restoration site and may also be used to compare the benefits likely to be produced by
different sites in an area.

Many ES models produce maps as outputs and are useful for estimating past and present ES stocks for a
site. The EPA H20 (Russell et al. 2015), i-Tree Eco (Nowak et al. 2008), Visualizing Ecosystem Land
Management Assessments (VELMA) (McKane et al. 2014) and ESII (Guertin et al. 2019) tools are well
designed for modeling and mapping ES at watershed or smaller extent sub-watershed scales. Tools
within Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) (Tallis & Polasky 2009) are
best for watershed or larger extents; note however, that people have applied all these models at larger
or smaller extents. The GEMS Ecosystem Service Models and Metrics search tool provides conceptual
models for selected ES associated with several types of environmental management projects, including
coastal habitat restoration. The EcoService Models Library (ESML) (USEPA 2021b) is a database of
models useful for estimating ES and contains flexible tools for searching for and comparing models.

Many of the models summarized in ESML also generate maps. The ARtificial intelligence for Environment
and Sustainability (ARIES) tool (Villa et al. 2014; Martinez-Lopez et al. 2019) is a system for locating and
applying models and data to estimate ES at user-specified locations, and it too can output maps of
current ES distribution.

In some cases, restoration teams may want to estimate the past or current social value of ES at a site.
Social value implies more than "monetary value," and includes the non-market importance of ES to
people (e.g., beauty, inspiration, spirituality, and appreciation of existence) that are difficult to monetize
or for which no substitute (e.g., money) exists (Angradi et al. 2016). Resources to facilitate ES valuation
include Co$ting Nature (Mulligan et al. 2018), BlueValue (Harte Research Institute 2020), and Social
Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) (Sherrouse and Simmens 2020). For insight into methods for
assessing the value of ES or natural capital, see NRC (2005), Boyd et al. (2016), Pandeya et al. (2016), and
Russell et al. (2020).

2.4.3 Identify Goals & Objectives

Goals are the measurable manifestations of one or more visions of the restoration, and objectives are
measurable intermediate milestones along the restoration trajectory (Gann et al. 2019). These elements
are the primary basis for evaluating restoration project success (Thom and Wellman 1996; Clewell et al.
2005; NASEM 2017). The restoration team should consider what will be the criteria for successful
restoration as they articulate goals and objectives (Box 2.1). While they can be broad and overarching, it
is also important to ensure that the restoration goals can be articulated specifically enough that they

43

-------
can measured or assessed (Thorn and Wellman 1996; NASEM 2017). Goals can be ecological,
socioeconomic, or both (NASEM 2017). When developing goals and objectives, it is also necessary to
think about timeline considerations, such as how much time will be needed for ES to be produced, when
different data would need to be collected, regulations dictating temporal phases of a project, or the
development of different ES over time; see Section 3.3.4 Timeline Considerations for more detail on this
topic from a conservation perspective and Section 4.3.4 Timeline Considerations for more detail on this
topic from a contaminated sites lens.

Box 2.1. Defining Restoration Success within a REMA Framework

What are the characteristics of REMA goals and objectives?

Linked to the vision and goals of the restoration
Is clearly and unambiguously defined

Can be contextualized relative to clearly established reference expectations
Can be evaluated objectively

How can progress toward a REMA goal be measured?

Set clearly specified targets for interim objectives that reflect the progress toward developmental state of
the goal

o Define the state of success for each goal and objective
Use metrics that relate to specific and distinct aspects of each goal and its associated objectives.

Different metrics may be needed to evaluate the goals and objectives to reflect development along the
restoration trajectory
Metrics should have these properties:

o Can be measured in a repeatable manner over time
o Are objective, evidence-based, and scientifically defensible

o Have high measurement signal-to-noise ratios, relative to inherent measurement variability
Evaluate metrics relative to clearly established points of comparison

o Provide levels of confidence for estimates used to compare in the accuracy of differences in

measurements between the restoration and reference sites
o Recognize that restoration and reference sites may respond differently to ambient conditions or
to localized disturbances aside from those associated with restorative actions

Incorporating ES into Goals & Objectives

The goals and objectives for a site's REMA plan can often be expressed as in terms of one or more ES.
Close examination of the rationale and motivation for restoration ultimately leads to a human-centric
interest; someone prefers that conditions at the site consist of some future state, rather than the
current state. That the restored condition of biota and ecological function are unambiguously "better"
than pre-restoration is a depends on the individual stakeholder. Thus, connecting restoration of
ecological conditions in terms of how people benefit or are harmed acknowledges and makes
transparent that human value judgement. Since people who care about a particular site may have
different interests in the outcome of restoration of the site (i.e., prefer different ES), those parties and

44

-------
their interests should be considered (if not fully involved) when developing REMA goals and objectives.
An ES perspective in site location and design (e.g., Adame et al. 2015), along with consideration of
potential cumulative effects of multiple or iterative restoration projects within a watershed
(Diefenderfer et al. 2021), may be useful for understanding the landscape-level significance of a project
given that the delivery of benefits from ES often occurs across watershed or landscape scales (Gilby et
al. 2018. The key tasks for including ES into the identification of REMA goals and objectives are:

• Identifying the stakeholders and beneficiaries of existing and potentially restored ES

• Identifying and prioritizing which ES to restore

• Finalizing the list of ES to monitor and assess

• Translating the final list of priority ES into REMA goals and objectives

• Communicating these decisions to stakeholders

Communicating restoration goals and progress in terms of
potential benefits to stakeholders, including nearby communities,
can build trust in the project and garner support for adequate
investment in monitoring and assessment.

Identifying the Stakeholders and Beneficiaries of Existing and Potentially Restored ES
The purpose of this step is to determine who will be affected by the restoration and what benefits they
will receive from the restored site. In some cases, the consideration of stakeholders and beneficiaries
will be limited to the property owner, funders, and project instigators. In most cases, many other groups
of people will be affected by the restoration. Identifying and engaging as many stakeholders as possible
in REMA planning can enhance the success of the restoration by fostering trust relationships with the
people to whom the benefits and harms of restoration are likely to accrue. The process for identifying
stakeholders and beneficiaries is the same as described in Section 2.4.2. Tools well suited for this task
include EJSCREEN, HWBI, HIA, NESCS Plus, and FST (Table 2.2) as described in that Section.

Identifying and Prioritizing which ES to Restore

The purpose of this step is to determine which ES to monitor and assess. This process will be embedded
in the general considerations of what is wrong at a site, what needs to be done to fix the problem,
where should the fixes take place (e.g., site, landscape, watershed), how much "repair" is necessary to
achieve the goals, etc. If the project team knows the priorities of the property owner, funders, and
other stakeholders sufficiently to formulate socio-ecological goals, then the identification of
corresponding ES is as follows: site-relevant beneficiaries of each goal are identified, followed by
determining which biophysical attributes (i.e., the EEPs) at the site are used by each beneficiary to
increase their well-being. This is illustrated in a hypothetical wetland restoration example in Table 2.5,
using NESCS Plus to define the beneficiary and EEP categories and the corresponding FEGS. Note that

-------
there may be multiple beneficiaries associated with a single goal, and that each beneficiary may (or may
not) use or appreciate different specific EEPs. Tradeoffs in benefits may also be revealed from
considering what beneficiaries might use at a site and what biophysical attributes they each appreciate.
For example, restoring a reef structure that provides fish habitat may be desirable to recreational divers
but undesirable for commercial and recreational fishing (e.g., due to gear entanglement) (DeWitt et al.
2020). For regulatory programs requiring compensatory mitigation, the credit determination
methodology and associated assessment methods generally identify the minimum ecosystem functions
(or conditions) that will be assessed and can be used to link to the most relevant ES for the particular
restoration project, constrained by the capacity of the restoration site to naturally produce the ES of
interest (see Chapter 5). This report does not get into the conversation about restoration for profit (i.e.,
a restoration economy); readers are directed to BenDor et al. (2015) to learn more.

Table 2.5. Translation of hypothetical restoration goals into FEGS and corresponding components within
the NESCS Plus classification (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020) illustrated for a hypothetical freshwater
wetland restoration project. *These subclasses could be further refined to identify individual or
communities of species. EEP = ecological end product - the relevant biophysical components of nature
that are directly used or appreciated by humans.

Restoration
Goal

FEGS

Beneficiary Category

General
EEP Class

Specific EEP &
Potential metrics

Increase
protection of
shorelines from
storm-driven
erosion

Wetland vegetation
that protects
shorelines from
erosion

Residential property
owner

Flora

Wetland vascular
plants*; percent
cover

Public sector property
owner

Commercial/industrial
property owner

Increase habitat
for mammals

Game mammals

Recreational hunters

Fauna

Deer, moose, elk;
abundance

Commercial fur/hide
trappers & hunters

Muskrat, raccoon,
beavers, otters, etc.;
presence or
abundance

Wetland mammals

Recreational
experiencers and
viewers

Rare mammals

People who
appreciate wildlife

Rare mammals*;
presence or
abundance

Improve water
quality

Surface water used
downstream by a
drinking water plant

Municipal (or private)
drinking water plant
operators

Water

Uncontaminated
water; concentration
of nutrients,
toxicants, pathogens

Surface water used by

swimmers

downstream

Recreational waders,
swimmers, and divers

Clear and safe water;
water clarity, conc. of
toxicants, pathogens

46

-------
Restoration
Goal

FEGS

Beneficiary Category

General
EEP Class

Specific EEP &
Potential metrics

Clear water
appreciated by
visitors

Recreational
experiencers and
viewers

Clear water; Secchi
depth or turbidity

Clear water used by
anglers

Recreational anglers

If the project team is has not previously done so, the process for identifying ES is very similar to that
described in Section 2.4.2. Lists of potential existing and restorable ES can be generated from existing
knowledge (i.e., local experts, traditional ecological knowledge, site-specific publications, reviews of
habitat- or ecosystem-specific ES, document analysis to search for ES mentioned in relevant articles and
reports) or by querying ES classification systems such as NESCS Plus (Newcomer-Johnson 2020) and
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (Haines-Young & Potschin 2018).

Winnowing the list of potential ES to a prioritized set, for which indicators will be included in the REMA
program, requires a decision on how to establish the ranking. If the interests of the
beneficiaries/stakeholders are paramount, then the FST (Sharpe et al. 2020) may be useful. The FST
guides the user (who may be a stakeholder or just the restoration team) through several steps to
characterize, in the context of the project, the beneficiary roles of each stakeholder group, the
biophysical attributes of the site that each beneficiary group cares about, and which of those attributes
are of greatest interest to the most influential stakeholders. The tool helps users identify meaningful
environmental attributes for use in evaluating decision alternatives but does not provide additional
guidance in selecting the preferred decision alternative. See Sharpe et al. (2022) for several FST use-case
studies, including tidal wetland and contaminated site restorations.

Another approach to prioritizing ES is to quantify how frequently each ES is mentioned in policy or
management documents. This approach presumes that ES mentioned most frequently are of greatest
importance in some context captured by the universe of documents examined, to conserving, restoring,
or constructing a given site, habitat, or ecosystem. Automated document analysis (Yee et al. 2019) can
facilitate "top-down" searches for ES-related keywords and their synonyms within digitized documents.
Yee et al. (2019, 2021), DeWitt et al. (2021), and Jackson et al. (2022) used a script written in R® to
search through documents for ES keywords, which were ranked by their frequency of occurrence. In lieu
of an automated search, a manual review of planning documents can also be used to extract priority ES
(Rossi et al. 2021). In practice, any "top-down list" of ES should be vetted by the restoration team or the
stakeholders to ensure the ranking is appropriate for the project (i.e., that the ES are of greatest
importance to the stakeholders and that the restored site can produce those ES).

Another basis for identifying and prioritizing ES is to work back from a category of benefits, such as the
improvement of public health or maximization of economic value. Health Impact Assessments (Pope et
al. 2016) conducted for communities near the site will summarize the predominant health issues and
potential environmental causes (USEPA 2021) for a restoration program or project. Coupled with
EJSCREEN (USEPA 2019b), an HIA can reveal public health issues across intersectional and
socioeconomic groups. The Eco-Health Relationship Browser (EHRB) (Jackson et al. 2013) can be used

-------
search for ecosystem attributes positively or negatively related to relevant health issues Tools such as
Co$ting Nature (Mulligan et al. 2018, BlueValue (Harte Research Institute 2020), SolVES (Sherrouse &
Semmens 2020), and InVEST (Tallis & Polasky 2009) could be used to assign monetary value to ES.
Restoration teams considering this approach would do well to include or consult an environmental
economist to address underlying assumptions of benefit transferability and valuation of non-market ES
(Rosenberger & Johnston 2009; Johnston & Rosenberger 2010; Richardson et al. 2015).

Finalizing the List ofES to Monitor and Assess

Once priority ES are identified, the restoration team should consider whether each is practical or
appropriate to include in the REMA program. Those considerations include whether practical metrics
exist for the ES, the spatial and temporal scales of its production, and who will be able to inform the
final selection of ES to include in the REMA program (Table 2.6).

Table 2.6. Practical considerations for prioritizing ES for a REMA plan.

Factor

Considerations

Measurability

Are metrics available for the ES of interest? Is expertise available to interpret
those metrics? Would proxy metrics be acceptable? (see Section 2.4.4)

Scale of ES production

Will changes at the restored site have a meaningful impact on the
production of the ES (i.e., presence of ecological processes that can form and
maintain habitats and species at a site, and to provide resilience to sustain
the ES)? Production of some ES requires favorable ecological conditions to
be present over large geographic extents; for example, populations of long-
lived, large, charismatic animals often require habitat extending over
hundreds of hectares (or more).

Timely production of
ES

Does the time required to produce an ES preclude being able to detect
changes in the REVA timeframe? If not, are there indicators that provide
information, albeit indirectly, about the ES condition at the fully matured
restoration site? For example, ES associated with mature forests may not be
realized until decades after the monitoring ends, but growth and diversity of
younger trees are an indicator that the site is on the trajectory to becoming
a mature forest ecosystem in the future - and by implication so might the
associated ES.

Proximity

From where in the landscape or watershed will beneficiaries experience the
ES? Are the benefits experienced only on the site; are they experienced
downstream or down gradient? Views of the restored site may be
experienced from outside the boundary of the site, although the site
produces the viewscape.

Accessibility

Who will be given permission to use the ecological resources produced at
the restored site? Ecosystem services require that beneficiaries be able to
use, consume, or appreciate the EEPs from which they obtain benefit. Will
beneficiaries of the ES of interest be able to access the restored site or those
EEPs? Consider whether there might be social/cultural barriers for some
groups who may wish to use ES at the restored site.

Equity and fairness

Have all potential beneficiaries of the restored site been given fair
consideration when prioritizing ES? This consideration is connected to issues

-------
Factor

Considerations

of site accessibility and the proximity of ES production to the location of
specific beneficiaries.

Conflicts & trade-offs

Can the ES of interest be produced without impinging on other restoration
goals? Conflicts may arise when ecological or social requirements for one ES
obviate the production of another ES, or if one ES benefits one stakeholder
more than others. Ultimately the restoration team, in collaboration with
stakeholders, will have to decide whether conditions can be produced to
sustain all ES in conflict, or to prioritize only a subset.

The first consideration is whether changes in an ES can be characterized at least qualitatively if not
quantitatively. The topic of selecting metrics for ES is discussed at length in Section 2.4.4. In this scoping
phase, the restoration team should at least identify whether each ES has been measured elsewhere in
similar contexts and assess whether the expertise and funding are available to use those metrics.

Ecosystem services models can inform considerations of the spatial scale and timeliness of ES
production. Modeling suites such as InVEST, EPA H20, i-Tree Eco, ESII, TESSA, and VELMA (Table 2.2) can
output ES estimates using site-specific land-use/cover and other ecological data (or estimates of such
data from restoration scenarios) as inputs. The ESML (USEPA 2021b) may be useful for finding other ES
models. The restoration team should consider how the environment outside the site might affect
manifestation of each priority ES at the restored site. If production of an ES is partially dependent on off-
site conditions, and if those off-site conditions are degraded or block the movement of critical materials
or biota onto the restoration site, then it might not be reasonable to expect the ES to be fully expressed
at the restored site. The time to achieve an ES objective (e.g., some level of ES production) will depend
on the rate of recovery of the specific, local ecological resources necessary to produce the ES. Ecosystem
services process models (also known as ecological production functions; Bruins et al. 2017) can reveal
biophysical features and ecological processes necessary to produce ES. The ESML (USEPA 2021b)
contains tools for searching for ES models and identifying their variables and parameters. The scientific
literature or local ecological knowledge can then provide estimates for the recovery time of key
variables underlying production of the ES, which can inform estimates of ES recovery time.

Determining who will receive the benefits of each ES, and the equitability of benefits, depends on the
intersection of the area over which the benefits extend and the communities of people that live or visit
within that area, considered the "serviceshed" of the ES (Tallis & Polasky 2009). Benefits of some ES will
be primarily available only at the site (for example, recreational viewing of wildlife, recreational angling,
hunting or gathering of fauna or flora), while for other ES the benefits will extend downstream (i.e.,
improvements to water quality or quantity), downwind (i.e., removal of particulates from the
atmosphere), or within sight of the site (i.e., vistas of the site). Intersections of ES production areas and
the potential beneficiaries can be visualized by overlaying maps output from ES models (i.e., InVEST, EPA
H20, i-Tree Eco, ESII, TESSA, VELMA) with socio-demographic maps produced by EJSCREEN (USEPA
2019b). If access to the site is limited by the property owners or by other barriers (e.g., geographic,
socio-economic, cultural, racial, awareness, safety, etc.), use of the ES may be similarly limited. Equity in

-------
the access, and use of the ES benefits, should be consistent with the socio-ecological goals of the
restoration project.

Finally, the restoration team should be aware of potential ES production conflicts whereby production of
one ES reduces production of another. These represent areas of potential tradeoffs that need to be
considered in the larger environmental decision-making context (Angradi et al. 2016). For example,
optimum water temperatures for game fishes such as trout and salmon may be too cold for swimmers.
In which case, the restoration team will need to decide whether to manage water temperature with a
range acceptable for trout or for swimming. The ESML has fields for each model that can help users
identify key variables-in-common required to produce different priority ES; determining how the
direction and magnitude of change of those variables affects the production of each ES will inform
whether there will be a conflict in their production.

Assessing the list of priority ES with these considerations will likely cause some candidate ES to be
judged impractical to measure or assess in the context of the planned restoration; the remaining final
list of ES will be those used in the REMA program.

Translating the Final List of Priority ES into REMA Goals and Objectives

If final ES were selected based on social-ecological goals, no further translation into goals should be
necessary, but intermediate objectives will need to be identified. However, if the ES were selected
through the winnowing process just described, they should be translated into plain language for goals
and objectives. For those that are FEGS, the NESCS Plus and CICES provide descriptions of their
beneficiaries and the biophysical attributes used to produce a benefit (see also Table 2.5). Information
on the timeline needed to produce each ES (see previous paragraph) can inform specific and measurable
expectations for the corresponding goals and objectives (Table 2.7).

Table 2.7. Hypothetical REMA goals and objectives derived from the tidal wetland restoration goals and
their associated FEGS from Table 2.5.

Restoration Goal

FEGS

REMA Goal

REMA Objectives

Increase protection
of shorelines from
storm-driven erosion

Wetland vegetation
that protects
shorelines from erosion

High marsh vegetation of
> X% cover, in stands > Y
m width, extends along >
Z% of shoreline within 10
yr

X % of high marsh
vegetation survives 1
year after planting; area
of high marsh increases >
50% within 5 yr

Increase habitat for
mammals

Game mammals that
are allowed to be
hunted

Abundance of game
species is > X per hectare
within 10 yr

Game species are
detected during every
sampling event after X yr

Wetland mammals that
visitors hope to view

Abundance of
charismatic mammals is >
X per hectare within 10
yr

Charismatic species are
detected during every
sampling event after X yr

Rare mammals that are
appreciated by
naturalists

Presence/absence or
abundance of rare
mammals is > X per
hectare within 10 yr

Rare species are detected
during 50% sampling
events after X yr

50

-------
Restoration Goal

FEGS

REMA Goal

REMA Objectives

Improve water
quality

Surface water used
downstream by a
drinking water plant

Average monthly
concentration of
suspended solids is < X
units after 5 yr

Winter average monthly
concentration of
suspended solids is < Y
units after 3 yr

Surface water used by
swimmers downstream

Average monthly
concentration of fecal
coliform bacteria is < X
units after 5 yr

Summer average
monthly concentration of
fecal coliform bacteria is
< Y units after 3 yr

Clear water
appreciated by visitors
Clear water
appreciated by anglers

Average monthly Secchi
depth is sustained at < X
m after 5 yr

Spring-Fall average
monthly Secchi depth is <
Z m after 3 yr

Communicating these decisions to stakeholders

The last step in developing the REMA goals and objectives should be to communicate with stakeholders,
beneficiaries, and partners to share information on what benefits should be forthcoming over time from
the restorative actions. Early communication on the REMA planning and final decisions will provide
transparency about the REMA process, build stakeholders' trust in the project and restoration team, and
may lead to support for sustaining the REMA program for long-term.

The outset of the REMA planning effort is an excellent stage for developing a strategic communication
plan for the entire REMA program (Harwell et al. 2020). A strategic communication plan identifies who
the audiences are (i.e., different stakeholder groups, the mass-media, regulatory organizations), how to
articulate and deliver messages for each audience (i.e., reports, social media, online videos, press
releases, etc.), and what outcomes are desired from each audience in response to a message (Harwell et
al. 2020). With experience, the communication plan will likely evolve to produce better crafted and
more successful messaging, which should sustain or improve relations between the restoration team
and stakeholders.

2.4.4 Select Metrics

As goals and objectives are being finalized, appropriate metrics to represent those outcomes can be
considered. In this report, metrics are used as a generic term that includes "measures," "indicators," and
"indexes (or indices)," and they are defined as measurable representations of attribute(s) of a system
(e.g., its structure, function, or appearance) that provides interpretable information on the state or
condition of the attribute(s) or of the whole system. Metrics may be quantitatively or qualitatively
measured and expressed (see Glossary). Metrics may be univariate, multivariate, or combined into
indices. In a restoration context, metrics are used to assess the ecological or socio-ecological condition
of a site based on site-relevant variables (or suites of variables) that characterize ecosystem structure,
function, appearance, or use by people, and they can be used to track changes in site conditions and
measure progress towards meeting project-specific goals (Busch and Trexler 2003; Bailey 2012; Gann et
al. 2019; Angradi et al. 2019).

51

-------
Identifying and selecting metrics are bound by practical constraints in terms of funding, staffing, and
processing power (Roegner et al. 2008). While the selection of metrics varies by project and is context-
dependent, a fundamental requirement is that a metric provides relevant and reliable signals about the
ecological and socio-ecological responses of restoration (RECOVER 2006). Doren et al. (2009) present a
dozen criteria for selection of metrics and indicators for restoration success, including criteria for
capturing different temporal and spatial scales of ecosystem response to restoration. Additional
categories for consideration of landscape-scale metrics and indicators may include the eight modes of
cumulative effects of restoration (Diefenderfer et al. 2021).

In addition to biophysical metrics, there are examples of non-biophysical metrics of restoration success
that center on people's use of ecological features at a site. Examples include numbers of people
engaging in an activity (e.g., fishing, hiking, bird watching), harvest yields (e.g., amount of trees, fruit,
fishes, soil etc. removed), and indirect economic benefits (e.g., adjacent property values, recreational
tourism jobs, lodging revenues); see Mulligan et al. 2010; Kellemen et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2014; Pickard
et al 2015; Yocom et al. 2016; Angradi et al. 2019; Bousquin and Mazzotta 2020; Sherrouse and
Semmens 2020; and the GEMS Metrics database. Many of those references provide guidance on
measurement techniques. Restoration practitioners in the US who are interested in social science
metrics should be aware that collecting human subjects data may be regulated (see National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research 1979; US
Department of Health and Human Services Regulations and Policy Index). Addition considerations to
make when collecting human-subjects data (e.g., surveys) include ensuring that data are collected in a
culturally sensitive way and avoiding survey fatigue with populations that might have been surveyed
previously.

It can be useful to distinguish between "universal metrics" and "goal-based metrics" (Baggett et al.
2014; Yepsen et al. 2016), both of which have a role in REMA. Universal metrics are those that are
relevant to a class of habitats or ecosystems, and thus are not location specific. Their utility is allowing
comparison of a site's condition to other locations containing similar habitats and biota (e.g., reference
expectations) and in providing consistency across restoration monitoring programs and informing
adaptive management plans (Box 2.2). Goal-based metrics are used to assess progress toward site-
specific project goals, particularly those relating to stakeholder and community interests (Yepsen et al.
2016). It is worth noting that measurement of ES production is an indirect metric of the potential
benefits that may flow to beneficiaries and stakeholders. Although difficult and outside of the
mainstream of most REMA programs, measurement of people's uses of ES EEPs would provide direct
information about whether benefits have been realized. Whereas those interests often differ among
locations, comparisons of goal-based metrics between a restoration site and a reference expectation
may not be particularly meaningful; however, changes in goal-based metrics overtime at the restoration
site will likely be more meaningful to stakeholders and others who care about the project's outcome.

-------
Box 2.2. Advantages of universal metrics, based on Yepsen et al. (2016)

•	Leverage resources

o Nearby monitoring efforts* may be leveraged to help with a restoration project's
monitoring program, at least for universal metrics used in both programs

•	Inform knowledge and data gaps at the restoration site

o Results from other monitoring projects* inform the potential range and variability of
the same metrics if applied at the restoration site

•	Provide lessons learned from a restoration implementation perspective

o Metrics that proved useful and informative for other projects* may be applicable to
the restoration site monitoring program

*assuming similarity in environments among sites being monitored and the restoration site

However they are classified, the closer metrics are linked to project goals, the easier it will be to
measure restoration progress (Bailey 2012). Conceptual models (see Section 2.4.2) of the ecological
processes that will sustain the restored ecosystem are useful for identifying the linkages between
"internal" components or processes of the system and the manifestations of the restoration goals (i.e.,
abundance of indicator organism(s), landscape characteristics, etc.) (see Yee et al. 2017; Olander et al
2018; Olander et al. 2021). To the extent that universal and goal-based metrics are linked, conceptual
models are also useful in interpreting and communicating data obtained from monitoring. Thus,
conceptual models can be helpful in prioritizing which universal and goal-based metrics to include in a
REMA plan. The SMART criteria (an acronym) (Doran 1981; USEPA 2019a) may also be useful for
evaluating potential metrics. In this context, SMART criteria are:

Specific - the metric represents a clearly definable property of the system

Measurable - the metric can be quantified or qualitatively assessed unambiguously

Achievable - staff have the knowledge and ability to measure the metric

Results-oriented - results from the metric (i.e., data) can be realistically obtained given available
resources

Time-sensitive - results from the metric can be delivered when needed
Incorporating ES into Selecting Metrics

Preliminary ideas for metrics of the selected ES will have been revealed in the process of setting goals
and priorities (Section 2.4.3 and Table 2.7). In order to achieve those goals, the metrics should align with
the benefits desired most by stakeholders. The process of selecting the final list of ES will also reveal the
ecological attributes responsible for producing the benefit associated with an ES (also known as the
ecological end product or EEP); metrics for an ES will at least relate to its EEP and ideally also to how the
EEP is used (for example, a game fish of size and condition sought by anglers). Additionally, the selected
ES metrics should reasonably be expected to respond to the restorative actions planned for the project,

53

-------
and that the metrics are likely to respond within the time-frame of the monitoring and assessment plan.
Table 3B in Appendix 3 provides many examples of ES metrics revealed in a literature search of
conservation-based restoration case studiess (see Section 3.4). Metrics for ES may be suggested by the
response variable in ES models (i.e., InVEST, EPA H20, i-Tree Eco, TESSA, or models within ESML or
ARIES; Table 2.2) or metrics used in ES mapping tools (i.e., EnviroAtlas). Using locally relevant EEPs also
underpins the ES metrics development method described in USEPA (2020). National and regional-scale
metrics developed in that report may also be adaptable to site-scale ES metrics.

Ecosystem services models also may be used to estimate ES production as a function of other variables
measured at the site. If the model is reliable, its predictors can be used as proxy metrics for the ES. The
ESML (USEPA 2021b) provides detailed information about the units and measurement scales of
predictor variables for every ES model in its database, which informs how measurements must be made.
If a model is used to estimate ES at a site, it should be evaluated for application the site (i.e., habitat,
climatic, hydrological context and range of characteristics; Moon et al. 2017; Yates et al. 2018).
Ecosystem services models and the associated metrics selected for monitoring are also featured in the
assessment step of the REMA program.

Complimentary to the general considerations for REMA metrics discussed in this section, Wainger and
Mazzotta (2011) and DeWitt et al. (2020) suggested that ideal ES metrics have the following
characteristics:

• They are easily understood by non-experts

• They are close to the ES EEP as possible (e.g., the taxa, size, condition, and abundance of game
fish, as opposed to the total number of all fish at a location)

• They are readily available (e.g., existing methodology and data sets)

• They are applicable across sites within a large geographic area (i.e., widely applicable)

• They are available at a project-appropriate scale as defined by the restoration team and by the
beneficiaries (e.g., a recreational angler might want data on the scale of an individual fishing
spot, while a restoration team or regulatory agency might need information at a watershed
scale).

It may be desirable for REMA programs to use models to predict priority ES to facilitate forecasting the
post-restoration or long-term potential production of the ES. If a model is not available, conceptual
models can be used to link ES to ecological processes and structures. Olander et al. (2018) provides an
overview for creating conceptual models for ES production, and Mason et al. (2018) and Mason and
Olander (2018) provide examples of conceptual models for salt marsh ES and their site-specific
adaptability, respectively. The GEMS Models and Metrics search tool provides examples of conceptual
logic models for several types of environmental management projects, including restoration, and
provides a database of social benefit metrics and associated protocols. It is not unusual for conventional
metrics that are used in ecosystem restoration to also be indicators of ES, but additional translation is
usually needed to emphasize how that metric matters directly to a particular beneficiary. For examples,
see Appendix 3, Table B3. Metrics that require little additional translation are particularly useful in
communicating information about the status of a site to a wide audience. For example, the biodiversity
of fish at a site may say something about the condition of a water body to an ecologist but may mean

-------
little to a recreational angler or commercial fisherman or the non-fishing public; however, the
abundance of adult-sized game fish indicates the condition of a site for fishing and is well understood by
many people. That is not to say that the game fish metric is superior to the biodiversity metric; it just
requires less additional information to connect it to a benefit and beneficiaries. Increasingly, there is
interest in measuring the economic and social benefits provided by restoration projects, even when the
primary restoration goals are ecologically focused (Yepsen et al. 2016). Where there is a component
involving social engagement, communicating how metrics capture information on the restored
environment's ability to provide an ES, who benefits from the ES, and how long it may take to develop
and detect the focal ES, reinforces efforts to create a more collaborative process with partners, affected
communities, and other stakeholders.

While some ES may be easier to measure than others, that doesn't necessarily make those more
important to measure than other ES. For example, cultural ES are often those that people care the most
about but can be the most difficult to measure and/or are the ES that people feel least comfortable
quantifying. Whereas it may be impossible or impractical to identify an appropriate metric for difficult-
to-quantify ES, stakeholders should be consulted about decisions to exclude identifying or using metrics,
particularly for ES that people value highly.

2.4.5 Collect and Analyze Data

After metrics are selected but before data collection, methods for the sample design, collection, data
analysis, quality control, and storage must be defined and standardized. The first consideration is the
REMA study design which describes the basis of comparison to detect change (e.g., the reference,
control, standard, etc.), where and when will samples be collected, and a strategy for data analysis.

Reference Expectations

To detect statistically significant effects of restoration based on quantitative metrics, a standard of
comparison is required. The standard may be based on reference sites, a baseline condition, a model, an
absolute value of the metric, or some combination of these. Unfortunately, there is a history of
inconsistent usage of terms and types of "references" in biological assessment leading to confusion of
meaning and comparability of REMA results among studies (Stoddard et al. 2006). Herein, this report
uses "reference expectations" as the generic term for the reference/standard/control/benchmark in
REMA. while respecting that in some cases restoration teams are required by law to use different terms
(e.g., "performance standards" in compensatory mitigation; see Chapter 5).

Several types of reference expectations have been used in restoration projects. Factors influencing
which type of reference expectation is appropriate for a project will depend on regulatory constraints
(i.e., what the statutory authority or permit requires), the restoration study design, institutional or
community of practice (CoP) preferences (see Chapters 4-6), and logistics (i.e., cost, staff expertise,
availability of appropriate sites) (Clewell et al. 2005). Other considerations for defining what constitutes
a reference expectation include uncertainties about the baseline pre-disturbance conditions at the
restoration site, uncertainty about the comparability of the historical trajectories of change in conditions
at the restoration site, and uncertainties about the biases associated with even small differences in
ecological structure, and the pre-disturbance or desired future condition of the restoration site (Clewell

-------
et al. 2005; Diefenderfer et al. 2011 and 2016). Below are brief descriptions of several types of reference
expectations:

Single reference site: The success of a project can be assessed against a single reference site
selected for its similarity to target conditions. For example, riparian wetlands along the
Mississippi River have been cut off due to the construction of levees, which altered the ES
provided by these habitats (Theriot et al. 2013). Researchers compared a restored wetland to a
nearby reference wetland to assess soil recovery after river reconnection. Results showed that
two years post-restoration, soil properties at the restoration were not similar to the reference
site (Theriot et al. 2013).

Multiple reference sites: In some instances, multiple reference sites are available for use; the
advantage of multiple reference sites is that they allow definition of a local or regional range of
acceptable outcomes, thus accounting for long-term variation (Diefenderfer et al. 2011). For
example, in a case study on the Thur River in Switzerland, seven indicators were selected to
assess river restoration success (Woolsey et al. 2007). In this case study, consideration was given
to low-effort indicators that were suitable for evaluation within two years following restoration
completion (Woolsey et al. 2007). Because pre-restoration measurements were not possible,
two reference sites were selected as a substitute (Woolsey et al. 2007). In a New Zealand
riparian restoration, the impact of riparian plantings on water quality were compared to two
upstream reference sites similar to the restoration site (Collins et al. 2013). While the authors
recommended that baseline data be collected prior to restoration, none were collected, and
assessment was based only on monitoring after restoration actions were implemented (Collins
et al. 2013). Statistical approaches to after-only data analysis, developed to assess response to
environmental accidents, have been applied to analysis of restoration and reference site data
(Skalski 1995; Skalski et al. 2001; Diefenderfer et al. 2011). Results showed an improvement in
parameters including dissolved oxygen and turbidity relative to reference sites (Collins et al.
2013).

Project managers can sample a population of sites to define a reference target based on a
percentile of the ambient conditions of the populations, e.g., >85th percentile of the ambient
range. The ambient sites are often prescreened to remove any that are anthropogenically
impaired or otherwise unrepresentative of the population. For example, in accordance with the
CWA, the EPA publishes and revises ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) that contains
information such as: "(1) discussions of available scientific data on the effects of the pollutants
on public health and welfare, aquatic life, and recreation; and (2) quantitative concentrations or
qualitative assessments of the levels of pollutants in water which, if not exceeded, will generally
ensure adequate water quality for a specified water use" (USEPA 2000). A project may compare
their site data to the AWQC for goals such as water safe to swim in or drink. In another example,
EPA works with states, tribes, and federal partners to design and implement the National
Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) for coastal waters, lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams,
and wetlands (USEPA 2021a). These surveys use standardized field and lab methods to sample
randomly selected sites to assess the status and changes in water quality based on percentiles

-------
of a screened ambient population (USEPA 2021a). This uniform and consistent approach allows
for comparison of results from different parts of the country and between years (USEPA 2021a).

Weight of evidence: This approach utilizes multiple sources of information (e.g., reference sites,
indicator measurements, historical records, predictive data), from past to present to anticipated
future conditions, in a weight of evidence approach to inform the target of the restoration
system and is endorsed by SER in its international standards (Gann et al. 2019). This approach is
based on specific ecosystem attributes to be recovered and aims to characterize the condition
of the ecosystem prior to degradation while also allowing for adaptation for existing and
anticipated environmental change (Gann et al. 2019). Stakeholders can also provide knowledge
about ecological conditions and successional patterns to inform reference models (Gann et al.
2019). Conceptual ecological models may be used to characterize the major drivers and
stressors (both ecological and anthropogenic) on the natural system, the ecological effects of
these stressors, and then the endpoints (i.e., biological attributes or indicators) of those
ecological responses (e.g., Ogden et al. 2005). Restoration assessments may then test
hypotheses of whether the ecosystem has responded to restoration by looking at the linkage
pathways between drivers/stressors, ecological effects, and endpoints (e.g., RECOVER 2019).

Model-based references: A model-based approach focuses on assessing the status of the
restored system by integrating across elements of a conceptual or predictive ecological model.
In the Greater Everglades ecosystem restoration, conceptual ecological models were used to
capture qualitative information on major drivers and stressors (both ecological and
anthropogenic) on the natural system, the ecological effects of these stressors, and then the
endpoints (i.e., biological attributes or indicators) of those ecological responses (e.g., Ogden et
al. 2005). In that system, ecosystem restoration assessments focused on examining the
hypothesis of whether the ecosystem had responded to restoration by looking at the linkage
pathways between drivers/stressors, ecological effects, and endpoints (e.g., RECOVER 2019).
Additionally, predictive modeling was used in the Greater Everglades ecosystem restoration to
understand the potential effects of altered habitats on individual wetland species (Romanach et
al., 2014) or changing water distribution on suites of species (Romanach et al., 2022).

Performance standards or benchmarks: Some restoration programs (notably compensatory
mitigation; Chapter 5) use specified performance standards as the basis for assessing the
condition of a restored site (USACE 2008). The standards are a way of objectively evaluating
whether the site is developing into the desired resource type and providing the desired
functions and may use a functional, conditional, or some other suitable assessment method that
ensures unavoidable impact to waters of the US (USACE 2008). Performance standards are a
way to operationalize reference expectation in compensatory mitigation. They are not an
approach, but they may be developed using any of the above approaches to selecting a
reference expectation. Often monitoring and assessments are done at established time intervals
that relate to regulatory steps (e.g., release of credits that can be used elsewhere).

-------
Study Statistical Design

Several ways to structure the sampling plan are summarized in Table 2.8, primarily differing with respect
to the selection of the reference expectation and the timing of sample collection relative to the onset
and completion of restoration. A Before-After (BA) study design examines temporal variation in a metric
and is often used for initial screening and evaluation of pre-construction baseline data with post-
construction data (Osenberg et al. 2006; Bailey 2012). A Control-Impact (CI) study design can examine
spatial variation in a metric and requires data from both the restoration site and a reference expectation
(Osenberg et al. 2006). The Accident Recovery study design likewise compares post-construction values
of a metric at the restoration site and a reference expectation against a pre-defined goal or target
condition (Skalski 1995; Skalski et al. 2001). A more robust way to measure changes due to restoration is
a Before-After Control Impact (BACI; Osenberg et al. 2006; Bailey 2012), Before-After Reference Impact
(BARI; Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986), or Before-After Reference Restoration (BARR; Diefenderfer et al.
2011) study design, which examine both spatial and temporal variation of a metric using both pre- and
post-construction data from both the restoration site and the reference expectation. Because
BACI/BARI/BARR designs are susceptible to confounding effects with other factors driving change in
metric values within restoration sites or reference expectations, the Before-After Control Impact Paired
Series (BACIPS) study design was created to compare the restoration site with multiple reference
expectations (Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986). More recently, the Progressive-change BACIPS study design
was developed to account for incremental changes in ecological conditions across all sites (Thiault et al.
2017). Restoration teams should consult a statistician when deciding which study design and sampling
plan to employ (Guilfoyle et al. 2006; RECOVER 2006).

Table 2.8. Descriptions for study designs for REMA data collection and analysis. Descriptions are
modified from the original sources.

Approach

Description

Source

Before-After (BA)

Pre- and post-construction data
compared for the restoration
site only (i.e., the pre-
construction data serve as the
reference expectation).

Guilfoyle et al. 2006; Osenberg
et al. 2006; Bailey 2012; Board
and NASEM 2017

Control-Impact (CI)

Post-construction data
compared at the restoration
and reference expectation (i.e.,
control site(s)).

Osenberg et al. 2006

Accident Recovery

Post-construction data
compared at the restoration
site and the reference
expectation, relative to a pre-
defined target condition.

Skalski 1995; Skalski et al. 2001;
Roegner et al. 2008

Before-After Control Impact
(BACI)

Pre- and post-construction data
compared for the restoration
site and a single reference
expectation (i.e., control site).

Thayer et al. 2005; Osenberg et
al. 2006; RECOVER 2006;
Roegner et al. 2008; Bailey
2012; Baggett et al. 2014;
Yepsen et al. 2016; Board and

58

-------
Approach

Description

Source





NASEM 2017; DWH-NRDAT
2019; Gann et al. 2019; USEPA
2019a

Before-After Control Impact
Paired (BACIPS)

Pre- and post-construction data
compared for the restoration
site and multiple reference
expectation (i.e., control sites).

Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986;
Underwood 1994; Thayer et al.
2005; Roegner et al. 2008

Progressive BACIPS

Same as above, but accounts for
multiple possible distributions.

Thiault et al. 2017

Data Management

Establishing a data management plan is important for quality assurance purposes and to ensure data
and metadata are well-documented, secure, and reported in a well-structured format (Hill and
Wilkinson 2014; RECOVER 2006; Comer et al. 2017; NASEM 2017; DWH-NRDAT 2017; Gann et al. 2019).
Comer et al. (2017) also provide a helpful section on documenting data for quality assurance and quality
control purposes, and USEPA (2019a) provides fundamental principles surrounding quality assurance,
quality control, and best practices for data management. The data management plan can address how
the data will be scalable and transferable and consistent with recent trends for professional societies
and their journals, and those involved in the project could consider making the data open access (Hill
and Wilkinson 2014; Gann et al. 2019). Clarkson et al. (2003) provide useful examples for recording
collected data, and Wilkinson et al. (2016) provide principles for the findability, accessibility,
interoperability, and reuse of data. Data can be categorized by type: field data (e.g., analysis of
ecological relationships, estuary-wide meta-analysis), geographical information system (GIS) data (e.g.,
net ecosystem improvement calculation), and hydrodynamic model data (e.g., analysis of spatial and
temporal synergies) (Diefenderfer et al. 2011). Metadata is also an important part of data management
as it provides important information about the data; for example, in GIS maps, metadata would include
information such as the title, the type, the source, author, last modified date, thumbnail, tags, summary
and description, and restrictions associated with using and sharing the item (ESRI n.d.). The DWH-NRDAT
(2017) provides a section detailing guidance for data management, and NASEM (2017) has a chapter
dedicated to data stewardship that provides helpful information on data management plans and
systems. Data management plans could also incorporate ethics of data management (NASEM 2017) and
set standards of communication, roles and responsibilities, and data flow.

Incorporating ES into Collecting and Analyzing the Data

All the general considerations discussed above (i.e., reference expectation selection, study statistical
design, data management) pertain to ES metrics and data. For metrics that will be input into ES models
or compared to the results of ES simulation modeling, it is critically important that the units, spatial and
temporal resolution, and spatial and temporal frequency of measurement align with the requirements
of variable inputs to those models. Those requirements should be provided with the model's user
manual; ESML also catalogs that information for predictor variables of ES models in its database (USEPA
2021b).

59

-------
2.4.6 Assess Restoration Outcomes

Data provide the raw information for assessing restoration progress and outcomes, and specifically
aligning data interpretation and assessment to the restoration goals will help move away from a "data
rich, but information poor" scenario. See Box 2.1 for suggestions on the characteristics of goals, metrics,
objectives, and comparisons for defining restoration success. Defining what success looks like can be
difficult given the temporal and spatial ecological variability of even a small restoration site (whether
project, reference, or control) and is generally determined by those overseeing the restoration project
(i.e., sponsoring or oversight agency). In some cases, it may be codified in a legal agreement or
regulatory requirement, defined by individual or across multiple metrics that requires rigorous statistical
verification, or in other cases (such as privately funded conservation-based restoration) the judgement
of success may be more qualitative. Ultimately, the best approach for assessment is project-specific and
depends greatly upon project goals, objectives, and performance standards which will dictate the best
sampling design and analysis for evaluation.

Some monitoring programs base success on a regulatory requirement, such as removing contaminants
from waterbodies or monitoring compensatory mitigation projects under CWA requirements. For
example, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) is responsive to Section 118 of the CWA (GLRI
2019). The GLRI is a non-regulatory program that was established in 2010 to help with efforts to protect
and restore the Great Lakes (GLRI 2019). The GLRI has an Action Plan that requires review and revision
every five years and aims to address five focus areas: toxic substances and Areas of Concern; invasive
species; nonpoint source pollution impacts on nearshore health; habitats and species; and foundations
for future restoration actions (GLRI 2019). A few of the long-term goals include human endpoints, such
as fish safe to eat, water safe for recreation, and a safe source of drinking water (GLRI 2019). The
program helped maintain, restore, and enhance populations of native fish and wildlife species, and data
on juvenile lake sturgeon catch rates per year helped track improvements (GLRI 2019).

Assessment can be based on a narrative of the desired condition of the restoration site, or on statistical
comparisons of the site with a reference expectation. Given that there are many boundaries and players
(i.e., partners, stakeholders) involved in a project, with differing views on what the desired condition
might be, approaching a restoration project as a unique governance structure creates the capacity for a
project to incorporate diverse stakeholder and interdisciplinary views, combining both public and
private stakeholders' resources to achieve desired restoration goals and outcomes (Richardson and
Lefroy 2016). Development of such a structure can also be warranted when the boundary of a
watershed, a given environmental management effort, or an ecosystem restoration project does not
align with existing political or legal boundaries (Harwell 2020). Developing a governance framework is
useful for highlighting who gets to make decisions, their criteria, and processes of accountability
(Richardson and Lefroy 2016) and can allow related projects to be co-managed with beneficial cross-
boundary information exchange between disciplines.

Several study designs are available for statistics-based assessments (see Table 2.8 and Section 2.4.5)
with those of increasing complexity attempting to reduce uncertainties associated with the temporal
dynamics of habitats at the restoration site and reference expectation. It is also important to consider
that restoration results can be influenced by factors other than implementation of the restoration (e.g.,

60

-------
unexpected disturbances, malfunctioning equipment, biased assumptions) (USEPA 2019a). Furthermore,
evaluations are affected by restoration policy, local support (according to social values), and the limits of
relevant ecological knowledge (Morandi et al. 2014). Data analysis and interpretation goes beyond the
straightforward evaluation of project goals and objectives, where restoration practitioners apply their
best professional and expert judgement and a weight-of-evidence approach to assess the overall success
and effectiveness of the restoration (USEPA 2019a). The consideration of results in the context of one or
more of the eight modes of cumulative effects (Diefenderfer et al. 2021) helps with an overall
understanding of the ecosystem change associated with ecosystem restoration, especially with the need
to consider monitoring and assessment at both a project and landscape scale (e.g., Valderrabano et al.
2021). Qualitative and quantitative assessments can both be undertaken and are important inputs to
the adaptive management process that informs future actions and restoration projects (RECOVER 2006;
USEPA 2019a). In many cases, goals might not be achieved during the set monitoring period given the
amount of time it takes for recovery to occur (Hooper et al. 2016). If data from similar previously
restored habitats are available, this information can be used as to estimate the expected progress for
time steps in the recovery process (Hooper et al. 2016).

Assessments of the success of a cleanup involve collecting data from different phases of a cleanup (e.g.,
pre-project; construction; and near-, mid-, and long-term post-project). For remediation of
contaminated sites, categories of assessment include pre-project, project effectiveness, remedy
effectiveness, and, if applicable, restoration and revitalization outcomes see Section 4.3.4. Assessments
of the success of compensatory mitigation require clear articulation of desired outcomes with a
framework for establishing a basis of comparison with a defined target, either using a reference
expectation or regional/ambient condition. Section 5.3.7 provides additional information on this topic.

Incorporating ES into Assessing Restoration Progress and Success

As stated previously, an advantage of including ES goals (especially FEGS goals) in REMA is the capacity
to relate changes in the condition of the restoration site to factors that non-technical partners,
stakeholders, including neighboring communities, care about. A restoration project can organize
assessments based on key indicators of overall habitat health, such as water quality, which might be a
good indicator for the status of a site with respect to policy goals (e.g., fishable, swimmable, and
drinkable water, which are FEGS) or other ES-focused goals. For example, since the 1880s, population
growth and urban development negatively impacted the Tampa Bay watershed (DeAngelis et al. 2020).
Building on years of prior community and scientific work, a restoration and protection plan was
established in 1991 by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP) to address the decline in water
quality (DeAngelis et al. 2020). Citizens and stakeholders were involved from the start and identified
water quality, fishing, and swimming conditions as the primary restoration goals (DeAngelis et al. 2020).
Stakeholder support led to specific, quantifiable water quality targets and seagrass restoration goals for
Tampa Bay - two key indicators for understanding restoration success - and the actions implemented
allowed for Tampa Bay to surpass their recovery goals (DeAngelis et al. 2020). In another example, the
success of oyster reef restoration in Chesapeake Bay was originally measured by outputs such as oyster
reef area restored and oyster density. However, the healthier oyster reefs ultimately lead to fish and
macrofauna habitat provisioning and water quality improvements (both of which are ES) or dampened
shoreline-damaging wave action (DeAngelis et al. 2020). While ES weren't originally considered for the

-------
monitoring plan, subsequent research programs have started assessing changes in ES directly, and their
results have showed an increase in blue crabs stocks, benefiting blue crab recreational and commercial
fisheries (DeAngelis et al. 2020).

Pragmatically, assessing the condition of a restoration site for REMA ES objectives and goals follows the
same process as for other REMA goals: the task is to compare ES metrics measured during monitoring of
the site with the selected point(s) of comparison and decide whether the metrics have changed over
time per the study statistical design (Section 2.4.5). Progress toward achieving success is measured
relative to the objectives and goals. If ES models were used to select monitoring metrics (e.g., predictor
variables of a model; Section 2.4.3), then those models may be used to translate the monitoring data
into estimates of ES stocks or production. Maps produced from ES models or inventory tools (i.e., ESII;
Table 2.2) are useful for visualizing the distribution and magnitude of ES stocks or production. Similarly,
maps of ecological variables that are precursors for ES production can provide insight to the reasons
limiting ES production. Additionally, it is important to be able to attribute changes in ES metrics to the
restorative actions at the site, at least in large part. For example, if a restoration project is expected to
raise house prices in the area surrounding the site, the restoration team should account for off-site
actions that could also affect real estate prices. Or if water quality downstream from a site is being
measured as an indicator for human health, the restoration team should assess whether other
processes occuring between project site and the sampling site might affect water quality. Finally,
thinking ahead to communicating the results of the assessment (Section 2.4.7), articulating those results
may reveal gaps in the assessment that can be addressed by other monitoring data or existing
knowledge, or if not, suggest revisions to the monitoring plan (e.g., adaptive management, Section
2.4.8).

2.4.7 Synthesize and Communicate Findings

Once the assessment of restoration progress and success is complete, results can be synthesized in a
monitoring report and disseminated. Large or headwater restoration projects can affect entire
ecosystems and regions, so synthesizing and disseminating information can be useful for a regional
perspective as essential knowledge of a region can only be gained by integrating data and information
from various sources (NASEM 2017). Similarly, Diefenderfer et al. (2021) described eight modes of
cumulative effects of restoration actions, including spatial and temporal effects outside the immediate
footprint of a restoration effort.

A monitoring report should accomplish a number of goals (Thom and Wellman 1996; NAVFAC 2004;
NASEM 2017; NOAA 2017), including:

•	Provide written evidence of a project, helping to keep track of details that may be forgotten
otherwise

•	Assist in discussions and provides points of contact with project members, data managers, and
outside collaborators

•	Help in assessing the success of restoration techniques, materials, and efficiency of monitoring
methods

•	Help identify changes that need to be made within the project

62

-------
•	Inform various audiences about the project (e.g., decision makers, new project/program
members)

•	Inform future work, such as providing recommendations for restoration projects

•	Lead to more effective, multi-faceted, and improved restoration design and management (e.g.,
when and where to deploy resources)

•	Provide useful information for development of restoration policies, both regionally and
nationally.

Both interim reporting and final reporting are important for monitoring; reports should be recorded
chronologically and should be clearly written (Thom and Wellman 1996) without excessive jargon so
they can be understood by most stakeholders. Interim annual monitoring reports are useful to describe
ongoing results, overall status of the project, and progress towards achieving goals (NAVFAC 2004).

Once monitoring is done, a final monitoring report should synthesize the full restoration project,
including the monitoring design, results, and status to reaching goals (NAVFAC 2004). RECOVER (2019)
provided an example of a multi-dimensional, 5-year assessment of Everglades restoration.

Even if project information is well synthesized and interpreted within a report, dissemination of the
information frequently is given low priority by restoration projects (Thom and Wellman 1996). This
represents a lost opportunity to communicate the merits and success of the restoration to audiences
who care about the site (and whose support may be needed for continued monitoring of the site or
additional restoration projects in the vicinity) or to technical audiences who could learn from the project
results (Thom and Wellman 1996). Outlets for communicating results include technical presentations to
stakeholders and regulators; technical presentations at conferences or workshops for parties performing
similar work; non-technical presentations to the public in the vicinity of the restoration site; articles
published on relevant websites or newsletters (i.e., sponsoring organizations, restoration societies);
scientific journal articles; press releases for local news outlets; and informational signage in public use
areas. An additional level of synthesis may be necessary to deliver the appropriate message to diverse
audiences, stakeholders, and decision makers (Doren et al. 2009; NASEM 2017; Harwell et al. 2020).
Developing a communication plan is a great way to ensure that the results of the project are
disseminated to the appropriate audiences in appropriate formats and communication vehicles (like
signage), emphasizing audience-specific messages (Harwell et al. 2020). From a conservation
perspective, directly engaging and communicating with stakeholders, including the public, on the
benefits of restoration can help garner support and can increase the likelihood of future restoration
implementation (Section 3.3.3). From a contaminated sites perspective, successful communication
depends on appropriate terminology used among the diverse stakeholders and disciplines and
stakeholder engagement in relevant cleanup process steps (Section 4.3.3).

Incorporating ES into Synthesis and Communication

Inclusion of ES in the REMA goals, metrics, and assessment provides an opportunity to communicate the
progress (or success) of the restoration project in terms that matter to stakeholders. To the extent that
the ES metrics included in monitoring are relevant to the restoration goals, particularly if those ES and
goals were based on stakeholder priorities, then information about the condition of those ES will be of
interest to the stakeholders. Final ecosystem goods and services are particularly well suited for this
purpose because they are based on peoples' (i.e., stakeholders) direct use, enjoyment, or appreciation

63

-------
of nature at the restoration site (USEPA 2020). Different audiences may respond more favorably toward
some forms of reporting than others; whereas a funder, partner, or regulatory agency might require a
written technical report, stakeholders or new media might more readily digest plain language
summaries or videos. Harwell et al. (2020) provide recommendations for developing a strategic
communication plan that is helpful for thinking through audiences, messaging, communication vehicles,
and then tracking outcomes from each communication. Care should be given to the use of jargon when
communicating about ES to non-technical audiences (Thompson et al. 2016), but those may be allayed
by discussing the purpose of ES to connect ecological conditions of the site to the interests of the
stakeholders.

2.4.8 Practice Adaptive Management

Ecosystems are complex and a site's condition in response to remedial/restorative work cannot always
be predicted given uncertainties such as environmental variation, partial observability, partial
controllability, and knowledge uncertainty about the ecological process underlying the biophysical
features desired as goals (NASEM 2017). Given this, the adaptive management cycle (i.e.,
communicate/share learning, assess and make necessary adjustments, decide on management options)
provides a structured process for restoration to respond to unforeseen changes at the site (Thom 2000;
Thom et al. 2010; Hooper et al. 2016; NASEM 2017; DWH-NRDAT 2017; USEPA 2019a). Adaptive
management strategies incorporate planned monitoring, as opposed to an "on-the-fly" monitoring
approach, so that information gained through an internally standardized suite of metrics can be applied
through flexible decision making to inform the need for additional intervention at the site (i.e., to
correct a problem) or changes to the monitoring and assessment plan (Thom and Wellman 1996; Li
2008; Hooper et al. 2016; NASEM 2017; USEPA 2019a). The iterative adaptive management process
(Figure 2.1) integrates strategic implementation, targeted monitoring, and evaluation of the
management actions to reduce uncertainties regarding the restoration decisions (Hooper et al. 2016;
DWH-NRDAT 2017). Ideally, data are rapidly summarized and interpreted as they come in, so that
project managers can use the synthesis of results to adjust and refine objectives, strategies, and
management actions. The adaptive management process can help inform whether the monitoring will
continue as planned (i.e., no action), will be modified (i.e., changes in sampling frequency, sampling
locations, or metrics), terminated, or extended for a longer time (NAVFAC 2004; Thom et al. 2010;
NASEM 2017). Additionally, monitoring results should be assessed to determine whether the benefits of
restoration are equitably distributed or accessible to all stakeholders. For example, monitoring may
reveal that certain stakeholder groups are prevented from accessing the site and thus are deprived of
the opportunity to use or enjoy the improved ecological features. An additional outcome of adaptive
management is information that may be passed to new restoration projects that may expedite their
REMA planning process and implementation of a more efficient REMA plan. In a review on 10 years of
adaptive management in the Greater Everglades, LoSchiavo et al. (2013) identified five core lessons
related to authorities, institutional frameworks, the use of an applied science approach, uncertainty and
management options matrices, and robust peer review.

Not surprisingly, adaptive management is not free; it requires periodic examination of the performance
and uncertainties of each step of the REMA process (Figure 2.1) which may result in additional (or

-------
reduced) project expenditures. However, the promise of greater efficiencies within a project and greater
likelihood of project success can justify the investment in adaptive management (NASEM 2017; USEPA
2019a). This is particularly the case for larger projects or programs or those with uncertainty such as the
Missouri River Restoration Program (Fischenich et al. 2018) and Columbia Estuary Ecosystem
Restoration Program (Littles et al. 2022).

Incorporating ES into REMA Adaptive Management

Every element of a project's REMA plan (Figure 2.1) should be evaluated periodically for the utility of
including ES using the same criteria applied to other types of biophysical information. An adaptive
management decision process should include the following questions:

•	Have the REMA goals changed such that any ES need to be added or dropped?

•	Do other metrics exist that better represent the existing ES in the REMA plan?

•	Are new or more reliable ES metrics needed (i.e., for ES added to the REMA goals)? Should any
ES metrics be dropped? Would their adoption jeopardize comparability of REMA results over
time?

•	Does the current sampling plan adequately characterize the production of ES at the site over the
time required to produce the ES?

•	Have the interim ES data been appropriately analyzed and interpreted?

•	Has the purpose of including ES in REMA and the results regarding ES production been
accurately and clearly described in presentations and progress reports?

•	Have audiences understood information about ES benefits, production, and eventual availability
as relayed via communications? Does the communication plan need to be revised?

•	Are benefits of targeted ES equitably accessible to stakeholders, including nearby communities?

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter has focused on general concepts, considerations, and tools to facilitate inclusion of ES into
REMA, including FEGS, which are explicitly intended to connect changes in ecological condition to
human well-being. Not all approaches may be used within a given community of practice presently (e.g.,
see Chapters 3-5); the hope is that by seeing the breadth of approaches compiled here, restoration
practitioners will be stimulated to consider methods new to them, within the constraints of regulatory
authorities.

Several handbooks, online applications, and methods have been
developed to facilitate inclusion of ES into each step of the REMA

framework.

65

-------
2.6 References

Adame, M.F., V. Hermoso, K. Perhans, C.E. Lovelock, and J.A. Herrera-Silveira. (2015). Selecting cost-
effective areas for restoration of ecosystem services. Conservation Biology 29(2):493-502.

Angradi, T.R., J.J. Launspach, D.W. Bolgrien, B.J. Bellinger, M.A. Starry, J.C. Hoffman, A.S. Trebitz, M.E.
Sierszen, and T.P. Hollenhorst. (2016). Mapping ecosystem service indicators in a Great Lakes estuarine
Area of Concern. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42(3):717-727.

Angradi, T.R., Williams, K.C., Hoffman, J.C. and Bolgrien, D.W., 2019. Goals, beneficiaries, and indicators
of waterfront revitalization in Great Lakes Areas of Concern and coastal communities. Journal of Great
Lakes Research 45(5):851-863.

Baggett, L.P., S.P. Powers, R. Brumbaugh, L.D. Coen, B. DeAngelis, J. Greene, B. Hancock, and S. Morlock.
(2014). Oyster Habitat Restoration Monitoring and Assessment Handbook. The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington, VA.

Bailey, S. (2012). Effectiveness Monitoring Program: Plan and Protocols. Tillamook Estuaries Partnership,
a National Estuary Project.

BenDor, T.K., A. Livengood, T.W. Lester, A. Davis, and L. Yonavjak. (2015). Defining and evaluating the
ecological restoration economy. Restoration Ecology 23(3):209-219.

Binder, S., R.G. Haight, S. Polasky, T. Warziniack, M.H. Mockrin, R.L. Deal, and G. Arthaud. (2017).
Assessment and Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services: State of the Science Review. General Technical
Reports. NRS-170. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown
Square, PA. 47 p.

Board, O.S., and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2017). Effective
Monitoring to Evaluate Ecological Restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. National Academies Press.

Bonfantine, K., J. Zebrowski, and A. Egan. (2011). Guidelines and Protocols for Monitoring Riparian
Forest Restoration Projects. A publication of the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Restoration
Institute. Retrieved from: www.iimfwri.org.

Bousquin, J. and M. Mazzotta. (2020). Rapid Benefit Indicator Tools. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, & T.H.
DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory,

Tools and Applications (pp. 309-332). Amsterdam: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_16.

Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics 63(2-3):616-626. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.

Boyd, J., P. Ringold, A. Krupnick, R.J. Johnston, M.A. Weber, and K. Hall. (2016). Ecosystem services
indicators: Improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses. International Review of
Environmental and Resource Economics 8(3-4):359-443.

66

-------
Bruins, R.J., T.J. Canfield, C. Duke, L. Kapustka, A.M. Nahlik, and R.B. Schafer. (2017). Using ecological
production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services. Integrated environmental
assessment and management 13(1):52-61.

Busch, D.E., and J.C. Trexler (Eds.). (2003). Monitoring Ecosystems: Interdisciplinary Approaches for
Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives. Island Press. 447 pages.

Clarkson, B.R., B.K. Sorrell, P.N. Reeves, P.D. Champion, T.R. Partridge, and B.D. Clarkson. (2003).
Handbook for monitoring wetland condition. Coordinated monitoring of New Zealand wetlands. A
Ministry for the Environment SMF funded project. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.

Clewell, A., J. Rieger, and J. Munro. (2005). Guidelines for Developing and Managing Ecological
Restoration Projects, 2nd Edition. Society for Ecological Restoration International.

Collins, K.E., C. Doscher, H.G. Rennie, and J.G. Ross. (2013). The effectiveness of riparian 'restoration' on
water quality—A case study of lowland streams in Canterbury, New Zealand. Restoration Ecology
21(l):40-48.

Comer, P.J., D. Faber-Langendoen, S. Menard, R. O'Connor, P. Higman, Y.M. Lee, and B. Klatt. (2017).
User Guide for Wetland Assessment and Monitoring in Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration. Prepared for DOI Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program.
NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

Costanza, R., R. de Groot, L. Braat, I. Kubiszewski, L. Fioramonti, P. Sutton, S. Farber, and M. Grasso.
(2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?
Ecosystem Services 28:1-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.

DeAngelis, B.M., A.E. Sutton-Grier, A. Colden, K.K. Arkema, C.J. Baillie, R.O. Bennett, J. Benoit, S. Blitch,
A. Chatwin, A. Dausman, R.K. Gittman, H.S. Greening, J.R. Henkel, R. Houge, R. Howard, A.R. Hughes, J.
Lowe, S.B. Scyphers, E.T. Sherwood, S. Wetsby, and J.H. Grabowski. (2020). Social factors key to
landscape-scale coastal restoration: Lessons learned from three US case studies. Sustainability 12(3):
869.

Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees (DWH-NRDAT). (2017). Monitoring
and Adaptive Management Procedures and Guidelines Manual Version 1.0. Appendix to the Trustee
Council Standard Operating Procedures for Implementation of the Natural Resource Restoration for the
DWH Oil Spill. Retrieved from: http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/.

Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustees (DWH-NRDAT). (2019). Monitoring
Guidance. In: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Procedures and Guidelines Manual Version 1.0.
2019. Appendix to the Trustee Council Standard Operating Procedures for Implementation of the Natural
Resource Restoration for the DWH Oil Spill. Retrieved from: http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/.

de Groot, D.D., L. Brander, and C.M. Finlayson. (2018a). Wetland Ecosystem Services. In: C.M. Finlayson,
M. Everard, K. Irvine, R.J. Mclnnes, B.A. Middleton, A.A. van Dam, and N.C. Davidson (Eds.), The Wetland
Book I: Structure and Function, Management and Methods (Vol. 1, pp. 323-333). Springer. DOI:
10.1007/978-90-481-9659-3_66z.

67

-------
de Groot, R., R. Costanza, L. Braat, L. Brander, B. Burkhard, L. Carrasco, N. Crossman, B. Egoh, D.
Geneletti, B. Hansjuergens, L. Hein, S. Jacobs, I. Kubiszewski, B. Leimona, B.L. Li, J. Liu, S. Luque, J. Maes,
C. Marais, S. Maynard, L. Montanarella, S. Moolenaar, C. Obst, M. Quintero, O. Saito, F. Santos-Martin,
P. Sutton, P. van Beukering, M. van Weelden, and L. Willemen. (2018b). Ecosystem services are nature's
contributions to people. Response to Diaz et al. 2018. Retrieved from:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6373/270/tab-e-letters.

DeWitt, T.H., W.J. Berry, T.J. Canfield, R.S. Fulford, M.C. Harwell, J.C. Hoffman, J.M. Johnston, T.A.
Newcomer-Johnson, P.L. Ringold, M.J. Russel, L.A. Sharpe, and S.J.H. Yee. (2020). The Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services (FEGS) Approach: A Beneficiary-centric Method to Support. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago,
& T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity:
Theory, Tools and Applications (pp. 127-148). Amsterdam: Springer.

DeWitt, T.H., J. Bousquin, C. Folger, M.C. Harwell, T.A. Newcomer-Johnson, L.M. Sharpe, S.H. Yee, C.L.
Hernandez, C.A. Jackson, A. Borde, and H.L. Diefenderfer. (2021). A Top-down Approach for Identifying
and Prioritizing the Final Ecosystem Goods & Services Produced by Ecological Restoration. National
Conference on Ecosystem Restoration. Virtual conference. July 26-29 & August 2-5, 2021.

Diaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martin-Lopez, R.T. Watson, Z. Molnar, R. Hill, K.M.A. Chan, I.A. Baste,
K.A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Larigauderie, P.W. Leadley, A.P.E. Van Oudenhoven,

F.	van der Plaat, M. Schroter, S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew,

G.	Erpul, P. Failler, C.A. Guerra, C.L. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama. (2018). Assessing
nature's contributions to people. Science 359:270-272. DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8826.

Diefenderfer, H.L., R.M. Thom, G.E. Johnson, J.R. Skalski, K.A. Vogt, B.D. Ebberts, G.C. Roegner, and E.M.
Dawley. (2011). A levels-of-evidence approach for assessing cumulative ecosystem response to estuary
and river restoration programs. Ecological Restoration 29(1-2):111-132.

Diefenderfer, H.L., G.E. Johnson, R.M. Thom, K.E. Buenau, L.A. Weitkamp, C.M. Woodley, A.B. Borde,
and R.K. Kropp. (2016). Evidence-based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem
restoration. Ecosphere 7(3):e01242.

Diefenderfer, H.L., G.D. Steyer, M.C. Harwell, A.J. LoSchiavo, H.A. Neckles, D.M. Burdick, G.E. Johnson,
K.E. Buenau, E. Trujillo, J.C. Callaway, R.M. Thom, N.K. Ganju, and R.R. Twilley. (2021). Applying
cumulative effects to strategically advance large-scale ecosystem restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 19(2):108-117.

Ding, H., J.M. Bullock, and C. Klirs. (2018). A Guide to Selecting Ecosystem Service Models for Decision-
Making. World Resources Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.wri.org/research/guide-selecting-
ecosvstem-service-models-decision-making-lessons-sub-saharan-africa.

Doran, G.T. (1981). There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives. Management
Review 70(11):35.

Doren, R.F., J.C. Trexler, A.D. Gottlieb, and M.C. Harwell. (2009). Ecological indicators for system-wide
assessment of the greater everglades ecosystem restoration program. Ecological indicators 9(6):S2-S16.

