*>EPA
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
EPA/600/R-23/068 March 2023
Transferability and Utility of Practical
Strategies for Community Decision Making:
Results from a Coordinated Case Study
Assessment
Office of Research and Development
Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling
Gulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division
-------
Transferability and Utility of Practical Strategies for
Community Decision Making: Results from a Coordinated Case
Study Assessment
By
Richard Fulford1, Timothy J. Confield2, Theodore H. DeWitt3, Matthew Harwell3,
Joel Hoffman4, Robert B. McKane5, Leah Sharpe1, Kathleen Williams4, Susan Yee1
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1.Gulf Ecosystem Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and
Modeling, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
2. Ground Water Characterization and Remediation Division, Center for Environmental Solutions and
Emergency Response, Ada, OK 74820
3. Pacific Ecological Systems Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment,
Newport, OR 97365
4. Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure,
Cincinnati, OH 45268
5. Pacific Ecological Systems Division, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment,
Corvallis, OR 97333
2
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
(ORD) funded and collaborated in the research described herein. This document has been
subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication
as an EPA document. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an
endorsement or recommendation for use.
This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program.
The citation for this report is:
Fulford, R.S., T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, M. Harwell, J. Hoffman, R.B. McKane, L. Sharpe, and
K. Williams. 2023. Transferability and Utility of Practical Strategies for Community Decision
Making: Results from a Coordinated Case Study Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-23/068.
Acknowledgments
We greatly appreciate the efforts of reviewers who took the time to read the report: Chloe
Jackson, Autumn Oczkowski, and Alethea Tsui-Bowen.
3
-------
Abbreviations and Symbols
Throughout this report, the term "ecosystem goods and services" is often abridged to "ecosystem
services" and may include either intermediate or final ecosystem goods and services.
This symbol is used throughout this report to highlight 'Take Home' ideas for
integrating ecosystem goods and services into community decision-making.
Acronyms and abbreviations used in this report include the following. Additional words in the
abbreviated title, but not specified by the acronym letters, are given in brackets.
AOC Areas of Concern
BUI Beneficial Use Impairment
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan
CE(l-6) Common Element 1-6 of the decision framework
DASEES Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society
DPSIR Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response [Framework]
DSS Decision Support System
EBF Ecosystem Benefit Function
EGS Ecosystem Goods and Services
Envision [An integrated modeling platform]
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA H20 [EPA's Ecosystem Services Scenario Mapping Tool]
EPF Ecosystem Production Function
FEGS Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
GIS Geographic Information System
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
HIA Health Impact Assessment
HSI Habitat Suitability Index
HWBI Human Weil-Being Index
i-Tree Tools for Assessing and Managing Forests and Community Trees [Model]
MBNEP Mobile Bay National Estuary Program
MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
NEP National Estuary Program
NRC National Research Council
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board
ORD [EPA's] Office of Research and Development
4
-------
PM Performance Measures
PNW Pacific Northwest
SDM Structured Decision Making
SJBEP San Juan Bay Estuary Program
TEP Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
US ACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
VELMA Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments [Model]
WMP Watershed Management Plan
5
-------
Executive Summary
The concept of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) explicitly connects ecosystem
services to the people that benefit from them. This report presents a case study application of practical
strategies for incorporating FEGS, and more broadly ecosystem services, into the decision-making
process. Doing so helps decision makers better engage all stakeholders, make a complicated discussion