68

-------
Ehler, C., and F. Douvere. (2009). Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach Toward Ecosystem-
Based Management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere
Programme.

ESRI. (n.d.). ArcGIS online. Retrieved from: https://doc.arcgis.com/en/arcgis-online/manage-
data/metadata.htm.

Fischenich, J.C., D.R. Marmorek, M.A. Nelitz, C.L. Murray, B.O. Ma, K.E. Buenau, G. Long, J.L. Bonneau,
C.A. Fleming, and C.J. Schwarz. (2018). Science and Adaptive Management Plan. Missouri River Recovery
Program, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. ERDC/ELTR-18-XX.

Fitzsimons, J., S. Branigan, R.D. Brumbaugh, T. McDonald, and P.S.E. zu Ermgassen (Eds.). (2019).
Restoration Guidelines for Shellfish Reefs. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington VA, USA.

Frias-Torres, S., P. Montoya-Maya, and N. Shah. (2019). Coral Reef Restoration Toolkit: A Field-Oriented
Guide Developed in the Seychelles Islands.

Gann, G.D., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J.G. Hallett, C. Eisenberg, M.R.
Guariguata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C. Echeverrfa, E. Gonzales, N. Shaw, K. Decleer, and K.W. Dixon. (2019).
International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition.
Restoration Ecology 27(S1):S1-S46.

Gilby, B.L., A.D. Olds, R.M. Connolly, C.J. Henderson, and T.A. Schlacher. (2018). Spatial restoration
ecology: Placing restoration in a landscape context. Bioscience 68(12):1007-1019.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). (2019). Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan III: Fiscal
Year 2020 - Fiscal Year 2024. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Gret-Regamey, A., E. Siren, S.H. Brunner, and B. Weibel. (2017). Review of decision support tools to
operationalize the ecosystem services concept. Ecosystem Services 26:306-315.

Guilfoyle, M.P., and R.A. Fischer. (2006). Guidelines for Establishing Monitoring Programs to Assess the
Success of Riparian Restoration Efforts in Arid and Semi-arid Landscapes (No. ERDC-TN-EMRRP-SR-50).
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Guertin, F., T. Polzin, M. Rogers, and B. Witt. (2019). Incorporating co-benefits and environmental data
into corporate decision-making. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101(2):625-623. DOI:
10.1093/ajae/aay095.

Haines-Young, R., and M.B. Potschin. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
(CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Retrieved from: www.cices.eu.

Hanson, C., J. Ranganathan, C. Iceland, and J. Finisdore. (2012). The Corporate Ecosystem Services
Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change.
Version 2.0. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved from:

https://www.wri.org/research/corporate-ecosystem-services-review.

69

-------
Harte Research Institute. (2020). BlueValue: Resource Database for Ecosystem Services. Harte Research
Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi. World Wide Web electronic
publication. Retrieved from: http://www.bluevalue.org.

Harwell, D.R. (2020). Ecosystem Services in US Environmental Law and Governance for the Ecosystem-
Based Management Practitioner. ln:T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, &T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based
Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications. Amsterdam:
Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_19.

Harwell, M.C., J.L. Molleda, C.A. Jackson, and L. Sharpe. (2020). Establishing a Common Framework for
Strategic Communications in Ecosystem-Based Management and the Natural Sciences. In: T. O'Higgins,
M. Lago, &T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic
Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications (pp.165-188). Amsterdam: Springer.

Herrick, J.E., G.E. Schuman, and A. Rango. (2006). Monitoring ecological processes for restoration
projects. Journal for Nature Conservation 14(3-4):161-171.

Hill, J., and C. Wilkinson. (2004). Methods for ecological monitoring of coral reefs. Australian Institute of
Marine Science, Townsville, 117.

Hooper, M.J., S.J. Glomb, D.D. Harper, T.B. Hoelzle, L.M. Mcintosh, and D.R. Mulligan. (2016). Integrated
risk and recovery monitoring of ecosystem restorations on contaminated sites. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management 12(2):284-295.

Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration (IWWR). (2003). An Introduction and User's Guide to
Wetland Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement. Developed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Jackson, L.E., J. Daniel, B. McCorkle, A. Sears, and K.F. Bush. (2013). Linking ecosystem services and
human health: The Eco-Health Relationship Browser. International Journal of Public Health 58(5):747-
755.

Jackson, C.A., T.H. DeWitt, C.L. Hernandez, S.H. Yee, M.S. Nash, H.L. Diefenderfer, and A.B. Borde.
(2022). Identifying Priority Ecosystem Services in Tidal Wetland Restoration. Presentation at the
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership Coordination Meeting, Sept. 8, 2022.

Johnston, R.J., and R.S. Rosenberger. (2010). Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary
benefit transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys 24(3):479-510.

Kelemen, E., Garcfa-Llorente, M., Pataki, G., Martin-Lopez, B. and Gomez-Baggethun, E., 2014. Non-
monetary techniques for the valuation of ecosystem service. OpenNESS Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant
Agreement, 308428(4). Retrieved from:

https://www.guidetoes.eu/synthesispapers/OpenNESS SP6 Non-monetary Valuation.pdf

Keenleyside, K.A., N. Dudley, S. Cairns, C.M. Hall, and S. Stolton. (2012). Ecological Restoration for
Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 120pp.

70

-------
Kenter, J.O. (2018). IPBES: Don't throw out the baby whilst keeping the bathwater; Put people's values
central, not nature's contributions. Ecosystem Services 33(A):40-43.

Landers, D.H., and A.M. Nahlik. (2013). Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-
CS). US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914.

Li, M.H. (2008). Stream Restoration Design Handbook (National Engineering Handbook, 210-VI, Part
654), J.M. Bernard, J. Fripp, K. Robinson (Eds.), US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service.

Littles, C., J. Karnezis, K. Blauvelt, A. Creason, H. Diefenderfer, G. Johnson, L. Krasnow, and P. Trask.
2022. Adaptive management of large-scale ecosystem restoration: Increasing certainty of habitat
outcomes in the Columbia River Estuary, USA. Restoration Ecology, pp 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.llll/rec.13634

LoSchiavo, A.J., R.G. Best, R.E. Burns, S. Gray, M.C. Harwell, E.B. Hines, A.R. McLean, T. St. Clair, S.

Traxler, and J.W. Vearil. (2013). Lessons learned from the first decade of adaptive management in
comprehensive Everglades restoration. Ecology and Society 18(4).

Martinez-Lopez, J., K.J. Bagstad, S. Balbi, A. Magrach, B. Voigt, I. Athanasiadis, M. Pascual, S. Willcock,
and F. Villa. (2019). Towards globally customizable ecosystem service models. Science of the Total
Environment 650(2):2325-2336.

Mason, S., and L. Olander. (2018). Ecosystem Services Conceptual Model Application: Testing General
Model Adaptability. National Ecosystem Services Partnership Conceptual Model Series No. 4. Durham,
NC: Duke University, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Retrieved from:

https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/escm application testing general m
odel adaptability web.pdf.

Mason, S., L. Olander, and K. Warnell. (2018). Ecosystem Services Conceptual Model Application: NOAA
and NERRS Salt Marsh Habitat Restoration. National Ecosystem Services Partnership Conceptual Model
Series No. 3. Durham, NC: Duke University, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
Retrieved from:

https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/escm application noaa and nerrs s
alt marsh habitat restoration web.pdf.

Mazzotta, M., Bousquin, J., Berry, W., Ojo, C., McKinney, R., Hyckha, K. and Druschke, C.G., 2019.
Evaluating the ecosystem services and benefits of wetland restoration by use of the rapid benefit
indicators approach. Integrated environmental assessment and management, 15( 1):148-159.

McKane, R., A Brookes, K. Djang, M. Stieglitz, A. Abdelnour, F. Pan, J. Halama, P. Pettus, and D. Phillips.
(2014). Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments (VELMA) v. 2.0: User Manual and
Technical Documentation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. L-PESD-30840-QP-1-2.

71

-------
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island
Press, Washington, DC.

Morandi, B., H. Piegay, N. Lamouroux, and L. Vaudor. (2014). How is success or failure in river
restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects. Journal of Environmental
Management 137:178-188.

Moon, J.B., T.H. DeWitt, M.N. Errend, R.J.F. Bruins, M.E. Kentula, S.J. Chamberlain, M.S. Fennessy, and
K.J. Naithani. (2017). Model application niche analysis: Assessing the transferability and generalizability
of ecological models. Ecosphere 8(10):e01974

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2017). Effective Monitoring to
Evaluate Ecological Restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
DOI: 10.17226/23476.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
(NCPHSBBR). (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human
subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from:

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policv/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-
report/index.html.

National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP). (2016). Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem
Services Guidebook. 2nd ed. National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Retrieved from: https://nespguidebook.com.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2017). Guidance for Proposing and
Conducting Tier I Monitoring. Restoration Center Implementation Monitoring.

National Research Council (NRC). (1992). Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology and
Public Policy. Washington, DC.

National Research Council (NRC). (2005). Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental
Decision-Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 0.17226/11139.

Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC). (2004). Guidance for Habitat Restoration
Monitoring: Framework for Monitoring Plan Development and Implementation. Unpublished report to
the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Risk Assessment Working Group. Environmental Assessment
Division Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 130pp.

Neugarten, R.A., P.F. Langhammer, E. Osipova, K.J Bagstad, N. Bhagabati, S.H.M. Butchart, N. Dudley, V.
Elliott, L.R. Gerber, C. Gutierrez-Arrellano, K.-Z. Ivanic, M. Kettumem, L. Mandel, M. Mulligan, K.S.H. Peh,
C. Raudsepp-Hearne, D.J. Semmens, S. Stolton, S. Willcock, and C. Groves. (2018). Tools for Measuring,
Modelling, and Valuing Ecosystem Services: Guidance for Key Biodiversity Areas, Natural World Heritage
Sites, and Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 70pp.

72

-------
Newcomer-Johnson, T., F. Andrews, J. Corona, T. DeWitt, M. Harwell, C. Rhodes, P. Ringold, M. Russell,
P. Sinha, and G. Van Houtven. (2020). National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS Plus). US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-20/267.

Niedowski, N.L. (2000). New York State Salt Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines. New York
State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources.

Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, R.E. Hoehn, J.T. Walton, and J. Bond. (2008). A ground-based
method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
34(6):347-358.

Ochoa, V., and N. Urbina-Cardona. (2017). Tools for spatially modelling ecosystem services: Publication
trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges. Ecosystem Services 26(A):155-169. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.011.

Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, K.J. Jacobs, T. Barnes, and H.E. Fling. (2005). The use of conceptual ecological
models to guide ecosystem restoration in South Florida. Wetlands 25(4):795-809.

O'Hagan, A.M. (2020). Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) and Ecosystem Services in EU Law, Policy
and Governance. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, &T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management,
Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications. Amsterdam: Springer. DOI:
10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_18.

O'Higgins, T., M. Lago, and T.H. DeWitt (Eds.). (2020). Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem
Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications. Amsterdam: Springer. Open Source:
Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-Q.

Olander, L., S. Mason, K. Warnell, and H.R. Tallis. (2018). Building Ecosystem Services Conceptual
Models. National Ecosystem Services Partnership Conceptual Model Series No. 1. Durham, NC: Duke
University, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Retrieved from:

https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/building-escms-web.pdf.

Olander, L., K. Warnell, T. Warziniack, Z. Ghali, C. Miller, and C. Neelan. (2021). Exploring the use of
ecosystem services conceptual models to account for the benefits of public lands: An example from
national forest planning in the United States. Forests 12(3):267. DOI: 10.3390/fl2030267.

Osenberg, C.W., B.M. Bolker, J.S.S. White, C.M. St. Mary, and J.S. Shima. 2006. Statistical issues and
study design in ecological restorations: lessons learned from marine reserves. Pages 280-302 In, D.A.

Falk, M.A. Palmer, and J.B. Zedler (eds.). Foundations of Restoration Ecology, Society for Ecological
Restoration International and Island Press, Washington DC.

Pandeya, B., W. Buytaert, Z. Zulkaffi, T. Karpouzoglu, F. Mao, and D.M. Hannah. (2016). A comparative
analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce
regions. Ecosystem Services 22(B):250-259.

Peh, K.S.H., A. Balmford, R.B. Bradbury, C. Brown, S.H.M. Butchart, F.M.R. Hughes, A. Stattersfield, D.H.L.
Thomas, M. Walpole, J. Bayliss, D. Gowing, J.P.G. Jones, S.L. Lewis, M. Mulligan, B. Pandeya, C. Stratford,

73

-------
J.R. Thompson, K. Turner, B. Vira, S. Willcock, J.C. Birch. (2013). TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of
ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosystem Services 5:51-57.

Pickard, B.R., J. Daniel, M. Mehaffey, L.E. Jackson, and A. Neale. (2015). EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial
tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management. Ecosystem Services 14(0):45-55.

Piracha, A., and P. Marcotullio. (2003). Urban Ecosystem Analysis: Identifying Tools and Methods. United
Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU/IAS) Report. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.5055.4963.

Principe, P., P. Bradley, S. Yee, W. Fisher, E. Johnson, P. Allen, and D. Campbell. (2012). Quantifying Coral
Reef Ecosystem Services. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-11/206.

Pope, S., J. Rhodus, F. Fulk, B. Mintz, and S. O'Shea. (2016). The Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
Resource and Tool Compilation: A Comprehensive Toolkit for New and Experienced HIA Practitioners in
the US. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA/600/R-15/330.

RECOVER. (2006). Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP), Part 2, 2006 Assessment Strategy for the
MAP. Final Draft. Restoration Coordination and Verification Team, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

RECOVER. (2010). Scientific and Technical Knowledge Gained in Everglades Restoration (1999-2009).
Restoration Coordination and Verification Team, US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South
Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

RECOVER. (2019). Everglades System Status Report (Assessment Period of 2012 - 2017). Restoration
Coordination and Verification Team, US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South Florida
Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

Rice, C.A., W.G. Hood, L.M. Tear, C.A. Simenstad, G.D. Williams, L.L. Johnson, B.E. Feist, and P. Roni.
(2005). Monitoring Rehabilitation in Temperate North American Estuaries. In: P. Roni (Ed.), Methods for
Monitoring Stream and Watershed Restoration (pp. 167-207). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,

MD.

Richardson, B.J., andT. Lefroy. (2016). Restoration dialogues: Improving the governance of ecological
restoration. Restoration Ecology 24(5):668-673.

Richardson, L., J. Loomis, T. Kroeger, and F. Casey. (2015). The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem
service valuation. Ecological Economics 115:51-58.

Roegner, G.C., H.L. Diefenderfer, A.B. Borde, R.M. Thom, E.M. Dawley, A.H. Whiting, S.A. Zimmerman,
and G.E. Johnson. (2008). Protocols for Monitoring Habitat Restoration Projects in the Lower Columbia
River and Estuary (No. PNNL-15793). Pacific Northwest National Lab, Richland, WA.

Romanach, S.S., M. McKelvy, C. Conzelmann, and K. Suir. (2014). A visualization tool to support decision
making in environmental and biological planning. Environmental Modelling Software 62:221-229.

74

-------
Romanach, S.S., S.M. Haider, C. Hackett, M. McKelvy, and L.G. Pearlstein. (2022). Managing multiple
species with conflicting needs in the Greater Everglades. Ecological Indicators 136, 108699.

Rosenberger, R.S. and R.J. Johnston. (2009). Selection effects in meta-analysis and benefit transfer:
Avoiding unintended consequences. Land Economics 85:410-428.

Rossi, R., C. Bisland, L. Sharpe, E. Trentacoste, B. Williams, and S. Yee. (2022). Identifying and aligning
ecosystem services and beneficiaries associated with Best Management Practices in Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. Environmental Management 69: 384-409.

Russell, M., J. Harvey, P. Ranade, and K. Murphy. (2015). EPA H20 User Manual. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-15/090.

Russell, M.J., C. Rhodes, R.K. Sinha, G. Van Houtven, G. Warnell, and M.C. Harwell. (2020). Ecosystem-
Based Management and Natural Capital Accounting. ln:T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, &T.H. DeWitt (Eds.),
Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and
Applications (pp. 149-164). Amsterdam: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_8.

Sharpe, L., C. Hernandez, and C. Jackson. (2020). Prioritizing Stakeholders, Beneficiaries and
Environmental Attributes: A Tool for Ecosystem-Based Management. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, & T. H.
DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory,

Tools and Applications (pp. 189-212). Amsterdam: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_10.

Sherrouse, B.C., and D.J. Semmens. (2020). Social Values for Ecosystem Services, version 4.0 (SolVES
4.0)—Documentation and user manual: US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 7, chap.
C25, 59 p. DOI: 10.3133/tm7C25.

Shreffler, D.K., and R.M. Thom. (1993). Restoration of urban estuaries: New approaches for site location
and design. Prepared by Battelle-Pacific Northwest Division for the Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Olympia, WA.

Shreffler, D.K., R.M. Thom, M.J. Scott, K.F. Wellman, and M.A. Walters. (1995). National Review of Non-
Corps Environmental Restoration Projects. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources,
Fort Belvoir, VA.

Skalski, J.R. (1995). Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of environmental damage
assessment studies. Journal of Environmental Management 43:67-85.

Skalski, J.R., D.A. Coats, and A.K. Fukuyama. (2001). Criteria for oil spill recovery: A case study of the
intertidal community of Prince William Sound, Alaska, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental
Management 28:9-18.

Sleggs, S.E., and VanDruff, L.W. (1997). A Wetland Restoration Monitoring Protocol for the Northern
Montezuma Wetlands Project. State University of New York, Syracuse, NY.

Smith, L., C. Wade, K. Straub, L. Harwell, J. Case, M. Harwell, and K. Summers. (2014). Indicators and
Methods for Evaluating Economic, Ecosystem and Social Services Provisioning: A Human Well-being
Index (HWBI) Research Product. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-14.

75

-------
Stewart-Oaten, A., W.W. Murdoch, and K.R. Parker. (1986) Environmental impact assessment:
'Pseudoreplication' in time? Ecology 67:929-940.

Stoddard, J.L., D.P. Larsen, C.P. Hawkins, R.K. Johnson, and R.H. Norris. (2006). Setting expectations for
the ecological condition of streams: The concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications
16(4):1267-1276.

Tallis, H., and S. Polasky. (2009). Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for
conservation and natural-resource management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
1162:265-283. DOI: 10.1111/j.l749-6632.2009.04152.x.

Thayer, G.W., T.A. McTigue, R.J. Bellmer, F.M. Burrows, D.H. Merkey, A.D. Nickens, S.J. Lozano, P.F.
Gayaldo, P.J. Polmateer, and P.T. Pinit. (2003). Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal
Habitats, Volume One: A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of
2000 (Public Law 160-457). NOAA Coastal Ocean Program.

Thayer, G.W., T.A. McTigue, R.J. Salz, D.H. Merkey, F.M. Burrows, and P.F. Gayaldo. (2005). Science-
Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, Volume Two: Tools for Monitoring Coastal Habitats.
NOAA Coastal Ocean Program.

Theriot, J.M., J.L. Conkle, S.R. Pezeshki, R.D. DeLaune, Rand J.R. White. (2013). Will hydrologic
restoration of Mississippi River riparian wetlands improve their critical biogeochemical functions?
Ecological Engineering 60:192-198.

Thiault, L., L. Kernaleguen, C.W. Osenberg, and J. Claudet. (2017). Progressive-change BACIPS: A flexible
approach for environmental impact assessment. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8(3):288-296.

Thom, R.M., and K.F. Wellman. (1996). Planning Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring Programs
(No. IWR-96-R-23). Battelle Seattle Research Center, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from:

https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/pl6021coll2/id/3691/.

Thom, R.M. (2000). Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects. Ecological
Engineering 15(3-4):365-372.

Thom, R.M., H.L. Diefenderfer, J.E. Adkins, C. Judd, M.G. Anderson, K.E. Buenau, A.B. Borde, and G.E.
Johnson. (2010). Guidelines, processes and tools for coastal ecosystem restoration, with examples from
the United States. Plankton and Benthos Research 5(Supplement):185-201.

Thompson, J.L., A. Kaiser, E.L. Sparks, M. Shelton, E. Brunden, J.A. Cherry, and J. Cebrian. (2016).
Ecosystem - What? Public understanding and trust in conservation science and ecosystem services.
Frontiers in Communication l(3):l-9. DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2016.00003.

Underwood, A.J. (1994). Things Environmental Scientists (and Statisticians) Need to Know to Receive
(and Give) Better Statistical Advice. In: D.J. Fletcher and B.F. Manly (Eds.), Statistics in Ecology and
Environmental Monitoring, University Otago Press, Dunedin, NZ.

76

-------
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2008). Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Compensatory
Mitigation Projects Involving the Restoration, Establishment, and/or Enhancement of Aquatic Resources.
Regulatory Guidance Letter No 08-03.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2015). Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring
Guidelines. South Pacific Division.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2000). Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-004, EPA-800-R-15-002.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2015). National Ecosystem Services Classification System
(NESCS): Framework design and policy application.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2019a). Application of Quality Assurance and Quality
Control Principles to Ecological Restoration Project Monitoring. Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL. EPA/905/K-19/001.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2019b). EJSCREEN: Technical Documentation. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Washington, DC. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/eiscreen technical document.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2020). Metrics for national and regional assessment of
aquatic, marine, and terrestrial final ecosystem goods and services. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA645/R-20-002.

US Environmental Protection Agency. (2021a). Background of the National Aquatic Resource Surveys.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/national-aauatic-resource-survevs/background-national-aquatic-
resource-surveys

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021b). EcoService Models Library (ESML). Retrieved
from: https://esml.epa.gov/.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1999). Wetland Monitoring Guidelines: Operational Draft.
Northeast Region, Ecological Services, Hadley, MA.

Valderrabano, M., C. Nelson, E. Nicholson, A. Etter, J. Carwardine, J. Hallett, J. McBreen, and E. Botts.
(2021). Using Ecosystem Risk Assessment Science in Ecosystem Restoration: A Guide to Applying the Red
List of Ecosystems to Ecosystem Restoration. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland,
Switzerland. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.19.en.

Villa, F., K.J. Bagstad, B. Voigt, G.W. Johnson, R. Portela, M. Honzak, and D. Batker. (2014). A
methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91001.

Wainger, L., and M. Mazzotta. (2011). Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: A framework for
relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environmental Management 48(4):710-733.

77

-------
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., ... & Mons, B.
(2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data
3(l):l-9.

Woolsey, S., F. Capelli, T.O.M. Gonser, E. Hoehn, M. Hostmann, B. Junker, A. Paetzold, C. Roulier, S.
Schweizer, S.D. Tiegs, K. Tockner, C. Weber, and A. Peter. (2007). A strategy to assess river restoration
success. Freshwater Biology 52(4):752-769.

Yates, K.L., P.J. Bouchet, M.J. Caley, K. Mengersen, C.F. Randin, S. Parnell, A. Fielding, A.J. Bamford, S.
Ban, A.M. Barbosa, C.F. Dormann, J. Elith, C.B. Embling, G.N. Ervin, R. Fisher, S. Gould, R.F. Graf, E.J.
Gregr... and A.M.M. Sequeria. (2018). Outstanding challenges in the transferability of ecological
models. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33(10):790-802.

Yepsen, M., J. Moody, and E. Schuster. (2016). A Framework for Developing Monitoring Plans for Coastal
Wetland Restoration and Living Shoreline Projects in New Jersey. Report prepared by the New Jersey
Measures and Monitoring Workgroup of the NJ Resilient Coastlines Initiative, with support from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Resilience Grant Program
(NA14NOS4830006).

Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, R. de Jesus-Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M.C.
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. US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL.
EPA/600/R-17/266.

Yee, S.H., A. Sullivan, K.C. Williams, and K. Winters. (2019). Who benefits from National Estuaries?
Applying the FEGS Classification System to identify ecosystem services and their beneficiaries.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(13):2351.

Yee, S., K. Williams, G. Cicchetti, T. DeWitt, R. Fulford, M. Harwell, L. Sharpe, B. Branoff, and R. Rossi.
(2021). Final Ecosystem Goods and Services for use by National Estuary Program Stakeholders to Inform
Management and Restoration Planning Decisions. National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration, July
26 - August 05, 2021. Retrieved from:

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?dirEntryld=353151.

Yocom, K.P., Andrews, L., Faghin, N., Dyson, K., Leschine, T. and Nam, J. (2016). Revitalizing urban
waterfronts: identifying indicators for human well-being. AIMS Environmental Science 3(3):456-473.

78

-------
Chapter 3: Additional Considerations for
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into
Conservation-based Restoration5

Heida L. Diefenderfer, Susan H. Yee, Ryann E. Rossi, Chloe A. Jackson, Connie L. Hernandez, Amy B.
Borde, Matthew C. Harwell

Abstract

The relevance of ecosystem services (ES) to every step of the restoration effectiveness monitoring and
assessment (REMA) process was documented through Chapters 1-2 of this report, and Chapter 3 turns
to conservation-based restoration, a term for the theory and practice of ecosystem restoration in which
the goals encompass the recovery of biodiversity, ecological integrity, self-maintaining systems, and ES.
Application of the REMA framework to the improvement of ES outcomes from conservation-based
restoration requires integration of existing practices and understanding of the requirements for
effective ecosystem restoration into a new understanding of the process from restoration planning
through evaluation. Perhaps the most substantive efforts to integrate ES with conservation-based
restoration to date have been made by the Society for Ecological Restoration and the National
Ecosystem Services Partnership. Special challenges seen in conservation-based restoration include the
assessment of functional trajectories and the potential for ES in existence when restoration is begun to
be replaced by different ES after restoration, resulting in perceived losses by some stakeholders. Social
benefit frameworks which may be helpful to implementation of an ES-based approach to conservation-
based restoration, include social-ecological systems and translational science. Boundaries and
constraints particularly relevant to the provision of ES over time through conservation-based restoration
include requirements for land ownership and land stewardship in perpetuity, the need for long-term
monitoring and adaptive management of restoration trajectories during ecosystem development, and
related funding limitations. This chapter seeks to illuminate the barriers to and opportunities for the
incorporation of ES in conservation-based restoration planning and monitoring, highlighting findings
from review of the literature. The literature review of case studies was designed to evaluate how ES are
incorporated in conservation-based restoration. Initial screening to meet these criteria resulted in a
total of 138 journal articles and reports reviewed. Despite the trend of increased recognition of ES as a
goal of conservation-based restoration, the case studies showed that in practice, ecosystem attributes
required to conserve biodiversity are often the only or the primary outcome measured and reported.
Thus, it appears that ES are an important aspect of galvanizing public support and participation in

5 Suggested citation: Diefenderfer, H.L., S.H. Yee, R.E. Rossi, C.A. Jackson, C.L. Hernandez, A.B. Borde, and M.C.
Harwell. (2022). Chapter 3: Additional Considerations for Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Conservation-
based Restoration. In: Jackson et al. Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring &
Assessment: Frameworks, Tools, and Examples. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Newport, OR. EPA/600/R-22/XXX. pp. 95-142.

-------
conservation-based restoration; however, great opportunities remain to improve the evaluation,
monitoring, and reporting of ES addressed through conservation-based restoration approaches.
Optimally, the potential beneficiaries of restoration are identified at the planning stage of restoration
and involved as stakeholders to help to identify meaningful ES outcomes and directly relevant metrics
and reporting approaches. Scientific approaches to indicator development also have a role and require
understanding the relationships between key ecological attributes and the ES that depend on them,
which can be achieved using conceptual models and causal chains.

Core Messages

•	Despite the increased recognition of ecosystem services (ES) by the Society for Ecological
Restoration (SER), and the fact that ES-related goals are frequently mentioned in restoration
planning, the case studies showed that in practice, ecosystem attributes required to conserve
biodiversity are often the only or the primary outcome measured and reported.

•	Planning is the optimal stage for identification of the potential beneficiaries of restoration and
for involving them as stakeholders to provide help in identifying meaningful ES outcomes and
directly relevant metrics and reporting approaches.

•	Both the science and the practice of conservation-based restoration have the potential to
benefit from knowledge gained by involvement of social scientists to strengthen methods for
involving beneficiaries and their interests from the planning stages through post-restoration
evaluation.

•	Understanding the relationships between key ecological attributes and the ES that depend on
them is a prerequisite for achieving success and can be developed using conceptual models and
causal chains.

•	It remains true that ES can be important for galvanizing public support and participation in
conservation-based restoration from scenario-based planning exercises to citizen science
involvement in monitoring.

•	Often, metrics of ecosystem function are incorrectly assumed to be proxies for ES.

•	The trend in the number of articles or reports integrating ES into at least one stage of the
restoration process is unambiguously increasing.

•	Undesirable decreases in ES may result from restoration programs that target the enhancement
of only one or a few ES without consideration of a larger suite of potential ES.

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Goals

The objectives of this chapter are to discuss the history and motivations for incorporating ecosystem
services (ES) into conservation-based restoration projects and programs and to examine trends through
a review of the literature, in the context of restoration theory and practice. Final ecosystem goods and
services (FEGS) are a subset of all ES distinguished as the final endpoints of nature's production
networks that are directly used by people, recognizing that their dependence on successful restoration
of ecological structure and function providing intermediate goods and services. Since its inception,

80

-------
practitioners of ecological restoration have recognized the importance of the socially valued ecosystem
functions provided by conservation and restoration. However, the rapid expansion of publications about
ES and conservation-based restoration in recent years does not necessarily mean that ES are fully
incorporated at all stages of conservation-based restoration. Based on an assessment of the state of the
science and practice recorded in the literature, a conceptual basis, examples, and practical methods are
offered for extending restoration effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA) approaches beyond
measuring ecosystem structure and functions, to emerging methods that more intentionally incorporate
measurable benefits to human beneficiaries.

3.1.2 Historical Perspective and Terminology

Ecosystem degradation is "a level of deleterious human impact to ecosystems that results in the loss of
biodiversity and simplification or disruption in their composition, structure, and functioning, and
generally leads to a reduction in the flow of ecosystem services" (Gann et al. 2019). Documented
attempts by plant scientists to restore native communities date back to the 1930s, but the science of
restoration ecology was named just over 30 years ago (Jordan III et al. 1990; Jordan III 1995). As a
scientific method, ecological restoration in practice has utility for advancing basic research by taking an
experimentalist's approach to manipulating systems, thus testing the understanding of ecosystem parts
and their interactions. Ecological restoration in the 1970s and 1980s primarily focused on reclaiming
severely degraded and toxic sites, particularly mines (Bradshaw 1984) (see Chapter 4).

By the early 1990s, restoration had been defined as "the return of an ecosystem to a close
approximation of its condition prior to disturbance" (NRC 1992), a concept that remained inherent to
later more complex definitions (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy
Working Group 2004). The term disturbance in this sense, however, may be confounded with natural
processes such as the meandering of river floodplains, or windthrow in the forest, as studied in the field
of disturbance ecology (White and Pickett 1985). These types of ecosystem processes are in fact
essential to successful restoration and continue to act on ecosystems long after restorative actions
taken by restoration managers are complete. Thus, limiting the concept of stress to anthropogenic
stressors offered a practical alternative (Barrett et al. 1976). The reduction or removal of stressors was
then conceptualized as a necessary precondition and sometimes a catalyst for restoration of ecological
structures (e.g., plant communities) and functions (dynamic processes such as nutrient cycling) (Clewell
and Aronson 2013; Neeson et al. 2016). Between the first and second editions of its International
Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration, the Society of Ecological Restoration
(SER) made a parenthetical addition to the long-standing definition of ecological restoration,
distinguishing it from ecosystem restoration, and clarifying the role of ES as follows:

Ecological restoration: The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been
degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Ecosystem restoration is sometimes used interchangeably
with ecological restoration, but ecological restoration always addresses biodiversity
conservation and ecological integrity, whereas some approaches to ecosystem restoration may
focus solely on the delivery of ecosystem services (Gann et al. 2019; emphasis added).

-------
Thus, SER distinguishes ecosystem restoration as the term of art for restoration that includes the
delivery of ES. This chapter adopts the term ecosystem restoration, noting that logically, by this
definition, biodiversity conservation and ecological integrity are not excluded, while ES are necessarily
included. The Society emphasized recovering biodiversity in its updated principles and standards,
marking an increase of biodiversity as a restoration goal in recognition of the accelerating extinction
crisis, and it is clear that it does not advocate restoration of ES at the expense of biodiversity (Gann et al.
2019).

Nationwide, stakeholder groups from small to large participate in habitat restoration planning processes
such as those prescribed under the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, and the solicitation of
feedback by agencies has public support (Rodgers 2016; Rodgers and Willcox 2018; Rohr et al. 2018). An
early example is from a southern Californian watershed where the Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation
and State Coastal Conservancy worked with coastal residents and other stakeholders to identify
objectives and produce an estuarine enhancement plan and program in 1985 (State Coastal Conservancy
1985); a recent update to the plan similarly involved multiple stakeholder workshops and review
opportunities (ESA 2018). Key aspects of numerous other examples will be described in the case studies
herein.

As the case studies will demonstrate, for decades, the environmental benefits expected to accrue from
restoration projects have been communicated as public goods and incorporated into restoration
planning to some degree. The introduction to the classic textbook, Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems,
stated, "ecosystem services may well be the most persuasive justification to the general public for
ecological restoration" (Cairns Jr. 1995). However, there is still more work to be done to achieve the
potential for benefits. As Benayas et al. (2009) found in a meta-analysis of 89 restoration assessments,
restoration only increased the median provision of ES by 25%, and after restoration, ES remained lower
than intact reference ecosystems. Herein, this chapter outlines the case that the achievement of the ES
outcomes desired by stakeholders may be well-served by an ES approach.

Despite the increased recognition of ES by the Society for Ecological

Restoration, and the fact that ES-related goals are frequently
mentioned in restoration planning, the case studies showed that in
practice, ecosystem attributes required to conserve biodiversity are
often the only or the primary outcome measured and reported.

82

-------
3.1.3 The REMA Framework and Conservation Considerations

The REMA framework for ES presented in Chapter 2 is transferable for applications across the spectrum
of ecosystem management challenges and this chapter presents specific considerations for applying the
general framework to ecosystem restoration—called conservation-based restoration herein (Figure 3.1).
According to the SER, ecological restoration aspires to attain the highest level of recovery available by
working with natural processes (McDonald et al. 2016; Gann et al. 2019). Both the objectives and
approaches to ecosystem restoration therefore are different from the contaminated site cleanup
activities and compensatory mitigation discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

Special Considerations for Conservation-Based Restoration

Condition of landscape processes; authorization
limits; engineering and stakeholder constraints

Understanding status and trends of ecosystem
and ES; stakeholder interests

Sustainability of outcomes; socioecological
systems framework; harmonizing conflicts

Sensitive to restoration actions; ES-Relevant
performance criteria

Include reference and restoration sites; ES
method development

Assess restoration trajectories, cumulative
effects, and performance criteria

Timeliness of oral and written, scientific and
public communication; establishment of ES

Frequent and regular decision support;
stakeholder participation

Variations on planning, implementation, evaluation, dissemination, and adaptive management are in
practice across ecological restoration but some principles have been shown to be effective for
conservation-based restoration again and again (Thom et al. 2010; Martin et al. 2018). While regulatory
issues do play a part in ecosystem restoration, the feasibility of actions and their often experimental
nature contribute to having less than 100% probability of success and are also important factors
requiring careful planning and evaluation (Thom et al. 2005; Clewell and Aronson 2013). Guides, ES
classification systems, decision-support tools, and modeling and mapping tools are available to facilitate
incorporating ES into each step of the REMA planning and implementation processes; see Sections 2.3
and 2.4.

-------
In Identifying Boundaries and Constraints, primary considerations for conservation-based restoration
are the extent to which landscape-scale ecosystem processes are intact and capable of supporting the
restoration of self-sustaining ecosystems (IWWR 2003; Booth et al. 2016). These ecosystems may
provide ES within the restoration site or more broadly across the surrounding landscape. Other
limitations such as engineering constraints and funding are also associated with production of ES by a
given restoration project (Ciccarese et al. 2012; Aronson et al. 2016).

In Assessing Existing Knowledge, primary considerations for conservation-based restoration include
understanding ecosystem status and trends and prior impacts on ES (Busch and Trexler 2003), and
stakeholder interests associated with a given restoration project (Hagger et al. 2017).

When Identifying Goals and Objectives, primary considerations for conservation-based restoration
include understanding the potential ecological sustainability of ES for a range of restoration objectives
and management approaches that are based on: (1) information from reference sites; (2) special
regulatory considerations that aim to harmonize divergent interests of local constituents; (3) the
applicability of a social-ecological systems (SES) framework (i.e., connecting people to ES to inform
restoration); and (4) any conflicts between objectives of a given restoration project (Diefenderfer et al.
2009; Ostrom and Cox 2010; Thom et al. 2011).

When Selecting Metrics, primary considerations for conservation-based restoration include: (1)
identifying metrics that are sensitive to the expected near-term and long-term changes in ES and key
ecological attributes that directly produce ES using conceptual models and causal chains (NESP 2014,
2016); and (2) identifying metrics that efficiently determine whether the restoration trajectory is off
track and thus affecting associated ES (Busch and Trexler 2003). When ES objectives are included in a
restoration plan, it is important to develop qualitative or quantitative ES-relevant performance criteria
associated with a given restoration project (Thom et al. 2010; Smith 2014).

In Collecting and Analyzing Data, study designs incorporating reference expectations (e.g., reference or
control sites) are important considerations for conservation-based restoration (see Section 2.4.5 for
discussion on reference expectations; Clewell and Aronson 2013). Methods for ES-relevant indicators
may require development and refinement to meet scientific and stakeholder requirements (Martin and
Lyons 2018; Bousquin and Mazzotta 2020).

When Assessing Restoration Progress and Success, primary considerations for conservation-based
restoration include assessing restoration trajectories relative to reference sites, the cumulative effects
of multiple projects on ES, and ES-relevant performance criteria (Thom and Wellman 1996; Wortley et
al. 2013).

Primary considerations regarding Synthesizing and Communicating Findings of conservation-based
restoration include application to specific decision questions and transferability to various audiences,
through an emphasis on disseminating peer-reviewed information through useful oral and written
scientific and public forums, timelines (e.g., construction and post-restoration monitoring) and the
establishment of ES, and elements of translational science (sensu Pettibone et al. 2018) associated with
a given restoration project.

84

-------
In Practicing Adaptive Management processes, the emphasis is on hypothesis-driven testing of
alternative management strategies, refinement of strategies to achieve desired objectives, and
establishment of frequent and regular decision support to achieve restoration goals including
stakeholder participation (LoSchiavo et al. 2013; Zedler 2017; Fischenich et al. 2019). Adaptive
management is not always done in conservation-based restoration projects, especially small projects,
volunteer projects, or otherwise underfunded projects. Furthermore, the aim of many conservation-
based restoration projects is that they ultimately become self-sustaining (Gann et al. 2019), and
adaptive management is phased out overtime.

3.1.4 Chapter Content

In the following section, Organizing Principles, the ES approach is grounded in the sciences of
restoration ecology and SES, ecological or ecosystem restoration practice, and translational science.

Prior research regarding the potential integration of ES with restoration is also described. Like Chapters
4 and 5, the section titled Special Considerations for Practice: Conservation-based Restoration covers
boundaries and constraints, issues and opportunities, and monitoring. Case Studies of existing and past
practices, identified by systematic review of the restoration literature, illuminate the barriers to and
opportunities for the incorporation of ES in conservation-based restoration planning and monitoring.
The Conclusion follows, summarizing core messages.

3.1.5 Intended Audience

The application of ES to ecosystem restoration is expected to be of interest to those involved in any
phase of restoration. This is particularly true during planning when objectives of a project or program
are being defined, and when the evaluation of outcomes relative to stakeholders' interests is being
considered. Planning is the optimal stage for identification of the potential beneficiaries of restoration
and for involving them as stakeholders to help identify meaningful outcomes including the appropriate
focus for monitoring and evaluation. Professionals involved in developing or implementing monitoring
plans will also recommend information to consider. For ES, these professionals may include social
scientists as well as the environmental scientists more traditionally involved in restoration. The planners
and practitioners of ecosystem restoration hail from a wide variety of entities that include governmental
agencies, environmental non-governmental organizations both large and small, groups of local and
regional citizens with interest in particular places, consulting firms, and land stewards who are
landowners such as land trusts and businesses. The terminology of this chapter is intended to be
accessible to the range of potential readers.

3.2 Organizing Principles and Related Research

In this section, the ES approach is contextualized within the sciences of restoration ecology and SES and
the practices of ecosystem restoration and translational science, which was introduced in Chapter 1.

-------
3.2.1 Frameworks Integrating Conservation-based Restoration and Ecosystem Services

According to SER, ecological restoration has two fundamental purposes: "conserving biodiversity and
improving human well-being" (McDonald et al. 2016). This was echoed by Martin (2017), who pointed
out the need to acknowledge why we do ecological restoration—i.e., in many cases, for ES. The Society
for Ecological Restoration continues to highlight the importance of incorporating ES and human well-
being, writing that ecosystem degradation "negatively affects the resilience and sustainability of social-
ecological systems," while "healthy native ecosystems assure the flow of ecosystem services" (Gann et
al. 2019).

Over the last decade, federal agencies including the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), with
many partners, made a significant multi-year investment to develop approaches to incorporate ES into
federal natural resource management portfolios through the National Ecosystem Services Partnership
(NESP 2014, 2016)6. Conservation and ecological restoration, including large-scale restoration, was
identified as one of six major applications of the framework produced and released as a guidebook
(NESP 2014). However, restoration was not the focus of the series of agency examples, rather it was
identified as one of a range of ecosystem-management actions by a few agencies in examples
summarized here. In general, the partnership found that ecosystem-management decision processes
can be affected by incorporation of ES (Smith 2014). Identification of ES beyond biodiversity also has the
potential to effect conflict resolution, with useful contributions for both qualitative and quantitative
methods of valuation (NESP 2014, Vol. 1).

The Partnership found that the multiple-use basis of the legislation creating the US Forest Service
(USFS), and its historical focus on the production of goods and commodities and later transition to
ecosystem restoration and management, makes an ES approach relatively attainable (NESP 2014, Vol.
2). The potential of carbon sequestration ("blue carbon") by restored coastal wetlands (Thom et al.
2012) was of interest to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which
contributed to a verified carbon standard for voluntary carbon markets (Sutton-Grier 2014). Habitat
protection and restoration by NOAA is also intended to provide ES related to fisheries, water quality,
recreation, coastal protection, and watershed processes, and the Agency has expertise in conducting
non-market valuations of ES (Effron et al. 2014). For example, NOAA partnered with a non-governmental
organization, university, and a company on an artificial oyster reef project ("living shoreline") driven by
ES related to resilience (NESP 2014, Vol. 2).

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) also operates with substantive authorities for ecosystem
restoration (Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board 2005, 2006). The USACE has been
engaged in examining ES and developing approaches to incorporate them into the planning process for a
decade (Tazik et al. 2013). Recently, the USACE published a document intended to inform decision
support when comparing project alternatives, which incorporated ESfrom the perspective of both the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and planning objectives (Wainger et al. 2020).

6 Federal agencies involved were National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers,
US Bureau of Land Management, US Department of Agriculture, US Department of the Interior, US Environmental
Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, and US Geological Survey.

-------
The proposed approach is based on non-monetary benefit metrics. Key tools advocated are a screening-
level analysis to produce an Impacts Evaluation Table, and a Decision Criteria table to evaluate the
relevance of each ES to planning.

In the mid-Atlantic region, The Nature Conservancy led an effort to incorporate ES from the start of
planning for coastal ecosystem restoration, enhancement, and creation of projects (Schuster and Doerr
2015). After the project scope is defined, the approach includes four iterative steps: (1) conduct a rapid
stakeholder assessment; (2) set a socioeconomic goal for the project; (3) select relevant metrics; and (4)
determine the appropriate study design. The NESP guidebook (NESP 2014) is intended to foster
application of an ES framework to a restoration project, helping to ensure the provision of relevant ES
through good design, and supporting practitioners who wish to value a particular benefit or benefits of
restoration in dollars.

Both the science and the practice of conservation-based restoration
have the potential to benefit from knowledge gained by involvement
of social scientists to strengthen methods for involving beneficiaries
and their interests from the planning stages through post-restoration

evaluation.

3.2.2 Special Challenges in Ecosystem Services and Restoration
Considering the Loss of Ecosystem Services through Restoration

The variety of ES provided by land and water is hardly limited, and even when ecological structures and
processes are degraded from a historical condition there may be value to beneficiaries. The economics
of this conundrum were considered by Shabman (1995). The question is, how should existing ES be
valued and compared to new ones after restoration, particularly when they are qualitatively different?
For example, pasturelands before restoration may provide some habitat for insects, and services in the
form of pastured livestock, while after restoration to marshes or forests their services may transition to
wild fish, sustainably harvested wood, or other forest products such as mushrooms, floral greens, or
forest bathing experiences. Furthermore, the evidence is clear that degraded lands are more often
occupied by vulnerable communities with lower incomes and a need to harvest local foods (Taylor
2014). Therefore, replacing occupied areas or food sources with ecosystems restored to a historical
condition poses questions of environmental justice. A meta-analysis by Benayas et al. (2009), however,
found that degraded systems offered only 59% the median ES response values of reference systems.

Functional Eguivalencv

Net ecosystem improvement (NEI; Thom et al. 2005) is a multi-faceted and multi-metric conceptual and
measurement challenge rooted in the assessment of restoration trajectories relative to trends at
reference expectations (e.g., reference sites; Kentula et al. 1992). While the trajectories of restoration
sites ideally arc toward the condition of reference expectations (Steyer et al. 2003), in practice, multiple

-------
system states may occur (Thorn et al. 2005; Suding and Gross 2006). Moreover, trajectories are often
nonlinear, especially in aquatic systems (Simenstad and Thorn 1996; Allan 2004).

Since key ecological attributes are a prerequisite for production of ES, the complications of the
trajectories of the restoration of these attributes necessarily affect outcomes for ES provisioning.
Furthermore, ES may not track one-to-one with any function metric, much less with the suite of them
used in a typical evaluation approach for conservation-based restoration. A NEI approach can be applied
beyond strict ecosystem restoration programs (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs 2019;
National Infrastructure Commission 2021), for example, it also applies to compensatory mitigation (see
Chapter 5). Measuring only the reduction of stressors overlooks the spatiotemporal variability of
ecosystem controls (Bernhardt et al. 2017) and the interacting effects of system response (Diefenderfer
et al. 2021).

3.2.3 Social Benefit Frameworks
Translational Science Framework

There are two main elements of translational science (sensu Pettibone et al. 2018; see also Section 1.2)
that are relevant in the consideration of ES in conservation-based restoration. First is the identification,
prioritization, inclusion, and engagement of stakeholders in restoration design and implementation,
along with communication of restoration effectiveness. There are a number of stakeholder engagement-
focused decision support tools designed to inform conservation-based restoration. Specifically, from an
ES and restoration perspective, a focus on FEGS allows us to connect beneficiary values identified by
stakeholders to identified restoration goals and measured changes in FEGS. This is done by using
ecological production functions and quantifying the level of restoration success with regard to the goals
of the restoration and the benefits to beneficiaries. Several ES tools described in Sections 2.3 and 2.4
that include stakeholder input into the design and analysis of decision alternatives are useful in
conservation-based restoration.

The second element of translational science relevant in the consideration of ES within conservation-
based restoration is the translation of information across disciplines, coupled with a focus on learning
and understanding how conservation-based restoration works to inform development of methods and
acquisition of new knowledge in adaptive management. Pettibone et al. (2018) presented a translational
science framework for the environmental health sciences that can be adopted in an ES and ecosystem
restoration context. Elements of translational science examine transdisciplinary connections within and
across a series of concentric rings capturing the move from pure to applied research that ultimately
results in human effects:

(Core) Fundamental Questions Application and Synthesis Implementation and Adjustment
Practice Impact (analysis and characterization)

Gibble et al. (2020) provided a demonstration of both elements of translational science working at
multiple spatial and temporal scales to develop conservation-based ecosystem management and
restoration guidance in the Greater Everglades ecosystem. They worked throughout with stakeholders
to identify goals/ecosystem needs, compile research and monitoring data designed to address

-------
fundamental questions, and to develop ecosystem-based management recommendations for
conservation and restoration of large wetland areas. These interdisciplinary, interagency activities were
accomplished using multi-disciplinary resources and tools, with results packaged for targeted
communications back to stakeholders in an adaptive learning context, carrying forward lessons from
previous management discussions to future scenarios. While there may be fewer ES-focused endpoints
than other conservation-based examples (in part because most of the Greater Everglades are
geographically isolated from people), the concepts/approaches are applicable in other conservation-
based restoration contexts.

Social-Ecological Systems Framework

Critics have stated that in the past, conservation disregarded long-term human well-being (Paavola and
Hubacek 2013). A focus on natural resource management tended to commodify harvests such as forest
products without recognizing the integration of human communities and nature more broadly, or the
complex dynamics of ecosystems (Costanza 2008). Awareness of the challenges associated with
attempts to control complex and nonlinear natural systems, and their sometimes unexpected
environmental and social effects, has increased along with criticisms of former management paradigms
(Holling and Meffe 1996; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Folke et al. 2005).

The concept of SES was published about 50 years ago (Ratzlaff 1970; Colding and Barthel 2019).
Originally, the focus was on local management systems, mainly local common pool resources, such as
small-scale fisheries (Basurto et al. 2013) and irrigation systems (Ostrom 2010). Unequal access to the
flow of ES from common pool resources has been documented (Dasgupta 2021) including effects on
women (Agarwal 2001), and on economic classes outside of elite private holders (Beteille 1983; McKean
1992; Agarwal and Narain 1999; Cavendish 2000).

Since the original conceptual development of SES, frameworks integrating complex systems of nature,
humans, institutions, and governance have been developed (Berkes et al. 2000; Ostrom 2009)
increasingly including cultural knowledge from indigenous and local communities (Franco-Moraes et al.
2021). A biocultural approach to restoration incorporating traditional knowledge in the early phases of
restoration has been advocated to improve the inclusive and fair delivery of ES (Sena et al. 2021). The
relative merits of viewing humans as part of - versus separate from - nature, for conceptual exercises in
conservation and restoration, have been debated (Colding and Barthel 2019). The measurement of all ES
links with the well-being of beneficiaries remains a research focus. An SES approach to ES clarifies
research process requirements including specifying beneficiary groups and the relevant dimensions of
human well-being and links changes in human well-being dimensions to benefit flows from ES (Reyers et
al. 2013). Relevant examples include the NOAA Ecological Effects of Sea Level Rise program, which
includes processes that engage social networks to inform research and management decisions, and
Puget Sound Partnership's Puget Sound Vital Signs that provide measures of ecosystem condition and
human health and well-being. An example of using a SES framework in a restoration context for cultural
ES is the He'eia National Estuarine Research Reserve in Hawaii (NESP n.d.). Governance plays an
important role in ensuring community engagement and elimination of social inequities. The recent
growth in community-based, community-driven restoration may be viewed as another major area of
restoration practice, overlapping with yet distinct from traditional conservation-based restoration
(Osborne et al. 2021; Environmental Justice Clinic 2021).

-------
3.2.4 General Applicability: Water Quality, Forest Restoration, and Estuary Program
Examples

Improving water quality is likely the primary motivator of clearly identified restoration goals in regard to
creating benefits for human health and well-being. Water quality improvement programs are found
across the continent, from Chesapeake Bay to Tampa Bay to Monterey Bay and countless other
locations. Water quality issues span across ecosystems from forested watersheds to arid lands to the
coast. Water quality is primarily managed to regulatory targets associated with activities such as fishing,
drinking, or swimming. Water quality programs are generally very targeted on measuring the water
itself, while an ecosystem monitoring approach is used for biocriteria approaches. That said, the
interventions required to restore water quality in a watershed can be extremely numerous and
widespread, for instance some 165,750 square kilometers of area in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are
managed at the county level with individualized goals derived from numerical modeling (Aillery et al.
2005). However, installation of water quality best management practices often have co-occurring
benefits that help motivate local communities throughout the watershed to act, through improvements
to air quality, upstream habitats and wildlife, flood control, amongst other public health and economic
benefits (Chesapeake Bay Program n.d.). In another example, Pennino et al. (2016) found that the
installation of relatively large numbers of stormwater green infrastructure units in low-impact
development programs (LIDs) at the watershed scale measurably improved several water quality
metrics. Downstream, the culturally and economically important fisheries of the bay benefit.

Diamond et al. (2019) have proposed a framework intended to help planners utilize an ES approach to
achieve greater watershed recovery than would occur if the endpoint was solely based on a designated-
uses approach to water quality. They argue that without an ecosystem process-based approach,
designated uses can appear to compete with each other and recommend an ES approach as a cross-
cutting method that "incorporates services that maintain the FEGS that are inherent in many designated
uses." Examples of watershed-based, ES-related conservation-based restoration on federal lands include
restoration of hydroperiods for improving fish and wildlife habitat at landscape scales (e.g., Gibble et al.
(2020)). This type of restoration is apparent in stakeholder-driven environmental flows programs
worldwide, for example in the Nile Basin Initiative, Murray Darling River of Australia, and California
Environmental Flows Framework (Arsano and Tamrat (2005); Conallin et al. (2018); McLoughlin et al.
(2020); Stein et al. (2021)). As discussed in Section 3.1, smaller-scale examples abound, e.g., restoring
impoundments in National Wildlife Refuges for improving habitat for waterfowl for several restoration-
based ES.

The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) authorized in 2009 (P.L. 111-11)
exemplifies the dual purposes of ecological restoration, with a focus on benefits for wildlife on one
hand, and a focus on reducing the impacts of fire on human communities on the other. According to the
program's 10-year report to Congress, it also has direct economic benefits (USDA Forest Service 2019).
The CFLRP estimates that through its multi-year funding and collaborative capacity it attracted partner
contributions valued at >470 million USD and generated nearly 2 billion USD in local labor income
supporting 5,440 jobs per year on average. Surveys of CFLRP participants, a research tool to gauge
progress, found that >80% of respondents believed the program was reducing severe wildfire threat,

-------
increasing the amount of restoration through collaboration, improving agency decision making, and
improving ecological conditions and resilience.

In the US, National Estuary Program (NEP) estuaries are required to develop a Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan to address a variety of characteristics including water quality,
species and habitat, and land use. Many plans incorporate restoration activities and being developed in
close collaboration with stakeholders and based on a scientific characterization of the estuary, these
plans are potentially a very good fit for an ES approach. In fact, estuary programs almost universally
mention ES and their beneficiaries in management plans (Yee et al. 2019), but often to provide context
for planning or communicating potential benefits to the public. Meanwhile, management goals, actions,
and monitoring still often focus on ecological condition, due in part to perceptions of ES assessments
being too technical, requiring special expertise, or needing additional funding (Martin 2014; Guo and
Kildow 2015). Identification of ES metrics, especially FEGS metrics, for monitoring could help to make a
more direct connection between management actions and results that resonate with stakeholders.

3.3 Special Considerations for Practice: Conservation-based Restoration

In this section, the considerations for practice specific to conservation-based restoration are discussed.
Barriers and constraints are considered in addition to opportunities (Figure 3.1). Methods for integrating
ES in the restoration process are described.

3.3.1 Boundaries & Constraints

Three factors which may bound or constrain the potential for ES to be derived from conservation-based
restoration are discussed in this section: authorities; funding; and engineering constraints.

Authorities

There are four major US federal land agencies: one in the US Department of Agriculture (USFS - 78
million hectares), and three in the US Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management - 98.9
million hectares; Fish and Wildlife Service - 36 million hectares; National Park Service - 32.2 million
hectares). Another 3.6 million hectares of federal lands are managed by the US Department of Defense
(Congressional Research Service 2018). There are, therefore, a great number of legal authorities for
managing these lands, including several that are particularly relevant to ecosystem management and
restoration (Harwell 2020). These include:

•	1897 Organic Administration Act (USFS)

•	1916 National Park Service Organic Act (National Park Service)

•	1964 Wilderness Act (federal lands)

•	1976 National Forest Management Act (USFS)

•	1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Bureau of Land Management)

•	1966 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Fish and Wildlife Service)

•	1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Fish and Wildlife Service)

•	2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (federal lands)

91

-------
Additionally, the USACE has authorities for ecosystem management and restoration, which date from
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 (33 U.S.C. §2211). These authorities require the
USACE to identify a nonfederal partner to cost-share the feasibility study and construction, as well a
willing partner to acquire any real estate necessary for the project and to steward the land and water
following restoration activities, leading to a greater role for local stakeholders in finance and decision
making (CRS 2018; Institute for Water Resources 2019). Nonfederal partners may also have greater roles
in project financing, construction, and development than previously (WRRDA 2014, P.L. 113-121; Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act [WIIN], P.L. 114-322, title I of which was entitled "WRDA
of 2016"). Direct loans and loan guarantees for ecosystem restoration were authorized in the last
decade (WRRDA 2014) but implementation of the program has been delayed (CRS 2018). The first
multiyear, multibillion-dollar ecosystem restoration program undertaken by the Corps was the Greater
Everglades approved in WRDA (2000, P.L. 106-541). For more information, the history of the USACE
environmental mission and local responsibility is detailed in CRS (2018).

In addition to NEPA related considerations for the planning and implementation of a conservation-based
restoration project, other fish and wildlife related authorities, such as the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (1972), Endangered Species Act (1973), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) may be applicable.

Funding

Multiple reviews of restoration projects and programs have shown that frequently, long-term
monitoring does not occur or if it does, records do not survive (Bernhardt et al. 2007). Some evidence
suggests that empirical documentation post-restoration is increasing (Wortley et al. 2013; Rezek et al.
2019). Among practitioners, deficiencies in monitoring programs are often attributed to the relatively
great difficulty of securing funding commitments for monitoring, even post-restoration monitoring that
is needed to determine if the planned trajectory is on track. A few exceptions such as the Greater
Everglades (USACE 2020) stand out and the results of those programs benefit the knowledge base for
future restoration.

The outcomes of the case studies described in later sections of this chapter indicate that even when ES
are planned for and designed for, they are rarely monitored. Without funding, the selection of ES
metrics and design of a monitoring plan are moot. It is unrealistic to expect that citizen science will fill
the gap without extensive, knowledgeable coordination and technical capacity. However, one advantage
of incorporating ES into conservation-based restoration at the planning stage is that it has the potential
to motivate investment in monitoring and assessment (Ruckelshaus et al. 2020) and demonstrate to
stakeholders and the general public that the intended benefits were produced or are on a suitable
trajectory to ultimately reach objectives.

Engineering Constraints

Constraints on engineering of conservation-based restoration that may affect provision of ES range from
practical logistical constraints, to materials, to conceptual constraints associated with designing complex
ecosystems expected to change over many years. On the logistical side, many restoration projects are
conducted in wetlands, and the water itself poses a challenge for equipment operation that requires
sequencing work timed with low-water periods. In the case of dike breaching or removal for hydrological
reconnection, all channel excavation or other heavy equipment work on the site must be completed

-------
prior to the work needed to open the dike itself. An example from the Greater Everglades where design
objectives would have led to backfilling levees showed that the desired activity was prevented because
trucks of material could not access the site. Another type of constraint is related to the materials
needed, for example the availability of sufficient genetically suitable nursery stock for native plant
restoration, or the availability of sufficient sediment with suitable grain size for barrier island
restoration.

Engineering designs for conservation-based restoration are intended to reach goals, which may aim for
recovery options from full recovery to substantial recovery; rehabilitation is a lesser standard that may
still renew provision of some ES while incorporating nonnative ecosystems (Gann et al. 2019).
Restoration aiming for full recovery is engineered to produce a self-sustaining ecosystem by supporting
ecosystem recovery processes that put the system on a recovery trajectory allowing it to adapt to
environmental change, with functions and structures that produce key ecological attributes and ES
closely resembling the reference without adaptive management in perpetuity (Gann et al. 2019).

In summary, when constraints rule out certain activities or design objectives, they may also prevent
certain ecological outcomes which in turn would alter the potential for certain types of ES to be realized
or the relative ratios of ES across the project.

3.3.2 Goals, Objectives, and Conflicts

The breadth of ES goals can be variable among restoration projects. It may be relatively narrow and
singularly focused, such as implementing restoration of coastal habitats with the primary goal of
improving coastal fisheries (Silva et al. 2019) or restoring forest habitats to mitigate climate change
(Stickler et al. 2009). Other restoration efforts may have broad goals for restoration, such as sustainable
development which includes a broad suite of ES including soil and water conservation, recreational
opportunities, climate regulation, and food/fiber production considered as important components of
sustainability goals (Adams et al. 2016; Gao and Bian 2019). A case study in Canada noted an increasing
paradigm shift between restoration activities focused on narrow goals, such as managing wood
production, and a multi-ES approach focused on a suite of amenities such as food production, pollution
regulation, recreation, and water quality, each of which provided opportunities to engage more
landowners in conservation activities (Truax et al. 2015).

Restoration programs that narrowly target ecological condition, or only a few ES, may lead to unwanted
decreases in other ES. A consideration of a greater number of ES, a larger landscape scale, and a longer
time horizon can help to mitigate such outcomes. For example, an evaluation of restoration options
prior to restoration that broadly considers tradeoffs among ES might help to implement restoration
programs more effectively (Angradi et al. 2016; Gao and Bian 2019). A pre-restoration comparison of
restoration options (e.g., re-meandering, floodplain forest vegetation; weir removal) helped to better
understand the potential long-term ES benefits and tradeoffs of each option (Gilvear et al. 2013).
Conflicting objectives between wood production and ES derived from biodiversity, for example, could
potentially be addressed by implementing a landscape-scale approach to restoration incorporating a
variety of restoration activities, depending on the local forest conditions and concerns of landowners
(Angelstam et al. 2018). Another study emphasized the need to consider long-term impacts on multiple

-------
ES, for example where restoration actions designed to reduce flood risks in river floodplains may lead to
damaging consequences in the short term for some ES, but positive benefits for others that take
decades to realize (Gilvear et al. 2013).

Planning is the optimal stage for identification of the potential
beneficiaries of restoration and for involving them as stakeholders to
provide help in identifying meaningful ES outcomes and directly
relevant metrics and reporting approaches.

3.3.3 Issues and Opportunities
Decision Support; Tools; Adaptive Management

Studies have used conceptual frameworks that link restoration decisions, ecological condition, ES, and
human well-being to help identify restoration goals and relevant indicators (McKay et al. 2011; Adams et
al. 2016; Terrado et al. 2016). Ecosystem services classification systems, such as The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
(CICES), the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS; Landers and Nahlik
2013), and the National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus; Newcomer-Johnson
et al. 2020), have been used to identify and select relevant ES for restoration (Liquete et al. 2015;
Mazzotta et al. 2019; Sharpe et al. 2020; DeWitt et al. 2021). Numerous benefits of using ES
classification systems to discover and define data were identified in a recent comprehensive review,
which indicates that classification systems overall produce greater accuracy and precision than earlier
methods and improve the use of language for coordination and communication (Finisdore et al. 2020).

One study recommended a five-step process for conducting tradeoff analyses to compare restoration
options to improve overall ES outcomes (King et al. 2015). The steps are: (1) identifying major relevant
ES; (2) comparing the production possibilities for the ES under varying levels of restoration (including
tradeoffs among ES); (3) identifying what levels of ES are acceptable to different stakeholders; (4)
identifying obstacles to achieving mutually acceptable solutions; and (5) evaluating shifts in ES
production if alternative strategies are implemented (such as payments for ES, or implementing best
management practices) to alleviate the severity of tradeoffs. See Section 2.3 and 2.4 for resources useful
to implement these steps.

Stakeholders

As with any ecosystem-based management effort, the development of trust and relationships among
agencies, researchers, restoration practitioners, communities takes great care, commitment, and time,
including time to understand local governance structures, local leadership, values, norms, plans, etc.
Structured interviews with landowners or focus group discussions can be a cost-effective method to

94

-------
learn from local people quickly and directly about their perceptions and observations as restoration
actions are implemented (Moukrim et al. 2019). Additionally, landowners may find ES goals for
restoration to be a motivation for implementing restoration efforts. Interviews and surveys of
landowners in one case study identified respondents who were enthusiastic about how restoration
activities (i.e., growing koa forest) could benefit both conservation-minded goals of biodiversity and be a
profitable source for wood products (Pejchar and Press 2006). Considerations for working with
indigenous communities are discussed by Gewin (2021) and Sidik (2022). Tools such as the FEGS Scoping
Tool (Sharpe et al. 2020; Chapter 2) provide a structured method to understand which ES and attributes
of ecosystems are of greatest common interest among stakeholders. Supplementing ecological field
monitoring with public surveys on perception of benefits, such as their viewpoint on water quality or
biodiversity, can help bridge a gap between monitoring for ecological status vs. monitoring for
achievement of restoration goals (DeWitt et al. 2020). These approaches are similarly relevant for
identifying stakeholders and their interests in community based, community driven restoration.

Communication

Perception by the public that degradation of ecosystems has led to declines in water quality, commercial
harvest, recreational opportunities, and other ES can motivate citizens to take action to conserve and
restore ecosystems (Cairns Jr. 1995; DeAngelis et al. 2020). Where public support does not yet exist, a
consideration of long-term benefits of conservation and restoration also can help garner political
support and sustain community engagement. Additionally, scientific knowledge about the potential
benefits of restoration can help to motivate implementation, particularly when information is conveyed
to decision makers and stakeholders by user-friendly means such as interactive working groups or
infographics (Borkhataria et al. 2017). Participatory scenario planning that directly engages stakeholders
in comparing potential ES benefits among restoration options (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2013) can also
enhance the likelihood of future implementation. Restoration plans should identify clear measurable
goals that resonate with the public, with progress toward goals being monitored and communicated to
the public to maintain support (Thom et al. 2010). Developing a communication plan early in the
restoration planning process can help ensure that strategically important audiences (i.e., landowners,
stakeholders, local communities, regulators, local agencies) understand the benefits that will derive
from the restoration and progress being made toward those goals (Harwell et al. 2020; Section 2.4).

3.3.4 Monitoring and ES
Developing Assessment Criteria

In its guidebook for federal resource managers, the National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP)
(NESP 2016) calls the act of causally linking ecological outcomes with ES, "bridging indicators." A concept
developed through the NESP was the benefit-relevant indicator (BRI; Olander et al. 2018). A BRI
measures human welfare outcomes of resource management and are developed through causal chains
linking management actions to ecological outcomes and ultimately ES (Figure 3.2).

95

-------

Ecology

Ecosystem Services (ES)

Societal Benefits

Wetland area
(acres)

Water
storage
(volume)

Water quantity
(average late-
season water
storage volume)

Water quantity

Marginal crop

available for

irrigation (late-

Valuation

value

season water flows

attributable to

to irrigation

irrigation water

intakes)

Figure 3.2. The components of an ES causal chain, and example of ES causal chain for wetland
restoration and water availability for crops. Modified from NESP (2014) Vol. 3.

Assessment criteria provide a means of determining if a restoration site is meeting the project goals. The
criteria include a set of indicators and the metrics measured to determine the realized benefits. One
method for developing indicators is the use of rapid benefit indicators (RBI) approaches and tools. These
tools were developed to assess projects at the development stage as a decision support tool for
prioritization and selection of restoration projects (Mazzotta et al. 2016; Martin et al. 2018; Mazzotta et
al. 2019; Bousquin and Mazzotta 2020). The indicators evaluate spatial aspects of FEGS and provide a
means of determining the benefits people could derive from a restoration project based on their
proximity and ease of access to the site. Through adaptive management, the RBI decision making
process could also be used to monitor the outcome of restoration and to recommend changes for
improving FEGS benefits (Bousquin and Mazzotta 2020). Indicator assessment after restoration actions
are implemented includes: (1) evaluation of the realized functions of the site; and (2) a measure of
realized benefits and services (Table 3.1). While some ES may be easier to measure than others, that
doesn't necessarily make those more important to measure than other ES. For example, cultural ES are
often those that people care the most about but can be the most difficult to measure and/or are the ES
that people feel least comfortable quantifying. Whereas it may be impossible or impractical to identify
an appropriate indicator for difficult-to-quantify ES, stakeholders should be consulted about decisions to
exclude identifying or using indicators, particularly for ES that people value highly. See Chapter 2 for
multiple resources useful for identifying ES metrics useful for REMA.

-------
Table 3.1. Example of FEGS indicators, realized functions, and realized services that can be measured at
a wetland restoration site (adapted from Mazzotta et al. 2019).

FEGS Indicator

Realized Function

Realized Service

Flood water regulation

Flood water retention

Reduced flooding of houses and
businesses in surrounding area

Scenic landscape

High cover of desirable plant
species and optimum ratio of
water to emergent plants

People can view the site have a
favorable opinion

Learning opportunities

Habitat for invertebrates, fish,
birds, and wildlife

People are accessing the site for
educational opportunities

Recreational opportunities

Open water for boating, habitat
for fish and wildlife, open areas
for walking

People are using the site for
hiking, walking, jogging,
boating, fishing, etc.

Birds

Birds are present at the site and
have opportunities for feeding,
refuge, and/or breeding

People are accessing the site for
bird watching

Restoration efforts vary in their approaches to identifying measures of ES. The simplest approach may
be to assume habitat cover is a proxy or surrogate for delivery of ES, such as hectares of wetland
(DeSteven and Gramling 2011; Cereghino et al. 2012) or grassland (Manton and Angelstam 2018).
Indicators of ES ideally include biophysical measures that directly represent ES goals (Faulkner et al.
2012), such as rates of air pollutant deposition onto vegetation (air quality regulation), water infiltration
rates (water flow regulation), nitrogen retention efficiencies (water purification), or carbon stocks
(climate regulation) (Liquete et al. 2015). Ringold et al. (2009) found that applying a beneficiary-focused
perspective can be helpful in identifying metrics that are most directly relevant to different
stakeholders, such as water temperature for industrial cooling versus pathogen levels for swimmers. The
NESCS Plus (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020), FEGS Scoping Tool (Sharpe et al. 2020), and FEGS metrics
report (USEPA 2020) are useful for identifying or developing ES metrics that link stakeholders, including
adjacent communities, to ES that could be provided at a restored site (see also Section 2.4.4).

Where biophysical attributes of ES are difficult to quantify or measure, qualitative measures or relative
provisioning scores for ES, typically derived from expert judgement, may be used (Gilvear et al. 2013;
Comin et al. 2018). For other restoration efforts, particularly where project costs are also an important
consideration, indicators may be based on dollar values of ES (Terrado et al. 2016; Pattison-Williams et
al. 2017). Daoust et al. (2014) argue for increased attention by natural resource management agencies
for incorporating ES benefits (values) as part of restoration spending decisions involving traditional cost-
benefit analyses. For yet other case studies, translating ES to the livelihoods of local residents—such as
income, food security, and equity—was an important objective measured with corresponding socio-
economic metrics focused on the human well-being benefits of restoration (Adams et al. 2016). An
example of applying socio-economic metrics in restoration context the Half Moon Reef project in

-------
Matagoda Bay, Texas (Carlton et al. 2016). For examples of metrics used in conservation-based
restoration projects, see Appendix 3, Table 3B.

Timeline Considerations

Depending on the study design (see Table 2.2), initial conditions are measured ideally before the project
is implemented and shortly afterward, to provide a baseline against which future monitoring results can
be compared. The development of different ES occur over varying time scales, with some occurring
almost immediately and others over a much longer time frame (Burdick et al. 1997; Diefenderfer et al.
2011; Roman and Burdick 2012; La Peyre et al. 2013; Diefenderfer et al. 2021). Long-term monitoring of
assessment criteria provides a means of evaluating restoration trajectories and implementing adaptive
management as necessary to meet the project goals and objectives (Figure 3.3; Thom et al. 2010).

Figure 3.3. Timeline considerations for monitoring and ES.

3.4 Case Studies Literature Review and Analysis
3.4.1 Introduction of the Case Studies

Numerous studies have compiled evidence that conservation-based restoration (Figure 3.3) enhances ES
supplied by wetlands (Meli et al. 2014), agroecosystems (Barral et al. 2015), rivers (Kaiser et al. 2020),
and other ecosystems (Benayas et al. 2009). A limited number of previous studies explicitly referred to
the concept of ES, however, instead largely treating ecosystem function as the goal of restoration
(Benayas et al. 2009). Therefore, the purpose of this literature review and analysis of case studies was to
examine how conservation-based restoration explicitly incorporates ES, and to what degree the post-
restoration monitoring and assessment of ES aligns with the goals that originated the restoration
project.

-------
Compensatory Mitigation

Contaminated Sites

Conservation-Based Restoration



REnirr.iNG

SOCIETAL
IMPACT*

IMPROVING RFPAIRtKG
ICOSYSIfM	fCOSVSTEM

MAMACIMINT FUNCTION

INITIATING

NATIVE

KECOvtrr

PARTIAI f.Y
fit COVE RqNCi
NATTVt

Reduced Impacts

Remediation

Rehabilitation

Ecological Restoration

Figure 3.4. A modified "restorative continuum" diagram from the Society for Ecological Restoration
(Gann et al. 2019) describing (bottom) restoration action goals (i.e., reducing, improving, repairing,
initiating, recovering) and resultant improvement in ecosystem outcomes (bottom bars). This report's
three communities of practice, including conservation-based restoration, are outlined in boxes at the
top.

3.4.2. Methods: Literature Review

A literature review was conducted to evaluate how ES are being used in conservation-based restoration.
Scientific journal articles, found by using the Web of Science database, and US government reports,
found by using the United States Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service,
were considered. Following an iterative process of testing keywords (Figure 3.4), articles or reports from
2000-2020 identified for review were those including all the following search terms: "restoration,"
"conservation," "ecosystem service," or "ecosystem services," and "case study" or "case studies" in the
abstract, title, or keywords7. Results were further limited to conservation-based restoration by excluding
articles that contained terms related to contaminated-site restoration (see Chapter 4) or mitigation-
based restoration (see Chapter 5), excluding articles or reports mentioning the following search terms:
"mitigation," "ecological compensation," "compensatory restoration," "remediation" or "remediated,"
"contaminant" or "contaminated," "toxic," "brownfield," or "superfund" in the abstract, title, or

7 Because federal reports are more inconsistent in their use of abstracts and keywords than journal articles,
limiting search results, the NTIS search was conducted by requiring inclusion of "conservation" and "case study" or
"case studies" in the full text, but "restoration" and "ecosystem service or ecosystem services" in the abstract,
title, or keywords.

99

-------
keywords8. In summary, this literature search resulted in 155 journal articles and 44 US government
reports. Though not exhaustive, this provides a sub-sample of the likely thousands of existing articles or
reports relating to restoration effectiveness (e.g., Meli et al. 2014), which may not meet these precise
search criteria.

15000
12000
9000
6000
3000

Restoration and Restorations Restoration & Restoration & Final after
Conservation Conservation + Conservation + Conservation + screening
Case Study Ecosystem Service Case Study +

Ecosystem Service

Each article or report was screened to verify that it was indeed a conservation-based restoration case
study that included consideration of ES (whether anecdotal, qualitative, or quantitative) in at least one
step of the restoration decision process. Papers failing to meet this criterion were excluded from further
analysis, resulting in a final total of 138 articles and reports (see Appendix B Table B1 for citations of
literature reviewed). Articles that considered more than one case study were included but reviewed
based on the major themes or recommendations of the article, rather than treating each case study
within them separately. Each article or report was reviewed to answer the following questions:

• Case Study Background

o What was the geographic location(s) of the study?
o What habitats were restored in this case study?
o What was the original source of impairment?
o What were the restoration activities?

• Consideration of Ecological Condition, Ecosystem Services, and Socio-economic Benefits

o Which ES were mentioned by the case study authors as part of planning or assessment?
o Which ES beneficiaries/users were mentioned?

8 Web of Science journal articles were further limited to environmental-oriented subject areas following Meli et al.
2014.

100

-------
o What specific ES metrics were identified or quantified?

o What ecological condition goals or measures were mentioned as part of planning or
assessment?

o What social or economic goals or measures were mentioned as part of planning or
assessment?

• Stages of Restoration Decision Process

o Were restoration goals, objectives, or performance metrics identified?
o Was a pre-restoration assessment conducted prior to implementation?
o Was a monitoring plan developed or identified?
o Was post-restoration monitoring or evaluation of success conducted?
o Did the monitored metrics match the specified restoration goals?

3.4.3 Results: Analytical Overview of the Literature

Case studies reported in journal articles covered planned, ongoing, or completed restorations from
across the world, with the largest portions from Asia (31%), Europe (26%), and North America (16%); US
federal reports were limited to North America (see Appendix B Table B2 for literature list). Case studies
in articles and reports covered restoration of many different types of ecosystems, with the largest
proportion of case studies covering restoration of forest habitat (24%), rivers and riparian watersheds
(18%), coastal ecosystems including mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs, lagoons, and barrier islands
(16%), wetlands (11%), and grasslands and scrublands (10%). Agroecosystems including pasturelands
and rangelands made up 6%, and urban greenspace 3%, of the case studies reviewed. As expected from
the search and screening criteria, ES were identified in all articles and reports, with approximately 92%
identifying one or more specific kinds of ES as opposed to general discussion of the topic (Appendix B
Table B3). By comparison, approximately 62% also included ecological condition or 47% socio-economic
goals or measures.

The majority of articles and reports identified the original goals of the restoration project in the case
study description, with 66% identifying goals related to ES and 16% identifying goals related to
something other than ES, such as ecological condition, social, or economic goals (Figure 3.5; see Section
3.4.4). Articles and reports could roughly be divided between those that conducted a pre-restoration
assessment versus those conducting a post-restoration assessment, with a small amount of overlap in
articles/reports that described both. Most articles/reports conducted or discussed some sort of pre-
restoration assessment, such as to compare restoration options or understand baseline conditions prior
to restoration. Twelve percent were focused on a pre-restoration assessment of ecological condition
and 45% were focused on ES. The second most common assessment described by case studies was post-
restoration monitoring to evaluate post-restoration progress, with 11% of case studies focused on
assessing ecological condition and 30% focused on assessing ES. Only a small number of case studies
described development of a monitoring plan (12%), with an additional 26% briefly mentioning that a
monitoring plan had been or should be developed (Figure 3.5).

101

-------
« 0.8
o

Q.

HI

cc

^0.6

t

*5 0.4

0.2

~	Mentioned for case study, but
vague or externally referenced

~	Part of case study, but
something otherthan ES

~	Part of case study, and
Included ES



Goals Specification Pre-restoration Pre-restoration Post-restoration
Assessment Monitoring Plan Monitoring

Figure 3.6. Fraction of articles or reports that discussed a given step of a restoration process, and
whether that step included consideration or assessment of ES.

There was a clear increase over time in the number of articles or reports integrating ES into at least one
stage of the restoration process for their case study (Figure 3.6). The number of case studies examining
ES increased over time more quickly than those examining other types of endpoints (e.g., ecological
condition), and increased most quickly for goals, followed by pre-restoration assessment, followed by
post-restoration assessment.

50 -

tr

0

Q.

01

a.

40 -

30 -

C
<

-------
For each case study, the metrics that identified or assessed pre- or post-restoration were evaluated for
matches to the original purpose or goals of the restoration (Figure 3.7). The majority of reviewed
articles/reports (53%) conducted a pre-restoration assessment, developed a monitoring plan, or
conducted post-restoration monitoring that matched the stated goals of the restoration, with 46% of
articles showing a match between ES assessment and ES restoration goals (blue solid bars) and 7% of
articles showing a match between condition or economic assessment and related restoration goals
(yellow solid bars). A larger portion of case studies focused on ecological condition in post-restoration
assessments than pre-restoration assessments, whereas pre-restoration assessments tended to have a
higher proportionate focus on ES (Figure 3.7), again potentially reflecting a lag in post-restoration
ecosystem services monitoring (see Figure 3.6). For a substantial portion of case studies, however,
assessed metrics either pre- or post-restoration were mismatched from stated restoration goals (19%;
hatched portion of bars), or were not clearly linked to restoration goals (17%; dark orange portion of
bars). This mismatch tended to occur in studies which assessed ecological condition (or sometimes
social/economic measures) when ES were the stated restoration goal. Only around 3% of
articles/reports described ES for all four stages of the restoration decision and assessment process (i.e.,
goal specification, pre-restoration assessment, monitoring plan, and post-restoration monitoring);
however, these studies were almost exclusively syntheses providing guidance for integrating ES into
restoration using elements from multiple case studies to illustrate key concepts (e.g., Brumbaugh et al.
2006; Alexander et al. 2016).

0.3 -

u 0.2 -

o.i -

¦	Goals Not Clear

~	Non-ES Goals, but ES Assessment

~	Non-ES Goals & Non-ES Assessment
a ES Goals, but Non-ES Assessment

¦	ES Goals & ES Assessment

Goals Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan Post-restoration Pre-restoration Pre-restoration
Specification Assessment	Only Monitoring Only Assessment or Assessment,

Only	Only	Planning, and Monitoring Plan,

Post-restoration Post-restoration
Monitoring Monitoring

Figure 3.8. Correspondence between restoration goals, as described for each case study, and pre-
restoration assessment, monitoring plan, or post-restoration assessment, including for case studies
where both pre- and post-restoration planning or assessments were conducted. Correspondence (blue
or yellow solid bars) indicates the assessment or monitoring plan matched the identified goals, either for
ES (blue) or ecological condition goals (yellow). Diagonal hatching indicates a mismatch between goals
and at least one step of pre- or post-restoration assessment. Orange bars indicate restoration goals
were not specified clearly enough to assess correspondence.

103

-------
3.4.4 Approaches to Goal Setting, Ecological Condition and Socio-Economic Metrics, and
Restoration in Case Studies

A majority of case studies reviewed (72%) directly identified beneficiaries or users of ES (Table 3.2), the
starting point of an ES approach. However, these were often very broad (e.g., "people in the area/'
"society") rather than specific (e.g., "farmers," "sport fishermen," "hydroelectric energy providers").
Notably, 28% of articles or reports did not directly connect ES to the people who use them. A
consideration of beneficiaries can help to reduce ambiguity of ES such as "water quality" by identifying
who is using the water and why, so that goals and metrics are more meaningfully identified and
resonate with users (DeWitt et al. 2020).

Goal Setting

Though most reviewed case studies identified ES goals, many instead mentioned condition goals or
socio-economic goals, which were sometimes in conflict with ES. For example, goals of minimizing
project costs or maximizing local livelihoods were sometimes found to be in conflict with achieving
desired ecosystem condition or ES. This was particularly true when the primary restoration activities
involved prohibiting or limiting uses of the ecosystem such as grazing or water withdrawals (Table 3.3).
In some cases, these can be resolved through trade-off analysis during goal setting (Angradi et al. 2016).
For a handful of studies, ES were perceived as a stressor on restoration if they were being overused,
such as over-grazing or over-harvesting (Moukrim et al. 2019). For these studies, conservation of
ecological condition was often seen as the primary goal of restoration, and overuse of ES something to
be limited or sustainably managed. In other case studies, conservation of ecological condition was
likewise perceived as a primary goal of restoration, and ES were posed as a means to help achieve those
conservation goals. For instance, ES as resource-management tools included wildlife grazing on invasive
plants and dispersal by birds of native seeds (Thierry and Rogers 2020), payments for ES to landowners
to set aside land for conservation (LaRocco and Deal 2011; Li et al. 2015), and income generation to pay
for restoration activities, such as through taxes or fees via increased ecotourism (Iranah et al. 2018).

The trend in the number of articles or reports integrating ES into at
least one stage of the restoration process is unambiguously

increasing.

104

-------
Table 3.2. Ecosystem services assessed within eight major ecosystem types in reviewed case studies.

Ecosystem

Agro-ecosystems (pasture,
rangelands, woodlands)

Coastal ecosystems
(barrier islands, coral
reefs, estuaries)

Rivers and riparian zones

Ecosystem Services

livestock production; forage & shade for
livestock; water quality & provisioning; soil
retention & quality; carbon sequestration;
carbon markets; habitat; food & fiber
provisioning; cultural identity; pollination;
aesthetic value; rural ecotourism;
educational value; hunting; fire
prevention; air purification; biological
control; microclimate regulation; genetic
pool

fish and shellfish production; carbon
storage; nutrient cycling; natural products
and pharmaceuticals; aquaculture;
ecotourism; coverage of critical habitat;
sediment/contaminant filtration;
ecotourism (wildlife habitat, migratory
birds); storm surge and wave protection;
erosion control; navigable waters;
microclimate regulation; aesthetic value;
water sports; birdwatching; recreational
uses; artistic inspiration; environmental
education; wood production; spiritual
value and cultural identity; substrate
stabilization; hunting

fish production; education; recreation;
agriculture; water quality & supply; flood
attenuation; heat island reduction; soil
retention and fertility; species habitat;
carbon sequestration; water conservation;
erosion control; nutrient regulation;
wildlife recreation; waste treatment;

Ecosystem Services Metrics

vegetation cover index; ratio of green to
dead plant parts; water-use efficiency; soil
fertility; evapotranspiration rates;
landscape value; floral visitation events by
pollinators; biodiversity of indicator
species; aesthetic value of trees; economic
value

fisheries species catch rates; market prices;
habitat coverages; tourism rates; fish
species resilience & vulnerability;
fish/shellfish stock, distribution,
recruitment; water quality metrics (total
suspended solids, Secchi); rates of
shoreline migration; change in vegetative
cover; sea turtle nests; species
abundance/diversity; flood protection
value; water purification capacity; rates of
carbon sequestration; water clarity; dollar
value of freshwater benefits; dollar value
of carbon benefits; dollar value of hunting
benefits; recreational expenditures;
engagement in birdwatching; dollar values
yearly stream flow; soil retention; net
primary productivity; habitat quality index;
fish production; fishery income;
greenhouse gas mitigation value; nitrogen
mitigation value; wildlife recreation value;
flood attenuation value; dollar values for
hydropower production, drinking water,

Ecosystem Services
Beneficiaries/Users

farmers; landowners; pastoral
agriculture; livestock producers

indigenous cultures; natural
products developers; commercial
and recreational fisheries; tourism
industry; shipping and boating;
aquaculture; coastal property
owners and residents; recreation;
hunters; forestry; consumers of
fish/shellfish products; farmers;
landowners

commercial and sport fisheries;
education; recreational users (bird
watchers, campers); agriculture;
hydropower generators; drinking
water utilities; municipal and
industrial water users; irrigators;

105

-------
Ecosystem

Ecosystem Services

cultural value; native flora and fauna;
educational and scientific scholarship;
food/fiber production; sportfishing;
existence value; spiritual and cultural
value; timber and resource extraction; air
quality; disease regulation; vector control;
aquaculture; cooling water;
hydroelectricity; drinking water;
swimming; boating; subsistence; storm
protection; flood mitigation; aesthetics;
microclimate regulation

palm oil, fuelwood, maple syrup, and
timber production; carbon sequestration;
landscape beauty; soil erosion control;
water yield; air purification; air
temperature cooling; food production;
climate regulation; pest regulation;
nutrient cycling; soil formation;
pollination; recreation; natural products;
bequest value; aesthetic value; forage for
grazing; microclimate regulation;
hydrologic regulation; pollution regulation;
ecotourism; hiking; fruit picking; trail
running; mountain climbing; charismatic
species; fire regulation; hunting

Ecosystem Services Metrics

irrigation water, water for industry;
existence/conservation value of species;
recreational enjoyment; surface water
quality; charismatic species abundance or
diversity; plant biomass (carbon storage);
vegetation index; water infiltration rate;
soil retention rate; nitrogen content in soil;
soil cat ion exchange capacity; plant
species requiring pollination; vegetation
structure; protected areas; cultural
facilities; willingness to pay for restoration
of habitat; carbon sequestration rates;
nutrient retention rates; flood frequency;
denitrification; phosphorous sorption; total
chlorophyll; dissolved oxygen; water
clarity; cyanobacteria; pH; water
temperature; conductivity; pathogen
concentration; ecosystem integrity;
biocultural value; ability to support native
wildlife; probability of persistence; tree
growth form; tree maximum height; seed
mass; forest products; food security;
timber production; energy production;
carbon emission reduction; food crop
output; habitat quality; recreation
capacity; avoided emissions; annual water
discharge; annual evapotranspiration;
forest cover; vegetation biomass or cover;
habitat cover; food production; annual soil
loss; nitrogen loading; carbon storage; rate
of air pollutant removal; vegetation index;
sediment yield coefficient; annual runoff
coefficient; rates of soil loss; annual water

Ecosystem Services
Beneficiaries/Users

people who live in flood zones;
transportation;

agriculture; foresters; land owners;
tribal and indigenous communities;
artists and ornamental extractors
(musical instruments, furniture,
crafts); foresters; residents; livestock
grazers; water users; tourism sector;
recreators; natural products
suppliers; hunters; energy utilities

106

-------
Ecosystem

Ecosystem Services

soil erosion control; carbon sequestration;

water yield; crop production; forage for

grazing; recreation-based tourism; harvest

_	,	of plants for food; traditional cultural

Grasslands and	,	, 	

. . . .	landscapes; haymaking; bird diversity;

shrublands

water purification; biodiversity value;

climate regulation; bird habitat; food and

raw material production; air quality

regulation; soil fertility

reduced vehicle collisions; environmental

education; immune system support;

erosion control; flood protection;

Green infrastructure	pollination support; nursery habitat; soil

fertility; water quality; experiential use of

plants and animals and landscapes;

existence and bequest value

carbon sequestration; timber and

fuelwood production; wildlife; soil erosion

control; flood protection; climate

regulation; recreation and culture;

aesthetic value; experiential use; food,
Mixed landcover	,	. , , .

fiber, and raw materials production; game;

livestock; apiculture; wild products; water

yield and quality; soil carbon; electricity;

minerals; natural hazard protection;

habitat maintenance; pollutant removal;

Ecosystem Services Metrics

yield; forest gain; forest accessibility; plant
diversity; woody biomass; crop income;
livestock density; soil fixation; soil fertilizer
conservation; carbon sequestration;
oxygen release; nutrient accumulation;
species diversity; willingness to pay for
tourism opportunities

Ecosystem Services
Beneficiaries/Users

potential soil erosion; water yield; water
retention; presence of human nomadic use
(e.g., campsites, houses); forage cover; net
primary productivity; rates of soil loss;
carbon stocks; dollar value of ecosystem
services

nomad pastoral grazers; agricultural
communities; landowners; water
users; people who live in the region;
tourism; forestry

microbial diversity or eDNA; deposition of
air pollutants on vegetation; erosion
control; water infiltration; coastal
protection capacity; relative pollination
potential; soil structure and quality
potential; nitrogen retention efficiency;
carbon stocks

soil organic matter; soil structure; water
holding capacity; water value; grazing
value; crop value; water flood storage
capacity; carbon fixation; soil conservation
capacity; distance to water source; water
source protection; habitat sensitivity;
hazard sensitivity; soil conservation; land
desertification protection; recreation
suitability; annual water yield; annual soil
retention; rates of pollutant removal;

people who live in the area;
agriculture; tourism

mining; agriculture; hunting; electric
and water utilities; recreators; water
users; people who live in the area;
tourism; natural resource extractors

107

-------
Ecosystem	Ecosystem Services

gas regulation; soil formation; waste
treatment; biological diversity control;
agricultural products; sediment retention;
nutrient retention; clean air; clean water;
temperature regulation

Wetlands

flood mitigation; carbon sequestration;
water quality & supply; soil erosion
control; shoreline stabilization; streamflow
regulation; sediment trapping; phosphate
trapping; nitrate removal; toxics removal;
carbon storage; biodiversity; cultural
significance; cultivated food; scenic
landscapes; learning opportunities;
recreational opportunities; nutrient
retention; water purification; charismatic
birds; drought mitigation; climate change
mitigation; habitat for wildlife, birds, and
endangered species; rainwater storage;
pollinators; soil quality; aquatic flora;
hunting; crop production (forage &
grazing)

Ecosystem Services Metrics

habitat quality; net primary productivity;
gas regulation value; climate regulation
value; water regulation value; soil
formation value; waste treatment value;
biological diversity control value; food
production value; raw materials production
value; recreational value; habitat quality;
biodiversity quality score; carbon storage
loss; pollinator index; sediment retention;
nitrogen retention; phosphorous
retention;

Ecosystem Services
Beneficiaries/Users

phosphorous and nitrogen removal rates;
biodiversity value; tourism value; carbon
storage value; value of flood control; value
of nutrient removal; recreation value;
carbon sequestration value; habitat
coverage; plant quality; plant richness;
carbon sequestration rates; floodwater
storage capacity; sediment reduction;
wildlife habitat suitability; soil nitrogen;
soil nutrient content; plant community
composition; pollinator diversity; fish use;
bird use; vegetative cover; rates of soil
loss; dollar value of ecosystem services

scientists; livestock grazers;
fishermen; farmers; boaters;
property and landowners;
recreational users; tourism;
municipal water users; agricultural
water users; hunters

108

-------
Identifying Metrics for Ecological Condition and Socio-Economic Factors

Approximately 62% of articles and reports identified specific metrics for quantifying ecological condition
or socio-economic factors (Table 3.3), either as part of a pre-restoration assessment, monitoring plan, or
post-restoration monitoring. However, these metrics often were proxies for ES, rather than direct
measures. For example, 'acres of wetland' or 'plant diversity' were assumed to be proxies for good ES
provisioning. Metrics related to carbon sequestration, nutrient retention, sediment retention, water
quality, water yield, and characteristics of flora or fauna (diversity, abundance, biomass) were common
across case studies, with a number of case studies assessing dollar values of ES using either market
prices or willingness to pay (Table 3.3; see also Appendix 3, Table 3B).

The United Nations restoration program for "reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation"
(REDD) focused strictly on carbon emissions and potentials for both co-benefits and ecological damage
of the REDD mechanism have been examined (Stickler et al. 2009). One case study recommended
additional metrics that could be incorporated into monitoring programs to better understand the full
suite of benefits of the REDD program, including water resources, soil resources, and biodiversity
(Stickler et al. 2009). Moreover, the authors recommend taking advantage of other existing monitoring
programs (such as fisheries monitoring) and engaging local communities in monitoring to supplement
remote sensing or field monitoring by the program.

Undesirable decreases in ES may result from restoration programs
that target the enhancement of only one or a few ES without
consideration of a larger suite of potential ES.

109

-------
Table 3.3. Examples of impairments and restoration activities mentioned in case studies for different ecosystems, and components of ecological
condition or socio-economic factors mentioned as restoration goals or assessed pre- or post-restoration.

Ecosystem

Source of Impairment

Restoration Activities

Ecological Condition Goals or
Measures

Socio-economic Goals
or Measures

Agro-ecosystems
(pasture, rangelands,
woodlands)

Coastal ecosystems
(barrier islands, coral
reefs, estuaries)

Rivers and riparian
zones

Forests

overgrazing; pest damage;
development/urbanization; intensive
agriculture; conversion to agriculture; tree
harvesting; soil erosion

development/urbanization; pollution;
invasive species; climate change;
agriculture; warming water temperatures;
sea level rise; eutrophication;
overharvesting; fishing and boat gear
damage; shoreline armoring

pollution; engineering works; climate
change; overgrazing; overharvesting;
deforestation; overfishing;
urbanization/development; conversion to
agriculture; changing hydrology (dams);
flow impairment; invasive species

conversion to agriculture; invasive species;
deforestation; desertification;
overharvesting; urbanization/development;
forest fires; grazing pressure; extirpation of
native seed dispersers; pests

livestock limitations/exclusions;
pest management; planting native
species; rewilding with free-range
livestock, wild ungulates; creation
of buffer zones, corridors; planting;
soil and water conservation
management

installation of artificial substrate;
transplanting and cultivating native
species; restoring tidal flows;
nutrient management; stock
enhancement; renourishment;
harvest management; prohibition of
fishing and anchoring; removal of
invasive species

native species propagation;
structure removal; restoring river
flow; riparian buffer planting;
afforestation; removal of invasives;
fish passages; beaver
reintroduction; regulation of water
discharges

planting native trees and shrubs;
fencing to protect natural tree
regeneration; removal of exotic tree
species; compensation for areas
closed to grazing; logging bans;
rewilding through reintroduction of

conservation; biodiversity;
ecological function

species composition,
structural diversity,
ecosystem function,
connectivity, absence of
threats, physical substrates,
and conditions; endangered
species; ecological resilience;
ecological sustainability;
ecological vulnerability;
conservation; biodiversity
hotspots

ecological function and
condition; endemic fish
species; hydrology; flow
regime; geomorphology;
food web productivity; fish
spawning habitat; genetic
and species diversity;
biodiversity

conservation of ecological
integrity and biodiversity;
ecological security; water and
soil conservation; ecological
function and structure;
natural wilderness;

pastoral livelihoods;
project costs;
economic incentives;
social outcomes; social
vulnerability;

project costs; social
vulnerability and
resilience; human well-
being; human health
and safety; tourism
economy; economic
activity; project costs;
financial motivations

job creation; income;
reducing hunger;
agricultural income;
project costs; social
context (cultural,
demographic,
political); health and
wellbeing
jobs; sustainable
development; income;
livelihoods; social
equity; project costs;
economic incentives;
carbon markets;

110

-------
Ecosystem

Source of Impairment

Restoration Activities

Ecological Condition Goals or Socio-economic Goals
Measures	or Measures

large vertebrates; forest
management; fire management

underrepresented
ecosystems; resilience to
climate change; resilience to
disturbance; native plant
species; native wildlife; long-
term viability

Grasslands and
shrublands

conversion to agriculture; overgrazing; fires;
invasive species; desertification; climate
change

planting native species; limiting
grazing; shrub protection; pest
eradication; controlled fires;
limiting grazing; removal of
invasives; soil restoration; land
sparing

ecological condition;
biodiversity (bird
assemblages); conservation
of ecological integrity and
biodiversity; ecological
function and structure

Green infrastructure

Mixed landcover

development/urbanization; conversion to
grey infrastructure

strip mining; unsustainable farming or
forestry; urban development; over-
exploitation; forest degradation; soil
erosion; invasive species; wildfire
suppression; climate change

planting native vegetation;
gardening; rain gardens;
reforestation; creation of buffer
zones and corridors

clearing invasives; promoting
regrowth; improving connectivity
between patches; converting
farmland to forest; ecological
corridors; revegetation

biodiversity; ecological
function; habitat

ecological function;
biodiversity; conservation;
native seed production

Wetlands

sea level rise; conversion for agriculture;
development/urbanization; hydrological
modifications; nutrient enrichment;
invasive species

beaver introduction; removing dirt
fill; revegetation; hydrological
restoration and management;
removal of embankments; nutrient
management; use exclusions;
invasive removal; improving water
flows

ecological function and
structure; wetland
conservation; biodiversity;
hydrology; waterfowl habitat;
water quality

cultural well-being;
human well-being
(health, equity,
poverty)

human use;
agricultural
economies;
community cohesion;
green gross domestic
product (GDP); project
costs; carbon markets;
financial motivations

public health; social
and economic benefits

economic
development;
ecologically secure
civilization; human
wellbeing; sustainable
development
social equity; cost of
restoration (lost
opportunity cost;
physical costs of
restoration); green
gross domestic
product (GDP);
reservoir operation;
economic outcomes

111

-------
Pre-restoration Assessment and Development of a Monitoring Plan

Pre-restoration assessments were generally conducted by case studies either to develop a baseline
understanding of pre-restoration conditions, usually including ES, or to compare restoration options
prior to implementation (Figure 3.5). For some case studies, a cost-benefit analysis was used to evaluate
restoration options, with the dollar value benefits of ES compared to project costs or lost opportunity
costs of restoration (Terrado et al. 2016; Pattison-Williams et al. 2017). Findings were used to determine
the most cost-effective restoration approach. A deliberate multidisciplinary approach to restoration may
achieve more widespread adoption of restoration by simultaneously considering ecological, social, and
economic components of restoration as part of a pre-restoration assessment and thereby enhancing
strategic collaborations and stakeholder engagement (Sherren et al. 2010).

Hypotheses about the linkages between restoration activities, ecological condition, and potential ES
benefits of restoration can form the foundation for a monitoring program (Opperman et al. 2010). In
addition to evaluating short and long-term responses to restoration, a monitoring program can also
identify triggers where more immediate interventions are needed to get the restoration back on track,
i.e., through adaptive management (Littles et al. 2022).

Post-restoration Monitoring and Evaluation of Success

Case studies assessed changes in ES after restoration for several reasons, including: (1) to evaluate
whether the restoration had achieved the original ES-related goals, such as improvements to fisheries
(Islam et al. 2018); (2) to demonstrate benefits of restoration even if the original goal of restoration was
focused primarily on conservation of ecological condition (Lu et al. 2017; Creighton et al. 2019); (3) to
demonstrate multiple co-benefits of restoration if the original restoration narrowly targeted a single or
few ES, such as flood risk management (Gilvear et al. 2013); or (4) to identify tradeoffs or potential
negative impacts of restoration to motivate modified restoration activities moving forward (Hou et al.
2017; Gao and Bian 2019).

The Grain for Green Program in China relied on a payment scheme to motivate farmers to convert
farmland to woodland, with approximately 400 km2 converted over eight years in a pilot case study (Hou
et al. 2017). Analysis of landcover maps, combined with development of ecological production functions,
indicated habitat quality, recreation capacity, water yield (measured as the difference between
precipitation and evapotranspiration), and climate regulation (measured as net primary productivity) all
increased post-restoration, but at a cost to food productivity (measured as crop output). Other case
studies similarly have pointed out that restoration programs that mainly target the enhancement of one
or a few ES may lead to undesirable decreases in other ES at the same time (Gao and Bian 2019).

An important component of evaluating whether a restoration has been successful can be public
perception. One case study used surveys on public perception of improvements in water quality or
biodiversity to evaluate whether benefits of restoration are being perceived by or meet the expectations
of the general public (DeWitt et al. 2020).

3.4.5 Implications and Opportunities

Conservation-based restoration case studies generally identified ES related goals of restoration, often to
motivate participation and acceptance of restoration activities. Pre-restoration assessments to compare

112

-------
the potential effects of restoration options on ES were fairly common, however development of
monitoring plans to evaluate effectiveness of restoration projects in achieving goals were infrequently
described in the articles and reports reviewed. Accordingly, post-restoration monitoring to evaluate
restoration success tended to be less common in case studies and often focused on measures of
condition rather than ES. As an increasing number of conservation-based restoration projects consider
ES benefits as part of goals, ES monitoring may increasingly be called for by stakeholders to evaluate
restoration success.

Several implications and opportunities were extracted from this review of case studies:

•	Inclusion of ES can help to motivate conservation-based restoration activities and should be
represented among the endpoints in conceptual models.

•	Ecosystem services classification systems and conceptual models can be useful aids in
identifying potential ES benefits of restoration.

•	Ecosystem services measures need not be limited to dollar values (e.g., cost-benefit analysis of
restoration, payments for ES, carbon markets), but can instead be measured by biophysical
attributes, relative importance scores, or public perception.

•	Pre-restoration assessments of ES can provide a baseline understanding of pre-restoration
conditions, or be used to compare restoration options prior to implementation, including to
minimize negative impacts.

•	Pre-restoration assessments can be developed with or communicated to the public, to help
motivate and enhance participation in implementation.

•	Monitoring plans that incorporate a broad suite of ES can be used to track restoration progress
toward goals, communicate public benefits of conservation, and trigger immediate intervention
if restoration progress is not on track.

•	Engagement of the public in monitoring can supplement field data, as well as foster a sense of
community stewardship in restoration.

•	Post-restoration monitoring can be used to evaluate whether the restoration has achieved the
original ES-related goals, to demonstrate benefits of restoration beyond original conservation-
oriented or narrow targeted ES goals, and to identify potential negative impacts of restoration
to motivate modified restoration activities moving forward.

•	Ecosystem services may be a pivotal component toward public perception of whether a
restoration was successful or met public expectations.

3.5 Conclusions

Overall, there are numerous opportunities to improve the monitoring and reporting of ES addressed
through conservation-based restoration approaches. The review of case studies in the literature
demonstrated a general lack of congruence between the planning stages and the monitoring stages in
the degree to which ES were incorporated. As the review found, only around 3% of case studies
described ES in all four stages of the restoration decision process: goal specification, pre-restoration
assessment, monitoring plan, and post-restoration monitoring. Core messages of this chapter show
benefits for both science and practice of conservation-based restoration. Early and continuous inclusion

113

-------
of ES by the restoration community of practice throughout the restoration planning and monitoring
process (Figure 3.1), with attention to maintaining congruence among these stages, would help to
ensure the greatest success in producing stakeholder-driven ES outcomes from conservation-based
restoration.

3.6 References

Adams, C., S.T. Rodrigues, M. Calmon, and C. Kumar. (2016). Impacts of large-scale forest restoration on
socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: What we know and do not know. Biotropica 48:731-744.
DOI: 10.1111/btp. 12385.

Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World
Development 29(10):1649-1672.

Agarwal, A., and S. Narain. (1999). Community and Household Water Management: The Key to
Environmental Regeneration and Poverty Alleviation. United Nations Development Programme.

Aillery, M., N. Gollehon, and V. Breneman. (2005). Technical Documentation of the Regional Manure
Management Model for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. US Department of Agriculture-Economic
Research Service, USDATechnical Bulletin no. 1913, Washington DC.

Alexander, S., J. Aronson, O. Whaley, and D. Lamb. (2016). The relationship between ecological
restoration and the ecosystem services concept. Ecology and Society 21:34. DOI: 10.5751/ES-08288-
210134.

Allan, J.D. (2004). Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:257-284.

Angelstam, P., M. Elbakidze, A. Lawrence, M. Manton, V. Melecis, and A.H. Perera. (2018). Barriers and
Bridges for Landscape Stewardship and Knowledge Production to Sustain Functional Green
Infrastructures. In Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes (pp. 127-167). Springer, Cham.

Angradi, T.R., J.J. Launspach, D.W. Bolgrien, B.J. Bellinger, M.A. Starry, J.C. Hoffman, A.S. Trebitz, M.E.
Sierszen, and T.P. Hollenhorst. (2016). Mapping ecosystem service indicators in a Great Lakes estuarine
Area of Concern. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42(3):717-727.

Aronson, J., A. Clewell, and D. Moreno-Mateos. (2016). Ecological restoration and ecological
engineering: complementary or indivisible? Ecological Engineering 91:392-395.

Arsano, Y., and I. Tamrat. (2005). Ethiopia and the eastern Nile Basin. Aquatic Sciences 67(l):15-27.

Barral, M.P., J.M.R. Benayas, P. Meli, and N.O. Maceira. (2015). Quantifying the impacts of ecological
restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis.
Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 202:223-231.

Barrett, G.W., G.M. Van Dyne, and E.P. Odum. (1976). Stress ecology. Bioscience 26(3):192-194.

114

-------
Basurto, X., S. Gelcich, and E. Ostrom. (2013). The social-ecological system framework as a knowledge
classificatory system for benthic small-scale fisheries. Global Environmental Change 23(6)1366-1380.

Benayas, J.M.R., A.C. Newton, A. Diaz, and J.M. Bullock. (2009). Enhancement of biodiversity and
ecosystem services by ecological restoration: A meta-analysis. Science 325:1121-1124.

Berkes, F., C. Folke, and J. Colding (Eds.). (2000). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management
Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press.

Bernhardt, E.S., E.B. Sudduth, M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, J.L. Meyer, G. Alexander, J. Follastad-Shah, B.
Hassett, R. Jenkinson, R. Lave, and J. Rumps. (2007). Restoring rivers one reach at a time: Results from a
survey of US river restoration practitioners. Restoration Ecology 15(3):482-493.

Bernhardt, E.S., J.R. Blaszczak, C.D. Ficken, M.L. Fork, K.E. Kaiser, and E.C. Seybold. (2017). Control points
in ecosystems: Moving beyond the hot spot hot moment concept. Ecosystems 20(4):665-682.

Beteille, A. (Ed.). (1983). Equality and Inequality: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, Delhi,
New York.

Booth, D.B., J.G. Scholz, T.J. Beechie, and S.C. Ralph. (2016). Integrating limiting-factors analysis with
process-based restoration to improve recovery of endangered salmonids in the Pacific Northwest, USA.
Water 8(5):174.

Borkhataria, R.R., P.R. Wetzel, H. Henriquez, and S.E. Davis. (2017). The Synthesis of Everglades
Restoration and Ecosystem Services (SERES): A case study for interactive knowledge exchange to guide
Everglades restoration. Restoration Ecology 25:S18-S26. DOI: 10.1111/rec.12593.

Bousquin, J., and M. Mazzotta. (2020). Rapid Benefit Indicator Tools. In T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, &T.H.
DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory,
Tools and Applications (pp. 309-332). Amsterdam: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_16.

Bradshaw, D. (1984). Technology Lecture. Land restoration: Now and in the future. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B Biological Sciences 223(1230): DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1984.0079.

Brumbaugh, R.D., M.W. Beck, L.D. Coen, L. Craig, and P. Hicks. (2006). A Practitioners' Guide to the
Design and Monitoring of Shellfish. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Burdick, D.M., M. Dionne, R.M. Boumans, and F.T. Short. (1997). Ecological responses to tidal
restorations of two northern New England salt marshes. Wetland Ecology and Management 4:129-144.

Busch, D.E., and J.C. Trexler (Eds.). (2003). Monitoring Ecosystems: Interdisciplinary Approaches for
Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Cairns Jr., J. (1995). Restoration Ecology: Protecting Our National and Global Life Support Systems. In:
Cairns Jr., J. (Ed.), Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems, 2nd ed (pp. 1-12). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
FL.

115

-------
Carlton, J. S., Ropicki, A., and B. Balboa. (2016). The Half Moon Reef Restoration: A Socioeconomic
Evaluation. Texas Sea Grant Publication TAMU-SG-16-211. Texas Sea Grant College Program, College
Station Texas.

Cavendish, W. (2000). Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural
households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World development 28(ll):1979-2003.

Cereghino, P., J. Toft, C. Simenstad, E. Iverson, S. Campbell, C. Behrens, and J. Burke. (2012). Strategies
for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2012-01.
Published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, and the US Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle, WA.

Chesapeake Bay Program, (n.d.). Beyond Environmental Benefits Database and Search Tool. Retrieved
from: https://gis.chesapeakebay.net/casestudies/.

Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board. (2005). Restoration Authorities of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. A Discussion Paper. Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board, Washington, DC.

Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board. (2006). Integrating Ecosystem Restoration into
Programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Report of the Environmental Advisory Board to the Chief
of Engineers, Washington DC.

Ciccarese, L., A. Mattsson, and D. Pettenella. (2012). Ecosystem services from forest restoration:

Thinking ahead. New Forests 43(5-6):543-560.

Clewell A.F., and J. Aronson. (2013). Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values, and Structure of an
Emerging Profession, 2nd ed. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Colding, J., and S. Barthel. (2019). Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years
later. Ecology and Society 24(1).

Comin, F.A., B. Miranda, R. Sorando, M.R. Felipe-Lucia, J.J. Jimenez, and E. Navarro. (2018). Prioritizing
sites for ecological restoration based on ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology 55:1155-1163.
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13061.

Colding, J., and S. Barthel. (2019). Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later.
Ecology and Society 24(1).

Conallin, J., J. Campbell, and L. Baumgartner. (2018). Using strategic adaptive management to facilitate
implementation of environmental flow programs in complex social-ecological systems. Environmental
Management 62(5):955-967.

Congressional Research Service (CRS). (2018). Army Corps of Engineers: Water Resource Authorization
and Project Delivery Processes. CRS Report R45185 prepared for Members and Committees of Congress.
Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from: https://crsreports.coiigress.gov.

Costanza, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological
Conservation 141:350-352. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020.

116

-------
Creighton, C., V.N. Prahalad, I. McLeod, M. Sheaves, M.D. Taylor, and T. Walshe. (2019). Prospects for
seascape repair: Three case studies from eastern Australia. Ecological Management and Restoration
20:182-191. DOI: 10.1111/emr.l2384.

Daoust, R., T. Doss, M. Gorman, M. Harwell, and C. Ulrich. (2014). A 10-year ecosystem restoration
community of practice tracks large-scale restoration trends. SAPI EN. S. Surveys and Perspectives
Integrating Environment and Society (7.2).

Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. Abridged Version. (London:
HM Treasury).

DeAngelis, B.M., A.E. Sutton-Grier, A. Colden, K.K. Arkema, C.J. Baillie, R.O. Bennett, J. Benoit, S. Blitch,
A. Chatwin, A. Dausman, R.K. Gittman, H.S. Greening, J.R. Henkel, R. Houge, R. Howard, A.R. Hughes, J.
Lowe, S.B. Scyphers, E.T. Sherwood, S. Wetsby, and J.H. Grabowski. (2020). Social factors key to
landscape-scale coastal restoration: Lessons learned from three US case studies. Sustainability 12(3):
869.

Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2019). Net Gain: Summary of Responses and
Government Response. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, London, United Kingdom.
Retrieved from: www.gov.uk/government/publications.

DeSteven, D., and J.M. Gramling. (2011). Assessing Wetland Restoration Practices on Southern
Agricultural Lands: The Wetlands Reserve Program in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. US Department of
Agriculture.

DeWitt, T.H., W.J. Berry, T.J. Canfield, R.S. Fulford, M.C. Harwell, J.C. Hoffman, J.M. Johnston, T.A.
Newcomer-Johnson, P.L. Ringold, M.J. Russel, L.A. Sharpe, and S.J.H. Yee. (2020). The Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services (FEGS) Approach: A Beneficiary-centric Method to Support. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago,
& T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity:
Theory, Tools and Applications (pp. 127-148). Amsterdam: Springer.

DeWitt, T.H., J. Bousquin, C. Folger, M.C. Harwell, T.A. Newcomer-Johnson, L.M. Sharpe, S.H. Yee, C.L.
Hernandez, C.A. Jackson, A. Borde, and H.L. Diefenderfer. (2021). A Top-down Approach for Identifying
and Prioritizing the Final Ecosystem Goods & Services Produced by Ecological Restoration. National
Conference on Ecosystem Restoration. Virtual conference. July 26-29 & August 2-5, 2021.

Diamond, J., B. Tonning, K. Parry, and C. Boschen. (2019). Integrating aquatic designated use protection
and restoration strategies using an ecosystem goods and services framework. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 15(5):808-818.

Diefenderfer, H.L., K.L. Sobocinski, R.M. Thom, C.W. May, A.B. Borde, S.L. Southard, J. Vavrinec, and N.K.
Sather. (2009). Multiscale analysis of restoration priorities for marine shoreline planning. Environmental
Management 44(4):712-731.

Diefenderfer, H.L., R.M. Thom, G.E. Johnson, J.R. Skalski, K.A. Vogt, B.D. Ebberts, G.C. Roegner, and E.M.
Dawley. (2011). A levels-of-evidence approach for assessing cumulative ecosystem response to estuary
and river restoration programs. Ecological Restoration 29(1-2):111-132.

117

-------
Diefenderfer, H.L., G.D. Steyer, M.C. Harwell, A.J. LoSchiavo, H.A. Neckles, D.M. Burdick, G.E. Johnson,
K.E. Buenau, E. Trujillo, J.C. Callaway, R.M. Thom, N.K. Ganju, and R.R. Twilley. (2021). Applying
cumulative effects to strategically advance large-scale ecosystem restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 19(2):108-117.

Effron, M., D. Lipton, T. Rouleau, G. Samonte, and P. Wiley. (2014). Approach of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. In: Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook.
National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University, Durham, NC. Retrieved from:

www.nespguidebook.com.

Endangered Species Act. P.L. 93-205. Effective December 27, 1973.

Environmental Justice Clinic, 2021. Community-centered climate resilience in Connecticut. Summary for
communities and policymakers. Yale School of Public Health, Center on Climate Change and Health.

ESA. (2018). Los Penasquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan, Torrey Pines, CA. Prepared for Los Penasquitos
Lagoon Foundation. ESA, San Diego, CA.

Faulkner, S., M. Baldwin, W. Barrow, H. Waddle, B. Keeland, S. Walls, D. James, and T. Moorman. (2012).
Regional Estimates of Ecological Services Derived from U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation
Programs in Mississippi Alluvial Valley. USGS National Wetlands Research Center.

Finisdore, J., C. Rhodes, R. Haines-Young, S. Maynard, J. Wielgus, A. Dvarskas, J. Houdet, F. Quetier, K.A.
Lamothe, H. Ding, and F. Soulard. (2020). The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification
systems. Ecosystem Services 45:101160.

Fischenich, J.C., S.J. Miller, and A.J. LoSchiavo. (2019). A Systems Approach to Ecosystem Adaptive
Management. US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
ERDC/EL SR-19-9.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological
systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:441-473.

Franco-Moraes, J., C.R. Clement, J.C. de Oliveira, and A.A. de Oliveira. (2021). A framework for
identifying and integrating sociocultural and environmental elements of indigenous peoples' and local
communities' landscape transformations. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 19(2):143-152.

Gann, G.D., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J.G. Hallett, C. Eisenberg, M.R.
Guariguata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C. Echeverrfa, E. Gonzales, N. Shaw, K. Decleer, and K.W. Dixon. (2019).
International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 27:
S1-S46.

Gao, J., and H.Y. Bian. (2019). The impact of the Plains afforestation program and alternative land use
scenarios on ecosystem services in an urbanizing watershed. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening
43:126373. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126373.

Gewin, V., 2021. How to include Indigenous researchers and their knowledge. Nature 589:315-317.

118

-------
Gibble, R., L. Miller, and M.C. Harwell, M.C. (2020). Using Stakeholder Engagement, Translational
Science and Decision Support Tools for Ecosystem-Based Management in the Florida Everglades. In: T.
O'Higgins, M. Lago, &T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and
Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications (pp. 517-541). Amsterdam: Springer.

Gilvear, D.J., C.J. Spray, and R. Casas-Mulet. (2013). River rehabilitation for the delivery of multiple
ecosystem services at the river network scale. Journal of Environmental Management 126:30-43. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.026.

Guo, J., and J. Kildow. (2015). The gap between science and policy: Assessing the use of nonmarket
valuation in estuarine management based on a case study of US federally managed estuaries. Ocean and
Coastal Management 108:20-26.

Hagger, V., J. Dwyer, and K. Wilson. (2017). What motivates ecological restoration? Restoration Ecology
25(5):832-843.

Harwell, D.R. (2020). Ecosystem services in US environmental law and governance for the ecosystem-
based management practitioner. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, &T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based
Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications. Amsterdam:
Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_19.

Harwell, M.C., J.L. Molleda, C.A. Jackson, and L. Sharpe. (2020). Establishing a Common Framework for
Strategic Communications in Ecosystem-Based Management and the Natural Sciences. In: T. O'Higgins,
M. Lago, & T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic
Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications (pp.165-188). Amsterdam: Springer.

Holling, C.S., and G.K. Meffe. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource
management. Conservation Biology 10(2):328-337. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x.

Hou, Y., Y.H. Lu, W.P. Chen, and B.J. Fu. (2017). Temporal variation and spatial scale dependency of
ecosystem service interactions: A case study on the central Loess Plateau of China. Landscape Ecology
32:1201-1217. DOI: 10.1007/sl0980-017-0497-8.

Institute for Water Resources. (2019). Partnering with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A Guide for
Communities, Local Governments, States, Tribes, and Non-Governmental Organizations. US Army Corps
of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA. 2019-R-02.

Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration (IWWR). (2003). An Introduction and User's Guide to
Wetland Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement. Developed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Iranah, P., P. Lai, B.T. Wolde, and P. Burli. (2018). Valuing visitor access to forested areas and exploring
willingness to pay for forest conservation and restoration finance: The case of small island developing
state of Mauritius. Journal of Environmental Management 223:868-877.

119

-------
Islam, M.M., R. Aktar, M. Nahiduzzaman, B.K. Barman, M.A. Wahab. (2018). Social considerations of
large river sanctuaries: A case study from the Hilsa Shad Fishery in Bangladesh. Sustainability 10:1254.
DOI: 10.3390/su 10041254.

Jordan III, W.R., M.E. Gilpin, and J.D. Aber (Eds.). (1990). Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to
Ecological Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jordan III, W.R. (1995). Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. In: Cairns Jr., J.
(Ed.), Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems, 2nd ed. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Kaiser, N.N., C.K. Feld, and S. Stoll. (2020). Does river restoration increase ecosystem services?

Ecosystem Services 46:101206

Kentula, M.E., R.P. Brooks, S.E. Gwin, C.C. Holland, A.D. Sherman, and J.C. Sifneos. (1992). An Approach
to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/R-92/150.

King, E., J. Cavender-Bares, P. Balvanera, T.H. Mwampamba, and S. Polasky. (2015). Trade-offs in
ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: Evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and
opportunities. Ecology and Society 20(3).

Landers, D.H., and A.M. Nahlik. (2013). Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-
CS). US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914.

La Peyre, M.K., L. Schwarting, and S. Miller. (2013). Baseline data for evaluating the development
trajectory and provision of ecosystem services by created fringing oyster reefs in Vermilion Bay,
Louisiana. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.

LaRocco, G.L., and R.L. Deal. (2011). Giving Credit Where Credit is Due: Increasing Landowner
Compensation for Ecosystem Services. General Technical Report. US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 32 p. PNW-GTR-842.

Li, Y.B., M.M. Fan, and W.J. Li. (2015). Application of payment for ecosystem services in China's
rangeland conservation initiatives: A social-ecological system perspective. Rangeland Journal 37:285-
296. DOI: 10.1071/RJ14014.

Liquete, C., S. Kleeschulte, G. Dige, J. Maes, B. Grizzetti, B. Olah, and G. Zulian. (2015). Mapping green
infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A Pan-European case study.
Environmental Science and Policy 54:268-280. D0l:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.009.

Littles, C., J. Karnezis, K. Blauvelt, A. Creason, H. Diefenderfer, G. Johnson, L. Krasnow, and P. Trask.
(2022). Adaptive management of large-scale ecosystem restoration: Increasing certainty of habitat
outcomes in the Columbia River Estuary, USA. Restoration Ecology. el3634.

LoSchiavo, A.J., R.G. Best, R.E. Burns, S. Gray, M.C. Harwell, E.B. Hines, A.R. McLean, T. St. Clair, S.

Traxler, and J.W. Vearil. (2013). Lessons learned from the first decade of adaptive management in
comprehensive Everglades restoration. Ecology and Society 18(4).

120

-------
Lu, H.F., E.T. Campbell, D.E. Campbell, C.W. Wang, and H. Ren. (2017). Dynamics of ecosystem services
provided by subtropical forests in Southeast China during succession as measured by donor and receiver
value. Ecosystem Services 23:248-258. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.012.

Manton, M., and P. Angelstam. (2018). Defining benchmarks for restoration of green infrastructure: A
case study combining the historical range of variability of habitat and species' requirements.
Sustainability 10:326. DOI: 10.3390/sul0020326.

Marine Mammal Protection Act. P.L. 92-522. Effective December 21, 1972.

Martin, D.M. (2017). Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first century. Restoration
Ecology 25(5):668-673.

Martin, D.M., and J.E. Lyons. (2018). Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration. Restoration
Ecology 26(6):1045-1050.

Martin, D.M., M. Mazzotta, and J. Bousquin. (2018). Combining ecosystem services assessment with
structured decision making to support ecological restoration planning. Environmental Management
62(3):608-618.

Martin, L. (2014). The use of ecosystem services information by the U.S. national estuary programs.
Ecosystem Services 9:139-154.

Mazzotta, M., J. Bousquin, W. Berry, C. Ojo, R. McKinney, K. Hyckha, and C.G. Druschke. (2019).
Evaluating the ecosystem services and benefits of wetland restoration by use of the rapid benefit
indicators approach. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 15(1):148-159.

Mazzotta, M., J. Bousquin, C. Ojo, K. Hychka, C.G. Druschke, W. Berry, and R. McKinney. (2016).

Assessing the Benefits of Wetland Restoration: A Rapid Benefit Indicators Approach for Decision Makers.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rl. EPA/600/R-16/084.

McDonald, T., G.D. Gann, J. Jonson, and K.W. Dixon. (2016) International Standards for the Practice of
Ecological Restoration - Including Principles and Key Concepts. Society for Ecological Restoration,
Washington, DC.

McKay, S.K., B.A. Pruitt, C.J. Anderson, J. Curran, A.D. Arco Ochoa, M.C. Freeman, B. Rashleigh, and E.D.
Trawick. (2011). Constructing a Conceptual Model Linking Drivers and Ecosystem Services in Piedmont
Streams. Proceedings of the 2011 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 11-13, 2011, University of
Georgia.

McKean, M.A. (1992). Success on the commons: A comparative examination of institutions for common
property resource management. Journal of Theoretical Politics 4(3):247-281.

McLoughlin, C.A., M.C. Thorns, and M. Parsons. (2020). Reflexive learning in adaptive management: A
case study of environmental water management in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia. River Research
and Applications 36(4):681-694.

121

-------
Meli, P., J.M. Rey Benayas, P. Balvanera, and R. Marti'nez Ramos. (2014). Restoration enhances wetland
biodiversity and ecosystem service supply, but results are context-dependent: A meta-analysis. PLoS
ONE 9(4):e93507. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093507.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. §§703-711.

Moukrim, S., S. Lahssini, M. Naggar, H. Lahlaoi, N. Rifai, M. Arahou, and L. Rhazi. (2019). Local
community involvement in forest rangeland management: Case study of compensation on forest area
closed to grazing in Morocco. Rangeland Journal 41:43-53. DOI: 10.1071/RJ17119.

National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP). (n.d.). Use Case: Using Ecosystem Services Conceptual
Models to Specify and Communicate Unique Cultural Ecosystem Services. National Ecosystem Services
Partnership, Duke University, Durham, NC. Retrieved from:

https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/escm/use-case-cultural-services-final.pdf.

National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP). (2014). Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem
Services Guidebook. National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University, Durham, NC. Retrieved
from: https://nespguidebook.com.

National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP). (2016). Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem
Services Guidebook. 2nd ed. National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Retrieved from: https://nespguidebook.com.

National Infrastructure Commission. (2021). Natural Capital and Environmental Net Gain: A Discussion
Paper. National Infrastructure Commission, London, United Kingdom. Retrieved from: nic.org.uk.

National Research Council (NRC). (1992). Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology and
Public Policy. Washington, DC.

Neeson, T.M., S.D. Smith, J.D. Allan, and P.B. Mclntyre. (2016). Prioritizing ecological restoration among
sites in multi-stressor landscapes. Ecological Applications 26(6):1785-1796.

Newcomer-Johnson, T., F. Andrews, J. Corona, T. DeWitt, M. Harwell, C. Rhodes, P. Ringold, M. Russell,
P. Sinha, and G. Van Houtven. (2020). National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS Plus). US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-20/267.

Olander, L.P., R.J. Johnston, H. Tallis, J. Kagan, L.A. Maguire, S. Polasky, D. Urban, J.W. Boyd, L. Wainger,
and M. Palmer. (2018). Benefit relevant indicators: Ecosystem services measures that link ecological and
social outcomes. Ecological Indicators 85:1262-1272.

Opperman, J.J., R. Luster, B.A. McKenney, M. Roberts, and A.W. Meadows. (2010). Ecologically
functional floodplains: Connectivity, flow regime, and scale. JAWRA Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 46(2):211-226.

Osborne et al., 2021. The political ecology playbookfor ecosystem restoration: Principles for effective,
equitable, and transformative landscapes. Global Environmental Change 70(2021): 10230.

122

-------
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological
systems. Science 325(5939):419-422. DOI: 10.1126/science.ll72133.

Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems.
American Economic Review 100(3):641-72.

Ostrom, E., and M. Cox. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: A multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-
ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation 37(4):451-463.

Oteros-Rozas, E., B. Martin-Lopez, C.A. Lopez, I. Palomo, and J.A. Gonzalez. (2013). Envisioning the
future of transhumant pastoralism through participatory scenario planning: A case study in Spain.
Rangeland Journal 35:251-272. DOI: 10.1071/RJ12092.

Pattison-Williams, J.K., W.H. Yang, Y.B. Liu, and S. Gabor. (2017). Riparian wetland conservation: A case
study of phosphorous and social return on investment in the Black River watershed. Ecosystem Services
26:400-410. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.005.

Paavola, J., and K. Hubacek. (2013). Ecosystem services, governance, and stakeholder participation: An
introduction. Ecology and Society 18(4).

Pejchar, L., and D.M. Press. (2006). Achieving conservation objectives through production forestry: The
case of Acacia koa on Hawaii Island. Environmental Science and Policy 9:439-447. DOI:
10.1016/j.envsci.2006.03.007.

Pennino, M.J., R.I. McDonald, and P.R. Jaffe. (2016). Watershed-scale impacts of stormwater green
infrastructure on hydrology, nutrient fluxes, and combined sewer overflows in the mid-Atlantic region.
Science of the Total Environment 565:1044-1053.

Pettibone, K.G., D.M. Balshaw, C. Dilworth, C.H. Drew, J.E., Hall, M. Heacock, A.R. Latoni, K.A. McAllister,
L.R. O'Fallon, C. Thompson, and N.J. Walker. (2018). Expanding the concept of translational research:
Making a place for environmental health sciences. Environmental Health Perspectives 126(7):074501.

Ratzlaff, E.D. (1970). Applications of Engineering Systems. Analysis to the Human Social-Ecological
System. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Davis.

Reyers, B., R. Biggs, G.S. Cumming, T. Elmqvist, A.P. Hejnowicz, and S. Polasky. (2013). Getting the
measure of ecosystem services: A social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
ll(5):268-273.

Rezek, R.J., B.T. Furman, R.P. Jung, M.O. Hall, and S.S. Bell. (2019). Long-term performance of seagrass
restoration projects in Florida, USA. Scientific Reports 9(1): 1-11.

Ringold, P.L., J. Boyd, D. Landers, and M. Weber. (2009). Report from the Workshop on Indicators of
Final Ecosystem Services for Streams. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-09/137.

Rodgers, K. and A. Willcox. (2018). Public attitudes toward threatened and endangered species and
management options in the Southeastern United States. Biological Conservation 227:104-111.

123

-------
Rodgers, K.A. (2016). Understanding Stakeholder Attitudes and Involvement in Habitat Conservation
Plans and the Endangered Species Act. Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee.

Rohr, J.R., E.S. Bernhardt, M.W. Cadotte, and W.H. Clements. (2018). The ecology and economics of
restoration. Ecology and Society 23(2):15.

Roman, C.T., and D.M. Burdick (Eds). (2012). Tidal Marsh Restoration: A Synthesis of Science and
Practice. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Ruckelshaus, M., B.G. Reguero, K. Arkema, R.G. Compean, K. Weekes, A. Bailey, and J. Silver. (2020).
Harnessing new data technologies for nature-based solutions in assessing and managing risk in coastal
zones. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51:101795.

Schuster, E., and P. Doerr. (2015). A Guide for Incorporating Ecosystem Service Valuation into Coastal
Restoration Projects. The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey Chapter, Delmont, NJ.

Shabman, L.A. (1995). Making watershed restoration happen: What does economics
offer. Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems 35-47.

Sharpe, L., C. Hernandez, and C. Jackson. (2020). Prioritizing Stakeholders, Beneficiaries and
Environmental Attributes: A Tool for Ecosystem-Based Management. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, & T. H.
DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory,

Tools and Applications (pp. 189-212). Amsterdam: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_10.

Sherren, K., J. Fischer, H. Clayton, J, Schirmer, and S. Dovers. (2010). Integration by case, place and
process: Transdisciplinary research for sustainable grazing in the Lachlan River catchment, Australia.
Landscape Ecology 25:1219-1230. DOI: 10.1007/sl0980-010-9494-x.

Sidik, S.M., 2022. Weaving indigenous knowledge into the scientific method. Nature 601:285-287.

Silva, M.R.O., M.G. Pennino, and P.F.M. Lopes. (2019). Social-ecological trends: Managing the
vulnerability of coastal fishing communities. Ecology and Society 24:4. DOI: 10.5751/ES-11185-240404.

Simenstad, C.A., and R.M. Thom. (1996). Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-
Te estuarine wetland. Ecological Applications 6:38-56.

Smith, N. (2014). Sustaining Ecosystem Services Across Public and Private Lands: The Cool Soda All Lands
Restoration Proposal. In: Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. National
Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University, Durham, NC. Retrieved from:

www.iiespguidebook.com.

Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. (2004). The Society for
Ecological Restoration International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Tucson: Society for Ecological
Restoration International.

State Coastal Conservancy. 1985. Staff Recommendation on the Los Penasquitos Lagoon Enhancement
Plan and Program prepared by the Los Penasquitos Lagoon Foundation and the State Coastal
Conservancy, File No. 78-046, October 30, 1985.

124

-------
Stein, E.D., J. Zimmerman, S.M. Jarnell, B. Stanford, B. Lane, K.T. Taniguchi-Quan, A, Obester, T.E.
Grantham, R.A. Lusardi, and S. Sandoval-Solis. (2021). The California environmental flows framework:
Meeting the challenges of developing a large-scale environmental flows program. Frontiers in
Environmental Science p. 481.

Steyer, G.D., C.E. Sasser, J.M. Visser, E.M. Swenson, J.A. Nyman, and R.C. Raynie. (2003). A proposed
coastwide reference monitoring system for evaluating wetland restoration trajectories in Louisiana.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81:107-117.

Stickler, C.M., D.C. Nepstad, M.T. Coe, D.G. Mcgrath, H.O. Rodrigues, W.S. Walker, B.S. Soares, and E.A.
Davidson. (2009). The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: A critical review and case study
from the Amazon region. Global Change Biology 15:2803-2824. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02109.x.

Suding, K.N., and K.L. Gross. (2006). The Dynamic Nature of Ecological Systems: Multiple States and
Restoration Trajectories. In: Falk, D.A., M.A. Palmer and J.B. Zedler (Eds.), Foundations of Restoration
Ecology (pp. 190-209). Island Press, Washington, DC.

Sutton-Grier, A. (2014). Operationalizing and Leveraging an Ecosystem Services Framework for Habitat
Conservation: Coastal Blue Carbon. In: Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services
Guidebook. National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University, Durham, NC. Retrieved from:

www.nespguidebook.com.

Taylor, D. (2014). Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential
Mobility. NYU Press, New York. 352 pages. ISBN 9781479861781.

Tazik, D., J. Cushing, E.O. Murray, and L. Wainger. (2013). Incorporating Ecosystem Goods and Services in
Environmental Planning: A Literature Review of Definitions, Classification and Operational Approaches.
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/ELTR-13-17.

Terrado, M., A. Momblanch, M. Bardina, L. Boithias, A. Munne, S. Sabater, A. Solera, and V. Acuna.
(2016). Integrating ecosystem services in river basin management plans. Journal of Applied Ecology
53:865-875. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12613.

Thierry, H., and H. Rogers. (2020). Where to rewild? A conceptual framework to spatially optimize
ecological function. Proceedings of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 287:20193017. DOI:
10.1098/rspb.2019.3017.

Thom, R.M., and K.F. Wellman. (1996). Planning Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring Programs. US Army
Corps of Engineers, Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research Program. 96-R-23.

Thom, R.M., G.D. Williams, and H.L. Diefenderfer. (2005). Balancing the need to develop coastal areas
with the desire for an ecologically functioning coastal environment: Is net ecosystem improvement
possible? Restoration Ecology 13:193-203.

Thom, R.M., H.L. Diefenderfer, J.E. Adkins, C. Judd, M.G. Anderson, K.E. Buenau, A.B. Border, and G.E.
Johnson. (2010). Guidelines, processes and tools for coastal ecosystem restoration, with examples from
the United States. Plankton and Benthos Research 5(Supplement):185-201.

125

-------
Thorn, R.M., E. Haas, N.R. Evans, and G.D. Williams. (2011). Lower Columbia River and estuary habitat
restoration prioritization framework. Ecological Restoration 29(l-2):94-110.

Thom R.M., H.L. Diefenderfer, J. Vavrinec, and A.B. Borde. (2012). Restoring resiliency: Case studies from
Pacific Northwest estuarine eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts 35:78-91. DOI:
10.1007/sl2237-011-9430-6. Featured in Coastal and Estuarine Science News.

Truax, B., D. Gagnon, F. Lambert, and J. Fortier. (2015). Multiple-use zoning model for private forest
owners in agricultural landscapes: A case study. Forests 6(10):3614-3664.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2020). Fact Sheet: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan-
Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring. Jacksonville, FL. Retrieved from:

https://www.sai.usace.army.mil/About/Congressional-Fact-Sheets-2020/CERP-Adaptive-Assessment-

Monitoring-C/.

US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). (2019). Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program 10-year Report to Congress. US Forest Service, Washington, DC.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2020). Metrics for National and Regional Assessment of
Aquatic, Marine, and Terrestrial Final Ecosystem Goods and Services. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA645/R-20-002.

Wainger, L.A., A. McMurray, H.R. Griscom, E.O. Murray, J.A. Cushing, C.H. Theiling, and S. Komlos.
(2020). A Proposed Ecosystem Services Analysis Framework for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. US
Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. ERDC/EL SR-20-2.

WRRDA 2014. Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. P.L. 113-121), enacted in June
2014.

White, P.S. and S.T.A. Pickett. (1985). Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics: An Introduction. In:
Pickett, S.T.A. and P.S. White (Eds), The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics (pp. 3-13).
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Wondolleck, J.M., and S.L. Yaffee. (2000). Making Collaboration Work. Lessons from Innovation in
Natural Resource Management. Island, Washington, DC.

Wortley, L., J.M. Hero, and M. Howes. (2013). Evaluating ecological restoration success: A review of the
literature. Restoration Ecology 21(5):537-543.

Yee, S.H., A. Sullivan, K.C. Williams, and K. Winters. (2019). Who benefits from National Estuaries?
Applying the FEGS Classification System to identify ecosystem services and their beneficiaries.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(13):2351.

Zedler, J.B. (2017). What's new in adaptive management and restoration of coasts and estuaries?
Estuaries and Coasts 40(1):1-21.

126

-------
Chapter 4: Additional Considerations for
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into
Cleanup and Restoration of
Contaminated Sites9

Matthew C. Harwell, Walter J. Berry, Theodore H. DeWitt, Connie L. Hernandez, Joel C. Hoffman, Chloe
A. Jackson, Michael Kravitz, Jim Lazorchak, Brooke Mastervich, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Leah M.
Sharpe, Dalon White

Abstract

Consideration of concepts of ecosystem services (ES) in the cleanup of contaminated sites has evolved
over the past two decades. Efforts have focused on informing principles of greener cleanup activities,
sustainability endpoints in remediation, restoration, and revitalization activities, and informing
ecological risk assessments. Additional ES related efforts have been advanced on stakeholder
engagement, and the use of decision support tools. Deliberative investments in connecting ES to
support contaminated cleanups has resulted in the potential for integrating ES assessments into various
components of a cleanup, including the use of ES metrics. Focusing on a "beneficiary perspective"
connects ES to those receiving direct benefits of a given remediation or restoration effort. This chapter
focuses on the value-added perspective ES can bring to inform and enhance cleanup monitoring and
assessments, including remedy effectiveness assessments. This chapter details these elements using
examples of tools and approaches that can be used in contaminated cleanups. Finally, the chapter uses
case study examples to illustrate the concepts, approaches, and tools presented.

The restoration effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA) framework can be used to organize
the suite of special considerations associated with the potential role of ES in cleanup of contaminated
sites, including:

• Green and Sustainable Remediation Concepts: Greener cleanups (i.e., reducing footprint of
cleanup activities) and sustainable remediation (i.e., a "whole-site" approach for maximizing net

9 Harwell, M.C., W.J. Berry, T.H. DeWitt, C.L Hernandez, J.C. Hoffman, C.A. Jackson, M. Kravitz, J. Lazorchak, B.
Mastervich, T. Newcomer-Johnson, LM. Sharpe, and D. White. (2022). Chapter 4: Additional Considerations for
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Cleanup and Restoration of Contaminated Sites. In: Jackson et al.
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring & Assessment: Frameworks, Tools,
and Examples. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Newport, OR.
EPA/600/R-22/XXX. pp. 143-192.

127

-------
environmental benefits while providing protection from contamination) can be reinforced by ES
concepts.

•	Role of Translational Science: A "beneficiary perspective" brought by consideration of ES
reinforces core elements of translational science, including the importance of identification,
prioritization, inclusion, and engagement of stakeholders in the cleanup process.

•	Connecting People to ES to Inform Cleanups: A social-ecological systems (SES) perspective in
consideration of ESthat the cleanup/restoration project can have both an ecological and a social
component.

•	Acknowledging Authority and Processes Boundaries: A suite of boundaries and constraints with
respect to consideration of ES in environmental remediation/restoration includes understanding
both legal authorities among cleanup parties and assorted processes themselves.

•	Consideration of Engineering Boundaries: Engineering boundaries involving ES in cleanups
include mechanical constraints, whether a given remedy has relevant ES for consideration, and
the potential role of ES in consideration of remedy protectiveness.

•	Ecosystem Services Relevant Monitoring and Assessment Criteria: While ES endpoints
themselves provide information for monitoring and assessment a "beneficiary perspective"
provides value-added opportunities to enhance the restoration success assessments.

•	Cleanup Timelines and Establishment of ES: Traditional and ES-related monitoring and
assessment of remediation/restoration activities occur pre-project, during project, and near-,
mid-, and long-term, post-project; each has different response times.

Core Messages

•	Opportunities: For contaminated cleanups involving an environmental component, there is an
opportunity to examine the benefits of nature - in particular, those ecosystem services (ES)
directly benefiting a site's stakeholders - provided by the cleanup. Any remediation site
involving ecological considerations, or reuse that creates access to nature, may be a potential
site for inclusion of ES.

•	Opportunities: Contaminated site remediation is driven by the need to protect human health
and the environment from contaminants. The approach taken to achieve the protectiveness
may be informed by ES restoration considerations.

•	Beneficiary perspective: By bringing stakeholders together and discussing with a "beneficiary
perspective," insights are gained about potential remediation/restoration options and relevant
monitoring and assessment endpoints. Communicating concepts of beneficiaries while
discussing stakeholder goals and values can help identify potential ES related to a cleanup.

•	Monitoring and assessment: Value-added opportunities for ES concepts to inform monitoring
and assessment of contaminated cleanups include elements of decision support, assessment
frameworks, stakeholder engagement, adaptive management, translational science, and
strategic science and risk communication. Whether or not explicit ES metrics are monitored,
even proxies for ES can provide value-added information beyond traditional monitoring.

128

-------
•	Value-added: While ES endpoints themselves can provide valuable additions to monitoring and
assessment design, the beneficiary perspective of the ES approach provides value-added
opportunities to enhance the assessment of restoration success.

•	Transferability: As a case study demonstration of many concepts presented in this chapter, the
Great Lakes Areas of Concern program uses an ecosystem- and a societal-based focus allowing
for a "beneficiary perspective" for incorporating ES into cleanups. This provides opportunities to
explore transferability of concepts.

Opportunities Moving Forward

Operationalizing ES concepts for contaminated cleanups, documenting examples from across a suite of
cleanup contexts and programs, and applying concepts of reflective practice, adaptive management, and
strategic science and risk communication will be invaluable for advancing how ES concepts can support
social benefits of contaminated cleanup and restoration efforts to nearby communities. On-the-ground
cleanup and restoration efforts that incorporate ES can be leveraged to help test, evaluate,
demonstrate, and communicate concepts from this chapter.

4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Goals
This chapter:

1.	Synthesizes existing practices for measuring and assessing restoration effectiveness (particularly
regarding the production of those ecosystem services ES directly affecting people) related to
contaminated site cleanups, using examples from the literature and reports

2.	Provides contaminated site cleanup teams an overview of methods and approaches useful for
consideration and incorporation, where appropriate, of ES into restoration monitoring and
assessment

3.	Identifies and provides example application of core elements, knowledge gaps, and lessons
learned from contaminated site restoration examples.

Fundamentally, cleanup of contaminated sites focuses on steps needed to eliminate risks of
contaminants to human health and the environment (i.e., improve protectiveness from contamination).
Though there are a suite of different mechanisms (regulatory authorities and processes) for cleanups, all
involve important elements of stakeholder engagement (e.g., interacting with a suite of potentially
affected populations), creating an opportunity for all stakeholders to be involved in establishing cleanup
goals. For those cleanup goals involving an environmental component (regardless of whether the
endpoint is focused on contaminant remediation, ecological restoration, or revitalization of the cleanup
site), there is an opportunity to examine the benefits from nature - in particular, those directly relevant
to that site's stakeholders - provided by the cleanup. Bringing ES into post-cleanup restoration efforts
can provide a way to further demonstrate and communicate the social benefits of the cleanup and
restoration to nearby communities. Mindful of the unique challenges associated with contaminated site

129

-------
cleanups, this chapter looks to provide practical information on how to incorporate ES into restoration
effectiveness monitoring and assessments (REMA).

4.1.2 The REMA Framework and Contaminated Site Considerations

The REMA framework (Figure 4.1) is applicable across a suite of restoration contexts, including
contaminated site cleanups. A suite of special considerations related to contaminated sites is mapped
onto the REMA framework (Figure 4.1).

Special Considerations for Contaminated Sites

A

Authorities; processes (Section 4.3.2)

B

Regulatory considerations(Section 4.3.2)
Terminology (Section 4.3.3)

C

Green & sustainable remediation(Section 4.2.2)
Socio-ecological systems framework(Section 4.2.4)
Regulatory considerations(Section 4.3.2)

D

Regulatory considerations(Section 4.3.2)

Terminology (Section 4.3.3)

ES-relevant monitoring criteria Section 4.3.4)

E

Process boundaries(Section 4.3.2)

Terminology (Section 4.3.3)

ES-relevant monitoring criteria(Section 4.3.4)

F

Regulatory considerations(Section 4.3.2)
ES-relevant monitoring criteria(Section 4.3.4)

G

Translational scienc^Section 4.2.3)

Decision support(Section 4.3.3)

Cleanup timelines & ES establishment(Section 4.3.4)

H

Regulatory considerations(Section 4.3.2)
Engineering boundaries (Section 4.3.2)

Decision support, stakeholder engagement, and
communication (Section 4.3.3)

Figure 4.1. Sections of Chapter 4 that discuss the special ES-related considerations for contaminated
sites (right) mapped onto the REMA framework (left).

4.1.3 Chapter Content

Section 4.2 provides an overview of the organizing principles around consideration of ES for remediation
and restoration of contaminated sites, including:

•	Green and Sustainable Remediation Concepts

•	Role of Translational Science

•	Ecosystem Services, Beneficiaries, and Contaminated Sites

•	Connecting People to ES to Inform Cleanups (Social-Ecological Systems (SES) Framework)

•	Audiences

Section 4.3 outlines a number of special considerations for application of ES in contaminated cleanups,
including:

130

-------
•	Identify Boundaries & Constraints: Authorities; Cleanup Processes; and Engineering Constraints

•	Identify Opportunities: Decision Support; Stakeholder Engagement; Terminology; and
Communication

•	Examine Monitoring: Assessment Criteria and Timeline Considerations

Discussion on each element in this section includes a description and overview of these special
considerations, along with examples from one or more case study applications.

Section 4.4 introduces a detailed case study on the Great Lakes Area of Concern and lessons learned,
organized around the elements of the REMA framework.

Section 4.5 presents conclusions from this chapter, focusing on answering the question, "What ES are
compatible with remedies?"

4.1.4 Intended Audience

The primary target audiences for this report are assorted contaminated cleanup programs' technical
team members (including site responsible parties, project managers, stakeholders, contractors).
Regardless of cleanup processes involved, these audiences include those who are interested in
understanding how ES thinking can be incorporated into their existing processes and lead to improved
outcomes.

4.2 Organizing Principles

There is a suite of organizing principles for
consideration of ES in contaminated sites, with
relevant elements from science developed in
contaminated sites, ES, and SES areas (Figure 4.2).

From a contaminated site perspective, the breadth
and depth of contaminated cleanups can be put
into the context of a remediation restoration
revitalization framework (referred to as R2R2R;
Williams et al. 2020), as well as be mapped onto a
larger ecosystem restoration continuum (Figure
4.3). Additionally, there have been efforts for
introducing green and sustainable
remediation (often referred to as GSR; Section
4.2.2) concepts into cleanups for the past two
decades.

4.2.1 Introduction

Social-Ecological Systems

In addition to advances in ES assessment tools
(Section 2.3; Table 2.2), concepts from

Figure 4.2. Organizing principles for special consideration
of ES in contaminated sites. References: 1 - USEPA 2008b;
2011a; 2 - USEPA 2017a; Harwell et al. 2021; 3 - Yee et al.
2017; 4 - Pettibone et al. 2018; 5 - Williams and Hoffman
2020; 6 - DeWitt et al. 2020; 7 - Williams and Hoffman

2020; 8 - Sharpe et al. 2021.

131

-------
translational science (Section 4.2.3) focus on connecting people to ES to inform decision making (DeWitt
et al. 2020; Section 4.2.4), including some initial efforts identifying connections between ES and
contaminated site cleanups. Finally, the addition of SES (see Section 4.2.5) thinking supports
development of relevant cleanup frameworks (including R2R2R) and advances in the field of stakeholder
identification and prioritization (Section 4.2.6 on Audiences).

Compensatory Mitigation





Contaminated Sites



Conservation-Based Restoration

REDUCING

SOCIETAL
IMPACT*

IMPROVING REPAIRING

ECOSYSTEM
MAMA&IMCNT

ECOSYSTEM
UNCTION

INITIATING

NATIVE

frieovtrr

PARTIAHY
RECOVERING
NAT7VI
ECOSYSTIM5

Reduced Impacts

Remediation

Rehabilitation

Ecological Restoration

Figure 4.3. A modified "restorative continuum" diagram from the Society for Ecological Restoration
(Gann et al. 2019) describing (bottom) restoration action goals (i.e., reducing, improving, repairing,
initiating, recovering) and resultant improvement in ecosystem outcomes (bottom bars). This report's
three communities of practice, including contaminated sites, are outlined in boxes at the top.

4.2.2 Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR)

Concepts of greener cleanups and sustainable remediation have been around for several decades. While
they are often described together under one umbrella as GSR, there are differences between the two
fields (Smith 2019). One main GSR element is greener cleanups, focused on reducing the footprint of
cleanup activities to protect human health and the environment (USEPA 2022). Greener cleanups focus
on practices (technologies and process steps) aimed at minimizing unnecessary use of resources (e.g.,
energy, water) and minimizing physical footprint impacts. One overall goal of greener cleanups is to
optimize the cleanup technologies' performance and evaluate the cleanup footprints while seeking to
maximize environmental outcomes. Elements of greener cleanups are relevant across a suite of
contaminated site cleanups and authorities (see Section 4.3.2).

The spectrum of potentially relevant greener cleanups activities is often presented as a suite of best
management practices (BMPs) that a site team can choose to work with as part of their remedial design

132

-------
efforts. The consideration and use of BMPs, however, can occur during a number of site activities,
including site investigation; remedy selection, design, and implementation; and periodic evaluations of
remedy performance (Harwell et al. 2021). USEPA (2015b) provides an overview of green remediation
BMPs. Additional relevant resources for compiled BMPs are the Interstate Technology & Regulatory
Council (ITRC) (2011), SuRF UK (2014), and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
International (2016). In a hypothetical example, Harwell et al. (2021) present an example crosswalk
between a BMP table (from the ASTM Guide for Greener Cleanups; ASTM 2016) and potentially relevant
ES for a contaminant dredging project in Bayou Verdine, Louisiana. Additional greener cleanup examples
highlighted by USEPA (2022) that also resulted in enhancing ES include preserving natural land features,
maintaining open space, sequestering carbon, enhancing biodiversity, increasing wildlife habitat, and
minimizing surface and sub-surface disturbance. Attention to monitoring and assessment design for
effectiveness of these types of BMPs can provide an opportunity to also capture the ES benefits.

The other main GSR element is focused on sustainable remediation (USEPA 2008b), a "whole-site"
approach to examine remedy implementation options that consider environmental effects along with
goals of maximizing net environmental benefits from cleanups. Sustainable remediation is a systems-
thinking strategy that looks to balance accelerating cleanup efforts and efforts to return a site, or
components of a site, to full or partial reuse as greenspace (or bluespace). The ITRC definition of GSR is
the site-specific employment of products, processes, technologies, and procedures that mitigate
contaminant risk to receptors while making decisions that are cognizant of balancing community goals,
economic impacts, and environmental effects (ITRC 2011).

4.2.3 Translational Science

The primary translational science (in the sense of Pettibone et al. 2018) element that is relevant in the
consideration of ES in contaminated sites relates to the
identification, prioritization, inclusion, and engagement of
stakeholders in the cleanup process. The translational science
model captures the importance of recognizing that stakeholder
needs and involvement/engagement are central to a cycle of
discovery, application, and evaluation (Figure 4.4). In the context
of contaminated site cleanups, translational science concepts can
be used to:

•	Help learn what are stakeholders' goals;

•	Determine what actions are needed to accomplish those
goals;

•	Develop trackable metrics that reflect those goals to
measure project effectiveness and for adaptive
management;

•	Examine and show how those actions might work; and

•	Then communicate both the implementation and the
outcomes of the actions taken.

Figure 4,4. Stakeholder engagement at
the core of translational science.

133

-------
Different cleanup programs have different points of engagement with potentially affected stakeholders,
but all focused on addressing the main driver of conducting cleanups to improve protectiveness from
contamination. For example, in the US Superfund program, a community involvement program was
developed for organizing stakeholder participation in different parts of the cleanup process (e.g.,
Charnley & Engelbert 2005). The concept of ES can be useful in contaminated cleanup efforts, yet
without clearly defining what those environmental benefits are to people, they may not provide value-
added insights into cleanup decisions. It is those ES that directly matter to people (called final ecosystem
goods and services or FEGS) and are often represented when conveyed in participatory planning. For
example, a community may care more about whether their children can safely play on the playground
more so than the actual concentration of lead in the soil. An understanding of what ES stakeholders'
value can be gained through stakeholder engagement during a cleanup process.

In a research context for a translational science effort that connected ES and contaminated cleanups in
the Great Lakes, Williams and Hoffman (2020) describe the importance of engagement with community
members and stakeholders, "to gather knowledge and co-produce scientific data, which are translated
into potential ecosystem goods and services (EGS), with associated benefits or losses (trade-offs)
identified based on project alternatives." In an R2R2R (Section 4.2.5) case study, Williams and Hoffman
(2020) focus on stakeholder engagement as an intentional participatory process focused on collecting
and integrating different kinds of knowledge (e.g., scientific, local, and traditional ecological knowledge).

Fortunately, there are a number of stakeholder engagement-focused decision support tools designed to
inform restoration. Specifically, from an ES and restoration perspective, a number of ES assessment
tools include elements involving stakeholder input into the design and analysis of decision alternatives.
Harwell et al. (2021) introduce a suite of ES assessment tools that may be helpful in contaminated
cleanups, including an ES classification system (such as the National Ecosystem Services Classification
System (NESCS) Plus; Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020), EnviroAtlas (Pickard et al. 2015), i-Tree (USDA
2016), Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol (WESP; Adamus, 2011), Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem
Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST; Mandle et al. 2016), and Greener Cleanup BMP tables (e.g., ASTM
International, 2016). Other ES assessment tools that can be used to directly engage stakeholders include
geographic information system (GIS) tools such as EPA H20 (Russell et al. 2015), Rapid Benefit Indicators
(RBI) approach (Bousquin & Mazzotta 2020), and the FEGS Scoping Tool (FST; Sharpe et al. 2020). These
and other tools are described in Table 2.2 and discussed as resources for incorporating ES into REMA in
Section 2.3.

For contaminated cleanups involving an environmental component,
there is an opportunity to examine the benefits from nature - in
particular, those ES directly benefiting a site's stakeholders - provided

by the cleanup.

134

-------
SiKiSg Washington's Formal Cleanup Process

Discovery

* Keport pLr_eiitial
contaminate, to Ecology

.,1afSL

Q,

Initial Investigation

* Deterr ne i" cortte ^inatic^ requires farmer action.

Site Hazard Assessment

»Evaluate poterrtia risk tc human h#aith a'd ye env ronment

:iri enfX3i.-i.il e fiolcri. jl aric! skvkiily cil Ka/H.'d.

Q,

Remedial Investigation

~ Ueterr ne the natui e and extent of contamination.

Ueterm nt potential imoacts to hi. man health and til

Feasibility Study

» Iti:rri. ly rrii-lhnil:. I:i c;li riiri.ili- RKpttiiurc! l:i
» Awmhlr! rnrlhnrlr: inln m rang:1 nf <: rvinup alkT-vniws.

» Use an env" x>nncntal bcc'lt vs. cost anSys's to choose a preferred altc

Q,

4.2.4 Ecosystem Services, Beneficiaries, and
Contaminated Sites

Stakeholders, Public Participation, and Beneficiaries
Each cleanup process has one or more identified
opportunities for public participation. They may or
may not be explicitly described as "stakeholder
engagement" opportunities, as shown in the case of
the state of Washington's cleanup process (Figure
4.5).

While stakeholder identification steps are often
proscribed by a regulatory process, an important
aspect of the ES approach, especially in looking for
direct benefits (FEGS) by focusing on identification of
beneficiaries (DeWitt et al. 2020), can be used as a
helpful check to ensure representativeness of
stakeholders for a given decision context. Sharpe et al.

(2020) further developed approaches for determining
how to prioritize among stakeholders in
environmental decision making.

A beneficiary perspective can be valuable for different
parts of the cleanup process. For example, the
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (USEPA 2001)
reuse assessment process is an example where a
beneficiary perspective is useful for translating
community interests into future land-use goals. In
another example, for those contaminated cleanups
focusing on ecological reuse or greenspace as ultimate

endpoints, identification, and consideration of beneficiaries can be valuable (USEPA 2017a).
A Beneficiary Perspective for Monitoring and Assessment

The beneficiary perspective (DeWitt et al. 2020) walks through a series of questions aimed at
determining the ES:

1.	How/WFIERE do they use, enjoy, or appreciate nature?

2.	Who are the beneficiaries?

3.	What is the environmental setting/context?

4.	What is the environmental attribute of interest?

Cleanup Action Plan

•	Descr be Ecoogy's selected deenjo acton including:

•	Cleanup stewards to protect human health and the environment.

*	Si htululc. :il rn;xl \

» Si'rju iifrirnK Inr rronii.nr n:j. oppmlion. and ri,iirr nn;r'<;:"

Engineering Design

»Create detailed design and construction docurr'S'ts
foi li-ie dtdiiup fcUiuu.

Clean up the site!

~ Corrplets the desnup action, Examples of
cleanup actions nduce:

*	C:jii!ili.;<:liiicj pro.«Liiw inulli- iaymed ixppiiHj syV-Km.

•	"rectinri contort! - ation in place
¦ Rerrowng contarc ratio" to a "aza'dous waste landfill.

Monitoring and Site Use Controls

» Monitor and do on going operatic--5,•'rraintenanro
»Rest-ict/prohibit activities that cculd cist, rb the cleanup.

Reviews and De-listing

•	I lod 3-jffcn' pciiiudii leifjjWs j.i wife is i
» Rpriwr silr rt:.'n I iK'.irclous Silt!'. I i.\. h

standards anc requirements.

Washington's	MTCAdefinesthadean„pp'ocess.Tliia.|t
-------
The footprint of the cleanup establishes the boundaries to answer Question 1 but note that cleanup of a
relatively small hotspot can have a positive effect (e.g., ability to catch and eat fish) in a larger area.
Questions 2-4 aim to enhance the understanding of who benefits, as a particular stakeholder group may
represent one or more type of beneficiary. The goal is to get to the answer to Question 4, which can
then be brought to the discussion on metrics for monitoring and assessment to supplement the
traditional consideration of physical, biological, chemical, and human health metrics. Several examples
below demonstrate the concepts - for a given LOCATION (Question 1) - of identifying the beneficiaries
(Question 2), the enviror	[ (Question 3), and relevant environmental attributes

(Question 4) [note: font colors and formatting used below to identify relevant, connected ES
characteristics].

For example, a goal of creating recreational access trails as part of a landfill cleanup might be described
as: Recreational birders want to see specific charismatic bird species and are thus drawn to an open
prairie of nat	created by selective plantings for the LANDFILL cap. By bringing stakeholders

together and discussing with an ES perspective, insights are gained about potential
remediation/restoration options (e.g., what to plant for the vegetation cap) and relevant monitoring and
assessment endpoints (e.g., in addition to bird counts, perhaps include a specific count of a charismatic
sparrow). These types of discussions may also yield insights into opportunities for stakeholders and
cleanup partners to contribute to larger monitoring and assessment of success (e.g., the local Audubon
society could monitor the number of visitors by birders) to better inform the overall benefits of the
remediation/restoration.

In another example on river dredging for contaminants, a goal of creating suitable recreational fishing
opportunities might be described as: Recreational fishermen are concerned about contaminants in
edible fish tissue in the DREDGED AREA OF THE RIVER they frequent. By bringing stakeholders together
and discussing with a beneficiary perspective, insights are gained about relevant monitoring and
assessment endpoints (e.g., in addition to fish sampling for tissue residues or tumors, toxicity testing of
minnows, and general fish counts, perhaps include a specific count (and size measurements)) of target
recreational fish (e.g., largemouth bass). Similar to the example above, these types of discussions may
identify opportunities for stakeholders and cleanup partners to contribute to a larger assessment of
success (e.g., a local fishing group could work to monitor the number of fishing days in the area) to
better inform the overall benefits of the remediation/restoration.

4.2.5 The Importance of a Social-Ecological System (SES) Framework

An SES perspective can be useful for understanding how to achieve management goals and project
objectives in ecological restoration projects (i.e., efforts to assist the recovery of an ecosystem that has
been degraded, damaged, or destroyed; Gann et al. 2019). This is relevant to contaminated site
cleanups in an adaptive management framework; see Figure 1.1 for a general SES model for restoration,
and Figure 4.6 for restoration of contaminated sites, adapted from Williams and Hoffman (2020). In an
SES approach, it is important to recognize that the restoration project can have both an ecological
component (i.e., its ecological footprint) and a social component (e.g., amenities, facilities). The
restoration project exists within a larger ecosystem, which influences project-scale ecological function
(Zedler 2003). The ecosystem generally is framed within a social system because the project is defined

136

-------
by people for the purpose of management (e.g., based on programmatic, regulatory, or pragmatic
considerations). The social system includes both associated policies or goals as well as stakeholders and
community members. For contaminated sites, the main project driver is protectiveness from
contamination, with both ecosystem and social system elements. As such, this generic SES framework
could be applied to a given contaminated site cleanup with some case-specific modifications to the
diagram.

The framework is intentionally flexible and adaptive, involving both concepts of project-focused
adaptive management (including elements of project implementation and project effectiveness) and
translational practice feedback loops (Williams and Hoffman 2020). In the adaptive management loop,
remediation and restoration project designs are informed by a combination of policies and goals (often
driven by the Agencies involved in a given project). To support effectiveness evaluation and adaptive
actions, project-scale monitoring metrics are measured at the project-scale (labeled as A in Figure 4.6).
The translational practice loop between policies and goals and community members and stakeholders
recognizes the importance of community and stakeholder values and knowledge (including traditional
ecological knowledge) influencing project goals and policies or goals changing human drivers. The loop
between the restoration project and community members and stakeholders represents an intentional
investment in a translational practice highlighting the importance of community engagement and
opportunities for data and knowledge co-production to influence project design. Community members
and stakeholders are also the beneficiaries of ES from the restored site (DeWitt et al. 2020). It should be
noted that the ES beneficiary stakeholders and community members may not be the same people as
those influencing related policies or project goals.

Social System

Human Drivers

Community Values

Metrics
A, B

Restoration
Project

Metrics

Policies,
Goals



s? 3

Translational

W

Practice

Translational Practice

Adaptive
Management /^

Community
Members,
Stakeholders

Ecosystem

Figure 4.6. Social-ecological systems approach to incorporating ES into adaptive management of
ecological restoration projects. Monitoring endpoints are shown as metrics-A: project-scale ecological
metrics for project effectiveness (environmental quality, species, habitat, ecological integrity, function);

137

-------
B: project-scale ES impact metrics - environmental; C: project-scale ES impact metrics - social,
governance; D: system-scale ES impact metrics - environmental; E: system-scale ES impacts - social,
economic, governance. See Table 4.7 for supporting information on metrics.

In addition to measuring project effectiveness (i.e., metrics signified by A in Figure 4.6), the SES
framework supports the identification of ES metrics for measuring the social impacts of restoration
(following the nomenclature in Angradi et al. 2019). Some ES metrics likely operate at the project scale
and can relate to environmental dimensions (labeled as B; e.g., abundance of culturally valuable plants
or animals, nutrient storage, or viewscapes), social dimensions (labeled as C; e.g., odors, sense of place,
or recreational or cultural uses), or governance dimensions (labeled as C; e.g., community engagement
or volunteer participation in restoration activities). Other ES metrics likely operate at the system-scale,
including for both the environmental dimension (labeled as D; e.g., gamefish abundance or nutrient
concentration) and social, economic, and governance dimensions (labeled as E; e.g., public health,
property values, or citizen participation). In Section 4.3.4, Table 4.7 provides greater detail on these
potential ES metrics and the timelines anticipated for monitoring relative to the restoration project
implementation.

The SES approach intentionally integrates social and ecological knowledge to support restoration. It can
operate in a management setting where diverse knowledge and values are formative elements. A good
example of operationalizing a SES perspective is the framework developed for the R2R2R approach to
Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC) sites (Williams and Hoffman 2020). The Great Lakes AOC program
addresses beneficial use impairments (BUIs) associated with multiple causes, including sediment and
water contamination, habitat loss, excess nutrients and sediment inputs, and improperly functioning
storm or sewer systems (see Section 4.4; Hartig and Zarull 1992). Typically, management actions include
sediment remediation and habitat restoration. The R2R2R framework is used to identify ecological and
policy-based relationships between large-scale sediment remediation projects, subsequent habitat
restoration projects, and community revitalization. Although R2R2R is relatively new as a practice,
application of the R2R2R framework at a recent restoration project demonstrated that building in both
adaptive management principles and translational practice through community engagement created a
process that was widely praised by agencies, stakeholders, and community members, and which directly
impacted restoration design through improvements of ecological outcomes, ES, and community benefits
(Williams and Hoffman 2020). The R2R2R framework is also transferable, as demonstrated at the
Milltown Superfund Site in Montana (USEPA 2011a).

4.2.6 Audiences

There are a wide range of types of contaminated sites ranging from brownfields (USEPA 2021) to AOCs
(Williams and Hoffman 2020) to Superfund sites (USEPA 2020c); these may be associated with different
agencies, programs, mission guidance and goals, and regulatory limits and responsibilities. Just as each
program has its own avenues for engagement with potentially affected stakeholders (Section 4.2.3),
each program also has its own avenues for consideration and application of ES (Section 4.3.2). The range
of potential applications and potential avenues for engagement mean that there are a wide range of
audiences that must be considered for this work. These audiences include the organizations tasked with
managing contaminated sites, who are interested in understanding how ES thinking can be incorporated

138

-------
into their existing processes and lead to improved outcomes, and the stakeholders with whom those
organizations are tasked with engaging, who are interested in clearly understanding what the
organizations are doing and why they are doing it. Importantly, what these groups have in common is
the need to understand, and be able to clearly articulate, the connections between the contaminated
site, the current and potential future uses of and benefits from the site, and stakeholder demand for
those uses and benefits.

By bringing stakeholders together and discussing with a "beneficiary
perspective/' insights are gained about potential
remediation/restoration options and relevant monitoring and

assessment endpoints.

4.3 Special Considerations

4.3.1	Introduction

Many contaminated cleanups have incorporated considerations of ecosystems and their services (e.g.,
USEPA 2017a). There are a range of special considerations involved in the intersection between ES
concepts, cleanup of contaminated sites, and the consideration of ES endpoints as part of restoration
monitoring and assessment:

•	Special boundaries and constraints associated with a suite of different cleanup authorities and
processes

•	Boundaries associated with the operations of site cleanup (e.g., engineering constraints)

•	The intersection between ES concepts and the social-environmental contexts of cleanups,
including harmonizing terminology, consideration of stakeholders and beneficiaries,
translational science to help with decision support, tool applications, and risk communication

•	Monitoring considerations, including different types of criteria and consideration of timelines.

4.3.2	Identify Boundaries & Constraints

There are a suite of boundaries and constraints with respect to consideration of ES in ecological
restoration specifically associated with the cleanup of contaminated sites. Anchoring these are
regulatory boundaries, both in terms of the legal authorities for a given cleanup mechanism, and the
cleanup processes themselves. Within assorted cleanup programs, there are additional constraints.
These include constraints of different types - and selection - of potential remediation remedy types,
consideration of potential BMPs during cleanup activities, and actions meeting requirements of
protecting human health and the environment, termed remedy protectiveness. Contaminated site
remediation is driven by the need to protect human health and the environment from contaminants.
The approach taken to achieve the protectiveness may be informed by ES restoration considerations.

139

-------
Authorities

There are a number of US laws that focus on remediation and cleanup of environmental contaminants,
all focused on addressing the driver of providing human health and environmental protection from
contamination. These include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (commonly referred to as Superfund; 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.), the updated
reauthorization of CERCLA, the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (Pub. L.
No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767), the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; U.S.C. § 6901 et
seq.), and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (1984) Pub. L. No. 98-616, 98 Stat. 3221
(Harwell 2020). Superfund, with its nine-criteria of evaluation for remedy selection (USEPA 1990),
focuses on removing hazardous materials from sites where they had been improperly dumped into the
environment in years past, whereas RCRA focuses on the waste cycle by defining wastes and dictating
how they are to be treated. Each of these regulatory mechanisms for cleanup of contaminated sites has
their own, albeit related, processes.

A brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the
presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant (USEPA 2021). The
cleanup of brownfields for the purposes of revitalization (reuse), was developed out of the CERCLA. For
a history of the USEPA Brownfield program, the reader is directed to (USEPA 2021). Formal legislation
for brownfield cleanups was captured in the 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields
Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA) Pub. L. No. 107-118, 115 Stat. 2356 that amended CERCLA to increase
funding for cleanup at urban and suburban CERCLA sites. It focuses on cleanup of sites with petroleum
or other hazardous waste contamination.

Finally, as a regional example, the Great Lakes AOC Program was established by the US-Canada Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA 2012) to focus cleanup efforts on specific areas that are
sufficiently impacted by legacy contaminants (e.g., heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants) as to
cause impairment of one or more of 14 "beneficial uses" of the area (Williams and Hoffman 2020). The
boundaries of an AOC may include Superfund areas, and nearby brownfield locations, with remediation
(e.g., contaminated sediment cleanup) and restoration (e.g., aquatic habitat) activities involved.

The 2009 USEPA Report, "Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties into Community
Assets" provided information to better conduct ecological revitalization at contaminated properties. The
concept of "ecological revitalization" is not typically considered an "enhancement" to a cleanup effort,
so ecological revitalization efforts can be part of the result of a cleanup and (generally) be funded under
Superfund (although it is not the primary cleanup goal per se) and may be a component of plans under
the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404. Components of ecological revitalization are case specific, and USEPA
(2009a) provide examples showcasing technical considerations for implementing revitalization in
wetlands, streams, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecological revitalization principles
also highlight the long-term stewardship necessary to ensure protectiveness of the
cleanup remedy and the functioning of associated ecosystems. Additionally, the
methodology outlining the environmental footprint analysis of site cleanup (USEPA
2012) described approaches to reduce the footprint and identifies "qualitatively
describe affected ecosystem services" as the sixth step in the process.

140

-------
Regardless of the regulatory program(s) involved at a given site, cleanup of
contaminated media is focused on goals of protecting human health and the
environment, and the process(es) outlined within a given cleanup program involve
specific legal authorities (e.g., regulatory requirements) under which the cleanup
operates (USEPA 2017a). Overall, consideration of ES concepts (e.g., USEPA 2009b;
2017a; Harwell et al. 2021) are relevant to cleanups in different regulatory
contexts, but they have to be examined withing those boundaries.

Cleanup Processes

Any remediation site that involves ecological considerations (e.g., ecological
revitalization supporting functioning and sustainable habitat), or reuse involving
creating access to nature, may be a potential site for inclusion of ES concepts
(USEPA 2009a; Harwell et al. 2021). In broadest terms, cleanup of contaminated
sites follows a generic process, regardless of cleanup mechanism (Figure 4.7). An
initial assessment provides an overview of the site conditions and occurs before
the remedy selection process. After remedy selection, the design details are
identified, then implemented. Methods for examining the environmental footprint
involved in remedy implementation, including the use of BMPs during remedy
implementation, may aid in consideration of site management approaches
consistent with anticipated ecological reuse (USEPA 2012). After remedy project
completion, a site enters an operation, maintenance, and monitoring phase, with
remedy effectiveness assessments used to determine if further remedial work is
needed. Issues of monitoring and assessing ES as a function of time since cleanup
are discussed in Section 4.3.4.

Site
Assessment

/

Remedy
Selection

Remedy Design/
Implementation

Operation,
Maintenance
and Monitoring

Remedy Optimization
or Modification

No
Further
Cleanup

Figure 4.7. General
process for
contaminated site
cleanups.

CERCLA Pipeline

The generic CERCLA Cleanup Pipeline is shown in Figure 4.8. From an ES
perspective, the relevant aspects in the first stage of developing remedial action

objectives is to examine the end use of the remediated property, answering questions such as: "Will the
proposed end use be sustainable, and will that use affect ES or restore ES to the area?" Example of ES

goals relevant to the second

CERCLA

Cleanup

Pipeline

Stage 1: Developing
Remedial Action
Objectives

Stage 2: Remedy
Selection

• Preliminary
Assessment

¦ Site Inspection





• Remedial
Investigation

• Feasibility
Study
• Proposed Plan

• Remedial
Action
Objectives

• Remedy
Selection

• Final Cleanup
Decision



Stage 3: Remedy

• Remedial

• Remedial

• Construction

Implementation

Design

Action

Completion

Stage4: Long-Term
Stewardship

Operation and
Maintenance

Five-Year
Review

Site Deletion

stage on remedy selection are
whether the chosen remedial
actions will mitigate damages
to ES and/or restore damaged
ES. During the implementation
stage, remedial actions
implemented are evaluated to
assure those actions are
adequately addressing the
release or threatened release of
the identified hazardous

Figure 4.8. The CERCLA Cleanup Pipeline.

141

-------
substances at the site. A relevant ES emphasis includes looking at whether
concepts and principles of greener cleanups (USEPA 2022) are being applied.
In the final stage, an example of ES focus is on developing and implementing
long-term stewardship on sustainability principles that include ES.

RCRA Corrective Action Process

The RCRA Corrective Action Process, applied (in general) to industrial facilities
in active operation, is shown in Figure 4.9. From an ES perspective, both site
assessment and site characterization stages afford the potential opportunity to
supplement traditional assessment efforts by examining potential ES, if any, at
a given site (see BERA/SLERA below). The RCRA interim actions step is targeted
on immediate opportunities to reduce risks by addressing existing threats to
human health or the environment. Evaluation of remedial alternatives and
remedy implementation are conceptually similar to the CERCLA process. The
CERCLA process also involves a phase focused on monitoring and tracking
progress on remedy effectiveness, as well as efforts for entering sites into a
long-term care stage.

Ecological Risk Assessment Processes

Common across contaminated site cleanups, risk assessments are conducted
as part of the effort to examine the extent of potential contamination and
evaluate risks to human health and the environment. An ecological risk

assessment (ERA; Figure

00

c
'c
c
_nj
a.

r,
¥

Problem
Formulation

1 1

Characterization of:

£ ExposureSEcol°gical
Effects

t r

Risk

Characterization

Q.
n>
Q.

O

0)

*

T

Communicate
Results

t

Risk Management

RCRA Corrective
Action Process

Initial Site
Assessment

~

¦
u

o

Site Characterization

Interim Actions

Evaluation of
Remedial Alternatives

Remedy
Implementation

Tracking Process

Long Term Care

Figure 4.9. The RCRA
Corrective Action Process.

4.10) is a flexible process
for organizing and
analyzing data,

information, assumptions, and
uncertainties in order to
evaluate the likelihood of
adverse ecological effects from environmental
stressors (Dearfield et al. 2005, citing USEPA 2004).
The choice of risk endpoints can be important for
consideration of ES because risk endpoints drive
the remedy.

In the Superfund context, an ERA is a qualitative
and/or quantitative appraisal of the actual or
potential impacts of contaminants from a
hazardous waste site on plants and animals other
than humans and domesticated species (USEPA
1997). Ecological risk assessments are generally

conducted using a phased approach - a screening
Figure 4.10. Generic Risk Assessment Process.

142

-------
level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) often followed by a baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA).
The SLERA evaluates the potential for adverse ecological effects to ecological resources under very
conservative site-specific exposure scenarios (e.g., maximum documented exposure concentrations) and
using screening benchmark values. The BERA evaluates the exposure and effects of a stressor (a
contaminant in the Superfund context) to ecological resources under site-specific exposure scenarios
and using detailed site-specific physical, chemical, and biological data (USEPA 2008a Glossary). The risk
assessment team decides that either the SLERA is adequate to determine that ecological threats are
negligible, or that the process should continue to a more detailed BERA. In the latter case, the SLERA
serves to identify exposure pathways and preliminary contaminants of concern for the BERA by
eliminating those contaminants and exposure pathways that pose negligible risks (USEPA 1997). The
results of the baseline risk assessment will help to establish acceptable exposure levels for use in
developing remedial alternatives during the Feasibility Study.

Examples of how ES topics relate to the traditional steps in ERA are shown in Table 4.1 (Maurice et al.
2019). In addition to the suite of ES related topics identified in Table 4.1, ES related endpoints may be
incorporated into ecological risk assessments (USEPA 2015a; USEPA 2016; Munns et al. 2016; Munns et
al. 2017) informing remediation decisions and monitoring and assessments. Recognizing that ES
endpoints may be a little less straightforward to incorporate into an ERA framework, Raimondo et al.
(2019) developed an approach to examine what are the relevant ES endpoints to bring to an endangered
species discussion looking at it from both the habitat perspective and the beneficiary perspective.

Table 4.1. Examples of ES relevant topics for different phases of ecological risk assessments (modified
from Maurice et al. 2019).

ERA Phases

Ecosystem Services Related Topics

Planning and Scoping

Identify ecosystem elements/condition at the site
Identify critical ES at risk
Identify potential ES at the site landscape
Identify socioeconomic elements at the site

Problem Formulation

Describe ES benefits

Estimate magnitudes of benefits

Incorporate ES into conceptual site model (CSM)

Analysis

Evaluate potential ES /site contaminants connectivity

Evaluate potential effects of site contaminants on ES

Evaluate ES condition (functionality, impairment level)

Evaluate resilience/vulnerability to site contaminants

Calculate ES cost savings and other benefits

Assess ES capacity (type, temporal, seasonal, spatial)

Assess ES importance to stakeholders

Assess ES maintenance effort and cost

Identify key features or parameters to protect ES benefits

143

-------
ERA Phases

Ecosystem Services Related Topics

Risk Characterization

Compare costs and benefits of ES

Characterize ES impairment level by site contaminants

Risk Communication

Articulate ES benefits and costs

Articulate risks to ES using a risk communication framework

Identify ES monitoring elements to inform risk reduction and communication

BUI Framework

The Laurentian Great Lakes hold roughly one-fifth of
the Earth's surface fresh water. About 34 million
people live within the watershed. Both open waters
of the Great Lakes and nearshore habitats provide a
diverse array of ES, including direct uses such as
drinking water, cultural services, recreational
services, and the support of numerous commercial
industries (Sierzen et al. 2012; Allan et al. 2015;

Steinman et al. 2017). In 1987, 43 AOCs were
identified under the US-Canada Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA 2012). Areas of Concern
are communities around the Great Lakes where
environmental degradation impaired the ability to
support aquatic life (Williams and Hoffman 2020).

With sediment and water contamination impacts
compounded by habitat loss, excess nutrients and
sediment inputs, and improperly functioning storm or sewer systems, a total of 14 BUIs were identified,
including "degradation of fish and wildlife populations," degradation of benthos," and "loss of fish and
wildlife habitat." The overall goals of this US and Canada program are to use a combination of
remediation and restoration activities ("management actions" in program terminology) to address
environmental degradation and thereby remove BUIs (Figure 4.11), support the delisting of the AOCs,
and ultimately revitalize those areas (Hartig et al. 2020; USEPA 2020a). For more about the R2R2R
efforts, the reader is directed to Williams and Hoffman (2020).

Engineering Constraints and Relevance to Ecosystem Services

There are three broad areas of engineering constraints to consider in terms of relevance to ES, that may
subsequently inform monitoring and assessment: mechanical constraints; whether the remedy
type/selection process has relevant ES for consideration; and how to achieve the protectiveness of
remedies where there may be relevant ES for consideration.

Remedies, Ecosystem Services Relevance, and Mechanical Constraints

The first type of engineering constraints focuses on how to think about mechanical constraints for a
cleanup remedy and how that informs the potential for ES consideration. For example, because of
engineering constraints, you cannot plant trees on a landfill cap or a levee around a water retention

Remove Beneficial
Use Impairment

Consult the Public

Evaluate Current
Conditions to
Determine Status of
BUIs

Propose BUI Removal
Where Assessment
Shows Beneficial Use
Restored

Implement
Management

Actions to
Address BUIs

Assess Impact of
Management
Action on BUIs

Figure 4.11. The Beneficial Use Impairment Removal Process.

144

-------
pond. As another example, in areas of high scour, a cap (i.e., burying the contaminant in a more
permanent layer) may not be adequate or would otherwise require too much maintenance to be
feasible. As a result, this creates boundary constraints on the types of ES and benefits possible that can
be considered.

To frame a discussion about potential ES endpoints for monitoring and assessment, the potential ES
relevance for a cleanup effort can be cross walked by remedial programs or techniques. Table 4.2
presents examples of ES-relevant lists of green and sustainable BMPs, using the ASTM International
(2016) as a guide. Table 4.3 presents examples of ES-relevant activities in a generic Brownfield context.
Table 4.4 presents an example crosswalk between the 14 BUIs in the Great Lakes AOCs to their
designated uses and two ES classification systems (CICES; NESCS Plus).

Remedy Protectiveness

Remedy protectiveness is focused, in part, on, "the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of
human health and the environment overtime" (USEPA 1990). There are several categories of topics
where additional efforts focused on optimization of remedy effectiveness (e.g., USEPA 2017c, 2020d)
have relevant connections with ES restoration considerations. For example, looking at making
improvements in the conceptual site model (CSM) through additional characterization of sources and
environmental media (USEPA 2020d) could include incorporation of ES elements. Other areas of remedy
effectiveness optimization relevant to ES consideration includes changes in management approach
and/or improvements to the performance of an existing system (see Adaptive Management in Section
4.3.3). Additionally, Section 4.3.2 discusses ES concepts in risk assessments, of relevance for a remedy
effectiveness optimization focus on identification and reduction of risk.

145

-------
Table 4.2. Examples of ES-relevant lists of green and sustainable BMPs, using the ASTM International (2016) as a guide.

Project Planning and Team Management	

Designate collection points for compostable materials and routine recycling of single-use items such as metal, plastic, and glass containers; paper and
cardboard; and other items that may be recycled locally

Establish green requirements (for example, greener cleanup BMPs) as evaluation criteria in the selection of contractors and include language in RFPs,
RFQs, subcontracts, contracts, etc. For example, procure remediation reagents from vendors with sustainable policies

Site Preparation and Land Restoration	

Restore and/or maintain ecosystems in ways that mirror natural conditions

Select pre-existing, native and non-invasive vegetation for phytoremediation or restoration activities to minimize use of water and amendments

Use biodegradable covers to protect and preserve healthy plants from land disturbing activities

Cover filled excavations with biodegradable fabric to control erosion and serve as a substrate for ecosystems

For restoration use a suitable mix of trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs to preserve or improve biodiversity and

related ecosystem services

Incorporate wetlands, grassed swales, or grass-lined channels, bioswales, and other types of vegetated areas to enhance gradual infiltration and
evapotranspiration, prevent soil and sediment runoff, and promote carbon sequestration
If grass is required, use no- or low-mowing species to minimize mowing

Use excavated areas to serve as retention basins in final storm water control plans	

Minimize clearing of trees and other vegetation throughout investigation and cleanup	

Restrict traffic to confined corridors to minimize soil compaction and land disturbance during site activities	

Use an integrated pest management plan or green alternatives (for example, non-chemical solarizing technique) to minimize use of chemical

pesticides	

Use pervious surface material such as porous pavement or gravel and separated pervious surfaces, rather than impermeable materials, when

installing hardscape (for example, roadway, parking area) to maximize infiltration	

Downed trees and snags (standing dead trees) provide habitat for numerous species; do not remove unless required for safety or access and allow

leaf litter to remain for natural mulching and weed control	

Surface and Storm Water	

Use subsurface/vertical flow wetlands rather than surface flow wetlands when possible to allow use of a greater range of plant species	

Capture rainwater for tasks such as wash water, irrigation, dust control, constructed wetlands, or other uses	

For a landfarm, use a leachate collection and treatment system to fully preserve the quality of downgradient water bodies, soil, and groundwater

Install a landfarm rain shield (such as a plastic tunnel) with rain barrels or a cistern to capture precipitation for on- site use	

Residual Solid and Liquid Waste	

146

-------
Reuse or reinject treated or uncontaminated groundwater to the subsurface to recharge an aquifer rather than discharging (for example, NPDES or

POTW) as permissible. For example, use water for irrigation, dust control, or to amend wetlands	

Salvage uncontaminated objects/ infrastructure with potential to recycle, re-sell, donate, or re-use	

Building	

Install green roof on building to minimize stormwater management and improve energy efficiency	

Install a green roof on buildings to minimize stormwater management and improve energy efficiency	

Install roofing with a high solar reflection index	

Orient new buildings (for example, south facing or with prevailing wind directions) to optimize energy efficient heating and cooling

Materials	

For landfill covers and other plant-based systems, use organic material such as compost instead of chemical fertilizers to amend the soil
Use biobased products to reduce petroleum use or enhance degradation of material. For example, use biodegradable seed matting, or erosion
control fabrics containing agricultural by-products; use algae-based oils, soybean oil, or waste/by-products from forestries, plant nurseries, or food
processing/retail industries as a substrate for bioremediation

Use materials with recycled content (for example, concrete and/or asphalt from recycled crushed concrete and/or asphalt; plastic made from
recycled plastic; geotextile fabrics/tarps made with recycled contents)

Maximize the reuse of existing wells for sampling, injections, or extraction, where appropriate, and design wells for future reuse

Power and Fuel	

Purchase renewable energy via local utility and Green Energy Programs or RECs/Green Tags to power cleanup activities
Use biodiesel produced from waste or cellulose-based products to power equipment

Use on-site generated renewable energy such as solar photovoltaic, wind turbines, landfill gas, geothermal, and biomass combustion to provide
power otherwise generated through on-site fuel consumption or use of grid electricity

Vehicles and Equipment	

Use retrofitted engines that use ultra-low, low sulfur diesel, or alternative fuels; or filter/treatment devices to achieve BACT or MACT

147

-------
Table 4.3. Examples of ES-relevant activities in a generic Brownfield context.

Brownfield Element

Environmental Benefits

Community Garden

Food provisioning services

Educational Signage

Environmental education services

Green Infrastructure
Bioswales
Green Roofs
Permeable Pavements
Rain Gardens/Rainwater Harvesting

Stormwater management
Stormwater management
Stormwater management; heat attenuation
Flood protection

Wildlife habitat, stormwater attenuation

Greenspace

Community Park
Green corridors
Playground
Walking trails
Waterfront access

Access to nature
Recreation services
Noise attenuation, wildlife habitat
Recreational services
Recreational services
Recreational services

Native flowers

Pollination services

Outdoor classroom

Environmental education services

148

-------
Table 4.4. Crosswalk between 14 BUIs in the Great Lakes AOCs to their designated uses and two ES classification systems.

Beneficial Use
Impairment

CWA
Designated Use

NESCS Plus

Steps to Navigate NESCS Plus

CICES version 4.3
(Section > Division > Group > Class)

1.

Restrictions on
Fish and
Wildlife
Consumption

Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Fauna for Subsistence, and Recreational
Anglers and Hunters, and Commercial
Food Extractors.

NESCS Plus uses ITIS Taxonomic Serial
Numbers for the code for more specific
fauna

(TSN; httDs://www.itis.aov/)

Ex: Walleye, Sander vitreus
(Code:4650173)

Where:

-	Aquatic

-	Terrestrial
What: Fauna
How (Beneficiarv):

-	Commercial Food

-	Subsistence Food

-	Hunters

-	Anglers

[Ecosystem] Provisioning > Nutrition >
Biomass > Wild animals and their outputs

2.

Tainting of Fish
and Wildlife
Flavor

Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Fauna for Subsistence, and Recreational
Anglers and Hunters, and Commercial
Food Extractors.

Where:

-	Aquatic

-	Terrestrial
What: Fauna
How (Beneficiarv):

-	Commercial Food

-	Subsistence Food

-	Hunters

-	Anglers

[Ecosystem] Provisioning > Nutrition >
Biomass > Wild animals and their outputs

149

-------
Beneficial Use
Impairment

CWA
Designated Use

NESCS Plus

Steps to Navigate NESCS Plus

CICES version 4.3
(Section > Division > Group > Class)

3.

Degraded Fish
and Wildlife
Populations

Recreation,
Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Fauna for Recreational, Subsistence,
Inspirational, Learning, and Non-Use.

Ex: Piping Plover, Charadrius melodus
(Code:4164043)

Where:

-	Aquatic

-	Terrestrial
What: Fauna
How (Beneficiarv):

-	Commercial Food

-	Subsistence Food

-	Residential Property Owners

-	Recreational

-	Learning

-	Non-Use

[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance >
Maintenance of physical, chemical,
biological conditions > Lifecycle
maintenance, habitat and gene pool
protection > Maintaining nursery
populations and habitats

4.

Fish Tumors or
Other
Deformities

Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Fish for Recreational, Subsistence,
Inspirational, Learning, and Non-Use.

Ex: Brown Bullhead, Ameiurus nebulosus
(Code:4164043)

Where: Aquatic
What: Fauna
How (Beneficiarv):

-	Commercial Food

-	Subsistence Food

-	Residential Property Owners

-	Recreational

-	Learning

-	Non-Use

[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance >
Maintenance of physical, chemical,
biological conditions > Water Conditions >
Chemical condition of freshwaters
[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance >
Mediation of waste, toxics and other
nuisances > Mediation by biota >
Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumula
tion by micro-organisms, algae, plants,
and animals

150

-------
Beneficial Use
Impairment

CWA
Designated Use

NESCS Plus

Steps to Navigate NESCS Plus

CICES version 4.3
(Section > Division > Group > Class)

5.

Bird or Animal
Deformities or
Reproductive
Problems

Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Wildlife for Recreational, Subsistence,
Inspirational, Learning, and Non-Use.

Ex: Double-crested Cormorant,
Phalacrocorax auritus (Code: 4174717)

Where: Aauatic
What: Fauna
How (Beneficiarv):

-	Commercial Food

-	Subsistence Food

-	Residential Property Owners

-	Recreational

-	Learning

-	Non-Use

[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance >
Maintenance of physical, chemical,
biological conditions > Water Conditions >
Chemical condition of freshwaters
[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance >
Mediation of waste, toxics and other
nuisances > Mediation by biota >
Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumula
tion by micro-organisms, algae, plants,
and animals

6.

Degradation of
Benthos

Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Fauna for Learning

Ex: Order Odonata which contains
damselflies and dragonflies (Code:
4101593)

Where: Aquatic
What: Fauna
How (Beneficiarv):

Learning

[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance >
Maintenance of physical, chemical,
biological conditions > Lifecycle
maintenance, habitat and gene pool
protection > Maintaining nursery
populations and habitats

7.

Restrictions on
Dredging
Activities -
Navigation

Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Soil and Water for Government and
Commercial Transportation and Boating

Where: Aquatic
What:

-	Soil

-	Water

How (Beneficiarv):

-	Government

-	Transportation

-	Boaters

[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance >
Maintenance of physical, chemical,
biological conditions > Soil formation and
composition > (*Weathering
processes/*Decomposition and fixing
processes)

151

-------
Beneficial Use
Impairment

CWA
Designated Use

NESCS Plus

Steps to Navigate NESCS Plus

CICES version 4.3
(Section > Division > Group > Class)

8.

Eutrophication
or Undesirable
Algae-
Recreation,
Public water
supplies

Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Water, Flora, and Composite for
Drinking Water Plant Operators, Food
Extractors, Recreational, and
Subsistence

Where: Aauatic
What:

-	Water

-	Flora

-	Composite
How (Beneficiarv):

-	Drinking Water Plants

-	Commercial Food

-	Subsistence Food/Water

-	Recreational

[Ecosystem] Provisioning > Nutrition >
Water > (*Surface water for
drinking/*Ground water for drinking)

[Ecosystem] Cultural > Physical and
intellectual interactions with biota,
ecosystems, and land-/seascapes
[environmental settings] >
(Entertainment)

9.

Restrictions on
Drinking Water
Consumption
or Taste and
Odor Problems

Public water
supplies

Water for Drinking Water Plant
Operators and Water Subsisters

Where: Aquatic
What:

-	Water

How (Beneficiarv):

-	Drinking Water Plants

-	Commercial Food

-	Water Subsisters

[Ecosystem] Provisioning > Nutrition >
Water > (*Surface water for
drinking/*Ground water for drinking)

10.

Beach Closings

Recreation

Beaches for Recreation

Where: Beaches
What:

-	Composite

How (Beneficiarv):

-	Recreational

-Waders, Swimmers, and Divers

[Ecosystem] Cultural > Physical and
intellectual interactions with biota,
ecosystems, and land-/seascapes
[environmental settings] >
(*Entertainment/*Heritage,
cultural/*Experiential use of plants,
animals and land-/seascapes in different
environmental settings/*Physical use of
land-/seascapes in different
environmental settings)

152

-------
Beneficial Use
Impairment

CWA
Designated Use

NESCS Plus

Steps to Navigate NESCS Plus

CICES version 4.3
(Section > Division > Group > Class)

11.

Degradation of
Aesthetics

Recreation

Viewscapes for Recreational,
Subsistence, Inspirational, Learning, and
Non-Use.

Where:

-	Aquatic

-	Terrestrial
What: Viewscapes
How (Beneficiarv):

-	Experiencers and Viewers

[Ecosystem] Cultural > Physical and
intellectual interactions with biota,
ecosystems, and land-/seascapes
[environmental settings] > Aesthetic

12.

Added Costs to
Agriculture or
Industry

Agriculture

Water for Livestock Grazers and Farmers

Where: Agroecosvstems
What: Water
How (Beneficiarv):

-	Livestock Grazers

-	Farmers

[Ecosystem] Provisioning > Nutrition >
Biomass > (*Reared animals and their
outputs/*Cultivated crops)

13.

Degradation of
Phytoplankton

and
Zooplankton
Populations

Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Fauna and Flora for Learning

Ex: Copepods, Subclass Copepoda
(Code: 485257)

Where: Aquatic
What:

-	Fauna

-	Flora

How (Beneficiarv):

Learning

[Ecosystem] Provisioning > Nutrition >
Biomass > Wild animals and their outputs

14.

Loss of Fish and
Wildlife Habitat

Protection and
propagation of
fish, shellfish,
and wildlife

Integrated Ecosystems for Recreational,
Subsistence, Inspirational, Learning, and
Non-Use.

Where:

-	Aquatic

-	Terrestrial
What: Composite
How (Beneficiarv):

-	Commercial Food

-	Subsistence Food

-	Residential Property Owners

-	Recreational

-	Learning

-	Non-Use

[Ecosystem] Regulation & Maintenance >
Maintenance of physical, chemical,
biological conditions > Lifecycle
maintenance, habitat and gene pool
protection > Maintaining nursery
populations and habitats

153

-------
4.3.3 Opportunities

While there are authority, process, and engineering boundaries and constraints in the consideration and
incorporation of ES in contaminated cleanup contexts, there are a handful of value-added opportunities
that ES concepts might bring to contaminated cleanups, including informing monitoring and assessment,
and supporting larger site management practices that result in ES providing both climate mitigation
benefits as well as adaptation benefits. These include supporting elements of decision support (including
assessment frameworks and tools, stakeholder engagement, adaptive management), and elements of
translational science (including stakeholder engagement, attention to terminology, and strategic science
and risk communication).

Decision Support, Tools, & Adaptive Management

Decision support tools (DST) can help users pull together and consider disparate types of information
hoiistically (Fedra 1995). This can allow project managers, for example, to explicitly consider tradeoffs
between production of ES at different levels of remediation and share those tradeoffs with stakeholders
in an easily understood format. These types of tools can be particularly valuable in a collaborative
decision-making context (Chun & Park 1998), including use with a suite of stakeholders, commonly
found in contaminated site cleanups. Decision support tools can also help connect technical concepts
and issues with terms meaningful to those in other fields or to lay audiences, which can assist with
integrating stakeholders into the process and facilitate communication. The use of DSTs can also leave
users with documentation of the information being considered and how it contributes to the ultimate
decision, something that can assist in required record keeping processes. Finally, DSTs have been
developed for every step in a generic decision-making process, meaning there are available options for
wherever it is convenient for ES thinking to be integrated into existing processes. Resources where ES-
focused DSTs have been considered and applied in contaminated cleanups include USEPA (2017a),
Williams and Hoffman (2020), and Harwell et al. (2021). For a "practical strategies" discussion about the
concepts behind DSTs, principles of structured decision making (Gregory et al. 2012), and ES concepts,
the reader is directed to Yee et al. (2017).

Evaluating and adjusting the design and implementation of remediation and restoration involves
monitoring and assessment criteria (Section 4.3.4) served up in an adaptive management context.
Adaptive management (AM) is a structured decision-support process often used in resource
management (Williams et al. 2009). Traditional AM elements, often centered around testing
hypotheses, are compatible with contaminated site cleanups and may include:

•	Examining the predicted outcomes for each remediation or restoration alternative from a
perspective of creating learning opportunities to apply to other remediation or restoration
efforts

•	Implementing one or more alternatives of a remedy to test a hypothesis about a given remedy's
effectiveness

•	Examining monitoring and assessment results to learn about the outcome of a given
remediation or restoration activity

154

-------
• Using monitoring and assessment results to adjust current or future remediation and

restoration actions as well as incorporate new information about local effects of climate change
into adaptive management plans.

Contaminated site remediation is driven by the need to protect human
health and the environment from contaminants. The approach taken
to achieve the protectiveness may be informed by ES restoration

considerations.

Stakeholder Engagement

Existing remediation programs and processes (Section 4.3.2) have specific calls for the inclusion of
stakeholders into the process, some at multiple points. The roles stakeholders play may range from the
right to be informed, to the right to engage in public comments, to the ability to play a more active role
in the process. Whatever the role, engaging with stakeholders, especially around complex issues such as
remediation can be challenging. Including ES thinking into those discussions can offer a more
communicable and understandable set of issues for project managers to discuss in plain language and a
more intuitive entry point for stakeholders without technical backgrounds. For example, traditional risk
communication needs to discuss the nuances of what a part per million (ppm) is and what ppm of
contaminant load X in sediments means can be challenging, whereas incorporating ES benefits to help
communicate concepts of "safe enough to boat in," "safe enough to swim in," and "safe enough to
drink" are much more intuitive. In addition to providing more accessible language for stakeholder
engagement, ES thinking with its focus on how stakeholders could potentially benefit from remediation
also allows the messaging and stakeholder discussions to be more productively focused. The beneficiary-
first language of ES provides pathways for identifying both the audiences and designing targeted
messages. Harwell et al. (2020) discuss the importance of developing messages that are targeted for
specific audiences (see below).

Finally, by taking a beneficiary perspective and framing the language in loss of - or increase of -
beneficial uses, it is possible to reduce some of the social stigma associated with a contaminated site.
For example, discussing the need for increased recreational opportunities in your neighborhood focuses
less on social stigmas than solely discussing the need for reduced contaminants in your neighborhood.
This allows for the possibility of stakeholders being more receptive to involvement in the process and to
focus their language on their ultimate goals and not on the current negative situation.

Terminology

Given a broad suite of disciplines involved in contaminated cleanup efforts and ES science, and the
resultant large suite of stakeholders involved, there are three main areas of terminology worth
consideration:

• Terminology itself - Getting everyone on the same page because of their different backgrounds
is an important goal. Table 4.5 introduces examples of some relevant, core terminology.

155

-------
•	Recognition that, in general, ES concepts are not new for groups working on contaminated
cleanups. Many ES concepts are very much aligned with what is already being done in terms of
cleanups focused on eliminating hazards to human health and the environment, particularly
where outcomes include environmental and social endpoints. Additionally, ES endpoints are
often monitored by "surrogates," that is, metrics and indicators that inform ES assessment, even
if not explicitly measuring FEGS. These can be well aligned with existing strategies for
monitoring and assessment plans, and attention to terminology can help with overall
communication efforts (see below).

•	Finally, incorporating a beneficiary perspective - including the use of beneficiary terminology as
part of communication efforts - can be helpful for site cleanup teams to consider how their
targeted cleanup endpoints can be described in terms of ES benefits. A beneficiary perspective
brings forward a series of "for Whom" questions (DeWitt et al. 2020) that informs the use of
terminology as well as monitoring and assessment designs. Additionally, a beneficiary
perspective can be used to identify and communicate trade-offs among beneficiaries, which has
important implications for addressing social conflicts around future productive use of a site.

Communication

Communication is an important element in translational science (Section 4.2.3) involving engaging and
leveraging diverse interests and perspectives to collectively envision outcomes that benefit both
environment and society. Incorporating and adapting communication strategies early and throughout
the process is important for sustained engagement, participation, and buy-in (Harwell etal. 2020).
Examples of one-way communication vehicles include developing community focused materials (e.g.,
USEPA 2011b) and compiling case study examples of cleanups with ES benefits. Case study examples of
cleanups with environmental benefits includes USEPA (2017 a, b) and as part of the Superfund
Redevelopment Program's case studies that capture information about projects with ecological
revitalization components (e.g., contaminated site clean-up information network ecotools). In
translational science, stakeholders collectively identify ecological and social goals and issues to address
(Enquist et al. 2017), capturing diverse interests and perspectives, including from under-represented
groups who can bring in fresh ideas. The overall goal in two-way communications is to build strong,
cohesive social ties that lead to meaningful decisions and actions (Holifield and Williams 2019) and
create the opportunity for intentional, reflective checks on communication effectiveness as needed.
Communication strategies thread all elements of the translational science model (Figure 4.4),
underpinning sustained partnerships across agencies, organizations, and stakeholders.

Value-added opportunities for ES concepts to inform monitoring and
assessment of contaminated cleanups include elements of decision
support, assessment frameworks, stakeholder engagement, adaptive
management, translational science, and strategic science and risk

communication.

156

-------
Table 4.5. Examples of core terminology to inform site cleanup teams. Drawn from the Glossary.

Term

Definition - (taken from original source)

Source

Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization (R2R2R)

The process of remediating contaminated sediments and restoring aquatic habitat to help
revitalize coastal communities. R2R2R is a place-based practice that requires collaboration
and communication amongst federal and state agencies, local governments, and citizens.

Williams et al. 2018

Green remediation

"The practice of considering all environmental effects of remedy implementation and
incorporating options to maximize net environmental benefit of cleanup actions."

USEPA 2008b

Green and sustainable
remediation

"Attempts to maximize the environmental, social and economic benefits of a cleanup
project by employing green and sustainable principles and practices. GSR practices can be
incorporated into all phases of the remediation life cycle."

Petruzzi 2011

Ecological revitalization

"The process of returning land from a contaminated state to one that supports a
functioning and sustainable habitat.... EPA ensures that (1) ER does not compromise the
protectiveness of the cleanup and (2) the best interests of stakeholders are considered."
"Ecological revitalization refers to the technical process of returning land from a
contaminated state to one that supports functioning and sustainable habitat."

USEPA 2009a

Ecological reuse

"The outcome of a cleanup process, including areas where proactive measures (such as
conservation easements) have been implemented to create, restore, protect or enhance a
habitat for terrestrial or aquatic plants and animals."

USEPA 2006, cited in USEPA
2009a

(Restoration for)
Greenspace

"In addition to habitats, greenspace can include parks, gardens, playgrounds, i.e., not

necessarily native habitat or targeted wildlife habitat."

Note: this can also be relevant for restoration for bluespace purposes

USEPA 2009a

Beneficiary

An individual or group that directly enjoys, uses, consumes, or appreciates some aspect of
the environment for the betterment of their well-being.

Newcomer-Johnson et al.
2020

Stakeholders

An individual, group, or organization (including federal agencies; international, state, local
or tribal governments, universities, NGOs, citizen groups, communities, etc.) with an
interest in, or potentially impacted by, the outcome of a policy or management choice

Yee et al. 2017

Stakeholder
engagement

"A process through which stakeholders influence and share control over initiatives and the
decisions and resources which affect them."

World Bank 1996

157

-------
Principles of strategic science communication, focusing on anchoring communications elements to
message (i.e., what), audience (i.e., who), and vehicle (i.e., how) related to the specific communication
goals should be considered; examples of a template are provided in Harwell et al. (2020). Additionally,
since an important element of communications about contaminated site cleanups includes elements of
risk, a Strategy, Action, Learning, Tools (SALT) organizational framework for risk communication can be
used to outline strategy steps for effective communication, honing communication methods to
disseminate specific messages. Developing an intentional, focused strategy, such as the example
communication matrix presented in Harwell et al. (2020), is the precursor for acting. Equally important is
an intentional investment in learning about the effectiveness of communications. For example, elements
of a reflective practice approach, focused on continuous learning and improvement (e.g., Cerasani and
Nickels 2019), are shown in Table 4.6; many align with larger concepts of adaptive management.

Table 4.6. Elements of reflective practice inform communication effectiveness.

Steps

Example Questions

Example Questions

Step 1: Lay out clear
expectations for what you
want to achieve.

What are the expectations?

What informs those expectations
(identify potential assumptions and
biases)?

Step 2: Collect individual
and/or group reflections
after activity.

What happened? Did it meet
expectations laid out in the
strategy? Why or why not?

What was learned? What insights
were gained?

Step 3: Incorporate insights
and lessons learned into
next activity.

What changes can be made
based on learnings through
reflective practice?

What could be done differently next
time, and why?

Overall, outlining elements of strategic communications and reflective practices early in the process
maximizes the opportunity to identify and use the most appropriate tools. The SALT framework also
builds on an ethos of communication as a dynamic process of mutual learning and exchange among
agencies, partners, and specific communities and audiences.

Two communication areas that are specific to ES in contaminated cleanup contexts, include terminology
and the cleanup process steps. For terminology (see above), focused efforts on early identification and
understanding of language from across the suite of stakeholders and disciplines is critical for successful
communications. For example, communicating concepts of beneficiaries while discussing stakeholder
goals/values is an important element in identifying potential ES related to a cleanup. Finally, the steps
involved in a given cleanup process, such as those specific parts of a process involving stakeholder
engagement (e.g., Figure 4.5; Section 4.2.4) are also important areas of attention for communications.

Communicating concepts of beneficiaries while discussing stakeholder
goals and values can help identify potential ES related to a cleanup.

158

-------
4.3.4 Monitoring and Ecosystem Services

Criteria

Assessments of the success of a cleanup involve collecting data from different phases of a cleanup; see
below for timeline considerations (e.g., pre-project; construction; and near-, mid-, and long-term post-
project). In general, categories of assessment criteria include:

•	Pre-project: e.g., baseline characterization.

•	Project effectiveness: The physical implementation of the successful project (e.g., mechanical
removal of contamination).

•	Remedy effectiveness: Assessment criteria focused on a specific element, such as addressing the
status of ecological or human health risks post remediation (e.g., remedies protectiveness).
These can be assessed from a multiple lines of evidence perspective, including physical,
chemical, and biological lines of evidence, and are often developed with an ecosystem-based
approach.

•	Restoration effectiveness: Monitoring and assessment post-restoration from an SES perspective.
These may overlap with a "benefits assessment" perspective and may involve data collected
from multiple sources (e.g., stakeholder collected information outside the regulatory boundaries
of a project might help inform about the resilience or self-maintenance capacity of the restored
site).

•	Revitalization progress: Focus on assessing improvements on human well-being (health,
economic, social) and how a community relates to its local environment.

These categories are not mutually exclusive and are often compatible. In the context of R2R2R, current
efforts on project assessment focus on assessment of all three Rs versus looking only at remedy
effectiveness or only at restoration effectiveness. While ES endpoints themselves can provide valuable
additions to monitoring and assessment design, the beneficiary perspective of the FEGS approach
provides value added opportunities to enhance the assessment of restoration success. Figures 4.12,
4.13, and 4.14 walk through the value of a beneficiary perspective. Figure 4.12 shows a generic
approach of moving from risk assessment characterization to informing developing remediation goals
and the subsequent monitoring endpoints. Figure 4.13 shows how the addition of a beneficiary
perspective can expand the suite of goals examined, creating the potential for expanding monitoring
endpoints, including an ES perspective. By doing so, a larger suite of remediation and restoration
benefits can be assessed (Figure 4.14). By having stakeholders involved in the process, targeted
opportunities can be identified whereby stakeholders could provide support for monitoring and
assessment beyond the project scope/authority.

While ES endpoints themselves can provide valuable additions to
monitoring and assessment design, the beneficiary perspective of the
FEGS approach provides value added opportunities to enhance the
assessment of restoration success.

159

-------
Figure 4.12. Example of
general approach for
moving from
contaminated site risk
assessment

characterization (left) to
developing remediation
goals (middle) and
subsequent monitoring
endpoints (right).

HH/Eco
Risk Assessments

•	E.g. CERCLA-feeds

risk endpoints

•	E.g. Great Lakes AOC-

feeds BUI endpoints



/





/



Monitoring:

1



Physical

1 ^



Chemical





Biological v

\l

1 „	

I I Monitoring:

| l Human Health
\ • Metrics

\v	

V





	N

Monitoring: ^



— ¦"

Physical



**

Chemical

r



Biological J

\





\

Monitoring:





Water Quality



1

from ES



/

^ Perspective ^

Monitoring:

V



Habitat

\





\

Monitoring:





Increased Fish





Population &





v Species Diversity J

Monitoring:

Human Health

Metrics



Remediation Goals	Monitoring

Figure 4.13. The addition of a beneficiary
perspective helps inform the additional
consideration of stakeholder goals (dark
green on right) to the larger suite of cleanup
goals, creating the opportunity to expand the
consideration of monitoring endpoints from
an ES perspective (light green).

Remediation Goals

Monitoring

Overall Stakeholder
Goals (as FES)

Figure 4.14. The addition of a
beneficiary perspective creates
opportunities to increase the
suite of remediation and
restoration benefits (far right)
assessed.

Remediation Goals

Monitoring

Overall Stakeholder
Goals (as FES)

Benefits

160

-------
Timeline Consideration

Relative to restoration project timelines, Table 4.7 outlines examples of ES-related monitoring
considerations. The left side provides a generic overview of the suite of monitoring related activities by
temporal phase: pre-project, during project, and post-project, including near-, mid-, and long-terms.
Conventional physical, chemical, and biological endpoints are expected to be monitored throughout
these phases, and one can presume endpoints will be chosen to match the spatial and temporal scales
of interest. Beyond these conventional endpoints, potential ES, ES proxies, or benefits of ES may be
relevant pre- and post-project and can be subject to monitoring. The considerations column captures
elements specific to monitoring, programmatic, or regulatory considerations (including for
contaminated site cleanups that may not be seen in other restoration contexts). Monitoring can support
baseline assessment, project design, project permitting, measuring project effectiveness, or assessing
project impact (both ecological and social). Of direct relevance is the audience for the monitoring
information; that is, who is expecting the information, on what timeline, and for what purpose? It is
important to recognize that limitations regarding implementing and maintaining monitoring through
time may be encountered depending on which organization is conducting monitoring, particularly in the
case where the agency that begins the monitoring can no longer continue due to programmatic,
regulatory, or funding limitations.

Elements on the right side of Table 4.7 provide examples of ES, ES proxies, and related benefits that can
serve as monitoring endpoints. Ecosystem services and ES proxies are included in the environmental
column, whereas ES benefits are listed in numerous domains, including environmental, social, economic,
and governance (ES nomenclature follows Angradi et al. 2019). The social benefits include endpoints
related to project construction or design as well as beneficiary experience. The economic benefits
include endpoints related to changes in land use, housing, business, and industry. The governance
benefits included endpoints related to the importance of community and stakeholder involvement in
the restoration or remediation process and potentially in stewardship of the site post-restoration. For an
example application of this to waterfront communities in the Great Lakes AOCs, the reader is directed to
Angradi et al. (2019). Note that different endpoints are listed for different project periods (e.g., pre
project; during project; and near-, mid-, or long-term post project), recognizing that the response time
for the ES and the benefits are expected to vary. To date, research addressing monitoring of ES-related
benefits is scarce; as such, testing and validation of these types of endpoints in a monitoring context is
paramount.

Whether or not explicit ES metrics (e.g., USEPA 2020b) are monitored, even proxies for ES can provide
value-added information beyond traditional monitoring (USEPA 2020b). For example, a landfill cleanup
may not involve resources for monitoring recreational use of the cleaned-up site. A local aviation club
that lobbied for creation and access to a landing strip on the cleaned site could evaluate that use and
benefit by tracking remote-controlled aircraft usage, and thus help to inform a larger benefits
assessment. While some ES may be easier to measure than others, that doesn't necessarily make those
more important to measure than other ES. For example, cultural ES are often those that people care the
most about but can be the most difficult to measure and/or are the ES that people feel least
comfortable quantifying. Whereas it may be impossible or impractical to identify an appropriate metric

161

-------
for difficult-to-quantify ES, stakeholders should be consulted about decisions to exclude identifying or
using metrics, particularly for ES that people value highly.

Whether or not explicit ES metrics are monitored, even proxies for ES
can provide value-added information beyond traditional monitoring.

-------
Table 4.7. Monitoring-related activities, special considerations in contaminated cleanups, and example of potential ES related endpoints for
environmental, social, economic, and governance assessments of restoration success for different periods of a cleanup project.

Period

(General
Timeline'1')

Monitoring-

Related

Activities

Considerations

Audience

Monitoring
Party

Environmental

Example Potential ES
Social

proxies or ES +
Economic

Governance

Pre-Project

(Within 5 yr)

•	Assess
Ecosystem
Quality or
Integrity;

•	Determine
and Measure
Baseline
Metrics (P, C,
B, ES);

•	Support
Project Design
(P, C, B, ES)

•	Stakeholder and
community
engagement
should begin early
in the timeline to
maximize impact.

•	Baseline metrics
may or may not
be the same to
assess project
effectiveness and
ecological or
social change

•	Project
Agencies;

•	Stakeholders;

•	Community
Members

Project
Agencies

•	Habitat quality
or quantity;

•	Heritage or
cultural plants
or animals;

•	Aesthetics or
viewscape;

•	Invasive
organisms;

•	Hydrologic
response

•	Litter, odor, noise;

•	Trails or
connectedness
(e.g., walkability);

•	Cultural identity,
sense of place;

•	Interpretative
signage;

•	Designated
recreational areas
and amenities;

•	Social
vulnerability

•	Land use or
reuse (e.g.,
former
brownfields);

•	Business and
industry
development;

•	Housing;

•	Marketing

•	Citizen
participation;

•	Community
engagement;

•	Education or
volunteer
programs

During;

(Project
duration)

•	Permitting;

•	Project
Effectiveness
(P, C, B)

Determine project
conforms to
permits

•	Project
Agencies;

•	Permitting
Agency

Project
Agencies

None

Litter, odor, noise

None

Community
engagement

Post-Project:
Near-term
(1 yr)

•	Project
Effectiveness
(P, C, B);

•	Ecological
Impact (P,
C,B);

Determine project
effectiveness

•	Project
Agencies;

•	Regulators;

•	Stakeholders;

•	Community
Members

Project
Agencies

•	Habitat quality
or quantity;

•	Heritage or
cultural plants
or animals;

•	Aesthetics or
viewscape;

•	Litter, odor, noise;

•	Trails or
connectedness
(e.g., walkability);

•	Sense of place;

•	Interpretative
signage;

Marketing

•	Citizen
participation;

•	Community
engagement

163

-------
Period

(General
Timeline'1')

Monitoring-

Related

Activities

Considerations

Audience

Monitoring
Party

Environmental

Example Potential ES
Social

proxies or ES +
Economic

Governance



• Community
Impact (ES)







•	Invasive
organisms;

•	Hydrologic
response

• Designated
recreational areas
and amenities;





Post-Project:
Mid-term
(3-5 yrs)

•	Project
Effectiveness
(P, C, B);

•	Ecological
Impact (P, C,
B);

•	Community
Impact (ES)

•	Meet Superfund
5 yr reporting
requirement;

•	Fit within
allowable funding
timeframes

•	Project
Agencies;

•	Regulators;

•	Stakeholders;

•	Community
Members

Project
Agencies

•	Habitat quality
or quantity;

•	Heritage or
cultural plants
or animals;

•	Aesthetics or
viewscape;

•	Invasive
organisms;

•	Hydrologic
response

•	Litter, odor, noise;

•	Trails or
connectedness
(e.g., walkability);

•	Cultural identity,
sense of place;

•	Interpretative
signage;

•	Designated
recreational areas
and amenities;

•	Business and
industry
development;

•	Housing;

•	Marketing

•	Citizen
participation;

•	Community
engagement;

•	Education or
volunteer
programs

Post-Project:
Long-term
(> 5 yrs)

•	Project
Effectiveness
(P, C, B);

•	Ecological
Impact (P, C,
B);

•	Community
Impact (ES)

Likely where full
impact is
measurable

•	Project
Agencies;

•	Stakeholders;

•	Community
Members

Other

organizations
?

•	Habitat quality
or quantity;

•	Heritage or
cultural plants
or animals;

•	Aesthetics or
viewscape;

•	Invasive
organisms;

•	Hydrologic
response

•	Litter, odor, noise;

•	Trails or
connectedness
(e.g., walkability);

•	Cultural identity,
sense of place;

•	Interpretative
signage;

•	Designated
recreational areas
and amenities;

•	Land use or
reuse (e.g.,
former
brownfields);

•	Business and
industry
development;

•	Housing;

•	Marketing

•	Citizen
participation;

•	Community
engagement;

•	Education or
volunteer
programs

164

-------
Period

(General
Timeline'1')

Monitoring-

Related

Activities

Considerations

Audience

Monitoring
Party

Example Potential ES proxies or ES +

Environmental

Social

Economic

Governance

• Social
vulnerability

* These are typica timelines for restoration projects; specific time-specific needs by
project and metric type will vary.

+ Developing metrics through community engagement can improve
community outcomes.

P = physical metrics (e.g., depth, flow, residence time,
substrate type)

C = chemical metrics (e.g., water quality, sediment
quality)

B = biological metrics (e.g., contaminant bioaccumulation, vegetation cover, acres of
habitat, indices of biotic integrity)

ES = ecosystem service metrics (e.g., nutrient storage, erosion prevention, gamefish
habitat, acres of recreational area)

165

-------
4.4 RE MA Framework Example Case Study

4.4.1	Learning from Case Studies

Case studies provide opportunities to test and demonstrate concepts. Building upon the premise that
any remediation site involving ecological considerations, or reuse that creates access to nature, may be
a potential site for inclusion of ES, a Great Lakes AOC program case study explored the applicability of
the REMA framework of select AOCs regarding consideration of ES. The case study examines both an
ecosystem- and a societal-based focus (i.e., a beneficiary perspective) on how ES (or proxies) were
incorporated into cleanups.

4.4.2	Case Study Overview

Great Lakes areas support a range of ecological end products (EEPs; see Box 1.1 in Chapter 1) such as
recreation and clean water (Sierszen et al. 2012; Steinman et al. 2017), but these areas also have high
stressors on those EEPs (Allan et al. 2013). Many populated, industrialized, and stressed areas in the
Great Lakes have been identified as an AOC having one or more BUI (Section 4.3.2). Planning and
implementing environmental remediation and restoration projects focuses on addressing issues of
contaminant pollution, habitat loss, harmful algal blooms, and diminished water quality. Using a
beneficiary perspective and incorporating current and potential EEPs in restoration planning and
implementation will help identify appropriate use- and non-use project benefits, as well as provide
informative goals that are translatable to the public and inform future work through adaptive
management strategies (DeWitt et al. 2020). The REMA framework was applied to an evaluation of
select AOCs regarding consideration of ES. This evaluation within the AOC framework outlines the
variety of ecological services provided within AOCs and the remediation and restoration projects
conducted within them. This example can help those planning and implementing projects begin to think
about who will benefit from projects and to produce translational work within contaminated sites by
identifying and prioritizing future beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders early on. Such steps will allow
stakeholders to cooperatively develop project goals and metrics of success that are relevant to all
involved (Williams and Hoffman 2020).

4.4.3	Boundaries and Constraints

Management agencies and the public advisory group associated with an AOC develop Remedial Action
Plans (RAPs), including: information on BUI; a description of current conditions for assessing BUI status;
potential management actions; descriptions of who is responsible for undertaking actions; and
associated timelines. If management agencies, advisory groups, and the public concur that removal of a
given impairment has occurred the BUI can be removed. If not, it may be necessary to propose
additional management actions. Upon removing all BUIs, an AOC enters a "management actions
completed" status and be considered for delisting.

166

-------
4.4.4	Assess Existing Knowledge

This case study identified existing information previously written in AOC RAPs. Remedial Action Plans are
pertinent to understanding the process of remediating contaminated sediments and restoring aquatic
habitat fosters revitalization for people in Great Lakes coastal communities. A suite of RAP documents
covering the Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC from 1988 - 2015 were collected and analyzed. These
documents were part of the RAP Stage I and RAP Stage II reports and their periodic, associated RAP
updates and delisting reports. The primary purpose of Stage I RAPs is to define the AOC, identify the
environmental stressors, the BUIs, and their probable sources. Stage II RAPs describe the evaluation and
selection of the recommended set of remedial and restoration actions and/or preventative initiatives to
improve biophysical integrity and support the targeted levels of beneficial uses.

4.4.5	Identify Goals and Objectives

The goal of this project is to orient planners to the idea of developing and tracking ES and beneficiaries
in contaminated sites. The study's objective is to highlight the variety of ES under consideration within
an AOC, as well as the trajectory of management actions and the associated broadening of ES produced.
The reader may be able to rationalize which services and beneficiaries may be produced by a current or
future project, whether documented or not.

4.4.6	Select Metrics

For each document, metrics of interest were identified as the type of management actions identified
within the document, the suite of ES documented, and the beneficiaries receiving those services. As
metrics, these will allow examination of how EEPs have been thought about through time and
consideration within the AOC context. A Sankey network diagram approach was used to visualize the
relative proportions of management action types documented across the different RAP stages, as well as
the progression of ES considerations documented between RAP stages (Figure 4.15).

Remedial Action	Eco-system	Beneficiary

Plan Stage	end-product subclass	category

Amphibians i i

I	Birds I

Non-use I

Stage 2 RAP	Invertebrates		^

Mammals 1=1	S^^fi>Sobs»tence ——

Reptiles ¦=	Recreational

¦ 1 jgVS Fish Q	Inspirational	

i . .	Commercial Industrial i i

Agricultural	

\\ ater I	-J Commercial. Militarv transportation	

Habitat	 Government, municipal and residential

Figure 4.15. A Sankey network diagram visualizing management action types (left) considered in RAPs
stages, the ES documented within the RAPs (middle right) and the beneficiaries of those services (far
right). Boxes (nodes) are connected by lines (edges); the size of the edges reflects the contribution from

Management
action type

Remediation
Restoration
I I Policy Regulator}'
B Infrastructure

167

-------
one node to the next. For example, the beneficiary of birds was identified as non-use beneficiaries,
followed by recreational beneficiaries. The absence of an edge indicates no connection between nodes.

4.4.7	Collect and Analyze Data

The AOC RAP documents previously identified were objectively reviewed to identify key information
pertinent to FEGS through content analysis. Documents were examined for the ecological restoration
projects identified within, the ES produced within the AOC or by the management action, and the
beneficiary groups identified to benefit from the services.

4.4.8	Assess Restoration Outcomes

The collected metrics allow the consideration of contaminated sites to provide ES and to supply
beneficiaries, as well as to document the evolution of programs in contaminated spaces through time.
For instance, RAP Stage I was in the late 1980s and early 1990s and still considered services and
beneficiaries, though these concepts were still developing and were not thought of in the same formal
context as they are today. The services under consideration were predominantly of three varieties: fish;
birds; and water. The maturation of AOC programs from discovery phases (e.g., Stage I) to planning and
action phases (e.g., Stage II) have coincided with the development of funding avenues such as the GLRI
(Jurjonas et al. 2022) and with the improved understanding of interconnectedness of ecosystem health
and community health (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020; Williams and Hoffman et al. 2020). As a result,
management actions within Stage II documents are far more focused on restoring natural processes
through environmental remediation and restoration processes rather than infrastructure improvements.
In association with this shift in management action focus, there is also a broadening of ES
considerations, to represent a greater variety of habitats, plants, invertebrates, herpetofauna, and
mammals, in addition to fish, birds, and water. Fish and birds remain the predominant ES documented
in the Stage II RAP, and beneficiary considerations are largely limited to non-use users (e.g., people who
care about the continued presence of the ES) and recreational users (hunters, anglers, swimmers, and
boaters).

4.4.9	Synthesize and Communicate Findings

Areas of Concern provide ES, and a single management action that addresses BUIs within the AOCs can
address both a diversity of ES endpoints and beneficiaries. Likewise, management actions undertaken at
one location can be considered at another location, or in a different cleanup context. Although the goals
and management action considerations of Stage I and Stage II RAPs are dissimilar, both identify a variety
of EEP with some overlapping services related to fish, birds, and water. Clearly, multi-media restoration
work impacts multi-faceted ES, regardless of whether implementers feel equipped to assess them.
Overall, this review of RAP documents demonstrates that beneficial uses within AOCs are most focused
to recreational users such as anglers and boaters and to people who care about healthy environments.
This work underscores the relevance of a beneficiary perspective to examine ES associated with a
contaminated space.

168

-------
Importantly, understanding beneficiaries as categories is not equivalent to understanding the
demographics within the categories, or the number of individuals benefiting from a single EEP and the
relative importance of the EEP to them. Although the approaches are transferable, this finer level of
resolution would be case-specific, and a clearer understanding of the quantity and demographic make-
up of beneficiary groups may be valuable to address issues such as community revitalization or
environmental justice. For instance, though subsistence users were not well-represented as
beneficiaries, their well-being may be more reliant on the use of the ES provided by the AOC than a
recreational user's reliance on ES.

Examples of one-way communication vehicles include developing community focused materials (e.g.,
USEPA 2011b) and compiling case study examples of cleanups with ES benefits (e.g., USEPA 2017 a, b).
This case study example represents a retrospective analysis of cleanup effort, with the outcome
designed to be shared with those planning and implementing other projects to help them think about
identifying and prioritizing beneficiaries from their projects. This case study incorporated a beneficiary
perspective (including terminology) to be useful for a site cleanup team in how they consider how their
targeted cleanup endpoints can be described in terms of ES benefits. A prospective case study might
also include communication efforts on identification and understanding of language among stakeholders
as part of discussing stakeholder goals/values.

4.4.10 Practice Adaptive Management

Adaptive management and learning occur throughout the Great Lakes AOC program. In part, this is
because it is an ecosystem-based program, which requires in many instances a watershed approach, and
in part because it is a bottom-up program, which requires engagement with public advisory groups,
stakeholder groups, and related regional agencies or institutions with ecological, social, and economic
interests (Hartig et al. 2020). Adaptive management and learning can occur through BUI teams, which
typically include representatives from agencies, the advisory group, and stakeholders, and which work
together to complete management actions (e.g., undertake restoration projects) and assess the
outcomes of those actions (Hartig et al. 1998).

Within the context of this case study example, an adaptive management application example includes
fixing problems with the system as needed. Another would be to consider underrepresented
beneficiaries and the ES relevant to them that the project may impact. This information may help
planners engage the correct stakeholder groups to document services and beneficiaries in informative
ways moving forward, further increasing the application of translational science within the AOC
framework.

The Great Lakes AOC program uses an ecosystem- and a societal-
based focus allowing for a "beneficiary perspective" for incorporating
ES into cleanups. This provides opportunities to explore transferability

of concepts.

169

-------
4.5 Conclusions

This chapter outlines the boundaries and constraints for consideration and incorporation of ES elements
in cleanup of contaminated sites. This chapter demonstrated how to operationalize ES concepts for
contaminated cleanups and provided examples from across a suite of cleanup contexts and programs.
On-the-ground cleanup and restoration efforts that incorporate ES can be leveraged to help test,
evaluate, demonstrate, and communicate concepts from this chapter.

Existing guidelines and mechanisms, including green and sustainable remediation, ecological
revitalization, and environmental footprint analyses, create the capacity to develop value-added
environmental benefits as part of cleanups, where relevant and applicable. Any remediation site
involving ecological considerations, or reuse that creates access to nature, may be a potential site for
inclusion of ES.

The application of a beneficiary perspective allows for additional dimensionality in discussions with
stakeholders on cleanup goals and stakeholder values that can help identify potential ES related to a
cleanup. The Great Lakes AOC case study demonstrated many concepts presented in this chapter,
including the use of both an ecosystem- and a societal-based focus allowing for a "beneficiary
perspective" for incorporating ES into cleanups.

Whether or not the terminology "ecosystem services" is used in a given cleanup, the concepts of ES
endpoints can provide valuable additions to monitoring and assessment design. Even proxies for ES
metrics can provide value-added information beyond traditional monitoring to enhance the assessment
of restoration success.

4.6 References

Adamus, P.R. (2011). Manual for the Wetland Ecosystem Services Protocol for the United States
(WESPUS). Retrieved from: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~adamusp/WESP/.

Allan, J.D., P.B. Mclntyre, S.D. Smith, B.S. Halpern, G.L. Boyer, A. Buchsbaum, G. Burton, L. Campbell, M.
W.L. Chadderton, and J.J. Ciborowski. (2013). Joint analysis of stressors and ecosystem services to
enhance restoration effectiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(l):372-377.

Allan, J.D., S.D. Smith, P.B. Mclntyre, C.A. Joseph, C.E. Dickinson, A.L. Marino, R.G. Biel, J.C. Olson, P.J.
Doran, E.S. Rutherford, J.E. Adkins, and A.O. Adeyemo. (2015). Using cultural ecosystem services to
inform restoration priorities in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
13:418-424. DOI: 10.1890/140328.

Angradi, T.R., K.C. Williams, J.C. Hoffman, and D.W. Bolgrien. (2019). Goals, beneficiaries, and indicators
of waterfront revitalization in Great Lakes Areas of Concern and coastal communities. Journal of Great
Lakes Research 45(5):851-863.

ASTM International. (2016). Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups. Retrieved from:

http://www.astm.org/Standards/E2893.htm.

170

-------
Bousquin, J., and M. Mazzotta. (2020). Rapid Benefit Indicator Tools. ln:T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, &T.H.
DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory,
Tools and Applications (pp. 309-330). Amsterdam: Springer.

Cerasani, G.M., and R.J. Nickels. (2019). When Context and Pretext Collide: Reflective Practice as an
Ethical Framework for Field-based Learning. In: A. Paczynska, A., Hirsch, & S.F. (Eds.), Conflict Zone,
Comfort Zone: Ethics, Pedagogy, and Effecting Change in Field-Based Courses. Ohio University Press,
Athens, OH.

Charnley, S., and B. Engelbert. (2005). Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making:
EPA's superfund community involvement program. Journal of environmental management 77 (3):165-
182.

Chun, K.J., and H.K. Park. (1998). Examining the conflicting results of GDSS research. Information &
Management 33:313-25.

Dearfield, K.L., E.S. Bender, M. Kravitz, R. Wentsel, M.W. Slimak, W.H. Farland, and P. Gilman. (2005).
Ecological risk assessment issues identified during the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
examination of risk assessment practices. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1:73-
76.

DeWitt, T.H., W.J. Berry, T. Canfield, R.S. Fulford, M.C. Harwell, J.C. Hoffman, J.M. Johnston, T.A.
Newcomer-Johnson, P.J. Ringold, M.J. Russell, L.M. Sharpe, and S.H. Yee. (2020). Operationalizing the
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Approach to Support Community- and Ecosystem-based
Management. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, & T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem
Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications (pp. 127-148). Springer: Amsterdam.

Enquist, C.A., S.T. Jackson, G.M. Garfin, F.W. Davis, L.R. Gerber, J.A. Littell, J.L. Tank, A.J. Terando, T.U.
Wall, B. Halpern, and J.K. Hiers. (2017). Foundations of translational ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 15(10):541-550.

Fedra, K. (1995). Decision support for natural resources management: Models, GIS and expert systems.
Al Applications 9(3):3-19.

Gann, G.D., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J.G. Hallett, C. Eisenberg, M.R.
Guariguata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C. Echeverrfa, E. Gonzales, N. Shaw, K. Decleer, and K.W. Dixon. (2019).
International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition.
Restoration Ecology 27(S1):S1-S46.

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). (2012). Protocol Amending the Agreement Between
Canada and the United States of America on Great Lakes Water Quality, 1978, As Amended on October
16, 1983 and on November 18, 1987. Retrieved from:

https://www.ijc.org/sites/default/files/Great%20Lakes%20Water%20Quality%20Agreement%20-%
202012 l.pdf.

Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels, and D. Ohlson. (2012). Structured Decision
making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.

171

-------
Hartig, J.H., and M.A. Zarull. (1992). A Great Lakes Mission. In: Hartig, J.H. & M.A. Zarull (Eds.), Under
RAPs: Toward Grassroots Ecological Democracy in the Great Lakes Basin (pp. 5-35). University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Ml.

Hartig, J.H., M.A. Zarull, and N.L. Law. (1998) An ecosystem approach to Great Lakes management:
Practical steps. Journal of Great Lakes Research 24(3):739-750.

Hartig, J.H., G. Krantzberg, and P. Alsip. (2020). Thirty-five years of restoring Great Lakes Areas of
Concern: Gradual progress, hopeful future. Journal of Great Lakes Research 46:429-442.

Harwell, D.R. (2020). Ecosystem Services in US Environmental Law and Governance for the Ecosystem-
Based Management Practitioner. ln:T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, &T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based
Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications. Amsterdam:
Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_19.

Harwell, M.C., J.L. Molleda, C.A. Jackson, and L. Sharpe. (2020). Establishing a Common Framework for
Strategic Communications in Ecosystem-Based Management and the Natural Sciences. In: T. O'Higgins,
M. Lago, &T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic
Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications (pp.165-188). Amsterdam: Springer.

Harwell, M.C., C. Jackson, M. Kravitz, K. Lynch, J. Tomasula, A. Neale, M. Mahoney, C. Pachon, K.
Scheurmann, G. Grissom, and K. Parry. (2021). Ecosystem services consideration in the remediation
process for contaminated sites. Journal of Environmental Management 285:112102.

Holifield, R., and K. Williams. (2019) Recruiting, integrating, and sustaining stakeholder participation in
environmental management: A case study from the Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Journal of
Environmental Management 230:422-433.

Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC). (2011). Green and Sustainable Remediation: A
Practical Framework. Retrieved from: https://www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/GSR-2.pdf.

Jurjonas, M., C.A. May, B.J. Cardinale, S. Kyriakakis, D.R. Pearsall and P.J. Doran. (2022). A synthesis of
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative according to the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation.
Journal of Great Lakes Research. Retrieved from: https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.iglr.2022.01.008.

Mandle, L., P. Hamel, A.L. Vogl, L. Rogers, and W. Bierbower. (2016). InVEST 3.8.5 User's Guide. Stanford
University, The Natural Capital Project, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World
Wildlife Fund. Retrieved from: https://storage.googleapis.com/releases.naturalcapitalproiect.org/invest-
userguide/latest/index.html.

Maurice, C., B. Duncan, S. Mazur, and M. Russell. (2019) Incorporation of Ecosystem Goods and Services
into Ecological Risk Assessment. Annual Meeting of SETAC Midwest Regional Chapter. Retrieved from:

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?Lab=OSP&dirEntrvld=347291.

Munns Jr, W.R., A.W. Rea, G.W. Suter, L. Martin, L. Blake-Hedges, T. Crk, C. Davis, G. Ferreira, S. Jordan,
M. Mahoney, and M.G. Barron. (2016) Ecosystem services as assessment endpoints for ecological risk
assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 12(3):522-528.

172

-------
Munns Jr, W.R., V. Poulsen, W.R. Gala, S.J. Marshall, A.W. Rea, M.T. Sorensen, and K. von Stackelberg.
(2017). Ecosystem services in risk assessment and management. Integrated Environmental Assessment
and Management 13(l):62-73.

Newcomer-Johnson, T., F. Andrews, J. Corona, T. DeWitt, M. Harwell, C. Rhodes, P. Ringold, M. Russell,
P. Sinha, and G. Van Houtven. (2020). National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS Plus). US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-20/267.

Petruzzi, N.M. (2011). A case study on the evaluation and implementation of green and sustainable
remediation principles and practices during a RCRA corrective action cleanup. Groundwater Monitoring
& Remediation 31(2):63-71.

Pettibone, K.G., D.M. Balshaw, C. Dilworth, C.H. Drew, J.E. Hall, M. Heacock, A.R. Latoni, K.A. McAllister,
L.R. O'Fallon, C. Thompson, and N.J. Walker. (2018). Expanding the concept of translational research:
making a place for environmental health sciences. Environmental Health Perspectives 126(7):074501.

Pickard, B.R., J. Daniel, M. Mehaffey, L.E. Jackson, and A. Neale. (2015). EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial
tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management. Ecosystem Services 14(0):45-55.

Raimondo, S., L. Sharpe, L. Oliver, K.R. McCaffrey, S.T. Purucker, S. Sinnathamby, and J.M. Minucci.
(2019). A unified approach for protecting listed species and ecosystem services in isolated wetlands
using community-level protection goals. Science of the Total Environment 663:465-478.

Russell, M., J. Harvey, P. Ranade, and K. Murphy. (2015). EPA H20 User Manual. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-15/090.

Sharpe, L.M., M.C. Harwell, and C.A. Jackson. (2021). Integrated stakeholder prioritization criteria for
environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 282:111719. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111719.

Sharpe, L., C. Hernandez, and C. Jackson. (2020). Prioritizing Stakeholders, Beneficiaries and
Environmental Attributes: A Tool for Ecosystem-Based Management. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, & T. H.
DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory,

Tools and Applications (pp. 189-212). Amsterdam: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_10.

Sierszen, M.E., J.A. Morrice, A.S. Trebitz, and J.C. Hoffman. (2012). A review of selected ecosystem
services provided by coastal wetlands of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and
Management 15(1):92-106.

Smith, J.W.N. (2019). Debunking myths about sustainable remediation. Remediation Journal 29(2):7-15.

Steinman, A.D., B. Cardinale, W.R. Munns, M.E. Ogdahl, J.D. Allan, T. Angadi, S. Bartlett, K. Brauman, M.
Byappanahalli, M. Doss, D. Dupont, A. Johns, D. Kashian, F. Lupi, P. Mclntyre, T. Miller, M. Moore, R.
Logsdon, Muenich, R. Poudel, J. Price, B. Provencher, A. Rea, J. Read, S. Renzetti, B. Sohngen, and E.
Washburn. (2017). Ecosystem Services in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 43(3):161-168

173

-------
Sustainable Remediation Forum UK(SuRF UK). (2014). Sustainable Management Practices for
Management of Land Contamination. ISBN 978-1-905046-25-6. Retrieved from:

https://www.claire.co.uk/component/phocadownload/file/402-surf-uk-phase-3-bulletin.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2016). i-Tree Eco v6 Beta Overview. Retrieved from:

https://www.itreetools.org/eco/overview.php.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1990). A Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial Actions.
OSWER 9355.0-27FS. Retrieved from:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE D0CUMENTS/fsm9 046303.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1997). Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments—Interim Final. EPA 540-R-
97-006.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2001). Reuse Assessments: A Tool to Implement the
Superfund Land Use Directive. OSWER 9355.7-06P. Retrieved from:

https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/175564.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2004). An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles
and Practices. EPA/100/B-04/001.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006). Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program
Revitalization Measures. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-ll/documents/
cprmguidance-10-20-06covermemo.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2008a). Eco Update/Ground Water Forum Issue Paper.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Publication 9285.6-17. EPA-540-R-06-072.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2008b). Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable
Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites Technology Primer. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA 542-R-08-002. Retrieved from:

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPU RL.cgi?Dockey=P1000N^

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2009a). Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated
Properties into Community Assets. EPA 542-R08-003. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/remedytech/ecological-revitalization-turning-contaminated-properties-
community-assets.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2009b). Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and
Services; A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board. Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914;
EPA-SAB-09-012. Retrieved from:

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100DCSG.PDF?Dockey=P100DCSG.PDF.

174

-------
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2011a). Integrating the "3 Rs": Remediation, Restoration,
and Redevelopment. Superfund Redevelopment Initiative, Washington, DC. Retrieved from:

https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1570716.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2011b). This is Superfund: A Community Guide to EPA's
Superfund Program. EPA-540-R-11-021. Retrieved from:

https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/175197.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2012). Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a
Project's Environmental Footprint. EPA 542-R-12-002. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/greenercleanups/methodology-understanding-and-reducing-proiectS"
environmental-footprint.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2015a). Ecosystem Services as Assessment Endpoints in
Ecological Risk Assessment—Technical Background Paper. Washington, DC. EPA/100/F-15/004.

Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/risk/ecosystem-services-ecological-risk-assessment-endpoints-
guidelines.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2015b). Green Remediation Best Management Practices:
An Overview. Office of Land and Emergency Management. EPA 542-F-16-001. Retrieved from:

https://clu-in.org/greenremediation/docs/GR BMP factsheet overview.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2016). Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAE)
for Ecological Risk Assessment Second Edition with Generic Ecosystem Services Endpoints Added.
Washington, DC. EPA/100/F-15/005. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
08/documents/geae 2nd edition.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2017a). Ecosystem Services at Contaminated Site
Cleanups. Engineering Forum Issue Paper, Washington, DC. EPA/542/R-17/004. Retrieved from:

https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/10000Q459.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2017b). Reuse and Benefit to Community: Ecosystem
Services at Superfund Sites. Washington, DC. Retrieved from:

https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/176440.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2017c). Superfund Remedy Report, 15th Edition. Office
of Land and Emergency Management, Washington, DC. EPA-542-R-17-001. Retrieved from:

https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/10000Q349.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2020a). Beneficial Use Impairments for the Great Lakes
AOCs. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs/beneficial-use-impairments-great-lakes-

aocs.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2020b). Metrics for National and Regional Assessment of
Aquatic, Marine, and Terrestrial Final Ecosystem Goods and Services. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA645/R-20-002.

175

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2020c) National Priorities List (NPL) Sites - by State.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-state.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2020d). Superfund Optimization Progress Report
Washington, DC. EPA-542-R-20-002. Retrieved from:

https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/1000Q2585.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021). Overview of EPA's Brownfields Program.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-epas-brownfields-program.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2022). Greener Cleanups. Washington, DC. Retrieved
from: https://www.epa.gov/greenercleanups.

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). (2016). Model Toxics Control Act. Retrieved from:

https://ecologv.wa.gov/Spills-Cleanup/Contamination-cleanup/Cleanup-process.

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. (2009). Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the
Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, US Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.

Williams, K.C., D.W. Bolgrien, J.C. Hoffman, T.R. Angradi, J. Carlson, R. Clarke, A. Fulton, M. MacGregor,
H. Timm-Bijold, A. Trebitz, and S. Witherspoon. (2018). How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods
and Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and
Revitalization Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-17/292.

Williams, K.C., and J.C. Hoffman. (2020). Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization: Ecosystem Based
Management to Support Community Engagement at Clean-up Sites in the Laurentian Great Lakes. In: T.
O'Higgins, M. Lago, &T. H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and
Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications (pp. 543-560). Springer: Amsterdam.

World Bank (1996). The World Bank participation sourcebook. Washington, DC. Retrieved from:

https://elibrarv.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/0-8213-3558-8.

Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, R. de Jesus-Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M.C.
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. US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL.
EPA/600/R-17/266.

Zedler, J.B. (2003) Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment l(2):65-72.

176

-------
Chapter 5: Additional Considerations for
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into
Compensatory Mitigation Programs10

William (Bill) Ainslie and Eric D. Stein

Abstract

Compensatory mitigation for impacts to aquatic resources in the United States is primarily driven by the
federal §404(b)(l) Guidelines under the Clean Water Act which include the 2008 Mitigation Rule. The
Mitigation Rule is largely focused on the restoration of aquatic ecosystem functions, although language
in the Rule defines "services" as "the benefits that human populations receive from functions that occur
in ecosystems/' or ecosystem services (ES). The Rule outlines 12 informational elements that mitigation
providers must consider in every mitigation proposal. Aspects of defining objectives, site selection,
collecting baseline information, determining credits, developing a work plan, performance standards,
monitoring long term, and adaptive management from the Rule have many overlaps with the
restoration effectiveness and monitoring framework (Chapter 2) and therefore are amenable to
incorporating ES, including final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS). Although regulatory language in
the Rule includes terms and concepts pertaining to ES, detailed language about specifically incorporating
them is lacking. In addition, from an implementation standpoint, there are gaps and needs that would
have to be filled before ES and FEGS could be incorporated into compensatory mitigation practice,
especially in regards to: consistent terminology around a standard set of ES and beneficiaries; structured
assessment tools that produce quantifiable outcomes; process for establishing defensible benchmarks
for compliance; training and quality control program to ensure appropriate application; standard data
and metadata formats for inclusion of information on ES in tracking systems.

Core Messages

•	Enhancing ecosystem services (ES) are often a stated goal of compensatory mitigation projects;
however, they are seldom explicitly incorporated into design, monitoring, performance
assessments, or success criteria.

•	Adoption of an ES approach has great potential to augment compensatory mitigation practices,
to help meet Public Interest Review requirements under the US Army Corps of Engineers/US
Environmental Protection Agency regulatory program, and to inform discussion about tradeoffs

10 Ainslie, W. and E.D. Stein. (2022). Chapter 5: Additional Considerations for Incorporating Ecosystem Services into
Compensatory Mitigation Programs. In: Jackson et al. Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration
Effectiveness Monitoring & Assessment: Frameworks, Tools, and Examples. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Newport, OR. EPA/600/R-22/XXX. pp. 193-219.

177

-------
based on beneficiaries and services gained or lost through permitted impacts and the associated
compensatory mitigation.

•	Federal (and state) mitigation policies and guidance need to be updated to incorporate more
specific tools and approaches for assessing ES. Implementation of these tools and approaches
will require the inclusion of social scientists in the assessment process and development of
training and outreach materials.

•	Understanding the relationships between key ecological attributes and the ES that depend on
them is a prerequisite for achieving success and can be developed using conceptual models and
causal chains.

•	There is a need to develop consistent terminology around ES and a process for identifying key
beneficiaries associated with individual services.

•	Inclusion of ES is hampered by the lack of consistent assessment tools, quantifiable metrics,
reference definitions and trajectories of response to management actions.

•	Undesirable decreases in ES may result from mitigation projects that target the enhancement of
only one or a few ES without consideration of a larger suite of potential ES.

•	The preference for use of mitigation banks and in-lieu fee mitigation programs has the potential
to create a spatial disconnect between beneficiaries who are "harmed" by permitted impacts to
aquatic resources and those that "benefit" from compensatory mitigation. Consideration of the
spatial extent of benefits realized can help address this potential discrepancy.

5.1 Introduction

Ecosystem services (ES) are the outputs of ecological functions or processes that directly ("final
ecosystem goods and services" (FEGS) sensu Boyd & Banzhaff 2007) or indirectly ("intermediate
ecosystem goods and services") contribute to human well-being or have the potential to do so in the
future. The production of ES is dependent on ecological production functions which link ecosystems,
stressors, and management actions to ecological services (Bruins et al. 2017). The essence of the ES
approach is making explicit the biophysical attributes of ecosystems from which specific beneficiaries
(i.e., person, group, and/or firm) obtain a specific benefit (DeWitt et al. 2020). In a restoration context,
we define restoration effectiveness as the determination of how restorative actions affect ecological
functions, processes, habitats, and social benefits (ecosystem goods and services), and their resilience
through a broad range of conditions with minimal human intervention, by monitoring and assessment
relative to goals, objectives, and performance standards. This definition encompasses restoration
projects that occur under a range of conditions as discussed in the context of conservation and
contaminated site restoration (Chapters 3 and 4) as well as the restorative actions undertaken as part of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404 compensatory mitigation program (Figure 5.1).

The thrust of this chapter is to use the restoration effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA)
framework (Chapter 2) to explore how ES, including FEGS, can be incorporated into the compensatory
mitigation context. Compensatory mitigation is essentially the replacement/restoration of aquatic
resources in response to, or as a condition of, unavoidable impacts from the deposition of dredged or fill
material in accordance with regulations promulgated under the CWA. Using the REMA framework, this
chapter examines the regulatory basis for aquatic resource restoration as laid out in the CWA §404, the

178

-------
requirements under the regulations, and opportunities and constraints on ES being incorporated into
this existing established restoration program. Note that under certain circumstances preservation of
aquatic resources and the establishment of aquatic resources where they did not exist prior may also be
used as compensatory mitigation. However, this report primarily addresses the evaluation of
restoration, reestablishment, rehabilitation and enhancement projects under the 2008 Mitigation Rule,
collectively called restoration in this report.

Compensatory Mitigation

; Contaminated Sites 2	Conservation-Based Restoration

: . . ¦

¦ j ¦ y^1 ii^in iiii mi* ¦

REDUCING IMPROVING REPAIRING INITIATIVE PARTI A! TV
SOCIETAL	ECOSYSTEM	ECOSYSTEM	NATIVE	RECQVIMNO

IMPACTS	MANAGEMENT FUNCTION	KtCOVIiY	NATtVI

ECOSYSTEMS

Reduced Impacts

Remediation

Rehabilitation

Ecological Restoration

Figure 5.1. A modified "restorative continuum" diagram from the Society for Ecological Restoration
(Gann et al. 2019) describing (bottom) restoration action goals (i.e., reducing, improving, repairing,
initiating, recovering) and resultant improvement in ecosystem outcomes (bottom bars). This report's
three communities of practice, including compensatory mitigation, are outlined in boxes at the top.

The primary driver for compensatory mitigation in the US is the federal program under §404 of the
CWA. Under §404, the discharge of dredge and/or fill material into waters of the US requires a permit
from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Many states have developed their own programs that
adapt and expand upon the federal CWA program, but the general principles and structure are based on
the framework laid out in the federal program. In evaluating the aquatic resource impacts of a proposed
discharge, the USAGE uses a public interest review outlined in 33 CFR §320.4 which considers a broad
range of factors including: conservation; aesthetics; wetlands; fish and wildlife values; floodplain values;
and water quality. The USACE must also use the §404(b)(l) Guidelines (the Guidelines) (40 CFR §230.10)
as the substantive environmental criteria by which to judge the significance of impacts of the discharge
of dredge and/or fill material on the aquatic ecosystem. Under the sequencing requirement of the
Guidelines, impacts must first be avoided by finding an alternative discharge site that would result in

179

-------
less aquatic ecosystem damage. If impacts cannot be avoided, then steps must be taken to minimize the
impacts by modifying the project. If after all avoidance and minimization steps have been taken, any
remaining unavoidable impacts may require compensation by re-establishing or rehabilitating, creating,
enhancing, and/or preserving aquatic resources to offset the impacts caused by permitted discharges of
fill material. This last step is where the compensatory mitigation process and the requirements of 2008
Mitigation Rule begin.

Both the USACE's public interest review and the Guidelines refer to wetland functions "and values" in
recognition of the benefits wetlands provide to the public. Indeed, the fact that "wetlands" are
considered in the definition of "Waters of the United States" indicates Congressional recognition of their
relevance to the public interest. However, there is little in the regulations to clarify how wetland values
were to factor into regulatory decisions. Language in the Guidelines, about assessing impacts to aquatic
resources, address human health or welfare, and aesthetic, recreation, and economic values in addition
to ecological function. According to Ruhl (2001) this provides "ample room" for the program to include
ES into the consideration of impacts and by extension replacement of those ES through compensatory
mitigation. However, as with many things regulatory, additional considerations factored into decision
making require careful thought as to how such considerations are to be implemented and how that
implementation could, or will, affect the regulated public.

In 2008, the USACE and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated joint regulations on
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final Rule (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332; 40 CFR
Part 230). The regulations have come to be known as the Mitigation Rule (the Rule) and provide the
elements required of mitigation practitioners to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements. The
2008 Mitigation Rule lays out the policy and information required by the USACE and its interagency
partners, the Interagency Review Team (IRT), when determining the appropriateness of compensatory
mitigation for compliance with the §404 program. It also sets policy for ensuring that the sequencing
provisions of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines are followed (i.e., avoid, minimize, then compensate), and
provides a preferential hierarchy of mitigation types or mechanisms to satisfy mitigation requirements:
mitigation banks, in-lieu fee (ILF) programs, and permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) projects.

Third party mitigation (i.e., mitigation banks and ILF programs) has become the preferred method of
compensation under the §404 permitting program since the implementation of the 2008 Mitigation Rule
(IWR 2015). The last decade has seen an 120% increase in mitigation banks and an expansion of ILF
programs into 31 states across the US (Hough and Harrington 2019). The compensatory mitigation
program has become a US$2.9 billion per year industry (Bronner et al. 2013) having accounted for
approximately 578,000 acres of wetland, and 11,236,000 linear feet of stream, re-establishment,
enhancement, establishment, rehabilitation and/or preservation between 1995 and 2022 (US Army
Corps RIBITS 2022). Given the growth of compensatory mitigation as a driver for replacing lost wetland
and stream functions and the development of beneficiary-focused ES concepts and tools, opportunities
to incorporate ES appear available within the compensatory mitigation arena but not without additional
regulatory guidance and technical development.

180

-------
5.1.1. Goals

The goal of this chapter is to discuss compensatory mitigation, a program driven largely if not entirely by
regulation, using the REMA framework to focus in on identifying opportunities to include ES in the
selection of metrics, monitoring, and assessment of compensatory mitigation projects.

Section Content

The following sections of the report will discuss the information required by the 2008 Mitigation Rule as
it applies to the REMA framework and point out opportunities for incorporation of ES during the
planning and monitoring of compensatory mitigation projects.

Section 2 provides an overview of the current regulatory background of compensatory mitigation and ES
that provide the organizing principles upon which the discussion of ES in compensatory mitigation is
based. This includes a discussion of how the watershed approach outlined in the Rule has potential for
allowing the consideration of ES and FEGS. This also includes the 12 elements in the Rule that must be
fulfilled by all compensatory mitigation proposals and which ones have potential for providing for the
inclusion of ES.

Section 3 outlines a number of special considerations for application of ES in compensatory mitigation,
including:

•	Boundaries and constraints - Authorities, regulations (Mitigation Rule), mitigation guidelines

•	Assess existing knowledge - Terminology and regulatory considerations, site selection using a
watershed approach

•	Identify goals and objectives - Approaches for including ES, developing a mitigation plan for a
particular site, ES goals and intended beneficiaries

•	Select metrics - ES evaluation tool, mitigation credit determination

•	Collect the data - Baseline monitoring and mitigation monitoring

•	Assess restoration progress and success - Reference sites and ES relevant performance
standards

•	Synthesis and Communication - Synthesizing monitoring results for decision support, training
and stakeholder outreach, establishment of ES

•	Adaptive management - Regulatory considerations, long-term management, site protection,
decision support, stakeholder engagement.

Section 4 presents gaps, needs, and recommendations to incorporate ES into the §404 Compensatory
Mitigation Program.

In ten ded A udien ce

The intended audience are those private, local, state, or federal personnel who may be, or may become,
involved with aquatic resource restoration as a means to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements
under the 2008 Mitigation Rule.

181

-------
5.2 Organizing Principles

Wetland functions are the natural ecological processes occurring within wetlands, and wetland benefits
(goods and services) are the outputs of these functions that provide benefits for humans (Stelk and
Christie 2014). The goal of compensatory mitigation is to restore the functions of impacted aquatic
resources to compensate for unavoidable impacts in an effort to achieve No Net Loss of aquatic
resource function and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
Although, a largely implicit assumption is that replacement of wetland and stream functions also
replaces important ecosystem values, services, and FEGS that are important to the public interest.

The Rule established equivalent requirements, performance standards, and criteria for use by
providers/practitioners of all types of compensatory mitigation to improve the quality and success of
mitigation projects. It discusses general compensatory mitigation requirements, including location, type,
and amount of compensation, the use of preservation, buffers, and riparian areas as compensation, and
the relationship with other federal programs (33 CFR § 332.3; 40 CFR § 230.93). Further, the Rule
incorporates the recommendation of the National Research Council's 2001 (Compensating for Wetland
Losses Under the Clean Water Act) report, and other scientific literature, to use a "watershed approach"
for selecting compensatory mitigation sites. Fundamental considerations in a watershed approach
include: watershed scale; landscape position and resource type; habitat requirements of important
species; trends in habitat loss or conversion; sources of watershed impairment; and current
development trends. The objective of utilizing a watershed approach is the selection of a compensatory
mitigation site that replaces ecological functions and services lost as a result of permitted impacts and
supports the improvement of the quality, quantity and ecological functions of aquatic resources to
benefit the watershed.

In addition, the Rule stipulates that compensatory mitigation projects have measurable, enforceable
ecological performance standards (i.e., metrics) and require regular monitoring to verify achievement of
stated objectives (i.e., restoration progress and success). Detailed mitigation plans must be provided for
both wetland and stream mitigation projects, and all projects must include provisions for long-term
management, long-term site protection mechanisms, financial assurances, and identification of the
parties responsible for specific project tasks (i.e., adaptive management). These aspects of monitoring
and performance are considered an integral part of the compensatory mitigation process which are
greatly influenced by site selection, baseline monitoring, objectives of the project, and the mitigation
plan.

The Rule establishes 12 items, or elements, that must be included in every mitigation plan, regardless of
whether it is a mitigation bank (bank), ILF project, or PRM site (33 CFR § 332.41; 40 CFR § 230.94(c)).
These 12 elements comprise the substantive information that the permittee (often a proposed Bank
Sponsor or ILF Sponsor) must provide to explain and justify their plan for a proposed mitigation project.
It is upon these 12 elements that the District Engineer and the Interagency Review Team agencies base
their evaluation (Table 5.1).

182

-------
Table 5.1. Twelve constituent elements required by the 2008 Mitigation Rule to be included in a
mitigation plan, and potential for incorporating ES into review process.

REMA
Category

Mitigation
Rule
Requirement

Description

Relationship to
ES

Identify Goals
and Objectives

Objectives

Description of resource type and amount to
be provided; the method of provision; and
the manner in which the resource functions
of the compensatory mitigation project
address the needs of the geographic area of
interest (i.e., watershed, ecoregion,
physiographic province, or other geographic
area of interest).

Incorporate ES
into consideration
of project
objectives

Assess Existing
Knowledge

Site Selection

Description of factors considered during the
site selection process.

ES addressed
after watershed
approach

Adaptive
Management

Site Protection
Instrument

Description of the legal arrangements and
instrument, including site ownership, to be
used to ensure long-term protection of the
site.

Consider how site
protection and
restricted access
affect ES

Assess Existing
Knowledge

Baseline
Information

Description of the ecological characteristics
of the proposed compensatory mitigation site
and, in the case of an individual permit
application, the impact site.

Functions
available to
contribute to ES



Determination
of Credits

Description of the number of credits to be
provided by the mitigation site, along with a
brief explanation and rationale for the
determination.

Potential to
incorporate ES in
a cost-effective
manner

Assess Existing
Knowledge

Mitigation
Work Plan

Detailed written specifications and work
descriptions for the compensatory mitigation
project, including but not necessarily limited
to the geographic boundaries of the project;
construction methods, timing, and sequence;
source(s) of water, including connections to
existing waters and uplands; methods for
establishing the desired plant community;
plans to control invasive species; grading
plan, including elevations and slopes; soil
management; and erosion control measures.

Management
actions to restore
functions

183

-------
REMA
Category

Mitigation
Rule
Requirement

Description

Relationship to
ES

Adaptive
Management

Maintenance
Plan

Description and schedule of maintenance
requirements to ensure continued viability of
the resource once construction is complete.



Select Metrics;
Assess
Restoration
Progress &
Success

Performance
Standards

Ecologically based standards that will be used
to determine whether the compensatory
mitigation project is achieving its objectives.

Functions
providing ES

Collect Data;

Assess

Restoration

Progress &

Success;

Synthesis &

Communication

Monitoring
Requirements

Description of the parameters to be
monitored to determine if the compensatory
mitigation project is on track to meet its
performance standards and whether adaptive
management is needed.

Functions
providing ES

Adaptive
Management;
Synthesis &
Communication

Long-Term

Management

Plan

Description of how the compensatory
mitigation project will be managed once the
performance measures have been achieved
to ensure long-term sustainability of the
resource, including financial mechanisms to
appropriately manage the site.

Maintaining site
characteristics
that provide ES

Adaptive
Management

Adaptive
Management

Management strategy to address unforeseen
changes to site conditions or other
components of the compensatory mitigation
project. Adaptive management plan will
guide decisions for revising compensatory
mitigation plans and implementing measures
to address both foreseeable and unforeseen
circumstances that adversely affect
compensatory mitigation success.

Maintaining site
characteristics
that provide ES



Financial
Assurances

Description of the financial assurances
provided and how they are sufficient to
ensure a high level of confidence that the
compensatory mitigation will be completed in
accordance with its performance standards.



184

-------
Ecosystem services are mentioned in the Rule, specifically in relation to the Watershed Approach
(§332.3(c)) and considerations for type and location of compensatory mitigation sites (§332.3(c)(2)(ii)),
mitigation bank crediting (§332.3(b)(2) and performance standards (§332.5). The preamble to the Rule
discusses aquatic ecosystem functions and services in the context of using the term "services" to replace
the previously used term "values." The Rule defines "services" as, "the benefits that human populations
receive from functions that occur in ecosystems." Thus, the scale of factors that must be considered in a
compensatory mitigation plan range from the watershed scale to the specific site. However, as with the
term "values" included in the USACE Public Interest Review and the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, there
is little formal clarification or guidance as to how ES are to be incorporated into the regulatory process.

5.3 Special Considerations

The development of a compensatory mitigation proposal includes selection of a site, assessing the
stressors that have contributed to the site's baseline condition, developing a mitigation plan to account
for, adapt to, or ameliorate those stressors or provide the highest potential restoration value that will be
self-sustaining given current conditions and stressors that cannot be fully eliminated, monitoring the site
for its performance and success, then implementing adaptive management if success is not achieved
and to increase the site's resilience to expected future changes in stressors. The following discussion is
organized by REMA framework headings and discusses how elements outlined in the Mitigation Rule fit
into those categories and in which ES can be incorporated.

5.3.1 REMA Framework

The REMA framework (Figure 5.2) encompasses elements found in the Rule which makes discussion of
compensatory mitigation applicable under the REMA framework (Special Considerations portion of
Figure 5.2). A goal of the Rule is to provide equivalent standards to the three mechanisms of providing
compensatory mitigation (i.e., mitigation banks, ILFs, and PRM projects) by outlining the elements that
must be considered and/or included in an aquatic resource restoration plan under the CWA. These
elements overlap aspects of the REMA framework, albeit using different terminology, but may also
extend beyond planning for monitoring and assessment.

185

-------
Special Considerations for Compensatory Mitigation

A

Authorities; regulations; mitigation guidelines

B

Terminology and regulation considerations;
identification of key beneficiaries and desired ES

C

Objectives; mitigation plan; watershed
approach/site selection; crediting approach; ES
goals and intended beneficiaries

D

ES evaluation tool; mitigation credit
determination

E

Baseline monitoring; mitigation monitoring

F

Reference sites; ESrelevant performance criteria

G

Decision support; training and stakeholder
outreach; establishment of ES; translational
science

H

Regulatory considerations; long-term
management plan; site protection; decision
support; stakeholder engagement;
communication

Figure 5.2. Sections of Chapter 5 that discuss the special ES-related considerations in compensatory
mitigation (right) mapped onto the REMA framework (left).

5.3.2 Identify Boundaries and Constraints

The CWA §404 program focuses on the loss of aquatic resource functions of jurisdictional waters and
their functional replacement as outlined in the Rule. The aspect of CWA §404 program requirements
applying only to jurisdictional waters may be a constraint on restoration efforts to non-jurisdictional
habitats (e.g., upland forest, grassland, prairie) that would not be considered appropriate mitigation in
most cases. Although direct mitigation credit cannot be provided for uplands, the Rule does allow for
consideration of the contribution of adjacent upland habitat to the functioning of the aquatic ecosystem
as a buffer or as important habitat for species that may rely on both upland and the aquatic areas. This
may also provide an opportunity for consideration of ES associated with adjacent upland habitat (e.g.,
wildlife appreciation, research) but only if the uplands are connected to, and vital for, the functions and
ES provided by the aquatic resources in the watershed. The Rule also allows "out-of-kind" (i.e., a
resource of a different structural and functional type from the impacted resource) mitigation in certain
circumstances, even though the emphasis is overwhelmingly on the replacement of lost aquatic
ecosystem functions. However, the use of any out-of-kind mitigation is at the discretion of the USACE
and must be related to compensating for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources.

The Rule (73 FR 19604) considers ES as a useful concept for assessing the public interest, an important
consideration in the USACE Regulatory Program (i.e., public interest review), and as a potential objective
measure of functions performed for human populations. Characterizing how the general population
benefits from ecological functions as "services," as opposed to characterizing those benefits as "values,"
updates the Rule with more current ES terminology and provides an opportunity for alignment of

186

-------
ecological functions with ES. Tacitly however, the Rule acknowledges that assessment of services
provided by aquatic resources is usually qualitative, and likely accomplished through evaluations of
compensatory mitigation options, such as siting projects near human populations. When they are
mentioned as part of the USACE alternatives analysis, public interest review, or environmental
documentation, ES are typically discussed qualitatively rather than assessed in any structured way. This
qualitative and informal approach to assessing ES is evidenced by the lack of examples that could be
found in which ES were explicitly incorporated into the permit decision-making process as well as by
global reviews that have found that ES assessments are seldom included in impact assessments largely
because of lack of structured approaches that are not duplicative of other assessment requirements
(Rosa and Sanchez 2015).

Enhancing ES are often a stated goal of compensatory mitigation
projects; however, they are seldom explicitly incorporated into design,
monitoring, performance assessments, or success criteria.

The third-party provision of mitigation projects creates a significant number and variety of mitigation
practitioners including conservation-based organizations, public agencies, and for-profit mitigation
bankers. Note: while this Chapter is focused on mitigation banking, there are examples of interest in
conducting restoration for profit (e.g., generating carbon credits; BenDor et al. 2015); however, we do
not explore that topic. Because of the entrepreneurial nature of third-party provision of compensatory
mitigation projects, providers consider requirements of the Rule from the perspective of cost to benefit,
much like PRM providers, and will likely only incorporate ES into their planning process if it is strongly
encouraged or required by the USACE. Given the upfront investment required to implement a
compensatory mitigation bank or in lieu fee proposal, the time to realization of return on investment is
important to the practicability (or viability) of the project. Thus, adding stakeholder outreach and
consideration for each compensatory mitigation project would require additional time and coordination
on the part of the USACE, IRT, and the mitigation provider. However, given the Rule's language
acknowledging the usefulness of the ES concept, including ES consideration in the mitigation review
process can broaden stakeholder support for a project. Public input throughout the 404 processes,
including compensatory mitigation project review, is typically accomplished through public notice of
projects. Interested citizens can receive public notices outlining proposed projects and provide input
into the decision-making process by providing comments on individual proposals. During the agency
public notice of mitigation bank prospectuses and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for
proposed impacts to aquatic resources, the potential effects on ES can be communicated to, and from,
adjacent communities. For permits of large or high visibility aquatic resource impacts, engaging the
public for the identification of the ES to be lost and prioritizing the ES for replacement with
compensatory mitigation or other actions may provide additional justification that authorizing the
proposal is in the public interest. Over the long term, community "ownership of," or involvement in,
compensatory mitigation projects could be leveraged to help provide long-term stewardship and
management of mitigation sites. This could be particularly pertinent to permittee responsible mitigation

187

-------
sites that often do not have financial resources for long-term stewardship and management and would
benefit from community involvement in the long-term management of such sites. This would shift the
inclusion of ES from a perceived constraint to a net benefit.

As with any regulatory program, implementation is dependent on adherence to regulatory intent and
language, as well as on consistent and predictable application. These aspects of regulation often make
modifications slow and difficult, not only because of organizational and procedural processes but also
because of the effect changes have on the regulated community. Ruhl (2001) discussed how ES could be
incorporated into compensatory mitigation banking considerations. Subsequent to this early discussion
of ES in mitigation banking, the Rule contains language about the use of ES to potentially evaluate public
interests. There is not a lot of detail in the Rule, beyond the admission that assessments of ES will likely
be based on "best professional judgement," on how ES assessments should be developed and used to
communicate benefits of aquatic ecosystems to the public. Willingness (or ease) of incorporating ES
into compensatory mitigation may vary based on the mitigation mechanism. Of the three mechanisms
of mitigation (banks, ILFs, and PRM), banks often have large sites and are led by firms with substantial
in-house expertise; but they are somewhat risk-averse and may be reluctant to incorporate
consideration of ES without the possibility of that consideration generating additional credits.
Conservation-based organizations that may be more open to incorporating ES often lead ILF projects,
but often have small sites and minimal financial resources. Addressing ES may be best suited by PRM
because they are project-specific sites, often negotiated during (quasi-)public processes like
NEPA/CEQA. Just as the overall compensatory mitigation program has evolved prior to the Rule, through
a series of inter-agency and USACE guidance and policy memoranda outlining standards and practices,
so too may the ES component of the Mitigation Rule be further defined and implemented through
guidance prepared jointly by EPA and the USACE (Ruhl 2001). Guidance on incorporating ES into the
consideration of compensatory mitigation projects could be developed when, and if, the need for such
guidance is supported by public need and sound information.

5.3.3 Assess Existing Knowledge

Compensatory mitigation projects begin with site selection within a watershed context. This is an
important aspect of the Rule which follows the National Research Council (NRC 2001) recommendation
for considering the landscape position, surrounding land uses, and cumulative watershed impacts
affecting mitigation site selection. A watershed approach is recommended as an analytical process for
making compensatory mitigation decisions that support the sustainability or improvement of aquatic
resources in a watershed. The watershed approach may involve consideration of landscape scale,
historic and potential aquatic resource conditions, past and projected aquatic resource impacts in the
watershed, and terrestrial connections between aquatic resources.

The USACE guidance and the Rule urges regulators to make use of existing watershed plans developed
by federal, tribal, state, and/or local government agencies or appropriate non-governmental
organizations, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, for the specific goal of aquatic resource
restoration, establishment, enhancement, and preservation. A watershed plan addresses aquatic
resource conditions in the watershed, multiple stakeholder interests, and land uses. Watershed plans
may also identify priority sites for aquatic resource restoration and protection. Examples of watershed

188

-------
plans include special area management plans, state wildlife action plans, federal endangered species
recovery plans, and wetland and waterfowl management plans (Wilkinson & Bendik 2010). Many of
these plans focus on wildlife habitat as the ES benefit; however, public comment on these plans could
result in the incorporation of other stakeholder interests like water quality enhancement, flood
attenuation, and carbon sequestration that accompany wildlife habitat.

In the absence of an appropriate watershed plan, the Rule directs the USACE and the provider to use a
watershed approach based on analysis of information regarding watershed conditions and needs,
including potential sites for aquatic resource restoration activities and priorities for aquatic resource
restoration and preservation. Such information includes: current trends in habitat loss or conversion;
cumulative impacts of past development activities, current development trends; the presence and
needs of sensitive species; site conditions that favor or hinder the success of compensatory mitigation
projects; and chronic environmental problems such as flooding or poor water quality.

In general, the required compensatory mitigation should be located within the same watershed as the
impact site and should be located where it is most likely to successfully replace lost functions and
services, taking into account such watershed scale features as aquatic habitat diversity, habitat
connectivity, relationships to hydrologic sources (including the availability of water rights), trends in land
use, ecological benefits, and compatibility with adjacent land use. Locational factors (e.g., hydrology,
surrounding land use) are important to the success of compensatory mitigation for impacted habitat
functions and may lead to siting of such mitigation away from the project area. However, consideration
should also be given to ecosystem functions and services (e.g., water quality, flood control, shoreline
protection) that will likely need to be addressed at or near the areas affected by the permitted impacts.
Since many of the Rule's information requirements follow the selection of a site, the inclusion of ES in
this initial step could set the stage for tracking indicators of those services and the associated
beneficiaries throughout the compensatory mitigation project. Inclusion of ES in the site selection
process could also provide a mechanism for including consideration of environmental justice issues
which often disproportionately favor placement of mitigation sites in natural areas versus near
underserved communities.

Adoption of an ES approach has great potential to augment
compensatory mitigation practices, to help meet Public Interest
Review requirements under the USACE/USEPA regulatory program,
and to inform discussion about tradeoffs based on beneficiaries and
services gained or lost through permitted impacts and the associated

compensatory mitigation.

189

-------
5.3.4 Identify Goals and Objectives

The expression of goals and objectives under the REMA framework (Figure 5.2) is focused on those
developed to implement the mitigation and subsequent monitoring plans. Although highly related and
compatible, compensatory mitigation considers a restoration project's goals and objectives separately.
Like REMA, compensatory mitigation goals are broad statements of the intended outcome, or
expectations, of the mitigation project, including a list of the functions to be provided by the mitigation
site. Depending upon the selection of a suitable site and the watershed needs contributing to that
selection, ES that address those needs could become goals. Objectives by comparison, are designed to
describe the resource type, the method of compensation, and the actions needed to achieve the goal
(33 CFR §332.4(c)(2)). They are typically specific measurable targets critical to the establishment of the
functions, as well as including the time necessary to reach the target. Although discussed later,
objectives are closely related to performance standards and the release of credits for banks and ILFs and
the approval of fulfillment of the compensatory mitigation obligations under PRM.

In the compensatory mitigation context, goals should efficiently express the intent of a project and serve
as a fixed point for evaluating project elements (Skidmore et al. 2011; Roni and Beechie 2013). For
example, a project goal may be "restoration of a forested low-gradient riverine wetland to provide
hydrologic, biogeochemical, and plant and animal habitat functions similar to reference standard
wetlands of this wetland type." This statement provides an expectation of the type of wetland and
functions to be restored which can be used to guide the project. An equivalent stream goal might be, "to
restore channel processes needed for resilient and sustainable riparian and benthic habitat." This
statement provides an expectation that to restore sustainable riparian and benthic habitats, hydrologic
and hydraulic reconnection of the floodplain, as well as instream channel conditions and functions,
might need repair.

Objectives by comparison, are designed to describe the actions needed to achieve the goal. They are
typically specific measurable targets critical to the establishment of the functions, as well as including
the time necessary to reach the target. It is likely each goal may have multiple objectives. Well-defined
objectives form the basis for specific performance standards that allow for evaluation of the success or
failure of the mitigation project. The objectives tie the actions planned to the performance measures
(i.e., specific level of metric attained) needed to evaluate if the goals have been achieved.

Identifying goals and objectives is also reliant on the mitigation workplan required by the Rule. The
mitigation work plan includes written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory
mitigation project, including, but not limited to: the geographic boundaries of the project; construction
methods, timing and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and
uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species;
the proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate; soil management; and
erosion control measures. For stream compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan
should also include other relevant information, such as proposed planform channel geometry, channel
hydraulic geometry (e.g., typical channel cross-sections for both pools and riffles), longitudinal profile
and channel bed forms, watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings. Any given
mitigation plan includes the requirements in the Rule, as well as additional considerations that may be

190

-------
called for based on the aquatic resource type, restoration design and the level and type of stressors that
can be addressed on site. This clause could allow for management/work plan actions, implemented
during project construction, aimed at restoring the targeted functions which can be translated into ES.
However, tracking the development of ES after work plan implementation would require development
of objectives with metrics and performance measures that can be objectively evaluated.

5.3.5 Select Metrics

The EPA and USACE have a long-standing policy of achieving no overall net loss for wetland acreage and
function and simply requiring one-to-one acreage replacement may not adequately compensate for the
aquatic resource functions and services lost. Presently, there are methods that can be used by district
engineers to assess aquatic resource functions or condition, such as hydrogeomorphic assessment
methods and indices of biological integrity. There are efforts being undertaken to develop methods to
assess ES, such as those that use indices of wetland function to reflect the services provided by
wetlands; however, none have been sufficiently developed for routine incorporation into the
compensatory mitigation review process.

A unique aspect of the compensatory mitigation program is the requirement for the USACE to
determine the amount of mitigation required to offset unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources (33 CFR
§332.3(f)). The metric used to determine this amount is termed a "credit" and is defined as a unit of
measure (e.g., a functional or areal measure or other suitable metric) representing the accrual or
attainment of aquatic functions at a compensatory mitigation site. The measure of aquatic functions is
based on the resources restored, established, enhanced, or preserved (33 CFR §332.2). The amount of
required compensatory mitigation must be, to the extent practicable, sufficient to replace lost aquatic
resource functions, and by extension, lost services. In cases where appropriate functional or condition
assessment methods or other suitable metrics are available, these methods should be used where
practicable to determine how much compensatory mitigation is required. Most USACE Districts have
methods for calculating credits, although there is little standardization of credit calculations between
Districts.

Credit determination within the compensatory mitigation program may be an important avenue for
incorporation of ES. The number of credits a proposed project generates and can potentially sell to
offset impacts is the economic incentive behind third party mitigation. The greater the number of
credits, or the greater the potential of a provider to produce important ecological functions and services
within a watershed that produce credits, the more likely mitigation plans will incorporate actions to
produce those functions and services. The credit determination methods and associated assessment
methods establish the incentives for the providers of compensatory mitigation; mitigation bankers, ILF
programs, and PRM providers/permittees. If the assessment and credit determination methods highlight
the value and link the ecological functions measured to ES the compensatory mitigation providers will
have the incentive and means to incorporate ES into compensatory mitigation projects.

Consistent, structured, and transparent assessment tools and implementation guidelines are necessary
for ESto be routinely used in compensatory mitigation programs (e.g., determining mitigation
requirements, establishing performance standards, and assessing compliance). Kaiser et al. (2020)

191

-------
reviewed almost 900 studies on the effects of river restoration on ES and concluded that only about 10%
included a structured assessment of ES largely because of the lack of readily available methods.

Attempts to evaluate overall effects of restoration on ES was not possible because of insufficient
standardization to reliably quantify or qualify a relationship, suggesting that similar challenges would
apply when incorporating ES into compensatory mitigation programs. It is critical to be able to link
changes in ecosystem structure and function to ES in a transparent, structured, and systematic manner
so that they can be included in permit evaluation and regulatory compliance (Barbier 2013). For
example, Table 5.2 shows some typical performance standards used in compensatory mitigation
projects for riverine wetland functions that could also be used to represent ES.

Table 5.2. Examples of ecological functions (after Hydrogeomorphic Approach (Smith et al. 1995)) and
services with common indicators/performance standards for forested, riverine wetlands.

Ecosystem Services

Performance
Standards/Indicators



Ecological Functions

Provisioning





• Fresh Water (storage and

¦ Flood frequency, extent and

•

Maintenance of Characteristic

retention of water for

duration



Hydrology

human use)

¦	Duration of soil saturation to the
surface

¦	Percent of sited ponded

¦	% macro- and micro-topography
coverage

•

Temporary Storage of Surface
Water

• Food (Hunting; Fishing)

¦ Percent of wetland tract connected
to other habitats

•

Maintenance of Wildlife
Habitat



¦ Percent of wetland tract with 100-m

•

Maintenance of Characteristic



buffer



Plant Communities



¦ Snag density

•

Organic Carbon Export



¦ Volume of logs







¦ Flood frequency







¦ Percent site ponded







¦ Plant species composition







¦ Tree basal area







¦ Tree density





Regulating





• Water regulation

¦ Soil permeability

•

Maintain Characteristic

(Groundwater

¦ Water table slope



Subsurface Hydrology

recharge/discharge

¦	Subsurface storage volume (soil
porosity)

¦	Water table fluctuation





• Water purification and

¦ Flood frequency (recurrence

•

Removal of Elements and

waste treatment

interval)

¦	Water table depth

¦	Soil clay content

¦	Redoximorphic features



Compounds

192

-------
Ecosystem Services

Performance
Standards/Indicators

Ecological Functions



¦	"0" horizon biomass (percent cover
O-horizon)

¦	"A" horizon biomass (percent cover
A-horizon)



• Erosion Regulation

¦	Flood frequency

¦	Floodplain storage volume

¦	Floodplain slope

¦	Floodplain roughness (Mannings n)

• Retain Particulates

• Natural Hazard

Regulation (flooding)

¦	Flood frequency (recurrence
interval)

¦	Floodplain storage volume
(floodplain width/channel width)

¦	Floodplain slope

¦	Floodplain roughness (Manning's n)

• Temporary Storage of Surface
Water

• Pollination

¦	Species composition by strata

¦	Tree density

¦	Shrub percent cover

¦	Herbaceous vegetation cover

• Maintenance of Characteristic
Plant Community

Supporting





• Nutrient cycling

¦	Tree biomass (basal area)

¦	Understory vegetation biomass
(shrub/sapling density)

¦	Ground vegetation biomass (percent
groundcover)

¦	"0" horizon biomass (percent cover
O-horizon)

¦	"A" horizon biomass (percent cover
A-horizon)

¦	Woody debris biomass

•	Nutrient Cycling

•	Removal of Elements and
Compounds

5.3.6 Collect and Analyze Data

Baseline monitoring is described as collecting information on the ecological characteristics of the
proposed compensatory mitigation project site, including: historic and existing plant communities;
historic and existing hydrology; soil conditions; and other site characteristics appropriate to the type of
resource proposed as compensation. Additionally, the Rule explains that site selection (33 CFR
§332.3(d)) should include consideration of watershed needs and the practicability of accomplishing self-
sustaining aquatic resource restoration, enhancement, etc., at the proposed mitigation site.

The responsible parties for monitoring mitigation sites must be designated in the mitigation plan along
with the requirement for how often, and for how long monitoring reports are required to be submitted
to the USACE. Monitoring compensatory mitigation sites is necessary to adequately capture the
trajectory towards performance standards. Specifically, a description of parameters to be monitored to
determine a site's track towards meeting performance standards and if adaptive management is needed

193

-------
(33 CFR §332.6). The length of the monitoring period must be sufficient to demonstrate that the site has
met performance standards but should not be less than five years. The Rule further specifies that a
longer monitoring period must be required for aquatic resources with slow development rates (e.g.,
forested wetlands, bogs) (33 CFR §332.6(b)). Similar trajectories and monitoring periods would need to
be established for the development of ES for them to be fully considered in the compensatory
mitigation process. In much the same way as monitoring for ecosystem functions considers relationships
with stressors, consideration of ES should consider the relationships with beneficiaries, which may
change over time. Consequently, establishment of restoration trajectories for ES will need to account for
trajectories in the associated beneficiaries. Adaptive management of the site offers another opportunity
to address changes in ecological structure and function or social structure and stakeholders' priorities
overtime (see Section 2.4.8).

5.3.7 Assess Restoration Progress and Success

Compensatory mitigation requirements determined through the watershed approach should not focus
exclusively on specific functions (e.g., water quality or habitat for certain species), but should provide,
where practicable, the suite of functions typically provided by the affected aquatic resource (33 CFR
§332.3(c)). Further, the mitigation provider should identify ecological performance standards that will
be used to assess whether the mitigation project is achieving its stated goals and objectives, and also to
clearly describe the methods by which the mitigation project site will be monitored to document its
performance. Performance standards are defined as "observable or measurable physical (including
hydrological), chemical and/or biological attributes that are used to determine if a compensatory
mitigation project meets its objectives" and are described in the Rule at 33 CFR § 332.5(a) as needing to
be clearly tied to the project objectives, the desired resource class or type, and the functions expected
of that resource type.

Further, the Rule stipulates in 33 CFR §332.5(b) that:

Performance standards must be based on attributes that are objective and verifiable. Ecological
performance standards must be based on the best available science that can be measured or
assessed in a practicable manner. Performance standards may be based on variables or
measures of functional capacity described in functional assessment methodologies,
measurements of hydrology or other aquatic resource characteristics, and/or comparisons to
reference aquatic resources of similar type and landscape position. The use of reference aquatic
resources to establish performance standards will help ensure that those performance standards
are reasonably achievable, by reflecting the range of variability exhibited by the regional class of
aquatic resources as a result of natural processes and anthropogenic disturbances. Performance
standards based on measurements of hydrology should take into consideration the hydrologic
variability exhibited by reference aquatic resources, especially wetlands. Where practicable,
performance standards should take into account the expected stages of the aquatic resource
development process, in order to allow early identification of potential problems and appropriate
adaptive management.

194

-------
Evaluation of ES for compensatory mitigation requires a framework for establishing a basis of
comparison that can be used to objectively gauge success, performance, or compliance. Clear
articulation of desired outcomes establishes shared expectations among stakeholders with often
disparate interests and determines the metrics and assessment methods against which success can be
measured. Performance (or success) should be assessed relative to a defined target and should include
an expected timeframe to meet that target. The target can be based on conditions at reference sites
(e.g., either minimally impacted or best attainable) or relative to regional or ambient condition (e.g.,
comparable to 75% of the range of ambient conditions). Performance can also be evaluated via a pre-
versus post-comparison, preferably using a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design (Conner et al.
2015). Guidance on acceptable approaches to defining reference or establishing targets based on
ambient or pre- versus post-comparisons is critical to being able to include ES in compensatory
mitigation in a consistent and defensible manner (See Section 2.4.5).

5.3.8 Synthesize and Communicate Findings

Reporting and synthesis of information about restoration project progress is done through monitoring
reports as discussed in Chapter 2 and previously in this chapter. These monitoring reports are used
primarily to determine if restoration performance is being achieved and, if not, to inform the adaptive
management process. The Rule states that monitoring reports are necessary to assess the development
and condition of compensatory mitigation projects, but the content and level of detail for those reports
must be commensurate with the scale and scope of the compensatory mitigation projects as well as the
compensatory mitigation project type (see 33 CFR §332.6(a)(1)). Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08-03
provides further guidance from the USACE to mitigation providers on the minimal information
requirements of the monitoring report. Monitoring requirements are typically based on the
performance standards for a particular compensatory mitigation project and may vary from one project
to another. However, much like the list of elements of a monitoring report in Section 2.4.7, these
regulatory requirements provide guidance and consistency to the reporting process.

Monitoring reports are required to comply with timeframes specified in the mitigation agreement (i.e.,
permit, mitigation banking instrument, ILF agreement) and should contain content sufficient for the
decision maker to determine compliance with project performance standards. Typically, these reports
are submitted chronologically to document the recovery of a site over time. Useful information
recommended includes:

a)	Project Overview - party responsible for monitoring; purpose of project; description of location;
and dates project commenced and completed

b)	Requirements - list of monitoring requirements and performance standards as specified in the
mitigation plan; and statements describing whether the site is achieving those performance
standards and trending toward success

c)	Summary Data - provided to substantiate the success or challenges associated with the project
along with photo documentation to support findings.

The Mitigation Rule (§332.6) indicates that if deemed appropriate by the USACE, monitoring reports can
include the results of functional, condition, or other assessments used to provide quantitative or

195

-------
qualitative measures of the functions provided by the compensatory mitigation project site. By
extension, these reports could also include a synthesis of how project performance standards indicate
ecological performance and the generation of ES. Concise synthesis of monitoring data to communicate
the status of functional recovery for ecological production functions and ultimately ES, if incorporated in
the beginning of the compensatory mitigation process, would be valuable to decision makers in
assessing the progress of a site and conveying benefits of these sites to the public. A key advantage of
translating ecological indicators to ES is that ES can help restoration practitioners communicate how
changes to the environmental quality of a site can lead to benefits for stakeholders and the public.

5.3.9 Practice Adaptive Management

Adaptive management within the compensatory mitigation context means the development of a
management strategy that anticipates likely challenges, as well as unforeseen changes, associated with
compensatory mitigation projects and provides for the implementation of actions to address those
challenges. This requires consideration of the risk, uncertainty, and the dynamic nature of compensatory
mitigation projects, and guides the process by which project modifications are implemented to optimize
performance. It includes the selection of appropriate measures that should ensure that the aquatic
resource functions are provided and involves analysis of monitoring results to identify potential
problems of a compensatory mitigation project and the identification and implementation of measures
to rectify those problems.

The development of an adaptive management plan is designed to reduce project uncertainty (i.e.,
answering the question, "Will what the provider is doing work?"). Plans should be linked to a provider's
experience with similar projects in which performance was not attained without modifying the plan, and
monitoring results which indicate performance standards are not being achieved. For instance, if soil
conditions of either a riparian or wetland area are not properly prepared and amended after site
construction, experience has shown that vegetative plantings will likely fail. This can be anticipated, and
a plan put in place to rectify the problem should it happen. In another example, hydrologic monitoring
of a riverine wetland site may indicate the target flood regime is not occurring with the frequency,
duration, and magnitude expected. Although this may not be anticipated, the results of the monitoring
are crucial to diagnosing the change and providing information for an adaptive management plan.

Other required aspects of compensatory mitigation, along with adaptive management designed to
ensure that the ecological production functions and their associated ES are maintained on the
landscape, are a maintenance plan, appropriately funded financial assurances, a long-term monitoring
and adaptive management plan, and a site protection mechanism ensuring the site will be appropriately
protected, funded, and managed in the long-term. There should be nothing in the maintenance or long-
term management plan that allows land uses or management techniques that may damage the restored
site's structure or function. If stressors are likely to persist or potentially arise during the long-term
management phase of the project, the long-term management plan should include a discussion of how
the site will be adaptively managed to ameliorate any adverse effects. Financial assurances should
adequately cover costs involved with planning, constructing, monitoring, and achieving the agreed upon
level of performance. Similar concepts could apply to ES but would need to account for social and

196

-------
demographic changes over time that may alter the manner in which ES are delivered to their intended
beneficiaries.

Another important aspect of compensatory mitigation projects that goes together with adaptive
management is long-term monitoring and management. The Rule requires the development of a long-
term management plan which outlines and describes how the compensatory mitigation project will be
managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the long-term sustainability of the
resource. This is a very important aspect of the compensatory mitigation program since many ecosystem
functions will likely not fully develop within the typical monitoring period. Therefore, ongoing
monitoring and a long-term management plan should account for the continued maturation of the
compensatory mitigation site. The long-term management plan must also include long-term financing
mechanisms (e.g., endowments or trusts) and identify the party responsible for site ownership and long-
term management of the compensatory mitigation project (see 33 CFR § 332. 7(d)). In fact, the
responsible party must be identified in the permit conditions authorizing the project or the mitigation
banking or ILF instrument. The permittee or sponsor may transfer the long-term management
responsibilities to a public or private land stewardship entity approved by the District Engineer after
final performance standards are met. Typically, long term management is used to ensure site
protections are maintained (i.e., easements, fences, other boundaries) and to respond to threats to
ecological functions (e.g., invasives) but may be used to implement periodic management like
prescribed burns. Supporting the provision of both ecological functions and ES in perpetuity would need
to be included in the development of the long-term management plan and associated financing
mechanism. This should include consideration of how site protection measures can balance the need to
protect ecosystem functions (e.g., fencing, access restrictions) while still allowing for delivery of ES to
the intended beneficiaries.

5.4 Gaps, Needs, and Recommendations for Incorporating ES into
Compensatory Mitigation Evaluation and Assessment

It should be clear from the preceding discussion of the Mitigation Rule's requirements for compensatory
mitigation within the REMA framework that there are aspects of the regulatory process that align well
with the restoration monitoring considerations and recommendations (e.g., performance metrics, data
collection, assessment of results, adaptive management, etc.) and others that are not as closely related
(e.g., watershed approach, site selection, mitigation plans, financial assurances, long-term management,
etc). Likewise, aspects of the Rule indicate that ES should be considered in the compensatory mitigation
process, but the Rule provides little guidance or recommendations on how those services or ES should
be incorporated into the program. This provides an excellent opportunity to develop guidance for how
to include consideration of ES in the 12 elements of the 2008 Mitigation Rule and develop the necessary
assessment tools that would allow future projects to include permit conditions and/or performance
standards focused on obtaining ES.

197

-------
Federal (and state) mitigation policies and guidance need to be
updated to incorporate more specific tools and approaches for
assessing ES. Implementation of these tools and approaches will
require the inclusion of social scientists in the assessment process and
development of training and outreach materials.

The following tools/approaches need to be developed and implemented to support consideration of ES
in compensatory mitigation programs:

¦	Consistent terminology around a standard set of ecosystem functions necessary to produce ES;

¦	Structured classification and assessment tools or models that produce quantifiable outcomes;

¦	Process for establishing defensible benchmarks for compliance;

¦	Training and quality control program to ensure appropriate application; and

¦	Standard data and metadata formats for inclusion of information on ES into tracking systems.

Developing an agreed upon finite set of easily interpretable ES and their associated typical beneficiaries
is a critical first step for inclusion in compensatory mitigation. Practitioners are likely familiar with the
organization of ES included in the earlier Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005; Stelk and
Christie 2014) or the Common International Classification of ES (CICES; Haines-Young and Potschin
2018), which has been designed to help measure, account for, and assess ES worldwide. The new
National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus; Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020)
provides an opportunity to move forward with the use of classification systems to aid in compensatory
mitigation processes. The NESCS Plus could be an appropriate system to standardize around but would
need to be simplified for routine application in these types of regulatory programs. Refinement of a use-
specific system that could be readily applied by agency staff and project proponents and their
consultants would also increase the likelihood of adoption.

Beyond identifying ES, consideration of ES in compensatory mitigation requires standardized assessment
approaches that can be consistently applied to both impact and mitigation sites representing many
different types of aquatic resources and physical/climatic settings and accounting for multiple
beneficiaries. The assessment approach must include quantifiable indicators that can be readily applied
in a consistent and repeatable manner to measure the degree to which specific services are being
provided. This should include identification of key biophysical metrics that relate services to
beneficiaries (Ringold et al. 2013; USEPA 2020). To be useful in compensatory mitigation programs
indicators should:

¦	Be tied to clear targets, benchmarks, or a reference;

¦	Be measurable in an objective and repeatable manner;

¦	Be quantifiable with known (and reportable) certainty levels;

¦	Be clear, concise, and unambiguous;

198

-------
¦	Be focused on assessing a single service to limit redundancy;

¦	Be sensitive to the changes in functions at both impacts (decreasing function) and compensation
(increasing function) sites;

¦	Be scientifically defensible; and

¦	Be resilient to changing conditions over time.

Indicator development could be facilitated by drawing on metrics commonly used to assess ecosystem
functions, such as those used by the Hydrogeomorphic Approach (Smith et al. 1995) and relating those
metrics to beneficiaries to assess ES. This approach was demonstrated by (Wardrop et al. 2015) who
created a crosswalk between ES and the Corps' Hydrogeomorphic functions to assess the benefits of the
National Resources Conservation Service conservation program investments in the Appalachian Region
of the eastern US. Similarly, many states have developed designated uses and evaluate beneficial uses
as part of their evaluation for CWA §401 water quality certifications or National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits. Including the evaluation of beneficial uses in crediting and assessment
protocols would make the incorporation of ES and FEGS in metric selection, monitoring reports and
performance standards easier since ES and FEGS can be cross walked to these uses. For example, non-
aquatic life beneficial uses, such as swimming, fishing, and recreational access can be readily linked to ES
and assessment of these used may provide indicators that can incorporated into an ES approach (e.g.,
proximity to under-represented communities and site visits per year in those communities).

As with any assessment system, evaluation of ES should be coupled with a structured data management
program. Data management provides the conduit to transform monitoring data to information that can
be used to support management decisions. Although it is a critical element, data management is often
underfunded and underdeveloped. As a result, information is often fragmented, difficult to coalesce,
and/or largely inaccessible. Advances in software, open-source analytical tools, web services, and cloud
storage have improved accessibility and may lower overall costs of data management, especially when
data is leveraged to support science-based decision making.

Beyond development of standard tools and implementation infrastructure, there are several issues
unique to compensatory mitigation that should be considered as part of any initiative to incorporate ES.
The CWA §404 program is not structured to identify specific beneficiaries in its current form. Instead,
the public interest review is grounded in a Public Trust Doctrine that states that the goal of
environmental regulation is to protect natural resources for the benefit of the general public from
exploitation for private benefit (Kameri-Mbote 2007; Blumm and Wood 2021). This doctrine may
inherently conflict with the premise of identifying specific beneficiaries versus the current public and
future generations at large. Similarly, incorporation of ES into the regulatory process could create
conflicts between objectives of enhancing ES and ecological functions; forcing unintended tradeoffs
which may not be accounted for in current regulations (i.e., to restore ecological function, ES, especially
FEGS, may need to be reduced to specific beneficiaries). Mapping ecosystem functions to ES and clearly
identifying current and future beneficiaries associated with each current and future ES may help reduce
potential conflicts by allowing explicit consideration of ES and providing a mechanism to assess tradeoffs
in a transparent manner. Restoration projects often enhance one set of functions and services at the
expense of others. Restoring a wetland to its historical condition may involve deliberately reducing one
function (e.g., surface water storage) in order to enhance another (e.g., export of organic matter and

199

-------
nutrients). Such tradeoffs are often desirable, especially when striving to meet goals of improving
overall watershed condition. Similarly, in the context of compensatory mitigation, there may be a desire
to enhance provisioning services, such as plant and wildlife habitat, at the expense of regulating
services, such as water quality and flood regulation. This is partly because often wetlands have been
"degraded" because of services such as flood control being prioritized over those that favor native
species and natural habitats. Such tradeoffs in river restoration were documented by Kaiser et al. (2020)
who noted that cultural and provisioning services may be reduced as part of the restoration process as a
consequence of rehabilitating ecosystem functions and associated provisioning services. This is because
ecosystem degradation often results from modifying natural wetlands to maximum functions prioritized
for human needs (e.g., flood retention). The ES approach could be used to inform discussion about
tradeoffs based on beneficiaries and services gained or lost through permitted impacts and the
associated compensatory mitigation. Tradeoffs could be rated relative to goals established through a
watershed planning approach to help ensure that overall watershed services are provided in an
equitable and balanced manner. This could require adding an element to the existing public interest
review process and or incorporating ES and FEGS into the crediting protocol.

The 2008 USACE-EPA Mitigation Rule expresses a preference for consolidating mitigation through use of
mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs based on the rationale that larger more centralized mitigation
projects would provide for restoration of more functional habitat, would be easier to manage, and
would promote regulatory efficiency. However, such an approach may create a spatial disconnect
between beneficiaries who are "harmed" by permitted impacts to wetlands in one location and those
that "benefit" from compensatory mitigation in a different location (Ruhl and Salzman 2006; Doyle and
BenDor 2011). For example, an authorized wetland fill may reduce recreational and water quality
benefits to a local community, whereas compensation at a more distant mitigation bank may increase
cultural and erosion protection benefits for a different community. This spatial disconnect between
benefits gained and lost has potential environmental justice implications. Previous studies have shown
disparities in state funding of wetland restoration projects (Dernoga et al. 2015). Consolidation of
mitigation through banks can exacerbate disparities in some services, such as the provision of
recreational opportunities, but could reduce others, such as improvement of water quality. Guidelines
for establishment of mitigation bank service areas do not currently include a process for considering
such tradeoffs in beneficiaries that may result in unanticipated inequities. Inclusion of ES in a mitigation
banking context may require revisiting existing crediting protocols and banking guidelines in light of
environmental justice considerations.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the science and practice of restoring ES is still in its infancy. The
success of compensatory mitigation at restoring ecosystem functions has been the subject of much
criticism associated with failure to design, monitor, and determine compliance based on ecosystem
function (NRC 2001). There is an opportunity to avoid similar challenges when designing mitigation to
restore ES if a standardized set of tools and approaches are developed and incorporated into the
regulatory process. Incorporation of ES into compensatory mitigation will require dedicated effort to
developing, testing, and evaluating ES restoration methods so that they can be included in restoration
plans, adaptive management programs, and contingency measures often included as part of regulatory
requirements.

200

-------
5.5 References

Barbier, E.B. (2013). Valuing ecosystem services for coastal wetland protection and restoration: Progress
and challenges. Resources 2(3):213-230. DOI: 10.3390/resources2030213.

BenDor, T.K., A. Livengood, T.W. Lester, A. Davis, and L. Yonavjak. (2015). Defining and evaluating the
ecological restoration economy. Restoration Ecology 23(3):209-219.

Blumm, M., and M. Wood. (2021). The Public Trust Doctrine in Environmental and Natural Resources
Law: Chapter 1 (Introduction). 3rd Edition. Carolina Academic Press.

Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics 63(2-3):616-626. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.

Bronner, C.E., A.M. Bartlett, S.L. Lambert, D.C. Lambert, S.J. Bennet, and A.J. Rabideau. (2013). An
Assessment of U.S. stream compensatory mitigation policy: Necessary changes to protect ecosystem
functions and services. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 49(2):449-462. DOI:
10.1111/jawr. 12034.

Bruins, R.J.F., T.J. Canfield, C. Duke, L. Kapustka, A. Nahlik, and R.B. Schafer. (2017). Using ecological
production functions to link ecological processes to ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 13(1):52-61. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.l842.

Conner, M.M., W.C. Saunders, N. Bouwes, and C. Jordan. (2015). Evaluating impacts using a BACI design,
ratios, and a Bayesian approach with a focus on restoration. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
188(10). DOI: 10.1007/sl0661-016-5526-6.

Dernoga, M.A., S. Wilson, C. Jiang, and F. Tutman. (2015). Environmental justice disparities in Maryland's
watershed restoration programs. Environmental Science and Policy 45:67-78. DOI:

10.1016/j.envsci. 2014.08.007.

DeWitt, T.H., W.J. Berry, T.J. Canfield, R.S. Fulford, M.C. Harwell, J.C. Hoffman, J.M. Johnston, T.A.
Newcomer-Johnson, P.L. Ringold, M.J. Russel, L.A. Sharpe, and S.J.H. Yee. (2020). The Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services (FEGS) Approach: A Beneficiary-centric Method to Support. In: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago,
& T.H. DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity:
Theory, Tools and Applications (pp. 127-148). Amsterdam: Springer.

Doyle, M.W., and T. BenDor. (2011). Evolving law and policy for freshwater ecosystem service markets.
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 36(1):153-192.

Haines-Young, R., and M.B. Potschin. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
(CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Retrieved from: www.cices.eu.

Hough, P., and R. Harrington. (2019). Ten years of the compensatory mitigation rule: reflections on
progress and opportunities. Environmental Law Reporter 49(1):10018-10027.

Institute for Water Resources (IWR; 2015). The Mitigation Rule Retrospective: A Review of the 2008
Regulations Governing Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. Report 2015-R-03

201

-------
Kaiser, N.N., C.K. Feld, and S. Stoll. (2020). Does river restoration increase ecosystem services?

Ecosystem Services 46:101206. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101206.

Kameri-Mbote, P. (2007). The use of the public trust doctrine in environmental law. Law, Environmental
and Development Journal p. 195. Retrieved from: http://www.lead-iournal.org/content/07195.pdf.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island
Press, Washington, DC.

Newcomer-Johnson, T., F. Andrews, J. Corona, T. DeWitt, M. Harwell, C. Rhodes, P. Ringold, M. Russell,
P. Sinha, and G. Van Houtven. (2020). National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS Plus). US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-20/267.

National Reseach Council (NRC). (2001). Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean
Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C. 348 pp.

Ringold, P.L., J. Boyd, D. Landers, and M. Weber. (2013). What data should we collect? A framework for
identifying indicators of ecosystem contributions to human well-being. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 11(2):98—105. DOI: 10.1890/110156.

Roni, P., and T. Beechie (Eds). (2013). Stream and Watershed Restoration: A Guide to Restoring Riverine
Processes and Habitats. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, UK. 300 pp.

Rosa, J.C.S., and L.E. Sanchez. (2015). Is the ecosystem service concept improving impact assessment?
Evidence from recent international practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 50:134-142. DOI:
10.1016/j.eiar. 2014.09.006.

Ruhl, J. (2001). Integrating ecosystem services into environmental law: A case study of wetlands
mitigation banking. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20.

Ruhl, J.B., and S. Salzman. (2006). The Effects of Wetland Mitigation Banking on People. National
Wetlands Newsletter 28(2):2-8.

Skidmore, P.B., C.R. Thorne, B.L. Cluer, G.R. Pess, J.M. Castro, T.J. Beechie, and C.C. Shea. (2011).

Science Base and Tools for Evaluating Stream Engineering, Management, and Restoration Proposals. US
Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-112, 255p.

Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.A. Brinson. (1995). An approach for assessing wetland
functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. US Army
Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Stelk, M.J., and J. Christie. (2014). Ecosystem Service Valuation for Wetland Restoration: What It Is, How
To Do It, and Best Practices Recommendations. The Association of State Wetland Managers.

Wardrop, D.H., A.K. Glasmeier, J. Peterson-Smith, D. Eckles, H. Ingram, and R.P. Brooks. (2015). Wetland
ecosystem services and coupled socioeconomic benefits through conservation practices in the
Appalachian Region Source. Ecological Applications 21(3):S93-S115. DOI: 10.1890/09-2292.1.

202

-------
Wilkinson, J.B., and R. Bendick. (2010). The next generation of mitigation: Advancing conservation
through landscape-level mitigation planning. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 40(1):10023-
10050.

US Army Corps RIBITS. (2022). US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory In-Lieu Fee and Banking
Information Tracking System (RIBITS). Data drawn on March 18, 2022.
https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=107:2::::::

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2020). Metrics for national and regional assessment of
aquatic, marine, and terrestrial final ecosystem goods and services. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA645/R-20-002.

203

-------
Chapter 6: Common Threads, Challenges,
and Operationalizing the Incorporation of
Ecosystem Services into REMA11

Theodore H. DeWitt, Matthew C. Harwell, Chloe A. Jackson, Connie L. Hernandez

Abstract

This chapter focuses on synthesizing the needs and approaches for including ecosystem services (ES) in
restoration effectiveness monitoring and assessment. It also identifies and emphasizes the
commonalities of the issues and solutions across three restoration communities of practice:
conservation-based restoration; contaminated site cleanup and restoration; and compensatory
mitigation. Finally, this chapter discusses the challenges and opportunities for operationalizing the
inclusion of ES in restoration planning and assessment.

Core Messages

•	Multiple entry points into the restoration effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA)
framework allows for easy consideration of value-added ecosystem services (ES) in ecosystem
restoration.

•	While there are challenges to incorporating ES, including final ecosystem goods and services,
into REMA, there are opportunities to address each challenge and advance the incorporation of
ES into restoration.

•	The next steps are to operationalize the REMA framework to include a focus on individual steps
and the overall framework through retrospective analyses of past restoration efforts, case study
applications on existing restoration efforts, and targeted efforts in the conservation,
contaminated site, and compensatory mitigation-based ecosystem restoration communities of
practice.

6.1 Introduction

This chapter explores lessons-learned, challenges and opportunities, and next steps for incorporating
ecosystem services (ES) in restoration effectiveness monitoring and assessment (REMA). The entry
points for an ecosystem restoration practitioner into the steps of the REMA framework are identified in

11 DeWitt, T.H., M.C. Harwell, C.A. Jackson, and C.L Hernandez. (2022). Chapter 6: Common Threads, Challenges,
and Operationalizing the Incorporation of Ecosystem Services into REMA. In: Jackson et al. Incorporating
Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring & Assessment: Frameworks, Tools, and Examples. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Newport, OR. EPA/600/R-22/XXX. pp. 220-
231.

204

-------
Table 6.1. While these entry points are generic and relevant from both an ES and non-ES perspective,
the reader is pointed where to learn more about specifics in this report, including for each of the three
community of practice (CoP) chapters. Box 6.1 provides a summary of the CoP chapters.

Multiple entry points for including ES in the REMA framework
facilitates considering the benefits that ecosystem restoration bring to
stakeholders including under-represented groups.

Table 6.1. Entry points for ES consideration for each step in REMA. Restoration communities of practice:
Conserv. = conservation-based restoration; Cont. Sites = contaminated sites restoration; Comp. Mit. =
compensatory mitigation-based restoration. Numbers in the "Learn More" column refer to sections of
this report.

REMA Step

Entry Point

Learn More

Identify Boundaries
and Constraints

Identify the authorizing and regulatory
boundaries and constraints that define the
allowable scope of the restoration project.

Overall: 2.4.1
Conserv.: 3.3.1
Cont. Sites: 4.3.2, 4.4.3
Comp. Mit.: 5.3.2

Assess Existing
Knowledge

Gather and analyze information on the historical
(pre-impact) and current (impacted) state of the
site.

Overall: 2.4.2
Conserv.: 3.3.3
Cont. Sites: 4.4.4
Comp. Mit.: 5.3.3

Identify Goals and
Objectives

Identify monitoring goals and objectives based
on overall project vision, key questions the
project aims to answer, and the desired
ecological conditions and acceptable risks.

Overall: 2.4.2
Conserv.: 3.3.2
Cont. Sites: 4.4.5
Comp. Mit.: 5.3.4

Select Metrics

Based on specific restoration goals, identify,
prioritize, and select metrics to assess condition
at site and progress toward the restoration
goals.

Overall: 2.4.4
Conserv.: 3.3.4
Cont. Sites: 4.4.6
Comp. Mit.: 5.3.5

Collect and Analyze
Data

Depending on study design, collect all necessary
data at restoration site and for reference
condition. Establish data management plan and
data quality criteria.

Overall: 2.4.5
Conserv.: 3.3.4
Cont. Sites: 4.4.7
Comp. Mit.: 5.3.6

Assess Restoration
Outcomes

Evaluate data to determine whether monitoring
goals have or are being met and identify
whether changes need to be made to meet
goals.

Overall: 2.4.6
Conserv.: 3.3.4
Cont. Sites: 4.3.4, 4.4.8
Comp. Mit.: 5.3.7

205

-------
REMA Step

Entry Point

Learn More

Identify Boundaries
and Constraints

Identify the authorizing and regulatory
boundaries and constraints that define the
allowable scope of the restoration project.

Overall: 2.4.1
Conserv.: 3.3.1
Cont. Sites: 4.3.2, 4.4.3
Comp. Mit.: 5.3.2

Synthesize and

Communicate

Findings

Synthesize and disseminate results. Apply results
to current and/or future restoration projects.

Overall: 2.4.7
Conserv.: 3.3.3
Cont. Sites: 4.4.3, 4.4.9
Comp. Mit.: 5.3.8

Practice Adaptive
Management

Throughout monitoring process, use an iterative
adaptive management process to communicate
or share learning, assess and make necessary
adjustments, and decide on management
options.

Overall: 2.4.8
Conserv.: 3.3.3, 3.3.4
Cont. Sites: 4.3.3, 4.4.10
Comp. Mit.: 5.3.9

206

-------
Box 6.1 Summaries of the Restoration Communities of Practice Chapters

Chapter 3: Conservation-based restoration refers to the theory and practice of ecosystem restoration in which the goals
encompass the recovery of biodiversity, ecological integrity, self-maintaining systems, and ES. Integration of existing practices
and understanding of the requirements for effective ecosystem restoration are necessary to achieve improvements in ES-
based, benefits-focused outcomes from conservation-based restoration. Substantive efforts to achieve this goal have been
made by the Society for Ecological Restoration and the National Ecosystem Services Partnership. Particular challenges include
developing realistic trajectories of improvement of desired ES and their attendant benefits over the arc of the restoration
process, requirements for land ownership and land stewardship in perpetuity, the need for long-term monitoring and adaptive
management of restoration trajectories during ecosystem development, and related funding limitations. A review of 138
journal articles and reports revealed a trend of increasing recognition of ES in goals of conservation-based restoration, but in
practice biodiversity-focused attributes were often the only or the primary outcome measured and reported. Thus, while ES
appear to be an important aspect of galvanizing public support and participation in conservation-based restoration, there are
great opportunities remaining to be realized to improve the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of ES. Identification of the
full range of benefits and beneficiaries of ES that restoration could achieve can inform the identification of stakeholders,
inform the planning for meaningful ES outcomes, and inform the monitoring, assessment and reporting approaches. Critical to
incorporating ES into conservation-based restoration are ES indicators that are based on scientifically rigorous relationships
between key ecological attributes and the ES that depend on them; conceptual models and causal chains are useful
approaches to facilitate that.

Chapter 4: Restoration of contaminated sites have gradually increased their consideration of ES concepts over the past two
decades. Efforts have focused on informing principles of greener cleanup activities, sustainability endpoints in remediation,
restoration, and revitalization activities, and informing ecological risk assessments. Additional ES related efforts have been
advanced on stakeholder engagement, and the use of decision support tools. Deliberative investments in connecting ES to
support contaminated cleanups has resulted in the potential for integrating ES assessments into various components of a
cleanup, including the use of ES metrics. Focusing on a "beneficiary perspective" connects ES to those receiving direct benefits
of a given remediation or restoration effort, bringing added value to the outcome of those efforts. This is demonstrated with
examples of tools and approaches that can be used in contaminated cleanups, with case study examples to illustrate their
application. Useful approaches include: acknowledging legal authorities and processes boundaries; connecting people to ES to
inform cleanup priorities and actions; using holistic green and sustainable remediation concepts; using translational science to
connect ES benefits to outcomes of site remediation/restoration; understanding engineering constraints; developing
ecosystem services-relevant monitoring and assessment criteria; and recognizing the different temporal trajectories for
cleanup activities and remediation/restoration of ES in effectiveness monitoring and assessment.

Chapter 5: Compensatory mitigation for impacts to aquatic resources in the United States is primarily driven by the federal
§404(b)(l) Guidelines under the Clean Water Act which include the 2008 Mitigation Rule. The Mitigation Rule is largely
focused on the restoration of aquatic ecosystem functions, although language in the Rule defines "services" as "the benefits
that human populations receive from functions that occur in ecosystems," or ecosystem services (ES). The Rule outlines 12
informational elements that mitigation providers must consider in every mitigation proposal. Aspects of defining objectives,
site selection, collecting baseline information, determining credits, developing a work plan, performance standards,
monitoring long term, and adaptive management from the Rule have many overlaps with the REMA framework and therefore
are amenable to incorporating ES. Although regulatory language in the Rule includes terms and concepts pertaining to ES,
detailed language about specifically incorporating them is lacking. In addition, from an implementation standpoint, there are
gaps and needs that would have to be filled before ES could be incorporated into compensatory mitigation practice, especially
in regards to: consistent terminology around a standard set of ES and beneficiaries; structured assessment tools that produce
quantifiable outcomes; process for establishing defensible benchmarks for compliance; training and quality control program to
ensure appropriate application; and developing standard data and metadata formats for inclusion of information on ES in
tracking systems.

207

-------
6.2 Common Threads
6.2.1 Overall Suite of Benefits

Overall, this report outlines a suite of benefits from the consideration of ES into a suite of ecosystem
restoration applications. This report also addresses how final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS; a
subset of ES; Figure 6.1) may be particularly useful for demonstrating how restoration can be beneficial
to stakeholders by linking the condition of ecosystem attributes at a site to the ways those are directly
used, consumed, or appreciated by people. Table 6.2 provides a summary of the suite of ES benefits
from a who, what, where, when, and how perspective.

FEGS: final ecosystem goods & services

The components of nature within an environment that are
directly enjoyed, consumed or used to yield human well-being

Ecological End
Product

Environment type

Beneficiary

Recreational

Fauna	Wetlands	Experiencers &

Viewers

The FEGS in this example: fauna in wetlands that people enjoy viewing for recreation

Inspired by Amanda Nahlik

Figure 6.1. Illustration of the triplet of features that compose a single FEGS. Inspired by Amanda Nahlik.

There are overlaps for each type of Who, What, Where, When, and
How benefit question when comparing among generic, conservation-
based, contaminated-site based, and compensatory mitigation-based

ecosystem restoration efforts.

208

-------
Table 6.2. Benefits of using ES in restoration.

Restoration
Communities

Who benefits?

What
benefits are
gained?

Where are
benefits
realized
(spatial
scale)?

When is the

benefit
realized (time
scale)?

How are benefits
assessed
(monitoring)?

Overall
(Chapters 1-2)

Ecological
systems and
their dependent
flora and fauna,
including
humans

Productive,
ecological
systems with
natural
structures,
processes,
functions,
and values

Site,

ecosystem,
or

landscape

Ranges from
project-specific
to long-term to
indefinite

Suite of

monitoring,

assessment, and

adaptive

management

approaches

Conservation-
based
(Chapter 3)

Ecological
systems and
their dependent
flora and fauna,
including
humans

Self-

sustaining,
productive,
ecological
systems with
many natural
structures,
processes
and functions

Site,

ecosystem,
or

landscape

Potentially
indefinite,
barring major
disturbance

Suite of

monitoring,

assessment, and

adaptive

management

approaches

Contaminated
sites
(Chapter 4)

Remediated
environments,
and connected
flora and fauna,
including
humans

Remediated
ecological
systems with
structure,
functions,
and values

Local site,
adjacent or
connected
ecosystems

Ranges from
project-specific
to long-term

Remedy
effectiveness
monitoring, plus
other value
added outside of
cleanup
requirements

Compensatory
mitigation
(Chapter 5)

Ecological
systems and
their dependent
flora and fauna,
including
humans

Self-

sustaining,
productive,
ecological
systems with
many natural
structures,
processes
and functions

Local site,
adjacent or
connected
ecosystems

Long-term

Mitigation
monitoring

6.2.2 Core Messages of this Report

A set of core messages is provided at the beginning of each chapter. Threaded through those are
several, common connecting messages listed below.

209

-------
1.	Incorporating ES into restoration is doable. Examples of incorporating ES in restoration planning,
monitoring, and assessment are presented for each of the steps in the REMA process (Chapter 2)
and each of the CoPs (Chapters 3-5). The number of restoration projects including ES is increasing
exponentially. A rich array of resources (i.e., handbooks, guides, online or stand-alone tools,
modeling tools, databases) are available to facilitate the incorporation of ES (Chapter 2).

2.	Including representatives from all stakeholder groups, including nearby communities, in
restoration planning can help build trust and public support for the project. Ultimately, restoration
of a site is conducted to satisfy goals defined by people. In most cases, the groups who will come to
care about the restored site (and hence, the restoration project) includes neighboring property
owners and businesses, nearby residents (including renters), downstream residents, businesses and
other concerns, and people and businesses in surrounding communities. Many of those groups will
benefit from a site's restoration and can become advocates or supporters of the project. Others may
be concerned that a restoration project will adversely affect their interests yet be unaware of ways
the project could be beneficial. The FEGS Scoping Tool (FST) and other resources (Chapter 2) can
help reveal common interests among stakeholders with respect to the benefits that can be derived
from nature at a restored site.

3.	Selecting ES that are relevant to stakeholders helps to link the outcome of restoration projects to
benefits those groups care about. That can help build public support for the project. This is a
corollary to the previous point. If a project seriously includes improving the ecological attributes that
produce benefits that people care about, then those people will value the restoration project and its
outcome. This starts with including stakeholders to identify and prioritize the social-ecological
benefits (i.e., ES) that the restored site could produce, incorporating those into the restoration goals
and to identify monitoring metrics, and then communicating the progress of the restoration toward
providing those benefits to stakeholders. Conversely, if stakeholders or the public do not
understand or value the goals of a restoration project, it seems unlikely that they will support the
project.

4.	Restoring sites for the benefit of people is not incompatible with restoring them for nature. Many
nature-focused goals can be expressed as ES goals by realizing that some group of people cares (i.e.,
has placed value on) the aspects of nature on which the goals center. For example, a restoration
goal to increase the abundance of a rare or imperiled species can be expressed as a FEGS for people
who wish to view, create art, or revere those species, or who wish to know that those species exist
now or into the future. Discovery of the links between nature-based and social-ecological goals is
facilitated by asking "why is a given nature-based goal important" and "for whom is it important."
Furthermore, ecological structures and processes necessary to produce ES often greatly overlap
those typically considered in ecological restoration. Hence, many metrics used in restoration site
assessment can also inform the production of ES. Conceptual models and ecological production
functions are useful for understanding linkages between ecological processes and ES production
(see Chapter 2).

210

-------
5.	Tools are available to facilitate the inclusion of ES (including FEGS) into restoration planning,
monitoring, and assessment. Many resources are available to help restoration teams identify and
prioritize ES for their project, identify or develop ES metrics, forecast and assess progress of
restoration toward the desired provision of ES, and communicate the purpose and progress of
restoration in terms of social-ecological benefits that will flow to nearby communities and other
stakeholders; see Chapter 2. Examples of applications of these and other tools are provided in
Chapters 2-5. Many of those tools are also being applied in other environmental management
contexts and used in academic and agency research. Consequently, expertise and experience in
using these tools and applications in social-ecological systems contexts are growing, and
knowledgeable help is available.

6.	Legal bases for considering ES are present in the laws governing restoration activities pursued in
each CoP. Numerous authorities and state and federal laws can utilize ES (including FEGS) concepts
for management of natural resources including remediation, restoration, and revitalization of
damaged lands. In conservation-based restoration, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
operates with restoration authorities and has been working to incorporate ES into restoration
planning for a decade. The US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Science Advisory Board
recommended investing in activities to advance consideration and assessment of ES as an approach
to enhance steps in remediation and redevelopment processes. Finally, in a mitigation context, ES
consideration could be used to ensure that ES lost at the impact site are produced at the
compensation site. The USACE and the USEPA updated regulations on compensatory mitigation in
2008 stating "mitigation ... should be located where it is most likely to successfully replace lost...
services".

7.	Successful restoration of ES should be assessed relative to defined targets and points of reference.

Evaluation of restored ES performance requires a framework for establishing a basis of comparison
that can be used to objectively gauge success, performance, or compliance. Clear articulation of
desired outcomes establishes shared expectations among stakeholders with often disparate
interests and determines the metrics and assessment methods against which success can be
measured. Performance (or success) should be assessed relative to a defined target and should
include an expected timeframe to meet that target. For example, a target reference expectation
might be based on conditions at reference sites (e.g., pristine, minimally impacted, or best
attainable) or relative to regional or ambient condition (e.g., comparable to a percentile of the range
of ambient conditions).

Additionally, each CoP identified an over-arching core message, as follows:

Conservation-based Restoration: Early and continuous inclusion of ES throughout the
restoration planning and monitoring process, with attention to maintaining congruence among
these stages, would help to ensure the greatest success in producing stakeholder-driven ES
outcomes from conservation-based restoration.

211

-------
Contaminated Site Cleanup-based Restoration: Deliberative investments in connecting ES to
support contaminated cleanups has resulted in the potential for integrating ES assessments into
various components of a cleanup. Any remediation site involving ecological considerations, or
reuse that creates access to nature, may be a potential site for inclusion of ES.

Compensatory Mitigation-based Restoration: Aspects of defining objectives, site selection,
collecting baseline information, determining credits, developing a work plan, performance
standards, monitoring long term, and adaptive management from the 2008 Mitigation Rule have
many overlaps with the REMA framework and therefore are amenable to incorporating ES.

6.3 Challenges and Recommendations to Operationalize the
Incorporation of ES into Restoration

The authors identified legitimate concerns expressed by colleagues regarding the feasibility of including
ES in restoration planning, monitoring, and assessment (e.g., challenges) while developing this report.
These are summarized in Table 6.3, along with recommendations for overcoming each challenge. This
report builds a compelling case that incorporating ES, including FEGS, in restoration projects offers many
advantages that can bolster a project's success as a result of linking restored ecological processes and
attributes to benefits that improve the well-being of stakeholders, including nearby communities. This
report provides advice for how to incorporate ES in each step of restoration, identifies helpful resources,
and context-specific discussion and examples for conservation-based, contaminated site cleanup-based,
and compensatory mitigation-based restoration. A key lesson from this synthesis is that the need to
include ES in restoration planning, monitoring and restoration, and the approaches to achieve that, are
more similar than different across the communities of practice.

Table 6.3. Challenges and recommendations to facilitate the incorporation of ES into REMA.

Challenge

Recommendations

CHALLENGE 1: A narrow consideration of which
ES to include in a restoration plan can lead to
unintended, undesired diminishment of other ES.

Engage with all stakeholders to systematically and
transparently identify and prioritize which ES to restore.
This can be facilitated with resources such as the FST
(Chapter 2). Knowing which are the priority ES can focus
the assessment of potential conflicts in the ecological
production of ES and the social consequences of
diminished priority ES. That assessment provides an
informed basis for making decisions on managing
tradeoffs in goals, such as whether conflicts in ES-based
goals can be avoided (i.e., by changing elements of the
restoration plan) or mitigated. See Sections 2.4, 3.2, 4.3,
and 5.4.

212

-------
Challenge

Recommendations

CHALLENGE 2: Some practitioners contend that
adding ES into restoration plans will lower the
ecological integrity of the restored site.

Restoration can be used to both improve biodiversity,
ecological functioning, and system resilience, and improve
human well-being through production of ES. Full
production of many ES endpoints requires a healthy, well-
functioning ecosystem. Conceptual models and ecological
production functions (Chapter 2) can identify
opportunities to link ecological structural features and
processes of the restored site to the production of desired
ES. See Sections 3.2, 4.3, 5.1, and 5.4.

CHALLENGE 3: Identifying the needs of
stakeholders and the public and assessing their
attitudes toward the restoration progress is
outside the wheelhouse of restoration ecologists
& engineers.

Include social scientists on the restoration team.
Additionally, having new perspectives can improve the
project (i.e., articulation of goals, monitoring &
assessment, communication of results). See Sections 2.4,
3.2, 4.2, and 5.3.

CHALLENGE 4: Groups of stakeholders may vary
in ES and benefit priorities.

Stakeholder engagement is an important step when
identifying the ES of greatest importance to the
community. This report introduces tools (Chapter 2) that
can help managers and decision makers transparently
identify and prioritize the ES (and their associated
environmental attributes) that are of greatest common
interest among stakeholders. See Sections 2.4, 3.2, 4.2,
and 5.3.

CHALLENGE 5: ES are often articulated in goals
but are rarely included in monitoring or
assessment.

From the literature, it is clear that the science of ES has
developed where ES can now become a meaningful
component in restoration planning, goals, monitoring, and
assessment. Operationalizing the intersection between ES
science and ecosystem restoration has been identified as a
need in other restoration guidebooks too, and tools are
now available to facilitate doing this (Chapter 2). See
Sections 3.2, 3.3, 4.3, 5.3, and 5.4.

CHALLENGE 6: What if the stakeholder and the
public wish to prioritize a different set of ES for a
mitigation site than were prioritized at the
impacted site?

Beneficiaries and ES likely differ between the impact site
and the mitigation site (which may merit including
consideration of ES and beneficiaries at landscape or
watershed scales within which those sites are embedded),
so prioritization will likely differ as well. Also, restoring a
wetland to its historical condition may involve deliberately
reducing one function (e.g., surface water storage) to
enhance another (e.g., export of organic matter and
nutrients). Such tradeoffs are often desirable, especially
when striving to meet goals of improving overall
watershed condition. Clearly identifying and mapping out
ES and their associated beneficiaries at both the impact
and mitigation site allows explicit consideration of ES in

213

-------
Challenge

Recommendations



goal setting and provides a mechanism to assess tradeoffs
in a transparent manner. See Section 5.4.

CHALLENGE 7: Funding for long-term post-
construction monitoring of ecological endpoints
is a recurring problem for most restoration
projects. Adding a set of metrics for ES will
increase monitoring costs.

Inclusion of ES metrics that are linked to restoration goals
can help build trust & public support for long-term
monitoring and assessment if the results of restoration are
communicated to those parties, emphasizing the changes
(hopefully increasing) in nature-based benefits resulting
from the restoration. Additionally, funders are increasingly
calling for restoration projects that meet both ecological
and social/human well-being goals. Beyond the
conventional physical, chemical, and biological endpoints
in typical ecological restoration monitoring, the use of ES
metrics, ES proxies, or benefits of ES may be relevant for
assessing and communicating the success of meeting
restoration goals (from a stakeholder's perspective).
Depending on which ES are deemed of priority for a
restoration project, some "conventional" ecological
metrics may be indicators for ES. While some ES may be
easier to measure than others, that doesn't necessarily
make those more important to measure than other ES. For
example, cultural ES are often those that people care the
most about but can be the most difficult to measure
and/or are the ES that people feel least comfortable
quantifying. Whereas it may be impossible or impractical
to identify an appropriate metric for difficult-to-quantify
ES, stakeholders should be consulted about decisions to
exclude identifying or using metrics, particularly for ES that
people value highly. Additionally, including ES in REMA
may build support for long-term monitoring if the
restoration leads to increases in nature-based benefits
that the stakeholders and public care about. See Sections
2.4, 3.2, 3.3, and 4.3.

CHALLENGE 8: Ecosystem services weren't
originally included in projects goals, methods or
metrics.

Even if ES are not originally included in the monitoring
plan, digging into each goal/metric and identifying who
this might benefit and how they might benefit from it,
either directly or indirectly, can lead to project assessment
from an ES lens. For example, if a key indicator for a
project's success is overall habitat health, such as water
quality, this might be a good indicator for benefits such as
fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water (which are
FEGS) or other ES-focused goals. See Sections 2.4, 3.2, 3.3,
and 4.4.

CHALLENGE 9: Disseminating results of a project
is often given low priority in restoration projects.

Directly engaging and communicating with stakeholders
and the public on the benefits of restoration can help

214

-------
Challenge

Recommendations



garner support and can increase the likelihood of future
restoration implementation. Inclusion of ES, including
FEGS, in the REMA goals, metrics, and assessment
provides an opportunity to communicate the progress (or
success) of the restoration project in terms that matter to
stakeholders, including communities near the site. See
Sections 2.4, 3.2, 4.3, and 5.3.

CHALLENGE 10: Restoration-related terminology
and definitions differ among the three
communities of practice (CoP). This hampers the
exchange of knowledge and methods.

Authors of restoration-related handbooks, manuals, and
tools should recognize the existence of different CoPs,
respect the differences in vernacular and practices (some
of which are mandated by law), and make good-faith
efforts to present their information in ways that are
relevant and respectful of other CoPs. This can lead to
wider use of the author's work and help advance the
science and practice of restoration over-all. See Sections
1.3, 3.1, 4.3, and 5.3, and the Glossary.

215

-------
Glossary

Terms and Definitions

Adaptive management: An ongoing process for
improving management policies and practices
by applying knowledge learned through the
assessment of previously employed policies and
practices to future projects and programs. It is
the practice of revisiting management decisions
and revising them in light of new information
(Gann et al. 2019).

Context - Compensatory Mitigation:
Development of a management strategy that
anticipates likely challenges associated with
compensatory mitigation projects and provides
for the implementation of actions to address
those challenges, as well as unforeseen changes
to those projects. It requires consideration of
the risk, uncertainty, and dynamic nature of
compensatory mitigation projects and guides
modification of those projects to optimize
performance. It includes the selection of
appropriate measures that will ensure that the
aquatic resource functions are provided and
involves analysis of monitoring results to
identify potential problems of a compensatory
mitigation project and the identification and
implementation of measures to rectify those
problems (40 CFR 230.92 (CFR 2013)).

Approach (to restoration): The generic category
of treatment (e.g., natural or assisted
regeneration, reconstruction). A sound
restoration approach ideally includes ecological,
economic and social outcomes (USDA 2013;
Gann et al. 2019).

Assessment: Evaluation process using data to
evaluate the condition or health of an
ecosystem (USEPA 2000).

Context - Restoration: This includes measuring
the performance or effectiveness of the
ecosystem and its restoration components.

Assisted restoration approach: An approach to
restoration that focuses on actively triggering
any natural regeneration capacity of biota
remaining on site or nearby as distinct from
reintroducing the biota to the site or leaving a
site to regenerate. While this approach is
typically applied to sites of low to intermediate
degradation, even some very highly degraded
sites have proven capable of assisted
regeneration given appropriate treatment and
sufficient time frames. Interventions include
removal of pest organisms, reapplying
ecological disturbance regimes, and installation
of resources to prompt colonization (Gann et al.
2019).

Attributes (ecological): A biological, physical, or
chemical characteristic or feature inherent to
an ecosystem (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Context - Restoration: Attributes are biophysical
characteristics used to assist practitioners with
identifying and evaluating the degree to which
biotic and abiotic properties and functions of an
ecosystem that are likely to respond to
restoration, and thus can be assessed as a
function of restoration implementation
(adapted from Gann etal. 2019).

Authority: Any provision of laws, statutes, or
regulations that carries the force of law
(adapted from Law Insider 2021).

Authorizer: An entity, established by law,
statute, or regulation with authority to

216

-------
implement provisions of those laws, statutes, or
regulation (adapted from Law Insider 2021).

Background: Locations or constituents whose
condition has not been influenced by human
activity (USEPA 2018).

Context - Contaminated Sites: Background
refers to constituents or locations that are not
influenced by the releases from a site, and is
usually described as naturally occurring or
anthropogenic:

1)	Anthropogenic - natural and human-made
substances present in the environment as a
result of human activities (not specifically
related to the contaminant release in question);
and

2)	Naturally occurring - substances present in
the environment in forms that have not been
influenced by human activity (USEPA 1989;
USEPA 1995).

Baseline: The condition of a restoration site
(including its biotic and abiotic compositional,
structural, and functional attributes)
immediately prior to the initiation of ecological
restoration activities (adapted from Gann et al.

2019).

Beneficiary: An individual or group that directly
enjoys, uses, consumes, or appreciates some
aspect of the environment for the betterment
of their well-being (Newcomer-Johnson et al.

2020).

Context - Ecosystem Services: A beneficiary class
or subclass in EPA's National Ecosystem Services
Classification System describes how (i.e.,
different ways) an individual or group directly
enjoys, uses, consumes, or appreciates some
aspect of the environment for the betterment of
their well-being. Sometimes referred to as
"beneficiary role" (adapted from Yee et al. 2017
and Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Benefits: A good, service, or attribute of a good
or service that promotes or enhances the well-
being of an individual, an organization, or a
natural system (Yee et al. 2017).

Biodiversity: Refers to the variety and
variability among living organisms and the
ecological complexes in which they occur.
Diversity can be defined as the number of
different items and their relative frequencies.
For biological diversity, these items are
organized at many levels, ranging from
complete ecosystems to the biochemical
structures that are the molecular basis of
heredity. Thus, the term encompasses different
ecosystems, species, and genes (adapted from
the USEPA 2021h).

Biophysical: Pertaining to the biological,
chemical, and physical attributes of an
ecosystem or environment (Newcomer-Johnson
et al. 2020).

Class: A main subdivision of a classification
component, located within the top level of the
component's hierarchical structure (Newcomer-
Johnson et al. 2020).

Classification system: A method to group
individual elements or features into collections
similar in type, function, affiliation, behavior,
response, or ontogeny (Newcomer-Johnson
2020; USEPA 2021e).

Context - Ecosystem Services: An organized (and
often hierarchical) structure that, through well-
defined categories, allows one to identify and
organize ecosystem services together into a
coherent scheme. Pre-determined criteria define
what should be considered similar or different,
and these criteria are driven by the specific
purpose for developing the classification system
(Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

217

-------
Community (members): An interacting
population of various types of people in a
common location (e.g., a neighborhood or
specific area where people live) (USEPA 2021g).

Compensatory mitigation: Restoration (re-
establishment or rehabilitation), establishment
(creation), enhancement, and/or in certain
circumstances preservation of aquatic resources
for the purposes of offsetting unavoidable
adverse impacts which remain after all
appropriate and practicable avoidance and
minimization has been achieved (40 CFR 230.92
(CFR2018)).

Context - Compensatory Mitigation: The
restoration, establishment, enhancement,
and/or preservation of wetlands, streams, or
other aquatic resources conducted specifically
for the purpose of offsetting authorized impacts
to these resources. In 2008, EPA and the US
Army Corps of Engineers jointly promulgated
regulations revising and clarifying requirements
regarding compensatory mitigation. According
to these regulations, the fundamental objective
of compensatory mitigation is to offset
environmental losses resulting from
unavoidable impacts to waters of the United
States authorized by Clean Water Act Section
404 permits issued by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USEPA 2021a).

Conceptual model: A written description and/or
visual representation of known or hypothesized
relationships among variables in a system (e.g.,
human or ecological entities), often
representing causes and effects, environmental
stressors, and/or potential management
strategies (Yee et al. 2017).

Condition: The state of ecological systems,
including their physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics and the processes and
interactions that connect them (USEPA 2021f).

Conservation: The preservation, maintenance,
protection, restoration, and enhancement of
habitats for wild species (USDA 2021).

Criteria: The narrative or numeric definitions of
conditions that must be protected and
maintained to support a designated use.

Context - Water Quality: Narrative or numeric
expressions that describe the desired biological
condition of aquatic communities inhabiting
particular types of waterbodies and serve as an
index of aquatic community health (USEPA
1994; USEPA 2008a).

Damage: An acute and obvious harmful impact
upon an ecosystem such as selective logging,
road building, poaching, or invasions of non-
native species (Gann et al. 2019).

Decision context: The environment in which a
decision is made, and the environment that will
prevail when the effects of the decision are
brought to bear, including the set of values,
preferences, constraints, policies, and
regulations that will affect both the decision-
makers and those identified as the ultimate
beneficiaries (Yee et al. 2017).

Decision support system: An interactive system
to aid decision makers in identifying and solving
problems and making decisions. These systems
may use data from observations, output from
statistical or dynamic models, and rules based
on expert knowledge (Yee et al. 2017).

Decision support tool: A tool that provides
resources such as analysis methods, models,
data sets, maps, etc., in order to inform one or
more types of decision-making processes (Yee
et al. 2017).

Degraded: Subtle or gradual changes that
reduce ecological integrity and health (Day et al.
2006).

218

-------
Degradation: The reduction of the capacity of
the environment to meet social and ecological
objectives and needs. Potential effects are
varied and may contribute to an increase in
vulnerability and the frequency and intensity of
natural hazards (adapted from UNESCO 2010).

Context - Ecosystem Restoration: The level of
deleterious human impact to ecosystems that
results in the loss of biodiversity and
simplification or disruption in their composition,
structure, and functioning, and generally leads
to a reduction in the flow of ecosystem services
(Gann et al. 2019).

Context - Water Quality/Clean Water Act:
Degradation results in changes to waterbodies
that no longer support their designated uses,
including quality declines below that needed for
minimum protection (adapted from USEPA n.d.).

Designated use: The ecological goal (e.g., a
water quality standard) that policymakers set
for a waterbody, based on an appropriate
intended use by humans and/or aquatic life of
that waterbody (adapted from USEPA 2002 and
CBP 2017).

Example: Designated uses for a water body may
include recreation, shellfishing, water supply
and/or aquatic life habitat (USEPA 2002).

Desired (condition): Desired conditions (or
goals) set forth the desired social, economic,
and ecological goals of restoration. They
attempt to paint a picture of what "we" desire
the ecosystem to look like or, the goods and
services we desire a restored ecosystem to
provide (USDA n.d.).

Destruction: The most severe level of impact
when degradation or damage removes all
macroscopic life and commonly ruins the
physical environment. Ecosystems are
destroyed by such activities as land clearing,

urbanization, coastal erosion, and mining (Gann
et al. 2019).

Direct use: A person's intentional interaction
with a biophysical attribute of an ecosystem for
the purpose of obtaining a benefit that
improves the well-being of the individual. Direct
uses include consumption, manipulation,
extraction, harvest, enjoyment, appreciation, or
reverence of an ecosystem attribute.

Context: Ecosystem Services: To be a final
ecosystem good or service (FEGS), a Beneficiary
directly uses a specific Ecological End-Product
produced by a specific environment type.
(adapted from Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Ecological end product (EEP): The relevant
biophysical components of nature that are
directly used or appreciated by humans in final
ecosystem services (FES) (Newcomer-Johnson
et al. 2020).

Example: The fauna present in forests, such as
deer, are an example of an EEP that provides
FES to commercial and recreational hunters who
harvest them, as well as to recreational wildlife
viewers who enjoy them in a non-consumptive
way. The forest ecosystem's production of the
forage that supports the deer populations is an
example of an intermediate ecosystem service
that contributes (as an input) to the deer, which
is the EEP used in the FES (Newcomer-Johnson
et al. 2020).

Ecological/ecosystem function or process: The

workings of an ecosystem arising from
interactions and relationships between physical,
chemical, and biological elements. This includes
ecosystem processes such as primary
production, decomposition, nutrient cycling,
and transpiration and properties such as
competition and resilience (adapted from Gann
et al. 2019).

219

-------
Ecological production function: Usable
expressions (i.e., models) that describe the
production of ecosystem goods or services
(USEPA 2021d).

Context - Ecosystem Management: Ecological
production functions can be used in modeling
approaches to estimate how changes in one
part of a natural system may cause changes to
ecosystem service stocks or production.

Example: The relationship between an edible
plant's uptake of soil nutrients (as an input) and
its rate of edible vegetative growth (as an ES
output) can be represented by an ecological
production function that can include one or
more variables (e.g., soil nutrients,
precipitation, altitude, etc.) (adapted from
Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Ecological restoration: Ecological restoration:
The process of assisting the recovery of an
ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged,
or destroyed (Gann et al. 2019).

Ecological revitalization: The process of
returning land from a contaminated state to
one that supports a functioning and sustainable
habitat. USEPA ensures that: (1) this does not
compromise the protectiveness of the cleanup;
and (2) the best interests of stakeholders are
considered (USEPA 2009a).

Ecological reuse: The outcome of a cleanup
process, including areas where proactive
measures (such as conservation easements)
have been implemented to create, restore,
protect, or enhance a habitat for terrestrial or
aquatic plants and animals (USEPA 2006; USEPA
2009a).

Ecological risk assessment: A science-based
process that evaluates the likelihood that
adverse ecological effects may occur or are

occurring as a result of exposure to one or more
stressors (Yee et al. 2017).

Context - Contaminated Sites: The application of
a formal framework, analytical process, or
model to estimate the effects of human
actions(s) on a natural resource and to interpret
the significance of those effects in light of the
uncertainties identified in each component of
the assessment process. Such analysis includes
initial... hazard identification, exposure and
dose-response assessments, and risk
characterization (USEPA 2021h).

Ecosystem: Assemblage of biotic and abiotic
components in water bodies or on land in which
the components interact to form complex food
webs, nutrient cycles, and energy flows (Gann
et al. 2019).

Ecosystem restoration: A process of reversing
the degradation of ecosystems, such as
landscapes, lakes, and oceans to regain their
ecological functionality; in other words, to
improve the productivity and capacity of
ecosystems to meet the needs of society (UNEP
2019).

Ecosystem services/ecosystem goods and
services: Outputs of ecological functions or
processes that directly ("final ecosystem goods
and services" sensu Boyd & Banzhaff 2007) or
indirectly ("intermediate ecosystem goods and
services") contribute to human well-being or
have the potential to do so in the future. Some
outputs may be bought and sold, but most are
not marketed (adapted from Yee et al. 2017).

Ecosystem service flow: The transmission of an
ecosystem good or service from the site of
production to the location of its use by people
(adapted from Bagstad et al. 2013).

220

-------
Effectiveness: The ability to be successful and
produce the intended results (Cambridge
Dictionary 2021).

Endpoint: A result or event that must happen
for an activity or project to be considered as
having been successfully achieved (Cambridge
Dictionary 2021).

Context - Ecological Risk Assessment: An explicit
expression of the environmental value to be
protectedoperationally defined as an
ecological entity and its attributes. An ecological
entity for example¦, might be an important fish
species, such as coho salmon, with its attributes
being fecundity and recruitment (USEPA 1998).

Environmental type: An area with defined
biophysical characteristics, classified through a
hierarchical system for distinguishing areas with
similar biophysical characteristics applicable to
the entire surface of the Earth (including all
terrestrial and aquatic environments) in EPA's
National Ecosystem Services Classification
System (NESCS) Plus (Newcomer-Johnson et al.
2021).

Context - Ecosystem Services: The National
NESCS Plus uses a three-tier environmental
classification to specify where relevant EEPs are
located when used, enjoyed, or appreciated by
people. Each environment class or type is
defined in Newcomer-Johnson etal. (2020) and
on the NESCS Plus website.

Environmental impact: Any alteration of
environmental conditions or creation of a new
set of environmental conditions, adverse or
beneficial, caused or induced by the action or
set of actions under consideration (EEA 2017).

Existence value: The enjoyment people may
experience simply by knowing that an attribute
of nature (including organisms, ecological
processes, and complexes of ecological

attributes [ecosystems, habitats, communities,
etc.]) exists even if they never expect to use
that attribute directly themselves (adapted
from Newcomer-Johnson etal. 2020).

See also Nonuse/nonuse values.

Context - Ecosystem Services: This is a
component of "non-use value" from early
literature in environmental economics.

Example: People may care about the condition
of coral reefs without having visited one; people
care about the survival of endangered species
that they have never seen; people on one coast
may care about the condition of a fishery on a
distant coast, even if they do not eat seafood
(Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS): The

ecosystem products and processes that are
directly used, enjoyed, or appreciated by people
and that need minimal translation for relevance
to human well-being. FEGS are a subset of all
ecosystem goods and services distinguished as
the final "endpoints" in nature's production
networks that people directly use. The
production of FEGS is dependent on
"supporting" and "regulating" ecological
structures and functions; these intermediate
goods and services are critically important to
human well-being, for without them, FEGS
would not exist (adapted from Newcomer-
Johnson et al. 2020).

Framework: A logical structure for classifying
and organizing complex information (USGAO
2003).

Goal: A formal statement detailing a project's
desired outcome, such as the desired future
status of a target. A good goal meets the criteria
of being specific, measurable, achievable,
results-oriented, and time-limited (SMART).
Goals are attained by pursuing specific

221

-------
objectives. The goals are the ideals, and
objectives are the concrete measures taken to
attain those goals (adapted from SER 2004).

Goods: Tangible items that are created through
a production process and that may be acquired,
used, or consumed by people for use as inputs
in another production process or to satisfy
other needs or wants. Goods can be
represented and measured as "flows," such as
the amount sold and transferred to new owners
over the course of the year, or as "stocks," such
as the amount stored in an inventory at the end
of the year (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Context - Ecosystem Services: Two important
features that distinguish goods from services
are: (1) their tangible nature; and (2) their
ability to be treated as stocks in certain contexts
(Newcomer-Johnson etal. 2020).

Governance: The structures and processes by
which people in societies make decisions and
share power (Folke et al. 2005).

Green remediation: The practice of considering
all environmental effects of remedy
implementation and incorporating options to
maximize net environmental benefit of cleanup
actions (USEPA 2008b).

Green and sustainable remediation (GSR):

Attempts to maximize the environmental, social
and economic benefits of a cleanup project by
employing green and sustainable principles and
practices. These practices can be incorporated
into all phases of the remediation life cycle
(Petruzzi 2011).

Greenspace: In addition to habitats, greenspace
can include parks, gardens, playgrounds, i.e.,
not necessarily native habitat or targeted
wildlife habitat (USEPA 2009a).

Guidance: A document that empowers users to
successfully and efficiently comply with the

requirements of an USEPA policy, standard, or
procedure by providing assistance, transferring
information, or offering advice (USEPA 2021h).

Guideline: Information intended to advise
people on how something should be done or
what something should be (Cambridge
Dictionary 2021).

Context - Ecological Risk Assessment: Official,
peer-reviewed documentation stating current
USEPA methodology in assessing risk of harm
from environmental pollutants to populations.

Habitat: The sum of the physical, chemical, and
biological environment occupied by individuals
of a particular species, population, or
community, including the food, cover, and
space resources needed for plant and animal
livelihood (USEPA 2021h).

Human well-being/well-being: A

multidimensional description of the state of
people's lives, which encompasses personal
relationships, strong and inclusive communities,
meeting basic human needs, good health,
financial and personal security, access to
education, adequate free time, connectedness
to the natural environment, rewarding
employment, and the ability to achieve
personal goals (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Hydrogeomorphic method: An approach to
assess the functional condition of a specific
wetland referenced to data collected from
wetlands across a range of physical conditions.
It utilizes a wetland classification system based
on geomorphic position, hydrodynamics, and
hydrologic characteristics to group wetlands
into seven different wetland classes and assess
physical and biological functions (Smith et al.
2013).

Index: A combination of multiple metrics that
are expressed as single number (i.e., index) that

222

-------
is intended to simplify complex information
(modified from and USEPA 2021f).

Example: The Macroinvertebrate Multimetric
Index (MMI) is a single index score of the
condition of a stream based on the total number
oftaxa, abundance of sensitive taxa, abundance
of particular ecological functional groups of
species, and another index of the aggregate
sensitivity of all taxa collected in one or more
samples (adapted from USEPA 2021f).

Indicator: A summary measure that provides
information on the state of, or change in, the
system that is being measured. Information
based on measured data used to represent a
particular attribute, characteristic, or property
of a system (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Context - Ecosystem Restoration: Indicators of
recovery - characteristics of an ecosystem that
can be used for measuring the progress toward
restoration goals or objectives at a particular
site (e.g., measures of presence/absence and
quality ofbiotic or abiotic components of the
ecosystem) (Gann et al. 2019).

In-lieu fee mitigation: Mitigation that occurs
when a permittee provides funds to an in-lieu-
fee sponsor (a public agency or non-profit
organization). Usually, the sponsor collects
funds from multiple permittees in order to pool
the financial resources necessary to build and
maintain the mitigation site. The in-lieu fee
sponsor is responsible for the success of the
mitigation. Like banking, in-lieu fee mitigation is
also "off-site," but unlike mitigation banking, it
typically occurs after the permitted impacts
(USEPA 2015).

Intermediate ecosystem goods and services
(IEGS): Attributes of ecological structure or
ecosystem characteristics, processes, or
functions that influence the quantity and/or
quality of ecosystem services but do not

themselves qualify as FEGS (because they are
not directly enjoyed, consumed, or used). A
good or service can be an intermediate good
and service in one situation and a final good or
service in another situation.

Example: Water in a river is an EEP used in a
FEGS by a kayaker, but the same river water is
an IEGS to a hiker who appreciates a deer that
drinks from that water (Newcomer-Johnson et
al. 2020).

Intrinsic value (of ecosystems and
biodiversity): The value that an entity has in
itself, for what it is, or as an end. The
contrasting type of value is instrumental value.
Instrumental value is the value that something
has as a means to a desired or valued end
(Gann et al. 2019).

Landscape: The sum total of the characteristics
(including biological, physical, and
anthropogenic structures and patterns) that
distinguish a certain area on the earth's surface
from other areas. These characteristics are a
result not only of natural forces but of human
occupancy and use of the land (modified from
USEPA 1997).

Management/environmental management:

Measures and controls which are directed at
environmental conservation, the rational and
sustainable allocation and utilization of natural
resources, the optimization of interrelations
between society and the environment, and the
improvement of human welfare for present and
future generations (GEMET 2021).

Metric/measure: A singular measurable,
observable, or interpretable value (Yee et al.
2017).

See also Surrogate and Proxy.

Context - Ecosystem Services: Direct or indirect
measurements of an EEP or an attribute of an

223

-------
ES stock or production. If a metric can be
consistently and reliably related to an end
product and a beneficiary, it can potentially
serve as an indicator of a FEGS (adapted from
Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Mitigation banking: A wetland area that has
been restored, established, enhanced or
preserved, which is then set aside to
compensate for future conversions of wetlands
for development activities. Permittees, upon
approval of regulatory agencies, can purchase
credits from a mitigation bank to meet their
requirements for compensatory mitigation. The
value of these "credits" is determined by
quantifying the wetland functions or acres
restored or created. The bank sponsor is
ultimately responsible for the success of the
project. Mitigation banking is performed "off-
site," meaning it is at a location not on or
immediately adjacent to the site of impacts, but
within the same watershed. Federal regulations
establish a flexible preference for using credits
from a mitigation bank over the other
compensation mechanisms (USEPA 2015).

Monitoring: The establishment and operation
of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and
procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and
analyze data on the current condition of various
biological communities, e.g., wetlands, in the
environment and on what stressors are most
clearly associated with that condition (adapted
from USEPA 2021i).

Natural (or spontaneous) regeneration
approach: Ecological restoration that relies only
on increases in individuals following removal of
causes of degradation, as distinct from an
assisted regeneration approach (Gann et al.
2019).

Natural capital: An extension of the economic
concept of physical capital - produced assets

such as buildings, machinery, and equipment
that are used in the production of economic
goods and services - to ecosystem goods and
services. Natural capital is thus the stock of
natural ecosystems that yields a flow of
valuable ecosystem goods or services into the
future (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Natural regeneration: Germination, birth, or
other recruitment of biota including plants,
animals and microbiota, that does not involve
human intervention, whether arising from
colonization, dispersal, or in situ processes
(Gann et al. 2019).

Nature-based solutions: Actions to protect,
sustainably manage, and restore natural or
modified ecosystems that address societal
challenges effectively and adaptively,
simultaneously providing human well-being and
biodiversity benefits (Gann et al. 2019).

Nominal FEGS: The unprioritized list of all
potential FEGS determined to be important to
the project, community, or stakeholder (this
report, Chapter 3).

Nonuse/nonuse values: Human preferences for
goods or services that are not associated with
or derived from direct use or contact with
them. For instance, individuals may care about
or appreciate ecological attributes, even if they
never directly use or see them - i.e., they may
have nonuse values for the existence of things
like tropical forests or pristine lakes, even if
they never visit them. Sometimes referred to as
"passive use value," nonuse values are
theoretically distinct from "use values,"
although the boundary between use and non-
use values is not always definitive. Different
types of nonuse value include existence value,
option value, and bequest value (Newcomer-
Johnson et al. 2020).

See also Existence value.

224

-------
Context - Ecosystem Services: The recognition
that humans enjoy and benefit from ecosystems
in ways that do not involve direct use is
essential for developing a comprehensive
accounting (e.g., economic valuation) of the
total benefits provided by nature.

Example: Individuals often value the assurance
that threatened and endangered species are
being protected, even if they will never see them
in the wild, reflecting a preference (benefit)
from knowing that the species continues to exist
(Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Objective: A specific, short-term, and direct
result that is desired from project work, which
will contribute eventually toward the
achievement of project goals. A good objective
meets the criteria of being specific, measurable,
achievable, results-oriented, and time limited
(SMART) (adapted from Clewell and Aronson
2013 and Salafsky and Margoluis 2021).

People: A state; as the people of the state of
New York. A nation in its collective and political
capacity (The Law Dictionary n.d.)

Performance/performance goal: A target level
of performance expressed as a tangible,
measurable objective, against which actual
achievement can be compared, including a goal
expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or
rate (Lll n.d.).

Performance measures: A specific metric or
indicator that can be used to consistently
estimate and report the anticipated
consequences of a management alternative
with respect to a particular objective (Yee et al.
2017).

Performance standard/criteria: Tangible,
measurable objectives to be accomplished
within a proposed timeframe that indicate
progress toward meeting the project goals. The

criteria should include a metric, target value,
and timeframe. Performance criteria may
represent conditions at a reference site, and/or
they may represent target conditions
considering the surrounding land use or other
local conditions. Performance criteria may also
be known by other names (e.g., success criteria,
performance standards, etc.) (Baggett et al.
2014).

Permit/permitting: A license, issued by the
government to a person or persons granting
permission to do something that would
otherwise be illegal without the permit (USEPA
2010).

Context - EPA Regulations: An authorization,
license, or equivalent control document issued
by EPA or an approved state agency to
implement the requirements of an
environmental regulation; e.g., a permit to
operate a wastewater treatment plant or to
operate a facility that may generate harmful
emissions (USEPA 1997).

Permittee/responsible mitigation: Restoration,
establishment, enhancement, or preservation
of wetlands undertaken by a permittee in order
to compensate for wetland impacts resulting
from a specific project. The permittee performs
the mitigation after the permit is issued and is
ultimately responsible for implementation and
success of the mitigation. Permittee-responsible
mitigation may occur at the site of the
permitted impacts or at an off-site location
within the same watershed (USEPA 2015).

Policy: A principle or rule to guide decisions and
achieve rational outcomes. Policy differs from
law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors
(e.g., a law requiring the payment of taxes on
income), policy merely guides actions towards
those that are most likely to achieve desired
outcome (Yee et al. 2017).

225

-------
Practitioner: One who practices, especially: one
who practices a profession (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary 2021).

See also Restoration team.

Context - Restoration: An individual who applies
practical skills and knowledge to plan,
implement and monitor ecological restoration
tasks at project sites (Gann et al. 2019).

Priority FEGS: The final, prioritized list of FEGS
ordered by their greatest interest to a particular
project, community, or set of stakeholders (this
report - Chapter 3).

Proxy/variable: A proxy is an indirect measure
of the desired outcome which is itself strongly
correlated to that outcome. It is commonly
used when direct measures of the outcome are
unobservable and/or unavailable (Johns
Hopkins University 2022).

See also Metric and Surrogate.

Public: Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole
community; proceeding from, relating to, or
affecting the whole body of people or an entire
community. Open to all; notorious. Common to
all or many; general; open to common use (The
Law Dictionary n.d.).

Reclamation: The process of making severely
degraded land (e.g., former mine sites or
wastelands) fit for cultivation or a state suitable
for some human use. Also used to describe the
formation of productive land from the sea
(Gann et al. 2019).

Context - Contaminated Sites: Process of
restoring surface environment to acceptable
pre-existing conditions. Includes surface
contouring, equipment removal, well plugging,
re-vegetation, etc.

Reconstruction approach: A restoration
approach where arrival of the appropriate biota
is entirely or almost entirely dependent upon
human agency as they cannot regenerate or
recolonize within feasible time frames, even
after expert assisted regeneration interventions
(Gann et al. 2019).

Recovery: The process by which an ecosystem
regains its composition, structure, and function
relative to the levels identified for the reference
ecosystem. In restoration, recovery usually is
assisted by restoration activities—and recovery
can be described as partial or full (Gann et al.
2019).

Reference Expectation: Generic term for the set
of field measurements, modeled estimates,
benchmarks, or standards against which to
compare a metric of a biophysical attribute,
ecological process, or ES measurements in
order to assess change in the direction and
magnitude of that metric. This is used as the
generic term for terms used variously and often
inconsistently in restoration assessment, such
as "reference condition," "control,"
"performance standard," and "benchmark."

Context - Restoration Assessment: Reference
expectations are the standards against which
monitoring metrics are compared to assess
whether restorative actions have resulted in
meaningful progress to the restoration and
assessment goals or objectives.

Reference site: An extant, intact site that has
attributes and a successional phase similar to
the restoration project site and that is used to
inform the reference model. Ideally the
reference model would include information
from multiple reference sites (Gann et al. 2019).

Reference ecosystem: A representation of a
native ecosystem that is the target of ecological
restoration (as distinct from a reference site). A

226

-------
reference ecosystem usually represents a
nondegraded version of the ecosystem
complete with its flora, fauna, and other biota,
abiotic elements, functions, processes, and
successional states that might have existed on
the restoration site had degradation not
occurred and adjusted to accommodate
changed or predicted environmental conditions
(Gann et al. 2019).

Reference model: An ecological model that
indicates the expected condition that the
restoration site would have existed in had the
site not been degraded (with respect to flora,
fauna and other biota, abiotic elements,
ecological functions, processes, and
successional states). This condition is not the
historic condition, but rather reflects
background and predicted changes in
environmental conditions (adapted from Gann
et al. 2019).

Regulation: A rule or order prescribed for
management or government and used by a
person or organization (usually governmental; a
regulator) to control an activity or process
(adapted from Cambridge Dictionary 2021).

Regulator: A person or agency (usually
governmental) authorized to implement a rule
or order (e.g., a regulation) to control an activity
or process and make certain that it operates as
proscribed (adapted from Cambridge Dictionary
2021).

Rehabilitation: The process of returning
something to a good condition (Cambridge
Dictionary 2021).

Context - Ecosystem Restoration: Management
actions that aim to reinstate a level of
ecosystem functioning on degraded sites, where
the goal is renewed and ongoing provision of
ecosystem services rather than the biodiversity

and integrity of a designated native reference
ecosystem (Gann et al. 2019).

Context - Compensatory Mitigation:
Manipulation of the physical, chemicalor
biological characteristics of a site with the goal
of repairing natural/historic functions to a
degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation
results in a gain in aquatic resource function but
does not result in a gain in aquatic resource
area (40 CFR 230.92 (CFR 2013)).

Remediation: The process of removing
dangerous or poisonous substances from the
environment or limiting the effects that they
have on it (Cambridge Dictionary 2021).

Context - Contaminated Sites: Cleanup or other
methods used to remove or contain a toxic spill
or hazardous materials from a Superfund site
(FRTR n.d.).

Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization
(R2R2R): The process of remediating
contaminated sediments and restoring aquatic
habitat to help revitalize coastal communities.
The R2R2R approach is a place-based practice
that requires collaboration and communication
amongst federal and state agencies, local
governments, and citizens (Williams et al.

2018).

Remedy effectiveness: Assessment conducted
for the purpose of determining whether further
remedial work is required, using criteria focused
on a specific element, such as addressing the
status of ecological or human health risks post
remediation (e.g., remedy protectiveness).
These can be assessed from a multiple lines of
evidence perspective, including physical,
chemical, and biological lines of evidence, and
are often developed with an ecosystem-based
approach (this report, Chapter 5).

227

-------
Resilience: The capacity of a system (ecological
or social-ecological) to absorb disturbance and
reorganize while undergoing change so as to
still retain essentially the same function,
structure, identity, and feedbacks (adapted
from Yee et al. 2017).

Restoration: The process of assisting the
recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of
ecosystems that have been degraded,
damaged, or destroyed. Restoration focuses on
establishing the composition, structure,
pattern, and ecological processes necessary to
make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current
and future conditions (USDA 2020).

Restoration activity: Any action, intervention,
or treatment intended to promote the recovery
of an ecosystem or component of an
ecosystem, such as soil and substrate
amendments, control of invasive species,
habitat conditioning, species reintroductions,
and population reinforcements (Gann et al.
2019).

Restoration effectiveness: The determination
of how restorative actions affect ecological
functions, processes, habitats, and social
benefits (ecosystem goods and services), and
their resilience through a broad range of
conditions with minimal human intervention, by
monitoring and assessment relative to goals,
objectives, and performance standards
(adapted from Bailey 2012).

Context - Compensatory Mitigation: Monitoring
and assessment undertaken to determine how
project specific restoration actions result in
effects on ecological functions, processes,
habitats, and social benefits (ecosystem goods
and services) that can be supported with
minimal human intervention through a broad
range of conditions (this report, Chapter 5).

Restoration success: Achievement of results
specified by the goals and objectives of the
restoration project. Criteria for "success" are
project-specific but may follow principles
promoted by restoration experts (for example,
Gann et al. 2019) or by environmental
regulations (for example, USFWS and VANR
2019).

See also Success.

Restoration team: The group of people actively
involved with planning, designing,
implementing, monitoring, and assessing the
progress and success of a restoration project.
Composition of the restoration team will vary
from project to project and may include people
with roles such as practitioners, planners,
designers, engineers, scientists (ecologists,
hydrologists, social scientists, etc.),
stakeholders, funders, and managers. The
composition of a team will likely change over
the lifespan of a restoration project as the need
for certain expertise changes.

See also Practitioner.

Revitalization: Land revitalization is the
sustainable redevelopment of abandoned
properties to reuse and redevelop land that was
previously contaminated and turn it into public
parks, restored wetlands, and new businesses.
Revitalizing an area cleans up a community to
make it safer, greener, and offers more jobs to
its residents (adapted from USEPA 2021c).

Scale/scalability: The degree to which a
relationship (such as an ecological model) that
applies at a given spatial or temporal scale
tends to hold at different (especially larger)
dependent and/or independent scales (Yee et
al. 2017).

Services: Actions or processes performed by
people or nature that benefit people. Services

228

-------
are typically intangible and non-storable. In
contrast to goods, which can be treated as
stocks and measured at a specific point in time,
services are flows from the service provider to
the service consumer and are measured over a
period of time (e.g., hourly access to and use of
a gym facility). Unlike a good, which can exist
(e.g., as part of an inventory) without being
transferred to a consumer, the existence of a
service requires that it be received by a human.
The wants and needs of people are met through
items (i.e., goods) and delivery of assistance
(i.e., services). Economic, environmental, and
social services reflect the three pillars of
sustainability (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Site: Discrete area or location. Can occur at
different scales but is generally at the patch or
property scale (i.e., smaller than a landscape)
(Gann et al. 2019).

Context - Contaminated Sites: Sites where oil or
hazardous chemicals have been released into
the environment or when there is a threat of
such releases of these substances. Cleanup
activities also may take place at active and
abandoned waste sites, federal facilities and
properties, and where above and underground
storage tanks have leaked. May also refer to the
reuse and redevelopment of sites (USEPA
2021b; USEPA 2021h).

Social-ecological system: A coherent system of
biophysical and social factors that regularly
interact in a resilient, sustained manner
(Redman et al. 2004).

Stakeholder: An individual, group, or
organization (including property owners,
communities, citizen groups, governing
agencies [e.g., international, federal, tribal,
state, local], non-governmental organizations,
schools, universities, etc.) with an interest in, or
potentially impacted by, the outcome of a

policy or management choice (adapted from
Yee et al. 2017).

Stakeholder engagement: A process through
which stakeholders influence and share control
over initiatives and the decisions and resources
which affect them (World Bank 1996).

Stock: A quantity existing at a point in time,
which may have accumulated or been produced
in the past. Units of measurement are typically
expressed in levels-e.g., wealth (dollars),
physical assets (number of machines), and
nutrient concentration (milligrams per liter) -
that are present in or over a period of time.
Economic goods can be represented as a stock
when they are accumulated, stored, or
stockpiled - e.g., the stock of produce in a
grocery store's inventory at the beginning of the
year. Natural capital is partially a stock concept,
representing the level of wealth (productive
natural capacity through ecosystem
characteristics and processes, as well as the
ecosystem goods) embodied within
Environments at a point in or span of time
(Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Context - Ecosystem Services: The distinction
between stocks and flows is an essential
concept for measuring natural capital (which is
a stock and capacity concept) and the
contributions of natural capital to human well-
being (which is a flow concept) (Newcomer-
Johnson et al. 2020).

Stressor: Any chemical, physical, or biological
entity whose presence or absence can induce
adverse effects on ecological components (i.e.,
individuals, populations, communities, or
ecosystems) (Yee et al. 2017).

Structured decision making (SDM): An

organized approach for identifying and
evaluating alternatives that focus on engaging
stakeholders, experts, and decision makers in

229

-------
productive decision-oriented analysis and
dialogue and that deals proactively with
complexity and judgement in decision making.
It provides a framework that becomes a
decision focused roadmap for integrating
activities related to planning, analysis, and
consultation (Bradley et al. 2016).

Success: The achieving of the results wanted or
hoped for (Cambridge Dictionary 2021).

See also Restoration Success.

Surrogate: A surrogate is a proxy measure for
an attribute of true interest that is too difficult
or costly to measure directly. In practice,
ecologists often monitor attributes such as
carbon stocks, species richness, or vegetation
structure to infer the overall state of
biodiversity, risk of undesired change, or
response to a management intervention
(modified from O'Laughlin et al. 2018).

See also Metric and Proxy.

Sustainability: To create and maintain
conditions under which humans and nature can
exist in productive harmony that permit
fulfilling the social, economic, and other
requirements of present and future generations
(Yee et al. 2017).

Thresholds: A point at which something starts
(Cambridge Dictionary 2021).

Context - Restoration: A point at which a small
change in environmental or biophysical
conditions causes a shift in an ecosystem to a
different ecological state. Once one or more
ecological thresholds have been crossed, an
ecosystem may not easily return to its previous
state or trajectory without major human
interventions, or at all if the threshold is
irreversible (Gann et al. 2019).

Tradeoff: Generally, an exchange of one thing in
return for another, especially relinquishment of
one benefit or advantage for another (Munns et
al. 2015).

Context - Environmental Decision Making:

Goods and services (including but not limited to
ecosystem goods and services) gained or lost as
the result of a management choice (Munns et
al. 2015).

Trajectory: The path that an object follows that
is traveling through space or time (adapted
from Cambridge Dictionary 2021).

Context - Restoration: A course or pathway of
an ecosystem's condition (i.e., structure and
function) over time. It may entail degradation,
stasis, adaptation to changing environmental
conditions, or response to ecological restoration
(Gann et al. 2019).

Transferable/transferability: The degree to
which a relationship that was developed in a
given set of circumstances can validly be
applied in another circumstance (Yee et al.
2017).

Translational science: An approach to produce
and deliver science (e.g., turning data and
observations into information) that directly
informs or supports decision making,
interventions, or actions. This approach works
across multiple disciplines, often involves
stakeholders in co-developing the research
vision, and includes a combination of basic and
applied science.

Trigger: An event or situation, etc. that causes
something to start (Cambridge Dictionary
2021).

Use/Use values: The value received by
individuals from goods or services, which is
derived from direct contact with, use of, or
enjoyment from the goods or services (as

230

-------
opposed to non-use values which do not involve
or require direct contact, use, or enjoyment).
Use values for ecosystem services can be
derived from consumptive uses of the
ecosystem, such as catch-and-keep fishing, as
well as from non-consumptive uses such as
birdwatching (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).

Context - Ecosystem Services: For completeness
in defining preferences for ecosystem services,
use value must be distinguished from non-use
value, where non-use value recognizes that
humans can enjoy and benefit from ecosystems
in ways that do not involve direct use
(Newcomer-Johnson etal. 2020).

Valuation: Judgment or appreciation of
something's worth, character or importance
(adapted from Cambridge Dictionary 2021 and
Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2021).

See also Value.

Value: The importance or worth of something
for someone (Cambridge Dictionary 2021).

See also Valuation.

References

Context - Ecosystem services: The benefit that
an ES provides to an individual is a measure of
the value of that ES. That includes monetary
value for biophysical attributes that can be
marketed (for example, fish sold to buyers) or
for which markets do not exist (e.g., willingness
to pay for clean air, clean water, etc.), and non-
monetary value of ecosystems (for example, its
biodiversity, spiritual importance, beauty). See
also Nonuse/nonuse value.

Vision: A general summary of the desired
condition one is trying to achieve through the
work of the project. A good vision is relatively
general, visionary (inspiring), and brief (Gann et
al. 2019).

Watershed approach: An analytical process for
making restoration decisions that support the
sustainability or improvement of aquatic
resources in a watershed. The watershed
approach may involve consideration of
landscape scale, historic and potential aquatic
resource conditions, past and projected aquatic
resource impacts in the watershed, and
terrestrial connections between aquatic
resources (adapted from 40 CFR § 230.92).

Baggett, L.P., S.P. Powers, R. Brumbaugh, L.D. Coen, B. DeAngelis, J. Greene, B. Hancock, and S. Morlock.
(2014). Oyster Habitat Restoration Monitoring and Assessment Handbook. The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington, VA.

Bagstad, K.J., G.W. Johnson, B. Voigt, and F. Villa. (2013). Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A
comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services 4:117-125.

Bailey, S. (2012). Effectiveness Monitoring Program: Plan and Protocols. Tillamook Estuaries Partnership,
a National Estuary Project.

Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics 63(2-3):616-626. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.

Bradley, P., W. Fisher, B. Dyson, S. Yee, J. Carriger, G. Gambirazzio, J. Bousquin, and E. Huertas. (2016).
Application of a Structured Decision Process for Informing Watershed Management Options in Guanica

231

-------
Bay, Puerto Rico. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Narragansett, Rl. EPA/600/R-15/248.

Cambridge Dictionary. 2021. Retrieved from: https://dictionarv.cambridge.org/us/.

Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). (2017). Chesapeake Bay Program Glossary. Retrieved from:

https://www.chesapeakebav.net/discover/glossary.

Clewell, A.F., and J. Aronson. (2013). Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values, and Structure of an
Emerging Profession. 2nd Ed. Society for Ecological Restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Day, K., J. Berg, H. Brown, T. Crow, J. Morrison, G. Nowacki, D. Puckett, R. Salles, T. Schenck, and B.
Wood. (2006). Ecosystem Restoration: A Framework for Restoring and Maintaining the National Forests
and Grasslands. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Department of Energy (DOE), (n.d.). Glossary. US Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossarv/index.php.

European Environment Agency (EEA). (2017). Glossary - List of Environmental Terms Used by EEA.
Retrieved from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/glossarv.

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). (n.d.). Glossary. Retrieved from:

https://frtr.gOv/glossarv/rterms.cfm#R.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-ecological systems.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:441-473.

Gann, G.D., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J.G. Hallett, C. Eisenberg, M.R.
Guariguata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C. Echeverrfa, E. Gonzales, N. Shaw, K. Decleer, and K.W. Dixon. (2019).
International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition.
Restoration Ecology 27(S1):S1-S46.

General Multilingual Environmental Thesaurus (GEMET. (2021). Retrieved from:

https://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet.

Johns Hopkins University. (2022). GovEx. Retrieved from: https://govex.jhu.edu/.

Law Insider. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.lawinsider.com/.

Legal Information Institute (Lll). (n.d.). 2 CFR § 200.76 - Performance goal. Cornell Law School. Retrieved
from: https://www.law.cornell.edU/cfr/text/2/200.76.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2021). Practitioner. Retrieved from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/.

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.

Newcomer-Johnson, T., F. Andrews, J. Corona, T. DeWitt, M. Harwell, C. Rhodes, P. Ringold, M. Russell,
P. Sinha, and G. Van Houtven. (2020). National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS Plus). US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-20/267.

232

-------
O'Laughlin, L.S., D.B. Lindemayer, M.D. Smith, M.R. Willig, A.K. Knapp, K. Cuddington, A. Hastings, C.N.
Foster, C.F. Sato, M.J. Westgate, and P.S. Barton. (2018). Surrogates underpin ecological understanding
and practice. Bioscience 68:640-642.

Petruzzi, N.M. (2011). A case study on the evaluation and implementation of green and sustainable
remediation principles and practices during a RCRA corrective action cleanup. Groundwater Monitoring
& Remediation 31(2):63-71.

Redman, C., M.J. Grove, and L. Kuby. (2004). Integrating social science into the Long Term Ecological
Research (LTER) network: Social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social
change. Ecosystems 7(2):161-171.

Salafsky, N., and R.A. Margoluis. (2021). Pathways to Success: Taking Conservation to Scale in Complex
Systems. Island Press.

Smith, R.D., C.V. Noble, and J.F. Berkowitz (2013). Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Approach to Assessing
Wetland Functions: Guidelines for Developing Guidebooks (Version 2). US Army Corps of Engineers,
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. ERDC/EL TR-13-11.

Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group (SER). (2004). The SER
International Primer on Ecological Restoration, www.ser.org & Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration
International.

The Law Dictionary, (n.d.). What is PEOPLE? Retrieved from: https://thelawdictionary.org/.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2010). Glossary of Basic
Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Retrieved from:

https://unesdoc.unesco.Org/ark:/48223/pf0000225784

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2019). New UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration
Offers Unparalleled Opportunity for Job Creation, Food Security and Addressing Climate Change.
Retrieved from: https://www.unep.org/news-and~stories/press-release/new-un-decade-ecosystem-
restoration-offers-unparalleled-opportunity.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). (n.d.). Example Desired Conditions for Sustainable Recreation
Resources. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5446334.pdf.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2013). Ecological Restoration Implementation Plan. Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Region, R5-MB-249.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2020). Forest Service Ecosystem Restoration Policy. Forest
Service Manual.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2021). National Agricultural Library Thesaurus. Retrieved from:

http://lod.nal.usda.gov/nalt/.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (n.d.). Introduction to the Clean Water Act. Retrieved
from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/modules/introtocwa.pdf.

233

-------
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1989). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume
1, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). EPA/540/1-89/002.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1994). Water Quality Standards Handbook. 2nd ed.

Office of Water. EPA 823-B-95-005.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1995). Determination of Background Concentrations of
Inorganics in Soils and Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/540/S-96/500.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1997). Terms of Environment. Communications,
Education, and Public Affairs. EPA 175-B-97-001.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1998). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk
Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-95/002F.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2000). EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs.
Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-10/documents/2105pQ10.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition. #1
Introduction to Wetland Biological Assessment. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-014.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006). Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program
Revitalization Measures. Retrieved from: www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/docs/cprmguidance-10-20-
06covermemo.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2008a). EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual
Wetlands Glossary. EPA-822-B-08-001.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2008b). Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable
Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, DC. EPA 542-R-08-002.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2015). Wetlands Compensatory Mitigation Factsheet.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2Q15-
08/documents/compensatory mitigation factsheet.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2009a). Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated
Properties into Community Assets. EPA 542-R08-003. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/remedvtech/ecological-revitalization-turning-contaminated-properties-
community-assets.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2010). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit Writers' Manual. NPDES Program.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2018). Frequently Asked Questions About the
Development and Use of Background Concentrations at Superfund Sites: Part One, General Concepts.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, OLEM Directive 9200.2-141A.

234

-------
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2020). Metrics for National and Regional Assessment of
Aquatic, Marine, and Terrestrial Final Ecosystem Goods and Services. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA645/R-20-002.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021a). Background about Compensatory Mitigation
Requirements under CWA Section 404. Retrieved from:

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmitigation index.cfm.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021b). Basic Information about Cleanups. Retrieved
from: https://www.epa.gov/cleanups/basic-information-about-cleanups.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021c). Basic Information about Land Revitalization.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/land-revitalization/basic-information-about-land-revitalization.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021d). EcoService Models Library. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoservice-models-library.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021e). Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS)
Glossary of Terms. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/final-ecosystem-goods-and-
services-fegs-glossarv-terms.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021f). Report on the Environment (ROE) Glossary.
Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/roe-glossarv.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021g). Superfund for Students and Teachers Glossary.
Vocabulary Catalog. Retrieved from:

https://sor.epa.gov/sor internet/registrv/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.
do?details=&glossarvName=Superfund%20S%20and%20T%20Glossarv.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021h). EPA Office of Environmental Information
Terminology Services. Retrieved from:

https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/home.do.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (202li). Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment. Retrieved
from: https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-monitoring-and-assessment.

US Fish and Wildlife Service and Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (USFWS and VANR). (2019). Final
Restoration Plan for the Vermont Asbestos Group Mine Site Natural Resource Damages Settlement:

Eden and Lowell, Vermont. Retrieved from:

https://www.cerc.usgs.gov/orda docs/DocHandler.ashx?task=get&ID=5534.

US General Accounting Office (USGAO). (2003). Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing and
Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 1.1). GAO-03-584G. Retrieved from:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-03-584g.pdf.

Williams, K.C., D.W. Bolgrien, J.C. Hoffman, T.R. Angradi, J. Carlson, R. Clarke, A. Fulton, M. MacGregor,
H. Timm-Bijold, A. Trebitz, and S. Witherspoon. (2018). How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods

235

-------
and Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and
Revitalization Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-17/292.

World Bank. (1996). The World Bank Annual Report. Washington, DC.

Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, R. de Jesus-Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M.C.
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. US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL.
EPA/600/R-17/266.

236

-------
Appendix A. Chapter 2 REMA Literature Search & Analysis

Document

Habitat

Restoration
Type

Project
Scale

Mention
"Ecosystem
Services"?

Boundaries

and
Constraints

Assess
Existing
Knowledge

Identify
Goals and
Objectives

Select
Metrics

Collect

and
Analyze
Data

Assess
Restoration
Progress and
Success

Synthesis and
Communication

Adaptive
Management

Baggett, L.P., S.P. Powers, R. Brumbaugh, L.D.
Coen, B. DeAngelis, J. Greene, B. Hancock, and
S. Morlock. (2014). Oyster Habitat Restoration
Monitoring and Assessment Handbook. The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Oyster reefs

Conservation

Varying

Yes

X



X

X

X

X



X

Bailey, S. (2012). Effectiveness Monitoring
Program: Plan and Protocols. Tillamook
Estuaries Partnership, a National Estuary
Project.

Estuaries

Conservation

Site/
project

No

X



X

X

X

X



X

Board, O.S. and National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
(2017). Effective Monitoring to Evaluate
Ecological Restoration in the Gulf of Mexico.
National Academies Press.

Mixed coastal

Conservation

Site/

Project,

regional

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Bonfantine, K., J. Zebrowski, and A. Egan.
(2011). Guidelines and Protocols for
Monitoring Riparian Forest Restoration
Projects. A publication of the New Mexico
Forest and Watershed Restoration Institute.
Retrieved from: www,nmfwri.org.

Riparian
forest

Conservation

Site/
project

No

X

X

X

X

X

X

X



Clarkson, B.R., B.K. Sorrell, P.N. Reeves, P.D.
Champion, T.R. Partridge, and B.D. Clarkson.
(2003). Handbook for monitoring wetland
condition. Coordinated monitoring of New
Zealand wetlands. A Ministry for the
Environment SMF funded project. Ministry for
the Environment, Wellington.

Wetlands

Conservation

Plot,

habitat-

wide

No



X

X

X

X

X





237

-------
Document

Habitat

Restoration
Type

Project
Scale

Mention
"Ecosystem
Services"?

Boundaries

and
Constraints

Assess
Existing
Knowledge

Identify
Goals and
Objectives

Select
Metrics

Collect

and
Analyze
Data

Assess
Restoration
Progress and
Success

Synthesis and
Communication

Adaptive
Management

Clewell, A., J. Rieger, and J. Munro. (2005).
Guidelines for Developing and Managing
Ecological Restoration Projects, 2nd Edition.
Society for Ecological Restoration
International.

General

Conservation

Varying

No

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Comer, P.J., D. Faber-Langendoen, S. Menard,
R. O'Connor, P. Higman, Y.M. Lee, and B. Klatt.
(2017). User Guide for Wetland Assessment
and Monitoring in Natural Resource Damage
Assessment and Restoration. Prepared for DOI
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration Program. NatureServe, Arlington,
VA.

Wetlands

Conservation

Varying

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X



Main report

Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage
Assessment Trustees (DWH-NRDAT). (2017).
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Procedures and Guidelines Manual Version
1.0. Appendix to the Trustee Council Standard
Operating Procedures for Implementation of
the Natural Resource Restoration for the
DWH Oil Spill. Retrieved from:
http://www, gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/.

Mixed coastal

Conservation

Project

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Appendix

Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage
Assessment Trustees (DWH-NRDAT). (2019).
Monitoring Guidance. In: Monitoring and
Adoptive Management Procedures and
Guidelines Manual Version 1.0. 2019.
Appendix to the Trustee Council Standard
Operating Procedures for Implementation of
the Natural Resource Restoration for the DWH
Oil Spill. Retrieved from:
http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/.

238

-------
Document

Habitat

Restoration
Type

Project
Scale

Mention
"Ecosystem
Services"?

Boundaries

and
Constraints

Assess
Existing
Knowledge

Identify
Goals and
Objectives

Select
Metrics

Collect

and
Analyze
Data

Assess
Restoration
Progress and
Success

Synthesis and
Communication

Adaptive
Management

Diefenderfer, H.L., G.E. Johnson, R.M. Thorn,
K.E. Buenau, L.A. Weitkamp, C.M. Woodley,
A.B. Borde, and R.K. Kropp. (2016). Evidence-
based evaluation of the cumulative effects of
ecosystem restoration. Ecosphere
7(3):e01242.

General with
river &
estuary case
study

Conservation

Large-scale

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X



X

Ehler, C., and F. Douvere. (2009). Marine
Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach
Toward Ecosystem-Based Management.
Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission and Man and the Biosphere
Programme.

Marine

Conservation

Varying

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Fitzsimons, J., S. Branigan, R.D. Brumbaugh, T.
McDonald, and P.S.E. zu Ermgassen (Eds.).
(2019). Restoration Guidelines for Shellfish
Reefs. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington VA,
USA.

Oyster reefs

Conservation

Varying

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Frias-Torres, S., P. Montoya-Maya, and N.
Shah. (2019). Coral Reef Restoration Toolkit: A
Field-Oriented Guide Developed in the
Seychelles Islands.

Coral reefs

Conservation

Site/
Project

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X



Gann, G.D., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J.
Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J.G. Hallett, C.
Eisenberg, M.R. Guariguata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C.
Echeverria, E. Gonzales, N. Shaw, K. Decleer,
and K.W. Dixon. (2019). International
principles and standards for the practice of
ecological restoration. Second edition.
Restoration Ecology 27(S1):S1-S46.

General

Conservation

Varying

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).
(2019). Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Action Plan III: Fiscal Year 2020 - Fiscal Year
2024. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.

General; AOCs

Contaminated

Varying

No



X

X

X

X

X

X

X

239

-------
Document

Habitat

Restoration
Type

Project
Scale

Mention
"Ecosystem
Services"?

Boundaries

and
Constraints

Assess
Existing
Knowledge

Identify
Goals and
Objectives

Select
Metrics

Collect

and
Analyze
Data

Assess
Restoration
Progress and
Success

Synthesis and
Communication

Adaptive
Management

Guilfoyle, M.P., and R.A. Fischer. (2006).
Guidelines for Establishing Monitoring
Programs to Assess the Success of Riparian
Restoration Efforts in Arid and Semi-arid
Landscapes (No. ERDC-TN-EMRRP-SR-50).
Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.

Arid & semi-
arid

landscapes

Conservation

Site/
Project

No

X

X

X

X

X

X





Herrick, J.E., G.E. Schuman, and A. Rango.
(2006). Monitoring ecological processes for
restoration projects. Journal for Nature
Conservation 14(3-4):161-171.

General with
mine land
case study

Conservation

Site/

project,

landscape

Yes





X

X

X

X





Hill, J., and C. Wilkinson. (2004). Methods for
ecological monitoring of coral reefs.
Australian Institute of Marine Science,
Townsville, 117.

Coral reefs

Conservation

Varying

No

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Hooper, M.J., S.J. Glomb, D.D. Harper, T.B.
Hoelzle, L.M. Mcintosh, and D.R. Mulligan.
(2016). Integrated risk and recovery
monitoring of ecosystem restorations on
contaminated sites. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 12(2):284-295.

Contaminated
sites

Contaminated

Varying

Yes

X



X

X

X

X

X

X

Interagency Workgroup on Wetland
Restoration (IWWR). (2003). An Introduction
and User's Guide to Wetland Restoration,
Creation, and Enhancement. Developed by
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, US Environmental Protection
Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources
Conservation Service.

Wetlands

Conservation

Site/

project,

landscape

No

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Keenleyside, K.A., N. Dudley, S. Cairns, C.M.
Hall, and S. Stolton. (2012). Ecological
Restoration for Protected Areas: Principles,
Guidelines and Best Practices. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN. x+ 120pp.

General;

protected

areas

Conservation

Varying

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

240

-------
Document

Habitat

Restoration
Type

Project
Scale

Mention
"Ecosystem
Services"?

Boundaries

and
Constraints

Assess
Existing
Knowledge

Identify
Goals and
Objectives

Select
Metrics

Collect

and
Analyze
Data

Assess
Restoration
Progress and
Success

Synthesis and
Communication

Adaptive
Management

Li, M.H. (2008). Stream Restoration Design
Handbook (National Engineering Handbook,
210-VI, Part 654) J.M. Bernard J. Fripp, K.
Robinson (Eds.), US Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.

Streams

Conservation

Varying

No

X



X

X

X

X

X

X

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). (2017). Guidance for
Proposing and Conducting Tier 1 Monitoring.
Restoration Center Implementation
Monitoring.

Mixed coastal

Conservation

Site/
project

No

X



X

X

X

X





Naval Facilities Engineering Systems
Command (NAVFAC). (2004). Guidance for
Habitat Restoration Monitoring: Framework
for Monitoring Plan Development and
Implementation. Unpublished report to the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Risk
Assessment Working Group. Environmental
Assessment Division Argonne National
Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue Argonne, IL
60439 130pp.

General with
prairie,
wetland, &
terrestrial
examples

Conservation

Varying

No

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Niedowski, N.L. (2000). New York State Salt
Marsh Restoration and Monitoring Guidelines.
New York State Department of State, Division
of Coastal Resources.

Saltmarsh

Conservation

Varying

No

X

X

X

X

X

X



X

RECOVER. (2006). Monitoring and Assessment
Plan (MAP), Part 2, 2006 Assessment Strategy
for the MAP. Final Draft. Restoration
Coordination and Verification Team, US Army
Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, and South
Florida Water Management District, West
Palm Beach, FL.

General

Conservation

Varying

No

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

241

-------
Document

Habitat

Restoration
Type

Project
Scale

Mention
"Ecosystem
Services"?

Boundaries

and
Constraints

Assess
Existing
Knowledge

Identify
Goals and
Objectives

Select
Metrics

Collect

and
Analyze
Data

Assess
Restoration
Progress and
Success

Synthesis and
Communication

Adaptive
Management

Rice, C.A., W.G. Hood, L.M. Tear, C.A.
Simenstad, G.D. Williams, L.L. Johnson, B.E.
Feist, and P. Roni. (2005). Monitoring
Rehabilitation in Temperate North American
Estuaries. In: P. Roni (Ed.), Methods for
Monitoring Stream and Watershed
Restoration (pp. 167-207). American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.

Estuaries

Conservation

Varying

No

X

X

X

X

X

X



X

Roegner, G.C., H.L. Diefenderfer, A.B. Borde,
R.M. Thom, E.M. Dawley, A.H. Whiting, S.A.
Zimmerman, and G.E. Johnson. (2008).
Protocols for Monitoring Habitat Restoration
Projects in the Lower Columbia River and
Estuary (No. PNNL-15793). Pacific Northwest
National Lab, Richland, WA.

Rivers,
estuaries

Conservation

Site/

project,

watershed

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X



X

Rogers, C.S., G. Garrison, R. Grober, Z.M.

Hillis, and M.A. Franke. (1994). Coral Reef
Monitoring Manual for the Caribbean and
Western Atlantic. Virgin Islands National Park.

Coral reefs

Conservation

Site/
Project

No



X

X

X

X

X





Sleggs, S.E., and VanDruff, L.W. (1997). A
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Protocol for
the Northern Montezuma Wetlands Project.
State University of New York, Syracuse, NY.

Wetlands

Conservation

Site/
project

No





X

X

X

X

X



Volume 1

Thayer, G.W., T.A. McTigue, R.J. Bellmer, F.M.
Burrows, D.H. Merkey, A.D. Nickens, S.J.
Lozano, P.F. Gayaldo, P.J. Polmateer, and P.T.
Pinit. (2003). Science-Based Restoration
Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, Volume One:
A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000
(Public Law 160-457). NOAA Coastal Ocean
Program.

Mixed coastal

Conservation

Varying

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Volume 2

























242

-------
Document

Habitat

Restoration
Type

Project
Scale

Mention
"Ecosystem
Services"?

Boundaries

and
Constraints

Assess
Existing
Knowledge

Identify
Goals and
Objectives

Select
Metrics

Collect

and
Analyze
Data

Assess
Restoration
Progress and
Success

Synthesis and
Communication

Adaptive
Management

Thayer, G.W., T.A. McTigue, R.J. Salz, D.H.
Merkey, F.M. Burrows, and P.F. Gayaldo.
(2005). Science-Based Restoration Monitoring
of Coastal Habitats, Volume Two: Tools for
Monitoring Coastal Habitats. NOAA Coastal
Ocean Program.

























Thorn, R.M., and K.F. Wellman. (1996).
Planning Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Monitoring Programs (No. IWR-96-R-23).
Battelle Seattle Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Retrieved from:

httDs://usac:e.c:ontentdm, oclc.org/diaital/colle
ction/pl6021coll2/id/3691/.

Mixed coastal

Conservation

Varying

No

X



X

X

X

X

X

X

Thom, R.M., H.L. Diefenderfer, J.E. Adkins, C.
Judd, M.G. Anderson, K.E. Buenau, A.B.
Border, and G.E. Johnson. (2010). Guidelines,
processes and tools for coastal ecosystem
restoration, with examples from the United
States. Plankton and Benthos Research
5(Supplement): 185-201.

Mixed coastal

Conservation

Varying

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2008).
Minimum Monitoring Requirements for
Compensatory Mitigation Projects Involving
the Restoration, Establishment, and/or
Enhancement of Aquatic Resources.
Regulatory Guidance Letter No 08-03.

Mixed coastal

Compensatory

Regional

No



X

X

X

X

X

X

X

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2015).
Regional Compensatory Mitigation and
Monitoring Guidelines. South Pacific Division.

Mixed coastal

Compensatory

Regional

No

X

X

X

X

X

X



X

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
(2019). Application of Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Principles to Ecological
Restoration Project Monitoring. Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
EPA/905/K-19/001.

General

Conservation

Site/
project

No

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

243

-------
Document

Habitat

Restoration
Type

Project
Scale

Mention
"Ecosystem
Services"?

Boundaries

and
Constraints

Assess
Existing
Knowledge

Identify
Goals and
Objectives

Select
Metrics

Collect

and
Analyze
Data

Assess
Restoration
Progress and
Success

Synthesis and
Communication

Adaptive
Management

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1999).
Wetland Monitoring Guidelines: Operational
Draft. Northeast Region, Ecological Services,
Hadley, MA.

Wetlands

Conservation

Site/
Project

No

X

X

X

X

X

X





Woolsey, S., F. Capelli, T.O.M. Gonser, E.
Hoehn, M. Hostmann, B. Junker, A. Paetzold,
C. Roulier, S. Schweizer, S.D. Tiegs, K. Tockner,
C. Weber, and A. Peter. (2007). A strategy to
assess river restoration success. Freshwater
Biology 52(4):752-769.

Rivers

Conservation

Site/
Project

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Yepsen, M., J. Moody, and E. Schuster. (2016).
A Framework for Developing Monitoring Plans
for Coastal Wetland Restoration and Living
Shoreline Projects in New Jersey. Report
prepared by the New Jersey Measures and
Monitoring Workgroup of the NJ Resilient
Coastlines Initiative, with support from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Coastal Resilience Grant
Program (NA14NOS4830006).

Wetlands,

living

shorelines

Conservation

Varying

Yes

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

244

-------
Appendix B. Tables of Findings from
Chapter 3 Case Study Literature Review

Table Bl. Conservation-based case studies included in literature review. Each document was noted as to
whether it mentioned ecosystem services (ES) in: i) the restoration goals or objectives; ii) as part of a
pre-restoration assessment; iii) as part of a monitoring plan; or iv) as part of post-restoration monitoring
or evaluation of success. Documents which did not specifically mention ES in one or more steps were
evaluated as identifying other kinds of goals or metrics (O), such as condition or socio-economic, as
being vague or externally referenced to another document (V), or as being not clear (N). A match
between ES goals and monitored metrics is coded as ES, with a mismatch as X (i.e., ES identified as goals
but some other metric monitored or evaluated post-restoration; ES monitored or evaluated post-
restoration, but no identified as original restoration goals). A match between other kinds of goals or
monitored metrics as O, or not clear if there was a match as N.



Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

1

Adams, C; Rodrigues, ST; Calmon, M; Kumar, C. 2016. Impacts of large-scale forest
restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: what we know and do not
know. BIOTROPICA 48:731-744. http://doi.org/10.llll/btp.12385

ES

N

V

ES

2

Ahmad, B; Wang, YH; Hao, J; Liu, YH; Bohnett, E; Zhang, KB. 2018. Optimizing stand
structure for trade-offs between overstory timber production and understory plant
diversity: A case-study of a larch plantation in northwest China. LAND DEGRADATION &
DEVELOPMENT 29:2998-3008. http://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3070

ES

N

N

ES

3

Alexander, S; Aronson, J; Whaley, 0; Lamb, D. 2016. The relationship between
ecological restoration and the ecosystem services concept. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY
21:34. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08288-210134

ES

ES

ES

ES

4

Angelstam, P; Naumov, V; Elbakidze, M; Manton, M; Priednieks, J; Rendenieks, Z. 2018.
Wood production and biodiversity conservation are rival forestry objectives in Europe's
Baltic Sea Region. ECOSPHERE 9:. http://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2119

ES

ES

V

ES

245

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation



Bailey, DR; Dittbrenner, BJ; Yocom, KP. 2019. Reintegrating the North American beaver









5

(Castor canadensis) in the urban landscape. WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-
WATER 6:-. http://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1323

ES

N

N

N



Barbosa, A; Martin, B; Hermoso, V; Arevalo-Torres, J; Barbiere, J; Martinez-Lopez, J;











Domisch, S; Langhans, SD; Balbi, S; Villa, F; Delacamara, G; Teixeira, H; Nogueira, AJA;











Lillebo, Al; Gil-Jimenez, Y; McDonald, H; Iglesias-Campos, A. 2019. Cost-effective









6

restoration and conservation planning in Green and Blue Infrastructure designs. A case
study on the Intercontinental Biosphere Reserve of the Mediterranean: Andalusia
(Spain) - Morocco. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 652:1463-1473.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.416

V

ES

N

N



Bartell, S. M; Woodard, C. T; Theiling, C. H; Dahl, T. A. 2020. Development and









7

Application of the CASM-SLto Support Nutrient Management in Potential Sangamon
River Levee Setbacks. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)

ES

ES

V

N



Belote, RT; Dietz, MS; Aplet, GH. 2015. Allocating Untreated Controls in the National









8

Wilderness Preservation System as a Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Case Study From

V

0

N

N

the Flathead National Forest, Montana. NORTHWEST SCIENCE 89:239-254.
https://doi.org/10.3955/046.089.0311



Bittner, RE; Roesler, EL; Barnes, MA. 2020. Using species distribution models to guide









9

seagrass management. ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE 240:106790.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106790

V

0

0

N

10

Bookter, A; Woodsmith, R. D; McCormick, F. H; Rolivka, K. M. 2009. Water Quality

ES

V

ES

N

Trends in the Entiat River Subbasin: 2007-2008. US Forest Service. PNW-RN-563



Borkhataria, RR; Wetzel, PR; Henriquez, H; Davis, SE. 2017. The Synthesis of Everglades









11

Restoration and Ecosystem Services (SERES): a case study for interactive knowledge

V

ES

N

N

exchange to guide Everglades restoration. RESTORATION ECOLOGY 25:S18-S26.
http://doi.org/10.llll/rec.12593



Brumbaugh, R.D., M.W. Beck, L. D. Coen, L. Craig and P. Hicks. 2006. A Practitioners'









12

Guide to the Design and Monitoring of Shellfish

ES

ES

ES

ES

Restoration Projects: An Ecosystem Services Approach. The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington, VA.



Capotorti, G; De Lazzari, V; Orti, MA. 2019. Local Scale Prioritisation of Green









13

Infrastructure for Enhancing Biodiversity in Peri-Urban Agroecosystems: A Multi-Step

ES

ES

N

N

Process Applied in the Metropolitan City of Rome (Italy). SUSTAINABILITY 11:3322.
http://doi.org/10.3390/sulll23322

246

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

14

Cereghino, P., J. Toft, C. Simenstad, E. Iverson, S. Campbell, C. Behrens, J. Burke. 2012.
Strategies for nearshore protection and restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound
Nearshore Report No. 2012-01. Published by Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
Washington.

ES

ES

ES

N

15

Chardon, V; Schmitt, L; Piegay, H; Beisel, JN; Staentzel, C; Barillier, A; Clutier, A. 2020.
Effects of Transverse Groynes on Meso-Habitat Suitability for Native Fish Species on a
Regulated By-Passed Large River: A Case Study along the Rhine River. WATER 12:987.
http://doi.org/10.3390/wl2040987

0

N

N

0

16

Chen, WY; Liekens, 1; Broekx, S. 2017. Identifying Societal Preferences for River
Restoration in a Densely Populated Urban Environment: Evidence from a Discrete
Choice Experiment in Central Brussels. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 60:263-279.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0885-5

ES

ES

N

N

17

Choi, YE; Song, K; Kim, M; Lee, J. 2017. Transformation Planning for Resilient Wildlife
Habitats in Ecotourism Systems. SUSTAINABILITY 9:487.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su9040487

ES

ES

N

N

18

Chopin, P; Bergkvist, G; Hossard, L. 2019. Modelling biodiversity change in agricultural
landscape scenarios - A review and prospects for future research. BIOLOGICAL
CONSERVATION 235:1-17. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.046

ES

ES

V

N

19

Comin, FA; Miranda, B; Sorando, R; Felipe-Lucia, MR; Jimenez, JJ; Navarro, E. 2018.
Prioritizing sites for ecological restoration based on ecosystem services. JOURNAL OF
APPLIED ECOLOGY 55:1155-1163. http://doi.org/10.llll/1365-2664.13061

V

ES

N

N

20

Craft, C; Fennessy, S; Marton, J. 2012. Quantifying Ecosystem Services Derived from
Wetland Conservation Practices in the Glaciated Interior Plains: The Provision of Water
Quality (and Carbon Sequestration ) Benefits. US Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service

ES

ES

N

ES

21

Creighton, C; Prahalad, VN; McLeod, 1; Sheaves, M; Taylor, MD; Walshe, T. 2019.
Prospects for seascape repair: Three case studies from eastern Australia. ECOLOGICAL
MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION 20:182-191. http://doi.org/10.llll/emr.12384

ES

ES

V

ES

22

Crookes, DJ; Blignaut, JN; de Wit, MP; Esler, KJ; Le Maitre, DC; Milton, SJ; Mitchell, SA;
Cloete, J; de Abreu, R; Fourie, H; Gull, K; Marx, D; Mugido, W; Ndhlovu, T; Nowell, M;
Pauw, M; Rebelo, A. 2013. System dynamic modelling to assess economic viability and
risk trade-offs for ecological restoration in South Africa. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT 120:138-147. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.001

V

ES

N

N

247

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

23

Culhane, F; Teixeira, H; Nogueira, AJA; Borgwardt, F; Trauner, D; Lillebo, A; Piet, G;
Kuemmerlen, M; McDonald, H; O'Higgins, T; Barbosa, AL; van der Wal, JT; Iglesias-
Campos, A; Arevalo-Torres, J; Barbiere, J; Robinson, LA. 2019. Risk to the supply of
ecosystem services across aquatic ecosystems. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
660:611-621. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.346

ES

V

N

N

24

Cullinane Thomas, Catherine; Huber, Christopher; Skrabis, Kristin; and Sidon, Joshua,
2016, Estimating the economic impacts of ecosystem restoration—Methods and case
studies: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1016, 98 p.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161016.

ES

V

V

0

25

Dang, DL; Li, XB; Li, SK; Dou, HS. 2018. Ecosystem Services and Their Relationships in the
Grain-for-Green Programme-A Case Study of Duolun County in Inner Mongolia, China.
SUSTAINABILITY 10:4036. http://doi.org/10.3390/sul0114036

ES

ES

N

ES

26

De Wit, R; Leruste, A; Le Fur, 1; Sy, MM; Bee, B; Ouisse, V; Derolez, V; Rey-Valette, H.
2020. A Multidisciplinary Approach for Restoration Ecology of Shallow Coastal Lagoons,
a Case Study in South France. FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION 8:108.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00108

ES

0

V

ES

27

Deacon, S; Norman, S; Nicolette, J; Reub, G; Greene, G; Osborn, R; Andrews, P. 2015.
Integrating ecosystem services into risk management decisions: Case study with Spanish
citrus and the insecticide chlorpyrifos. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 505:732-
739. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.034

N

ES

V

N

28

DeSteven, D. and J. M. Gramling. 2011. Assessing Wetland Restoration Practices on
Southern Agricultural Lands: The Wetlands Reserve Program in the Southeastern
Coastal Plain. US Department of Agriculture.

ES

N

V

0

29

Detenbeck, N. E; Rego, S. 2015. Predictive Seagrass Habitat Model. US Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-15/003

V

0

V

N

30

Detenbeck, N; Rashleigh, B; Houtven, G. V; Loomis, R; Baker, J. 2015. Ecosystem
Services and Environmental Markets in Chesapeake Bay Restoration. US Environmental
Protection Agency EPA/600/R-15/061

ES

ES

V

N

31

Duffy, W.G., Kahara, S.N., and Records, R.M., eds., 2011, Conservation Effects
Assessment Project—Wetlands assessment in California's Central Valley and Upper
Klamath River Basin: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 2011-1290,128 p.

0

N

N

ES

32

Dutton, A; Edwards-Jones, G; Macdonald, DW. 2010. Estimating the Value of Non-Use
Benefits from Small Changes in the Provision of Ecosystem Services. CONSERVATION
BIOLOGY 24:1479-1487. http://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1523-1739.2010.01536.x

0

ES

N

N

248

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

33

Eros, T; Banyai, Z. 2020. Sparing and sharing land for maintaining the multifunctionality
of large floodplain rivers. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 728:138441.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138441

V

0

N

N

34

Farinas-Franco, JM; Roberts, D. 2018. The relevance of reproduction and recruitment to
the conservation and restoration of keystone marine invertebrates: A case study of
sublittoral Modiolus reefs impacted by demersal fishing. AQUATIC CONSERVATION-
MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS 28:672-689. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2882

V

N

N

0

35

Faulkner, S; Baldwin, M; Barrow, W; Waddle, H; Keeland, B; Walls, S; James, D;
Moorman, T. 2012. Regional Estimates of Ecological Services Derived from U.S.
Department of Agriculture Conservation Programs in Mississippi Alluvial Valley. USGS
National Wetlands Research Center.

ES

N

N

ES

36

Feng, Q; Zhao, WW; Hu, XP; Liu, Y; Daryanto, S; Cherubini, F. 2020. Trading-off
ecosystem services for better ecological restoration: A case study in the Loess Plateau
of China. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION 257:120469.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120469

ES

N

N

ES

37

Fu, YJ; Shi, XY; He, J; Yuan, Y; Qu, LL. 2020. Identification and optimization strategy of
county ecological security pattern: A case study in the Loess Plateau, China.
ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS 112:106030. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106030

ES

ES

N

N

38

Gao, J; Bian, HY. 2019. The impact of the Plains afforestation program and alternative
land use scenarios on ecosystem services in an urbanizing watershed. URBAN FORESTRY
& URBAN GREENING 43:126373. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126373

ES

ES

N

ES

39

Gardner, G; Johnston, RJ. 2020. What does it cost to ensure salt marsh migration? Using
hedonic modeling to inform cost-effective conservation. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT 262:110262. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110262

ES

0

N

N

40

Gilbert, SL; Sivy, KJ; Pozzanghera, CB; DuBour, A; Overduijn, K; Smith, MM; Zhou, JK;
Little, JM; Prugh, LR. 2017. Socioeconomic Benefits of Large Carnivore Recolonization
Through Reduced Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions. CONSERVATION LETTERS 10:431-439.
http://doi.org/10.llll/conl.12280

ES

N

N

ES

41

Gilvear, DJ; Spray, CJ; Casas-Mulet, R. 2013. River rehabilitation for the delivery of
multiple ecosystem services at the river network scale. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT 126:30-43. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.026

ES

ES

ES

N

249

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

42

Gleason, R.A., Laubhan, M.K., and Euliss, N.H., Jr., eds., 2008, Ecosystem services
derived from wetland conservation

practices in the United States Prairie Pothole Region with an emphasis on the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Conservation

Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs: U.S. Geological Professional Paper 1745, 58 p.

ES

N

0

ES

43

Goldstein, JH; Pejchar, L; Daily, GC. 2008. Using return-on-investment to guide
restoration: a case study from Hawaii. CONSERVATION LETTERS 1:236-243.
http://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1755-263X.2008.00031.x

0

0

N

0

44

Gonzalez, P; Brown, S; Murock, S. W; Henman, J; Kant, Z; Tiepolo, G. 2005. Technical
Progress Report on Application and Development of Appropriate Tools and
Technologies for Cost-Effective Carbon Sequestration. Quarterly Report for April
through June 2005. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia

ES

ES

ES

N

45

Gonzalez, P; Kroll, B; Vargas, C. R. 2006. Forest Restoration Carbon Analysis of Baseline
Carbon Emissions and Removal in Tropical Rainforest at La Selva Central, Peru. Award
DE-FC-26-01NT41151. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory, Morgantown, WV USA

ES

ES

V

N

46

Gosper, CR; Vivian-Smith, G. 2009. Approaches to Selecting Native Plant Replacements
for Fleshy-Fruited Invasive Species. RESTORATION ECOLOGY 17:196-204.
http://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1526-100X.2008.00374.x

ES

0

N

N

47

Gumiero, B; Mant, J; Hein, T; Elso, J; Boz, B. 2013. Linking the restoration of rivers and
riparian zones/wetlands in Europe: Sharing knowledge through case studies.
ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING 56:36-50. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.103

ES

N

V

ES

48

Hattam, C; Evans, L; Morrissey, K; Hooper, T; Young, K; Khalid, F; Bryant, M; Thani, A;
Slade, L; Perry, C; Turrall, S; Williamson, D; Hughes, A. 2020. Building resilience in
practice to support coral communities in the Western Indian Ocean. ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE & POLICY 106:182-190. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.006

ES

ES

V

V

49

He, J; Shi, XY; Fu, YJ; Yuan, Y. 2020. Spatiotemporal pattern of the trade-offs and
synergies of ecosystem services after Grain for Green Program: a case study of the
Loess Plateau, China. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH 27:30020-
30033. http://doi.org/10.1007/sll356-020-09060-0

ES

N

N

ES

50

Heinrichs, S; Stiehl, C; Muller-Using, B. 2016. Can native plant species be preserved in an
anthropogenic forest landscape dominated by aliens? A case study from Mediterranean
Chile. ANNALS OF FOREST RESEARCH 59:75-90. http://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2016.498

0

N

N

N

250

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

51

Hou, Y; Lu, YH; Chen, WP; Fu, BJ. 2017. Temporal variation and spatial scale dependency
of ecosystem service interactions: a case study on the central Loess Plateau of China.
LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY 32:1201-1217. http://doi.org/10.1007/sl0980-017-0497-8

N

N

N

ES

52

Hruska, T; Toledo, D; Sierra-Corona, R; Solis-Gracia, V. 2017. Social-ecological dynamics
of change and restoration attempts in the Chihuahuan Desert grasslands of Janos
Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. PLANT ECOLOGY 218:67-80.
http://doi.org/10.1007/sll258-016-0692-8

ES

N

N

ES

53

Huang, JM; Hu, YC; Zheng, FY. 2020. Research on recognition and protection of
ecological security patterns based on circuit theory: a case study of Jinan City.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH 27:12414-12427.
http://doi.org/10.1007/sll356-020-07764-x

V

ES

N

N

54

Huxham, M; Emerton, L; Kairo, J; Munyi, F; Abdirizak, H; Muriuki, T; Nunan, F; Briers,
RA. 2015. Applying Climate Compatible Development and economic valuation to coastal
management: A case study of Kenya's mangrove forests. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT 157:168-181. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.018

ES

ES

N

N

55

Iranah, P; Lai, P; Wolde, BT; Burli, P. 2018. Valuing visitor access to forested areas and
exploring willingness to pay for forest conservation and restoration finance: The case of
small island developing state of Mauritius. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT 223:868-877. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.008

0

ES

V

N

56

Islam, MM; Aktar, R; Nahiduzzaman, M; Barman, BK; Wahab, MA. 2018. Social
Considerations of Large River Sanctuaries: A Case Study from the Hilsa Shad Fishery in
Bangladesh. SUSTAINABILITY 10:1254. http://doi.org/10.3390/sul0041254

ES

ES

V

ES

57

Jiang, C; Wang, XC; Zhang, HY; Labzovskii, L; Wang, J; Liu, T. 2019. Re-orienting
ecological restoration in degraded drylands for a more sustainable soil-water
relationship: Non-linear boundary of limited water resources in combating soil loss.
JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS 167:87-100.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2019.05.002

ES

N

N

ES

58

Jiang, C; Zhang, LB. 2016. Effect of ecological restoration and climate change on
ecosystems: a case study in the Three-Rivers Headwater Region, China.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT 188:-.
http://doi.org/10.1007/sl0661-016-5368-2

0

N

N

ES

59

Keesstra, S; Nunes, J; Novara, A; Finger, D; Avelar, D; Kalantari, Z; Cerda, A. 2018. The
superior effect of nature-based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem
services. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 610:997-1009.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077

ES

N

N

ES

251

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

60

Keller, AA; Fournier, E; Fox, J. 2015. Minimizing impacts of land use change on
ecosystem services using multi-criteria heuristic analysis. JOURNAL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 156:23-30.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.03.017

ES

ES

N

N

61

King, E; Cavender-Bares, J; Balvanera, P; Mwampamba, TH; Polasky, S. 2015. Trade-offs
in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts,
obstacles, and opportunities. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY 20:25. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
07822-200325

ES

ES

N

N

62

Kress, MM; Touzinsky, KF; Vuxton, EA; Greenfeld, B; Lillycrop, LS; Rosati, JD. 2016.
Alignment of US ACE Civil Works Missions to Restore Habitat and Increase
Environmental Resiliency. COASTAL MANAGEMENT 44:193-208.
http://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2016.1160203

ES

ES

V

ES

63

La Peyre, M.K., Schwarting, Lindsay, and Miller, Shea, 2013, Baseline data for evaluating
development trajectory and provision of ecosystem services of created fringing oyster
reefs in Vermilion Bay, Louisiana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1053,
43 p.

ES

ES

ES

ES

64

Langhans, SD; Jahnig, SC; Lago, M; Schmidt-Kloiber, A; Hein, T. 2019. The potential of
ecosystem-based management to integrate biodiversity conservation and ecosystem
service provision in aquatic ecosystems. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
672:1017-1020. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.025

ES

N

V

V

65

LaRocco, Gina L.; Deal, Robert L. 2011. Giving credit where credit is due:
increasing landowner compensation for ecosystem services. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR-842. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p.

ES

N

N

N

66

Law, EA; Bryan, BA; Meijaard, E; Mallawaarachchi, T; Struebig, MJ; Watts, ME; Wilson,
KA. 2017. Mixed policies give more options in multifunctional tropical forest landscapes.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY 54:51-60. http://doi.org/10.llll/1365-2664.12666

ES

ES

N

N

67

Layton, C; Coleman, MA; Marzinelli, EM; Steinberg, PD; Swearer, SE; Verges, A;
Wernberg, T; Johnson, CR. 2020. Kelp Forest Restoration in Australia. FRONTIERS IN
MARINE SCIENCE 7:74. http://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00074

ES

V

0

0

68

Leschine, T.M., and A.W. Petersen. 2007. Valuing Puget Sound's Valued Ecosystem
Components. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-07. Published by
Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Available at
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org.

ES

V

V

N

252

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

69

Li, L; Tietze, DT; Fritz, A; Lu, Z; Burgi, M; Storch, 1. 2018. Rewilding cultural landscape
potentially puts both endemism at risk: A Tibetan Plateau case study. BIOLOGICAL
CONSERVATION 224:75-86. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.008

ES

N

N

0

70

Li, YB; Fan, MM; Li, WJ. 2015. Application of payment for ecosystem services in China's
rangeland conservation initiatives: a social-ecological system perspective. RANGELAND
JOURNAL37:285-296. http://doi.org/10.1071/RJ14014

ES

N

N

ES

71

Liquete, C; Kleeschulte, S; Dige, G; Maes, J; Grizzetti, B; Olah, B; Zulian, G. 2015.
Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A
Pan-European case study. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY 54:268-280.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.009

ES

ES

N

N

72

Liu, SL; Dong, YH; Cheng, FY; Coxixo, A; Hou, XY. 2016. Practices and opportunities of
ecosystem service studies for ecological restoration in China. SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE
11:935-944. http://doi.org/10.1007/sll625-016-0390-4

0

ES

V

V

73

Long, HX; Liu, JL; Tu, CY; Fu, YM. 2018. From State-controlled to Polycentric Governance
in Forest Landscape Restoration: The Case of the Ecological Forest Purchase Program in
Yong'an Municipality of China. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 62:58-69.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0972-7

ES

N

N

N

74

Long, Jonathan W.; Anderson, M. Kat; Quinn-Davidson, Lenya; Goode, Ron W.; Lake,
Frank K.; Skinner, Carl N. 2016. Restoring California black oak ecosystems to promote
tribal values and wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-252. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 110 p.

ES

ES

V

N

75

Lu, HF; Campbell, ET; Campbell, DE; Wang, CW; Ren, H. 2017. Dynamics of ecosystem
services provided by subtropical forests in Southeast China during succession as
measured by donor and receiver value. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 23:248-258.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.ll.012

V

N

N

ES

76

Luo, L; Mao, DH; Wang, ZM; Du, BJ; Yan, HQ; Zhang, B. 2018. Remote Sensing and GIS
Support to Identify Potential Areas for Wetland Restoration from Cropland: A Case
Study in the West Songnen Plain, Northeast China. SUSTAINABILITY 10:2375.
http://doi.org/10.3390/sul0072375

V

0

N

N

77

Manning, AD; Lindenmayer, DB; Fischer, J. 2006. Stretch goals and backcasting:
Approaches for overcoming barriers to large-scale ecological restoration. RESTORATION
ECOLOGY 14:487-492. http://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1526-100X.2006.00159.x

0

N

N

N

78

Manton, M; Angelstam, P. 2018. Defining Benchmarks for Restoration of Green
Infrastructure: A Case Study Combining the Historical Range of Variability of Habitat and
Species' Requirements. SUSTAINABILITY 10:326. http://doi.org/10.3390/sul0020326

ES

0

V

ES

253

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

79

Marques, JC. 2019. Coastal systems in transition: The game of possibilities for
sustainability under global climate change. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS 100:11-19.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.055

ES

ES

ES

ES

80

Martin, DM; Mazzotta, M; Bousquin, J. 2018. Combining ecosystem services assessment
with structured decision making to support ecological restoration planning.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 62:608-618. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-
1038-1

ES

ES

N

N

81

Martin, EG; Giordano, R; Pagano, A; van der Keur, P; Costa, MM. 2020. Using a system
thinking approach to assess the contribution of nature-based solutions to sustainable
development goals. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 738:139693.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139693

ES

N

N

N

82

McConnachie, MM; Cowling, RM; van Wilgen, BW; McConnachie, DA. 2012. Evaluating
the cost-effectiveness of invasive alien plant clearing: A case study from South Africa.
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 155:128-135.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.006

ES

0

N

ES

83

McKay, S. K; Pruitt, B. A; Anderson, C. J; Curran, J; Arco Ochoa, A. D.; Freeman, M.C.,
Rashleigh, B., Trawick E.D. 2011. Constructing a Conceptual Model Linking Drivers and
Ecosystem Services in Piedmont Streams. Proceedings of the 2011 Georgia Water
Resources Conference, April 11-13, 2011, University of Georgia

V

ES

V

N

84

Mills, JG; Weinstein, P; Gellie, NJC; Weyrich, LS; Lowe, AJ; Breed, MF. 2017. Urban
habitat restoration provides a human health benefit through microbiome rewilding: the
Microbiome Rewilding Hypothesis. RESTORATION ECOLOGY 25:866-872.
http://doi.org/10.llll/rec.12610

ES

V

N

ES

85

Moukrim, S; Lahssini, S; Naggar, M; Lahlaoi, H; Rifai, N; Arahou, M; Rhazi, L. 2019. Local
community involvement in forest rangeland management: case study of compensation
on forest area closed to grazing in Morocco. RANGELAND JOURNAL 41:43-53.
http://doi.org/10.1071/RJ17119

ES

N

V

ES

86

Mukul, SA; Sohel, MSI; Herbohn, J; Inostroza, L; Konig, H. 2017. Integrating ecosystem
services supply potential from future land-use scenarios in protected area
management: A Bangladesh case study. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 26:355-364.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.001

V

ES

N

N

87

Nguyen, HH; McAlpine, C; Pullar, D; Johansen, K; Duke, NC. 2013. The relationship of
spatial-temporal changes in fringe mangrove extent and adjacent land-use: Case study
of Kien Giang coast, Vietnam. OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT 76:12-22.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.01.003

0

N

N

0

254

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

88

Nguyen, HH; McAlpine, C; Pullar, D; Leisz, SJ; Galina, G. 2015. Drivers of Coastal
Shoreline Change: Case Study of Hon Dat Coast, Kien Giang, Vietnam. ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT 55:1093-1108. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0455-7

0

ES

V

ES

89

Opperman, JJ; Luster, R; McKenney, BA; Roberts, M; Meadows, AW. 2010. Ecologically
Functional Floodplains: Connectivity, Flow Regime, and Scale. JOURNAL OF THE
AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 46:211-226.
http://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1752-1688.2010.00426.x

ES

ES

ES

ES

90

Oteros-Rozas, E; Martin-Lopez, B; Lopez, CA; Palomo, 1; Gonzalez, JA. 2013. Envisioning
the future of transhumant pastoralism through participatory scenario planning: a case
study in Spain. RANGELAND JOURNAL 35:251-272. http://doi.org/10.1071/RJ12092

ES

ES

N

N

91

Ott, K; Kerschbaumer, L; Kobbing, JF; Thevs, N. 2016. Bringing Sustainability Down to
Earth: Heihe River as a Paradigm Case of Sustainable Water Allocation. JOURNAL OF
AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS 29:835-856.
http://doi.org/10.1007/sl0806-016-9640-9

ES

V

V

V

92

Parrott, L; Quinn, N. 2016. A complex systems approach for multiobjective water quality
regulation on managed wetland landscapes. ECOSPHERE 7:-.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1363

0

ES

V

ES

93

Pattison-Williams, JK; Pomeroy, JW; Badiou, P; Gabor, S. 2018. Wetlands, Flood Control
and Ecosystem Services in the Smith Creek Drainage Basin: A Case Study in
Saskatchewan, Canada. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 147:36-47.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.026

ES

ES

N

N

94

Pattison-Williams, JK; Yang, WH; Liu, YB; Gabor, S. 2017. Riparian wetland conservation:
A case study of phosphorous and social return on investment in the Black River
watershed. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 26:400-410.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.005

ES

ES

V

N

95

Pebbles, V., J. Larson, P. Seelbach. 2013. Great Lakes Rivermouths: A Primer for
Managers. Great Lakes Commission and Great Lakes Rivermouth Collaboratory

ES

N

N

ES

96

Pejchar, L; Press, DM. 2006. Achieving conservation objectives' through production
forestry: The case of Acacia koa on Hawaii Island. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
9:439-447. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.03.007

ES

V

N

N

97

Peng, J; Yang, Y; Liu, YX; Hu, YN; Du, YY; Meersmans, J; Qiu, SJ. 2018. Linking ecosystem
services and circuit theory to identify ecological security patterns. SCIENCE OF THE
TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 644:781-790. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.292

ES

ES

N

N

255

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

98

Peng, J; Zhao, SQ; Dong, JQ; Liu, YX; Meersmans, J; Li, HL; Wu, JS. 2019. Applying ant
colony algorithm to identify ecological security patterns in megacities.
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE 117:214-222.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.03.017

ES

ES

N

N

99

Pires, APF; Amaral, AG; Padgurschi, MCG; Joly, CA; Scarano, FR. 2018. Biodiversity
research still falls short of creating links with ecosystem services and human well-being
in a global hotspot. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 34:68-73.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.001

ES

N

N

ES

100

Plant Conservation Alliance. 2015. National Seed Strategy for Rehabilitation and
Restoration, 2015-2020. BLM/WO/GI-15/012+7400

ES

V

V

N

101

Qi, L; Zhao, FQ; Sun, J. 2018. An integrated multi-scale approach to restoring a degraded
secondary forest ecosystem: A case study in the Changbai Mountains, northeastern
China. ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING 125:98-105.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.09.028

0

0

N

N

102

Rebelo, LM; Johnston, R; Hein, T; Weigelhofer, G; D'Haeyer, T; Kone, B; Coos, J. 2013.
Challenges to the integration of wetlands into IWRM: The case of the Inner Niger Delta
(Mali) and the Lobau Floodplain (Austria). ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY 34:58-
68. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.ll.002

ES

N

V

V

103

Reed, MS; Hubacek, K; Bonn, A; Burt, TP; Holden, J; Stringer, LC; Beharry-Borg, N;
Buckmaster, S; Chapman, D; Chapman, PJ; Clay, GD; Cornell, SJ; Dougill, AJ; Evely, AC;
Fraser, EDG; Jin, N; Irvine, BJ; Kirkby, MJ; Kunin, WE; Prell, C; Quinn, CH; Slee, B; Stagl, S;
Termansen, M; Thorp, S; Worrall, F. 2013. Anticipating and Managing Future Trade-offs
and Complementarities between Ecosystem Services. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY 18:5.
http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04924-180105

ES

N

N

N

104

Reid, JL; Wilson, SJ; Bloomfield, GS; Cattau, ME; Fagan, ME; Holl, KD; Zahawi, RA. 2017.
HOW LONG DO RESTORED ECOSYSTEMS PERSIST?. ANNALS OF THE MISSOURI
BOTANICAL GARDEN 102:258-265. http://doi.org/10.3417/2017002

0

N

N

0

105

Ringo, C., A.A. Ager, M.A. Day, S. Crim. 2016. Spatial Database for Restoration
Management Capability on National Forests in the Pacific Northwest USA. US Forest
Service. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-919.

ES

ES

N

N

106

Rodriguez-Gonzalez, PM; Albuquerque, A; Martinez-Almarza, M; Diaz-Delgado, R. 2017.
Long-term monitoring for conservation management: Lessons from a case study
integrating remote sensing and field approaches in floodplain forests. JOURNAL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 202:392-402.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.01.067

V

V

0

0

256

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation



Romanach, SS; DeAngelis, DL; Koh, HL; Li, YH; Teh, SY; Barizan, RSR; Zhai, L. 2018.









107

Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and prognosis.

ES

V

V

ES

OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT 154:72-82.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.009



Root-Bernstein, M; Guerrero-Gatica, M; Pina, L; Bonacic, C; Svenning, JC; Jaksic, FM.









108

2017. Rewilding-inspired transhumance for the restoration of semiarid silvopastoral

V

ES

N

N

systems in Chile. REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE 17:1381-1396.
http://doi.org/10.1007/sl0113-016-0981-8



Royuela, JB; Parejo, SH; de la Cruz, A; Geraldes, P; Costa, LT; Gil, A. 2019. The socio-









109

economic impact of conservation: the Safe Islands for Seabirds LIFE project. ORYX
53:109-116. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317000205

0

0

N

ES



Russo, L; DeBarros, N; Yang, SA; Shea, K; Mortensen, D. 2013. Supporting crop









110

pollinators with floral resources: network-based phenological matching. ECOLOGY AND
EVOLUTION 3:3125-3140. http://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.703

ES

N

N

ES



Sakurai, R; Kobori, H; Nakamura, M; Kikuchi, T. 2015. Factors influencing public









111

participation in conservation activities in urban areas: A case study in Yokohama, Japan.

0

N

N

N

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 184:424-430.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.012



Schmiedel, U; Kruspe, M; Kayser, L; Oettle, N. 2017. The Ecological and Financial Impact









112

of Soil Erosion and its Control - A Case Study from the Semiarid Northern Cape Province,

0

N

N

ES

South Africa. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT 28:74-82.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2513



Sherren, K; Fischer, J; Clayton, H; Schirmer, J; Dovers, S. 2010. Integration by case, place









113

and process: transdisciplinary research for sustainable grazing in the Lachlan River

ES

ES

N

N

catchment, Australia. LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY 25:1219-1230.
http://doi.org/10.1007/sl0980-010-9494-x



Silva, MRO; Pennino, MG; Lopes, PFM. 2019. Social-ecological trends: managing the









114

vulnerability of coastal fishing communities. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY 24:4.
http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11185-240404

ES

ES

V

N



Stickler, CM; Nepstad, DC; Coe, MT; Mcgrath, DG; Rodrigues, HO; Walker, WS; Soares,









115

BS; Davidson, EA. 2009. The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical

ES

ES

ES

N

review and case study from the Amazon region. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 15:2803-
2824. http://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1365-2486.2009.02109.x

257

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

116

Sumner, R.l, J. Schubauer-Berigan 2, T. Mulcahy 3, J. Minter4, B. Dyson 2, C. Godfrey3
and J. Blue 3 2010. Alternative Futures Analysis of Farmington Bay Wetlands in The
Great Salt Lake Ecosystem. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/
600/ R-10/ 032.

V

ES

V

N

117

Terrado, M; Momblanch, A; Bardina, M; Boithias, L; Munne, A; Sabater, S; Solera, A;
Acuna, V. 2016. Integrating ecosystem services in river basin management plans.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY 53:865-875. http://doi.org/10.llll/1365-2664.12613

0

ES

N

N

118

Thierry, H; Rogers, H. 2020. Where to rewild? A conceptual framework to spatially
optimize ecological function. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES 287:20193017. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.3017

0

0

V

N

119

Thorne, KM; Mattsson, BJ; Takekawa, J; Cummings, J; Crouse, D; Block, G; Bloom, V;
Gerhart, M; Goldbeck, S; Huning, B; Sloop, C; Stewart, M; Taylor, K; Valoppi, L. 2015.
Collaborative decision-analytic framework to maximize resilience of tidal marshes to
climate change. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY 20:30. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07018-
200130

ES

ES

N

N

120

Tornblom, J; Angelstam, P; Degerman, E; Tamario, C. 2017. Prioritizing dam removal and
stream restoration using critical habitat patch threshold for brown trout (Salmo trutta
L.): a catchment case study from Sweden. ECOSCIENCE 24:157-166.
http://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2017.1386523

ES

ES

N

N

121

Trabucchi, M; O'Farrell, PJ; Notivol, E; Comin, FA. 2014. Mapping Ecological Processes
and Ecosystem Services for Prioritizing Restoration Efforts in a Semi-arid Mediterranean
River Basin. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 53:1132-1145.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0264-4

ES

ES

N

N

122

Truax, B; Gagnon, D; Lambert, F; Fortier, J. 2015. Multiple-Use Zoning Model for Private
Forest Owners in Agricultural Landscapes: A Case Study. FORESTS 6:3614-3664.
http://doi.org/10.3390/f6103614

ES

ES

V

N

123

Trueman, M; Standish, RJ; Hobbs, RJ. 2014. Identifying management options for
modified vegetation: Application of the novel ecosystems framework to a case study in
the Galapagos Islands. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 172:37-48.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.005

ES

0

N

N

124

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Report from the
Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams (Meeting Date: July 13
to 16, 2009). US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-09/137

N

N

ES

N

258

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation

125

Valko, 0; Torok, P; Deak, B; Tothmeresz, B. 2014. Review: Prospects and limitations of
prescribed burning as a management tool in European grasslands. BASIC AND APPLIED
ECOLOGY 15:26-33. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.baae.2013.ll.002

0

N

N

0

126

Walker, J. L; Wang, G. G. 2014. Managing Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) Stands for the
Restoration of Red- cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Habitat. Department of
Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). SERDP
Project RC-1474

ES

0

0

N

127

Wen, X; Theau, J. 2020. Spatiotemporal analysis of water-related ecosystem services
under ecological restoration scenarios: A case study in northern Shaanxi, China.
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 720:137477.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137477

ES

ES

N

ES

128

Wendland, KJ; Honzak, M; Portela, R; Vitale, B; Rubinoff, S; Randrianarisoa, J. 2010.
Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for
bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar.
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 69:2093-2107.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.002

ES

V

N

V

129

Wilker, J; Rusche, K; Benning, A; MacDonald, MA; Blaen, P. 2016. Applying ecosystem
benefit valuation to inform quarry restoration planning. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 20:44-
55. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.003

V

N

N

ES

130

Winter, KB; Ticktin, T; Quazi, SA. 2020. Biocultural restoration in Hawai'i also achieves
core conservation goals. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY 25:26. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
11388-250126

ES

N

N

ES

131

Xie, HL; Yao, GR; Wang, P. 2014. Identifying Regional Key Eco-Space to Maintain
Ecological Security Using GIS. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 11:2550-2568.
http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerphll0302550

ES

ES

V

N

132

Xu, C; Xu, ZH; Yang, ZF. 2020. Reservoir operation optimization for balancing
hydropower generation and biodiversity conservation in a downstream wetland.
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION 245:118885.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118885

V

0

N

N

133

Xu, ZH; Wei, HJ; Fan, WG; Wang, XC; Huang, BL; Lu, NH; Ren, JH; Dong, XB. 2018. Energy
modeling simulation of changes in ecosystem services before and after the
implementation of a Grain-for-Green program on the Loess Plateau-A case study of the
Zhifanggou valley in Ansai County, Shaanxi Province, China. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
31:32-43. http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.013

0

V

ES

ES

259

-------


Citation

Goals or Objectives

Pre-restoration Assessment

Pre-restoration Monitoring Plan

Post-restoration Monitoring/Evaluation



Yu, ZQ; Liu, X; Zhang, JZ; Xu, DY; Cao, SX. 2018. Evaluating the net value of ecosystem









134

services to support ecological engineering: Framework and a case study of the Beijing

ES

ES

N

N

Plains afforestation project. ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING 112:148-152.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.12.017



Zhang, JJ; Fu, MC; Zeng, H; Geng, YH; Hassani, FP. 2013. VARIATIONS IN ECOSYSTEM









135

SERVICE VALUES AND LOCAL ECONOMY IN RESPONSE TO LAND USE: A CASE STUDY OF

N

N

N

ES

WU'AN, CHINA. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT 24:236-249.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1120



Zhang, MY; Wang, KL; Liu, HY; Zhang, CH; Yue, YM; Qi, XK. 2018. Effect of ecological









136

engineering projects on ecosystem services in a karst region: A case study of northwest

V

N

N

ES

Guangxi, China. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION 183:831-842.
http://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.102



Zheng, ZM; Fu, BJ; Hu, HT; Sun, G. 2014. A method to identify the variable ecosystem









137

services relationship across time: a case study on Yanhe Basin, China. LANDSCAPE
ECOLOGY 29:1689-1696. http://doi.org/10.1007/sl0980-014-0088-x

V

N

N

ES



Zingraff-Hamed, A; Noack, M; Greulich, S; Schwarzwalder, K; Wantzen, KM; Pauleit, S.









138

2018. Model-Based Evaluation of Urban River Restoration: Conflicts between Sensitive

0

N

N

0

Fish Species and Recreational Users. SUSTAINABILITY 10:1747.
http://doi.org/10.3390/sul0061747

260

-------
Table B2. Location and ecosystem of restorations mentioned in case study documents, along with examples of impairments and restoration
activities mentioned in case studies.



Short Citation

Location

Ecosystem

Original Impairment

Restoration Activities

1

Adams et al. 2016

Global

forest

agricultural conversion;
desertification

forest restoration

2

Ahmad et al. 2018

China

forest

logging

afforestation; logging ban

3

Alexander et al.
2016

global

many

many

many

4

Angelstam et al.
2018

Sweden, Latvia

forest

fragmentation; overharvesting

planting

5

Bailey et al. 2019

Seattle, WA

urban wetland

not sure

beaver introduction

6

Barbosa et al. 2019

Spain

aquatic

rapid development

not sure

7

Bartell et al. 2020

Illinois, USA

river floodplain

hydrologic modifications

water flow alterations

8

Belote et al. 2015

Montana, USA

types of forest

human impacts'

wilderness reserves

9

Bittner et al. 2020

Texas, USA

seagrass

coastal development; anthropogenic
impacts (boat anchors, overfishing)

transplantation; promotion of existing
seagrass

10

Bookter et al. 2009

Washington,
USA

river basin

land use; grazing; timber harvest;
dams

not sure

11

Borkhataria et al.
2017

Florida, USA

wetlands

nutrient enrichment

nutrient management

12

Brumbaugh et al.
2006

New York,
North Carolina,
Washington
USA

coastal ecosystems; oyster
reefs

fishing mortality; habitat loss;
recruitment limitation

seagrass restoration; broodstock
enhancement

13

Capotorti et al.
2019

Italy

green infrastructure;
agroecosystems

urbanization

creation of buffer zones; corridors;
planting

14

Cereghino et al.
2012

Puget Sound,
USA

coastal ecosystems
(estuary, delta, beach)

human development; altered
landscapes

protect; restore; enhance

15

Chardon et al. 2020

Rhine River
Europe

river

engineering works

construction of two transverse groyes
and the removal of bank protection

16

Chen et al. 2017

Brussels

river

pollution

not sure

17

Choi et al. 2017

South Korea

estuary

tourism infrastructure; artificial
feeding

restore wildlife habitats

261

-------


Short Citation

Location

Ecosystem

Original Impairment

Restoration Activities

18

Chopin et al. 2019

Global

agricultural land

intensive agricultural

management of agriculture to restore
natural landscapes

19

Comin et al. 2018

Spain

River floodplain scrublands
and forest

conversion to agriculture; grazing;
quarries; erosion

reducing erosion; afforestation; and
thinning of competing plants on private
lands; public lands

20

Craft et al. 2012

Indiana, Ohio
USA

plains wetlands and riparian
areas

agricultural conversion; drainage

wetland and riparian restoration,
creation, and enhancement

21

Creighton et al.
2019

Australia

coastal wetlands
(saltmarsh, mangroves,
tidal channels)

tidal barriers; clearing and agricultural
drainage

restore tidal flows

22

Crookes et al. 2013

South Africa

Mixed (Arid, savannah,
grassland, forest)

strip mining; unsustainable farming or
forestry;

clearing invasives; promoting regrowth

23

Culhane et al. 2019

EU

aquatic

human activity

not sure

24

Cullinane Thomas
et al. 2016

Virginia, Illinois,
Colorado, Utah,
Nevada, Idaho,
Oregon, New
Mexico, USA

Riparian; prairie; sagebrush;
forest

damage; acid mine

aquatic species propagation; habitat
restoration; structure removal

25

Dang et al. 2018

China

grassland

overgrazing; farmland expansion;
overexploitation; climate change

planting native grassland species

26

De Wit et al. 2020

France

coastal lagoons

eutrophication

reduce nutrients

27

Deacon et al. 2015

Spain

agriculture

pest damage

spaying insecticide to manage pests

28

DeSteven et al.
2011

southern USA

agricultural wetlands

Agricultural; forestry activities

tree planting; hydrology restoration;
habitat management; use exclusion

29

Detenbeck et al.
2015

Rhode Island,
USA

estuary

not sure

coastal barriers to limit waves; nutrient
reductions

30

Detenbeck et al.
2015

Chesapeake
Bay, USA

estuary

nutrient enrichment

forest buffers; grass buffers; tree
planting; wetland restoration

31

Duffy et al. 2011

California,
Oregon, USA

wetlands

agriculture, urbanization

restoring; protecting; enhancing

32

Dutton et al. 2010

United
Kingdom

emergent river vegetation

invasive predation; habitat loss;
agricultural intensification

establishment, fencing, mink control

262

-------


Short Citation

Location

Ecosystem

Original Impairment

Restoration Activities

33

Eros et al. 2020

Eastern Europe

river floodplain

agricultural and industrial activities;
engineering works for flood control,
navigation, and hydropower

generic "rehabilitation"

34

Farinas-Franco et
al. 2018

Ireland

biogenic reefs

fishing gear damage

Protection; translocation, cultivation of
mussels as a keystone species;
prohibition of fishing and anchoring

35

Faulkner et al.
2012

Mississippi, USA

river floodplain forests and
wetlands

conversion to agricultural cropland

restore forest and wetland resources

36

Feng et al. 2020

China

forest; grassland

agriculture; grazing; plantations

conversion of cropland to forest or
grassland

37

Fu et al. 2020

China

landcover (woodland,
grassland, farmland)

rapid development

ecological corridors; water conservation
areas

38

Gao et al. 2019

China

forest (woodland)

urban development

afforestation; riparian buffers
(converting cropland to woodland)

39

Gardner et al. 2020

Virginia, USA

salt marsh

sea-level rise

purchase of conservation lands to
support marsh migration

40

Gilbert et al. 2017

eastern US

urban

herbivore-vehicle collisions

large carnivore reintroductions

41

Gilvear et al. 2013

Europe;
Scotland

river basin (including
wetlands and forests)

diffuse pollution; hydrological
changes

river rehabilitation including buffer
strips; removal of structures (weirs,
culverts); improving connectivity;
wetland creation; fish passage; beaver
reintroduction

42

Gleason et al. 2008

Great Plains,
USA

prairie wetlands

agricultural conversion; invasives; fire
suppression

restoring hydrology; planting vegetation

43

Goldstein et al.
2008

Hawaii

forest

pastureland

reforestation

44

Gonzalez et al.
2005

global

forest; grassland

agriculture; forestry

sustainable forestry management;
foresting with native species; converting
agriculture to grassland

45

Gonzalez et al.
2006

Peru

forest

deforestation

reforestation

46

Gosper et al. 2009

Australia

coastal shrublands

invasives

planting natives

47

Gumiero et al.
2013

EU

riparian and wetlands

not sure

removal of embankments; restoring
river flow; riparian buffer planting

263

-------


Short Citation

Location

Ecosystem

Original Impairment

Restoration Activities

48

Hattam et al. 2020

Western Indian
Ocean

coral reefs, mangroves

coastal development; agriculture;
global change

transplantation

49

He et al. 2020

China

not sure

not sure

not sure

50

Heinrichs et al.
2016

Chile

forest

invasive species

natural regeneration and planting of
native trees

51

Hou et al. 2017

China

forest

farming

retiring agricultural land for native
revegetation

52

Hruska et al. 2017

Mexico

desert grasslands

conversion to agriculture;
overgrazing; invasives; desertification

controlled fires; limiting grazing;
removal of invasives; soil restoration

53

Huang et al. 2020

China

multiple land use
(developed land, forest,
cropland, orchard,
grassland)

urban development

improving connectivity between
patches

54

Huxham et al. 2015

Kenya

mangroves

habitat destruction

active restoration

55

Iranah et al. 2018

Mauritius

forest

Invasives; land-use changes

removing invasives; fencing

56

Islam et al. 2018

Bangladesh

River

overfishing

sanctuary

57

Jiang et al. 2019

China

dryland forest

urbanization and agricultural
development

afforestation

58

Jiang et al. 2016

China

headwaters

climate change; increasing human
activities

returning pasture and farmland to
forest; afforestation; comprehensive
treatment of soil degradation

59

Keesstra et al. 2018

Global

all

not sure

nature based solutions

60

Keller et al. 2015

Ohio, USA

vegetation landcover
classes

clearing for shale gas extraction

active restoration

61

King et al. 2015

Mexico;
midwestern
USA; Tanzania;
Kenya

tropical dry forest; buffering
vegetation along
waterways; forests;
rangelands

conversion to agriculture

reforestation; planting; limiting grazing;
limiting clearing

62

Kress et al. 2016

Florida, USA;
Alabama, USA;
Mississippi
River, USA;
California, USA

coastal habitats - barrier
islands; estuary; river
floodplain; wetlands

development; erosion; shoreline
armoring; borrow pits

renourishment using dredged materials

63

La Peyre et al. 2013

Louisiana, USA

marsh; oyster reef

not sure

artificial reef creation

264

-------


Short Citation

Location

Ecosystem

Original Impairment

Restoration Activities

64

Langhans et al.
2019

EU

aquatic

not sure

not sure

65

LaRocco et al. 2011

Oregon, USA;
Chesapeake
Bay, USA

Prairie; estuary watershed

land use

payments for ES; planting trees;
protecting a piece of land

66

Law et al. 2017

Indonesia

forest

not sure

not sure

67

Layton et al. 2020

Australia

kelp

urbanization; pollution; urchin
grazing; warming water temperatures

assisted recovery (removal of urchins;
installation of artificial substrata); active
restoration (transplanting)

68

Leschine et al.
2007

Puget Sound,
USA

estuary

not sure

not sure

69

Li et al. 2018

China

grassland

land degradation from livestock
overgrazing

moving nomads out; replantation;
fencing to limit grazing; shrub
protection; pest eradication

70

Li et al. 2015

China

rangelands

overgrazing

payments (PES) to limit grazing

71

Liquete et al. 2015

Europe

land; green infrastructure

land-use development; Gl as
alternative to grey infrastructure

vegetation; rain gardens; reforestation;
agricultural BMPs

72

Liu et al. 2016

China

forest; grassland; wetland

degradation

afforestation

73

Long et al. 2018

China

forest

plantation forests

planting native trees and shrubs

74

Long et al. 2016

California, USA

forest

fires, pests

fire management

75

Lu et al. 2017

China

forest

a different type of forest

planting

76

Luo et al. 2018

China

wetland

crops

not sure

77

Manning et al.
2006

Scotland

forest

not sure

fencing forest; allowing natural tree
regeneration; removal of exotic tree
species

78

Manton et al. 2018

Sweden

grassland

overgrazing; agriculture; forestry

land sparing; conservation-based land
management

79

Marques et al.
2019

Portugal,
Sweden,
Bangladesh

estuary

eutrophication

mitigate eutrophication problems

80

Martin et al. 2018

Rl, USA

wetland

not sure

not sure

81

Martin et al. 2020

Copenhagen

river

piped river

restore the natural flow route towards
the artificial lakes

265

-------


Short Citation

Location

Ecosystem

Original Impairment

Restoration Activities

82

McConnachie et al.
2012

South Africa

river basins

invasives

invasive clearing

83

McKay et al. 2011

Appalachia,
USA

stream

urbanization

stream restoration; channel alternation;
flow regime

84

Mills et al. 2017

urban

urban

developed

replanting native vegetation

85

Moukrim et al.
2019

Morocco

forest

grazing pressure

compensation for areas closed to
grazing (PES)

86

Mukul et al. 2017

Bangladesh

all

not sure

not sure

87

Nguyen et al. 2013

Vietnam

mangroves

aquaculture; development;
deforestation

replanting

88

Nguyen et al. 2015

Vietnam

mangroves

deforestation; aquaculture

planting

89

Opperman et al.
2010

California, USA;
Louisiana, USA;
Georgia, USA

River floodplain

Land use patterns (development and
agriculture); changing hydrology
(dams)

improve connectivity and flow regime

90

Oteros-Rozas et al.
2013

Spain

pasturelands

development

restoration of pastoral grazing routes

91

Ott et al. 2016

China

forest in river watershed

logging; overgrazing; conversion to
agriculture

water allocation

92

Parrott et al. 2016

California, USA

grassland wetlands

agricultural development

improving waterflows from reservoir

93

Pattison-Williams
et al. 2018

Canada

prairie wetlands

agricultural conversion

converting from other land uses;
removing fill

94

Pattison-Williams
et al. 2017

Canada

wetland

conversion for agriculture; urban

removing dirt fill; seeding

95

Pebbles et al. 2013

Great Lakes,
USA

lakes river mouths

environmental degradation

sediment cleanup; habitat restoration

96

Pejchar et al. 2006

Hawaii, USA

forest

development

planting on private lands

97

Peng et al. 2018

China

mixed land uses (forest,
grassland, shrubland,
wetland)

human activities; forest degradation;
soil erosion; urbanization

restoration

98

Peng et al. 2019

China

landcover (forest,
grassland)

urbanization

generic "restoration"

99

Pires et al. 2018

Brazil

all

any

any

100

Plant Conservation
Alliance 2015

National USA

native vegetation (forest,
grassland, wetland)

invasives; wildfire suppression; land
overuse, climate change

planting native seeds

266

-------


Short Citation

Location

Ecosystem

Original Impairment

Restoration Activities

101

Qi et al. 2018

China

forest

degradation

not sure

102

Rebelo et al. 2013

Mali and
Austria

wetland

not sure

not sure

103

Reed et al. 2013

UK

upland habitat

sheep grazing; forestry

not sure

104

Reid et al. 2017

Costa Rica

forest

deforestation

natural regeneration and planting of
native trees

105

Ringo et al. 2016

Pacific

Northwest, USA

forest

not sure

forest management; conservation

106

Rodriguez-
Gonzalez et al.
2017

Spain

forest floodplain

agriculture; irrigation

clearcutting eucalyptus plantations

107

Romanach et al.
2018

global

mangroves

urban development; aquaculture;
conversion to agriculture;
overexploitation of timber

planting; preserves; limiting exploitation

108

Root-Bernstein et
al. 2017

Chile

silvopastoral savannah

conversion to agriculture; harvesting
of trees

rewilding through passive management
(free-range livestock, wild ungulates)

109

Royuela et al. 2019

Azores,
Portugal

island

invasive species

removal of invasive species

110

Russo et al. 2013

PA, USA

agriculture

floral resource availability

planted native plant species

111

Sakurai et al. 2015

Japan

urban greenspace

developed

planting and gardening

112

Schmiedel et al.
2017

South Africa

drylands

soil erosion

soil and water conservation activities;
revegetation

113

Sherren et al. 2010

Australia

woodlands in
agroecosystems

grazing pressure; clearing for
settlements

planting trees; excluding or rotating
livestock

114

Silva et al. 2019

Brazil

coastal marine

overfishing; climate change

general 'restoration'

115

Stickler et al. 2009

Amazon

tropical forest

forest clearing; degradation

promoting forest regeneration and
restoration; tree planting

116

Sumner et al. 2010

Utah, USA

wetlands

nutrient enrichment

compares alternative scenarios (public
lands, private lands, invasive removal)

117

Terrado et al. 2016

Spain

river basins

flow impairment; salt mines

improve river flows and connectivity;
reduce saline pollution

118

Thierry et al. 2020

Guam

forest

transition to grasses, shrubs;
nonnatives; extirpation of native seed
dispersers

rewilding (reintroduction of large
vertebrates)

267

-------


Short Citation

Location

Ecosystem

Original Impairment

Restoration Activities

119

Thorne et al. 2015

CA, USA

wetland

sea-level rise

static; resilient; migration restoration
approaches

120

Tornblom et al.
2017

Sweden

riparian forest; rivers

deforestation; hydrological obstacles

removal of migration obstacles to
restore river habitat; regulation of
water discharges

121

Trabucchi et al.
2014

Spain

river

overgrazing; deforestation

not sure

122

Truax et al. 2015

Canada

forest

harvesting; urban sprawl

afforestation

123

Trueman et al.
2014

Galapagos

forest and grassland

hunters and other visitors; fires,
grazing and feral herbivores;
Introduced plant infestations

replanting native vegetation

124

US EPA et al. 2009

national US

stream

pollution

not sure

125

Valko et al. 2014

Europe

grassland

not sure

prescribed burning

126

Walker et al. 2014

Arkansas, USA

forest

thinning; burning; pests

forest management

127

Wen et al. 2020

China

forest; grassland

agriculture

afforestation; cropland conversion

128

Wendland et al.
2010

Madagascar

forest

harvesting forest

conservation of forest and restoration
of forest corridor

129

Wilkeretal. 2016

Europe

wetland; forest; grassland

quarry

not sure

130

Winter et al. 2020

Hawaii

forest

invasive species

not sure

131

Xie et al. 2014

China

mixed land uses (forest,
steppe, meadow, desert,
river, lake)

urban development; over-exploitation

"restoration" in a generic way

132

Xu et al. 2020

China

wetland

reduced flow from upstream
hydropower/water supply reservoir

reservoir operation; hydrological
management

133

Xu et al. 2018

China

grassland

deforestation

not sure

134

Yu et al. 2018

China

forest

not sure

afforestation

135

Zhang et al. 2013

China

landcover (forest, grassland,
wetland, cropland)

agriculture

converting farmland to forest

136

Zhang et al. 2018

China

karst

farming

rocky desertification control projects

137

Zheng et al. 2014

China

grassland

not sure

not sure

138

Zingraff-Hamed et
al. 2018

Germany

river

hydropower

removal of the concrete embankment;
creation of seminatural fishways

268

-------
Table B3. Examples of ES and their beneficiaries, as well as other kinds of goals or measures (e.g., condition, socio-economic) mentioned in each
case study document.



Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

1

Adams et al.
2016

Reduce Emissions; climate regulation;
water regulation; erosion regulation;
pest regulation; nutrient cycling; soil
formation; primary production;
pollination; pest regulation; food; fresh
water; timber; fuelwood; forest
products; soil conservation

rural land holders;
farmers; impoverished
communities; forestry

forest products; food security;
income; timber; energy;
measures of human well-being
(health, equity, poverty)

biological diversity;
sustainable development;
income; livelihoods

2

Ahmad et al.
2018

timber production (primary); erosion
control; carbon sequestration;
hydrological regulation (secondary)

forestry

timber volume; plant diversity
assumed to be proxy for other
ES

conservation of plant diversity

3

Alexander et
al. 2016

many

many

not specifically mentioned

biodiversity; livelihood
benefits

4

Angelstam et
al. 2018

wood production; green infrastructure
(as functional networks to benefit
people)

forestry

forest gain; forest accessibility;
forest cover

biodiversity conservation

5

Bailey et al.
2019

runoff control; reduce flooding; soil
erosion; improve water quality; habitat
creation







6

Barbosa et al.
2019

regulation and maintenance; flood
regulation; carbon sequestration;
pollination; soil retention; potential
recreational opportunities

farmers; livestock
producers;
manufacturers; local
non-profit
organizations



condition

7

Bartell et al.
2020

flood risk; food/fiber; recreation;
sportfishing; water quality

recreation; sport
fishing

biomass of key plants, fish, and
invertebrates; biomass of sport
fish; total chlorophyll;
dissolved oxygen; water clarity;
cyanobacteria

ecosystem function

269

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

8

Belote et al.
2015

ecosystem services (general);
biodiversity; timber





natural wilderness;
underrepresented ecosystems;
resilience to climate change

9

Bittner et al.
2020

critical habitat for charismatic species;
substrate stabilization; storm surge and
wave protection; water quality
maintenance; carbon sequestration;
pathogen and contaminant filtration

human health
(seafood)



conservation of seagrass;
water conditions for seagrass

10

Bookter et al.
2009

water quality; salmon

domestic; agricultural;
industrial; recreational
users of water

pH; water temperature,
dissolved oxygen; conductivity



11

Borkhataria et
al. 2017

water quality; charismatic birds; water
supply

public;

decisionmakers



biodiversity; economic
outcomes

12

Brumbaugh et
al. 2006

water filter; habitat provider; shoreline
protection; shellfish

fisheries

shellfish recruitment; water
quality (TSS, Chlorophyll A,
Secchi Disk Depth); shoreline
migration; change in vegetative
cover

healthy estuary; economic
activity

13

Capotorti et al.
2019

erosion control; flood protection;
pollination support; nursery habitat; soil
fertility; water quality; experiential use of
plans and animals and landscapes;
existence and bequest value





biodiversity

14

Cereghino et
al. 2012

shellfish production; salmon; cultural and
economic services; clean water; storm
protection

communities;
commercial and
recreational fisheries

wetland area; beach length;
embayment density; stream
mouth density; swamp area

protect estuaries;
embayments; beaches; bluffs;
increase understanding of
natural processes; risk factors
(nearshore development,
marinas, jetties); economic
and social goals

15

Chardon et al.
2020







function

270

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

16

Chen et al.
2017

recreation; water quality





function

17

Choi et al.
2017

ecotourism (wildlife habitat, migratory
birds)

ecotourism

wildlife habitat; tourism rates

tourism economy

18

Chopin et al.
2019

production of food; aesthetic value;
carbon sequestration

farmers; humanity

bioeconomic models

biodiversity; bioeconomic
benefits

19

Comin et al.
2018

soil retention; habitat; water regulation;
waste regulation; nutrient regulation; gas
regulation; climate regulation

recreation; culture;
agriculture

plant biomass (carbon storage),
vegetation index; water
infiltration rate; inverse of soil
erosion; nitrogen content in
soil; soil cation exchange
capacity; plant species
requiring pollination;
vegetation structure; protected
areas; cultural facilities



20

Craft et al.
2012

nutrient storage; carbon sequestration
(at the cost of having highly productive
agricultural land)

agriculture

denitrification; phosphorous
sorption; carbon sequestration



21

Creighton et
al. 2019

fisheries

commercial and
recreational fisheries

fisheries species catch (prawn,
mullet); market value

conservation of wetland
ecological community and
condition; endangered
species; project costs

22

Crookes et al.
2013

game; livestock; apiculture; wild
products; water yield and quality; soil
carbon; lumber; fuelwood; electricity;
minerals

agriculture; mining;
game reserve; electric
and water utilities;

water value; grazing value;
crop value



23

Culhane et al.
2019

provisioning; regulation and
maintenance; cultural and abiotic







24

Cullinane
Thomas et al.
2016

fisheries; education; recreation;
agriculture; water quality

fisheries; education;
recreation; agriculture

economic outcomes ($)

natural resource damage;
economic outcomes (jobs,
income, value added,
economic output)

271

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

25

Dang et al.
2018

net primary production; soil
conservation; water yield; sandstorm
prevention



net primary production; soil
erosion; water yield; potential
wind erosion



26

De Wit et al.
2020

water quality; shellfish; grazing; crops;
flood protection; microclimate
regulation; aesthetic value; water sports;
birdwatching; recreational uses; artistic
inspiration; environmental education

recreation; hunters;
aquaculture; fishing;
boaters

flood protection; biodiversity;
purification capacity;
macroclimate regulation; bird
watching; aesthetic value;
navigation; shellfish farming;
camping; waterfowl hunting

water quality; biodiversity;
public health

27

Deacon et al.
2015

ground and surface water quality and
water provision; soil formation and
fertility; soil erosion prevention; carbon
sequestration; habitat services; food
provision; cultural service

citrus growers; local
community

soil formation and fertility;
water quality habitat; indicator
species around orchards; farm
income; cultural landscape
values



28

DeSteven et
al. 2011

floodwater storage; water quality
improvement; biodiversity; soil carbon
sequestration; rainwater storage



acreage by wetland type (as a
proxy for ES)

wetland cover; hydrology;
waterfowl habitat

29

Detenbeck et
al. 2015

generic





seagrass cover

30

Detenbeck et
al. 2015

nutrient reduction; freshwater benefits;
carbon benefits; hunting benefits

hunters; recreation

dollar value of freshwater
benefits; dollar value of carbon
benefits; dollar value of
hunting benefits

project costs

31

Duffy et al.
2011

habitat; vegetation biomass; nutrient
storage; soil loss reduction; wildlife
habitat; pollinators; endangered species

agriculture; drinking
water

soil nitrogen; nutrient content;
plant community composition;
pollinator diversity; fish use;
bird use; vegetative cover; soil
loss; floodwater storage
capacity

ecological function

32

Dutton et al.
2010

existence value of water voles

farmers; taxpayers

willingness to pay for
restoration of vole habitat

distribution and abundance of
water voles; project costs

33

Eros et al.
2020

regulating services; cultural services;
provisioning; biodiversity

bird watching;
camping; anglers



naturalness and habitat
complexity assumed to be

272

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)











proxies for ecosystem services
provisioning; biodiversity
conservation; human use

34

Farinas-Franco
etal. 2018

supporting services (keystone species)



mussel weight; recruitment

biodiversity hotspots

35

Faulkner et al.
2012

habitat for migratory birds and wildlife;
water quality; flood attenuation; ground
water recharge; native flora and fauna;
educational and scientific scholarship

recreation; education;
science

carbon sequestration; nutrient
retention; sediment reduction;
bird richness; flood frequency
(for frogs); frog richness

ecological function

36

Feng et al.
2020

soil erosion control, carbon
sequestration; water yield

local population

used InVEST models



37

Fu et al. 2020

habitat maintenance; water
conservation; recreation; agricultural
products; water conservation; soil
conservation; tourism

tourism; agriculture

water yield; habitat quality

ecological security

38

Gao et al.
2019

water yield; soil conservation; water
purification; food production; carbon
storage; habitat quality; air pollution
removal

government and
urban residents

water yield; food production;
annual soil loss; habitat quality;
nitrogen loading; carbon
storage; rate of air pollutant
removal; comprehensive ES
index;

ecological security; urban
sustainability

39

Gardner et al.
2020

coastal flood protection





marsh cover; minimize cost of
land purchase

40

Gilbert et al.
2017

reduced vehicle collisions





economic benefits

41

Gilvear et al.
2013

flood management; biodiversity; habitat;
fisheries; pollution regulation; recreation

fisheries; recreators;
people who care
(conservation); people
who live in flood zone

biodiversity; flood
management; habitat quality;
fisheries enhancement;
pollution control; cultural

good ecological status

42

Gleason et al.
2008

enhancing fish and wildlife habitat; water
quality; sedimentation; nutrient loading;
floodwater retention; groundwater

society; recreation;
landowners

plant quality; plant richness;
carbon sequestration;
floodwater storage; sediment

acres restored

273

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)





supply; biological diversity; carbon
sequestration; recreation



reduction; nutrient reduction;
wildlife habitat suitability



43

Goldstein et
al. 2008



landowner



condition

44

Gonzalez et al.
2005

carbon sequestration

forestry; agriculture

carbon stocks

carbon markets

45

Gonzalez et al.
2006

carbon sequestration

energy utilities;
private companies

vegetation biomass; carbon
removal from atmosphere;
forest biodiversity

biodiversity conservation;
carbon markets

46

Gosper et al.
2009

supporting service (plants as habitat for
birds)





frugivorous birds

47

Gumiero et al.
2013

flood risk; habitat access for people;
improve water quality; improve
biodiversity

people; farmers;
landowners;
government
organizations; non-
governmental
organizations





48

Hattam et al.
2020

aquaculture; ecotourism; fish
production; (mangroves- nursery areas
and sediment/contaminant buffering)

fishers; traders;
tourism



ecological resilience; social
resilience

49

He et al. 2020

Overall, food supply; habitat quality;
water yield



total food output/each land
use; habitat quality index;
water yield



50

Heinrichs et al.
2016









51

Hou et al.
2017

food productivity; water yield; habitat
quality; net primary production;
evapotranspiration; recreation



food crop output/pixel; water
yield; habitat quality;
recreation capacity



52

Hruska et al.
2017

forage cover; crop growth

agricultural
communities

forage cover

biodiversity; grassland
condition; agricultural
economies; community
cohesion;

274

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

53

Huang et al.
2020

soil conservation; water conservation;
carbon fixation, rivers



water conservation capacity
(water source, flood storage);
carbon fixation; soil
conservation capacity

ecological function (inferred to
provide better ecosystem
services); ecological
protection; coordinating
economic development with
ecological protection

54

Huxham et al.
2015

fish; timber; medicine; spiritual sites;
tourism; coastal protection; carbon
sequestration

fisheries; forestry;
tourism; coastal
property owners

dollar values of timber;
fuelwood; honey; fish;
shellfish; protection against
coastal erosion; protection
against extreme weather;
carbon sequestration;
tourism/education/research

mangrove cover; climate
compatible development

55

Iranah et al.
2018

grazing; hunting; ecotourism; hiking; fruit
picking; trail running; mountain climbing

grazers; hunters;
ecotourism

willingness to pay for tourism
opportunities

forest preservation;
biodiversity conservation;
costs and economic incentives

56

Islam et al.
2018

fishing

fishermen

fish production; fishery income

social and economic impacts
on rural and fisher households
(e.g., income, hunger)

57

Jiang et al.
2019

soil retention; water yield

people who live in the
region

sediment yield coefficient;
annual runoff coefficient

forest conservation; combat
soil erosion; water
conservation; sustainable
development in the region

58

Jiang et al.
2016

soil conservation; sand fixation; habitat
conservation; carbon sequestration;
water conservation



stream flow throughout year;
soil retention amount; net
primary production; habitat
quality index

condition

59

Keesstra et al.
2018

soil conservation; water quality; water
retention; carbon sequestration; flood
risk



soil organic matter soil;
structure; water holding
capacity



60

Keller et al.
2015

biodiversity; carbon sequestration;
pollination; sediment retention; nutrient
retention



biodiversity quality score;
carbon storage loss; pollinator
index; sediment retention;



275

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)









nitrogen retention;
phosphorous retention



61

King et al.
2015

cattle provisioning; biodiversity; soil
regulation; microclimate regulation;
hydrologic regulation; water quality; crop
production; biodiversity; carbon
sequestration

forestry; agriculture

woody biomass; herbaceous
biomass; corn yield; water
quality; crop income; forest
cover; livestock density;
herbaceous density



62

Kress et al.
2016

navigation; storm damage reduction;
charismatic species; essential fish habitat

coastal communities;
navigation

sea turtle nests; animal
abundance and diversity;
mitigation of hypoxic
conditions

species of concern
(endangered species); costs of
dredging

63

La Peyre et al.
2013

shellfish; water quality maintenance;
nekton habitat; shoreline protection



shoreline stabilization; oyster
growth; water clarity; fish and
invertebrate diversity



64

Langhans et al.
2019







biodiversity

65

LaRocco et al.
2011

carbon markets; species conservation
banking; wetland mitigation banking;
water quality trading

farmers; landowners

dollar value of ES payments

biodiversity; financial
motivations

66

Law et al. 2017

smallholder agriculture; oil palm and
timber production; carbon emissions
mitigation; conservation of biodiversity

smallholder
agriculture





67

Layton et al.
2020

fishing; carbon sinks; nutrient cycling;
natural products; pharmaceuticals;
coastal protection; subsistence uses

indigenous cultures;
fishermen; products
(biofuels; livestock
feed;

pharmaceuticals)



kelp cover; natural
recruitment; 5-star wheel
(species composition;
structural diversity; ecosystem
function; connectivity;
absence of threats; physical
substrate and conditions)

68

Leschine et al.
2007

recreation; cultural identity; aesthetic
value; water purification; food; nutrient
regulation

fisheries; tourism,
traditional uses; water
users; land and
property owners

economic value of recreational
expenditures; aesthetic value;
iconic value; harvest value;
engagement in birdwatching

function; species abundance;
habitat; ecological process;
project costs

276

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

69

Li et al. 2018

plants for grazing

nomad pastoral
grazers

presence of human nomadic
use (e.g., campsites, houses)

biodiversity (bird
assemblages); water retention
capacity as it contributes to
'natural state1; human use
(houses, campsites)

70

Li et al. 2015

livestock grazing

pastoral agriculture

vegetation cover, biomass;
ratio of green to dead plant
parts; water-use efficiency

rangeland conservation;
ecological impacts; pastoral
livelihoods; water shortages

71

Liquete et al.
2015

regulating and maintenance services that
support natural processes; capacity to
deliver services; "land as a resource"

brief mentions to
agriculture; tourism

deposition of air pollutants on
vegetation; erosion control;
water infiltration; coastal
protection capacity; relative
pollination potential; soil
structure and quality potential;
nitrogen retention efficiency;
carbon stocks;

biodiversity; ecological
function; habitat for large
mammals; social and
economic benefits

72

Liu et al. 2016

tourism value; cultural value; water
purification; biodiversity value; climate
regulation

farmers; tourism

dollar value of ecosystem
services

grassland and forest
conservation; function and
structure; green GDP; project
costs; payment for ES

73

Long et al.
2018

soil and water conservation; biodiversity;
carbon storage; and landscape beauty

Forestry Bureau;
private sector; and
other government
agencies; forest/land
owners

unknown

unknown; payment for ES

74

Long et al.
2016

food source; game animals; wood
products; cultural inspiration; aesthetic;
water yield

tribes; hunting

species and their cultural uses

wildlife habitat; ecological
resilience; economic and
cultural wellbeing

75

Lu et al. 2017

water conservation; soil conservation;
carbon sequestration; nutrient
accumulation; biodiversity conservation

municipal water users;
agriculture; carbon tax

value of water regulation;
water purification; soil fixation;
soil fertilizer conservation;
carbon sequestration; oxygen

emergy inputs/costs

277

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)









release; nutrient accumulation;
biodiversity conservation



76

Luo et al. 2018









77

Manning et al.
2006









78

Manton et al.
2018

grazing; green infrastructure; tradition
cultural landscapes; haymaking; bird
diversity;

agriculture;
landowners

grassland cover as green
infrastructure

biodiversity conservation;
agro-environmental systems

79

Marques et al.
2019

regulating; cultural; tourism activities,
food production

stakeholders



ecological sustainability;
resilience; human well-being;
human health and safety

80

Martin et al.
2018

flood water retention; scenic landscapes;
learning opportunities; recreational
opportunities; birds





social equity

81

Martin et al.
2020

pollution reduction; heat island
reduction; health and well-being;
greenhouse gas reduction and green jobs
creation





job creation

82

McConnachie
et al. 2012

water supply

urban residents
(water users)



biodiversity; employment
(public works project); project
cost

83

McKay et al.
2011

existence value; heritage value; cultural
value; recreation; food regulation; water
use; timber and resource extraction; air
quality; disease regulation; vector control

recreation; municipal;
agricultural; industry



Biodiversity; flow regime;
social context (cultural,
demographic, political)

84

Mills et al.
2017

immune protection

humans

microbial operational
taxonomic units,
environmental DNA

public health

85

Moukrim et al.
2019

fuelwood; grazing; more genetically
supporting; food; water; climate; water;
disease; disturbance; aesthetic; spiritual;
cultural; recreation/tourism

local inhabitants;
livestock grazers;
traditional users;
forest sector

vegetation index (NDVI);
grazing offences

economic compensation;
social equity

278

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

86

Mukul et al.
2017

services necessary for the production of
other remaining ES; products (e.g.,
biomass, timber, wildlife, fodder)
obtained from a particular LULC);
regulating services derived from a
particular LULC (e.g., erosion control,
flood protection, climate regulation);
non-material services (e.g., recreation
and aesthetic value)



ES were given a score of 0-5
based on ability of LULC to
provide



87

Nguyen et al.
2013

carbon storage; wood production; fish
and shellfish; shoreline stability; erosion
control





mangrove cover

88

Nguyen et al.
2015

shoreline erosion (primary); fishing;
carbon storage; timber; aquaculture

forestry; aquaculture;
fishermen; local
communities

rates of shoreline erosion or
accretion

mangrove cover; economic
purposes

89

Opperman et
al. 2010

production of terrestrial species (birds,
mammals); carbon export; fish
production; flood attenuation;
groundwater recharge; greenhouse gas
mitigation; nitrogen mitigation; wildlife
recreation



greenhouse gas mitigation
value; nitrogen mitigation
value; wildlife recreation value;
flood attenuation value

hydrology; geomorphology;
inundation; food web
productivity; fish spawning
habitat; agricultural income

90

Oteros-Rozas
et al. 2013

rural tourism; cultural identity; scientific
knowledge; local ecological knowledge;
environmental education; bullfighting;
aesthetic value; cultural exchange; tree
regeneration; biological control; air
purification; habitat; fire prevention; soil
erosion control; hydrological regulation;
seed dispersal; soil fertility; microclimate
regulation; genetic pool; feed for
animals; food from livestock; hunting;
agriculture; fiber

pastoral (subsistence)

rural tourism; cultural identity;
scientific knowledge; local
ecological knowledge;
environmental education;
bullfighting; aesthetic value;
cultural exchange; tree
regeneration; biological
control; air purification;
habitat; fire prevention; soil
erosion control; hydrological
regulation; seed dispersal; soil
fertility; microclimate

environment; social outcomes;
economic profitability; social
perception; vulnerability

279

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)









regulation; genetic pool; feed
for animals; food from
livestock, hunting, and
agriculture; fiber



91

Ott et al. 2016

freshwater resources; 'natural capital1;
cultural value

agriculture; tourism;

impoverished

communities



forest conservation

92

Parrott et al.
2016

soil quality; waterfowl; aquatic flora and
fauna; water supply and quality; hunting
and recreation; crop production (forage
and grazing)

irrigators; hunters;
recreators; grazers



waterfowl food resource
requirements; wetland
diversity; water quality

93

Pattison-
Williams et al.
2018

water quality; drinking water; flood and
drought mitigation; climate change
mitigation; habitat for wildlife;
biodiversity

water users;
recreation; tourism

value of flood control; value of
nutrient removal; recreation
value; carbon sequestration
value

conserve wetlands; project
costs

94

Pattison-
Williams et al.
2017

nutrient retention (primary); biodiversity;
carbon sequestration; recreation;
tourism

water quality
regulation in wetland;
recreational fishing;
boating; property
owners; recreational
users

rates of phosphorous removal
(primary); nitrogen removal;
biodiversity value; tourism
value; carbon storage value

wetland hectares; cost of
restoration (lost opportunity
cost; physical costs of
restoration)

95

Pebbles et al.
2013

fish and wildlife production; wild rice;
water supply; erosion and sedimentation
regulation; storm protection; aesthetics;
recreation; habitat complexity; nutrient
processing

commercial and sport
fisheries; municipal
and industrial water
users; boating; fishing;
beach use

water quality; fish

harbor use

96

Pejchar et al.
2006

natural products (primary); bequest
value; aesthetic value

artists and ornamental
extractors (musical
instruments,
furniture, crafts);
foresters; bequest;
landowners (aesthetic
value)





280

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

97

Peng et al.
2018

water resources; soil conservation

people in the region

annual soil conservation; water
yield; net primary productivity

ecological security;
biodiversity, habitat quality;
sustainable development

98

Peng et al.
2019

"natural capital"; habitat maintenance;
water yield; soil retention; pollutant
removal

people who live there

annual water yield; annual soil
retention; rates of pollutant
removal; habitat quality

conservation

99

Pires et al.
2018

regulating; provisioning; supporting;
cultural

private sector;

government;

academia



biodiversity; human wellbeing

100

Plant

Conservation
Alliance 2015

clean air; clean water; temperature
regulation; carbon storage; aesthetics;
recreation; food; fiber; pollinators; game
species

people; communities;
recreation



native seed production;
sustainable economies

101

Qi et al. 2018









102

Rebelo et al.
2013

flood attenuation; streamflow regulation;
sediment trapping; phosphate trapping;
nitrate removal; toxic removal; erosion
control; carbon storage; biodiversity;
water supply; cultural significance;
tourism; recreation; education; natural
resources; cultivated food

herders; fishermen;
crop farmers





103

Reed et al.
2013

carbon storage; water quality regulation;
biodiversity conservation; landscape
aesthetics

land managers;
landowners





104

Reid et al.
2017



farmers; landowners



longevity

105

Ringo et al.
2016

timber production; elk; fire risk;
recreation

forestry

land classified by management
objectives (including
recreation, timber, wildlife)

wilderness; successional
reserves

106

Rodriguez-
Gonzalez et al.
2017

water quality; microclimate; wildlife
habitat; energy flood mitigation





condition

281

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

107

Romanach et
al. 2018

coastal flood protection; fish; carbon
sequestration; nitrogen retention

fishermen;
aquaculture; coastal
property owners and
residents

dollar values for ecosystem
services

mangrove conservation;
financial motivations

108

Root-

Bernstein et
al. 2017

shading; water retention; (regulating
services of grazers to manage plant
diversity); livestock production; forage
provision; soil moisture

agriculture

vegetation index;
evapotranspiration; primary
productivity; other ES
qualitative (food, raw
materials; air quality
regulation; climate regulation;
water regulation; erosion
protection; soil formation;
pollination; biological
regulation; nursery habitat;
gene pool protection;
aesthetic; recreational;
inspirational; cultural heritage;
education)

preserve wilderness

109

Royuela et al.
2019

preservation of biodiversity; leisure and
tourist value; landscape value; water
supply; scientific value (increased
knowledge about local ecosystems, for
informed decision making); educational
value

local people



seabird breeding success and
their natural habitats; job
creation

110

Russo et al.
2013

pollination

farmers; landowners

floral visitation events



111

Sakurai et al.
2015

environmental education







112

Schmiedel et
al. 2017

livestock production; carbon
sequestration

landowners; grazers

livestock value; carbon market
values

biodiversity and restore
erosion damage; economic
costs/incentives of restoration

113

Sherren et al.
2010

shade for livestock; enhancing pasture
growth; aesthetics; production for

agriculture;
landholders

biodiversity of plants, birds,
bats; aesthetic value of trees

conservation of trees; cost of
projects

282

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)





livestock; soil stability; groundwater
control







114

Silva et al.
2019

fish production

fisheries

fish species resilience and
vulnerability; market price of
fish; stock status; fish
distribution

ecological vulnerability; social
vulnerability

115

Stickler et al.
2009

greenhouse gas regulation (carbon
markets) as primary goal; co-benefits
could include water resources; soil
resources; terrestrial and aquatic
biodiversity; pollination

local communities;
indigenous people

carbon stocks; avoided
emissions; annual discharge;
annual evapotranspiration;
forest cover; vegetation cover;
interior, edge, and fragmented
habitat cover



116

Sumner et al.
2010

essential habitat for birds; nutrient
retention; sediment retention

municipal water users;
agriculture water
users

avian habitat quality; rates of
nutrient and sediment
retention

wetland quality and quantity

117

Terrado et al.
2016

water provisioning; waste treatment;
species habitat

hydropower; drinking
water; irrigation;
industry; recreation;
people who care;
fishermen;

dollar values for hydropower
production; drinking water;
irrigation water; water for
industry;

existence/conservation value
of species; recreational
enjoyment; surface water
quality

habitat; genetic and species
diversity; water flows; nutrient
removal; market prices and
avoided costs by ecosystem
services

118

Thierry et al.
2020

seed dispersal





restore native forest

119

Thorne et al.
2015

flood mitigation; carbon sequestration;
water quality; reduce erosion; shoreline
stabilization

USFWS; California
State coastal
conservancy;
California Dept of Fish
and Game; USACE;
National Wildlife
Refuge; Bay
Construction and

unknown

function

283

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)







Development; San
Francisco Bay Joint
Venture; scientists





120

Tornblom et
al. 2017

fishing

commercial and sport
fisheries

brown trout

biodiversity

121

Trabucchi et
al. 2014

erosion control; maintenance of soil
fertility; surface water supply; water
regulation; carbon storage







122

Truax et al.
2015

wood production; biodiversity; carbon
storage; pollution regulation; fuel;
aesthetic value; recreation; maple syrup;
bequest value

landowners;
recreators; rural
communities; general
public; families;
natural products
suppliers

timber production

conservation (old forest; rare
plants; deadwood; structural
complexity; wildlife activity;
corridors)

123

Trueman et al.
2014

recreation based tourism; harvest of
plants for food or timber

local community



conservation of ecological
integrity and biodiversity

124

US EPA et al.
2009

aquaculture; grazing; cooling water;
hydroelectric; drinking water; existence
value; recreation; swimming; fishing;
boating; spiritual; subsistence

agriculture; industry;
municipal; non-use;
recreational; cultural;
transporters;
education; research

quantity; quality; dissolved
oxygen; pathogens; ecosystem
integrity; fish; wildlife;
aesthetic value

economic value

125

Valko et al.
2014







maintain condition

126

Walker et al.
2014

endangered species habitat; timber
harvest

forestry

tree density; composition (as a
surrogate for woodpecker
habitat)



127

Wen et al.
2020

soil and water conservation; water
supply

water users (non-
specific); people who
live in the region

rates of soil loss; annual water
yield

forest protection

128

Wendland et
al. 2010

carbon emission reduction; biodiversity
existence; soil erosion prevention;
reduced sedimentation to streams;
reduced nutrient depletion of soil

Madagascar
government; local
people, non-

verification of carbon emission
reduction

payment for ES

284

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)







governmental
organizations





129

Wilker et al.
2016

experiential use; aesthetics; physical and
chemical environment; greenhouse gas
reductions; food production

non-governmental
organizations; public;
mining





130

Winter et al.
2020

ability to conserve native plant species;
especially endemics and single-island
endemics; ability to support native
wildlife; potential for species' long-term
viability; ability to recuperate from
disturbance (motivated by Ha'ena's
history of hurricanes); ability to conserve
water

local Native Hawaiian
community; non-
governmental
organizations

biocultural value; ability to
support native wildlife;
probability of persistence;
growth form; life form;
maximum height; clonality;
dispersal mechanism; seed
mass



131

Xie et al. 2014

productive land that promotes an
ecological civilization; water security;
biodiversity security; disaster protection;
recreation security

civilization; recreators;
water users; residents

distance to water source; flood
storage; water source
protection; habitat sensitivity;
hazard sensitivity; soil
conservation; land
desertification protection;
recreation suitability

ecologically secure civilization

132

Xu et al. 2020







plant diversity; balanced with
reservoir operation

133

Xu et al. 2018

provisioning services (including food
production and raw material
production); regulating services
(including air quality regulation, climate
regulation, regulation of water flows and
waste treatment); supporting services
(including maintenance of soil fertility
and biodiversity maintenance); cultural
service (including cultural & amenity
services)

people





285

-------


Short Citation

Ecosystem Services Mentioned

Beneficiaries
Mentioned

Specific Ecosystem Services
Metrics

Other goals or measures (e.g.,
condition, socio-economic)

134

Yu etal. 2018

purification of air by trapping suspended
particles; cooling of the climate through
evapotranspiration; protection of the
soil; food production

government; land
managers



jobs

135

Zhang et al.
2013

gas regulation; climate regulation; water
regulation; soil formation; waste
treatment; biological diversity control;
food production; raw materials
production; recreation; culture

tourism; recreation;
agriculture; natural
resource extractors

value coefficients of gas
regulation; climate regulation;
water regulation; soil
formation; waste treatment;
biological diversity control;
food production; raw materials
production; recreation; culture

economic development

136

Zhang et al.
2018

water regulation; soil conservation;
carbon sequestration



water holding capacity for
rainfall

water holding capacity for
rainfall; soil erosion

137

Zheng et al.
2014

soil conservation; water retention; water
yield; crop production



potential soil erosion; water
yield; water retention



138

Zingraff-
Hamed et al.
2018



recreational users



endemic fish species

286

-------
'*Vv :.'v.

oEPA

United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA

PERMIT NO. G-35

Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300

Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of
50% postconsumer fiber content processed chlorine free

-------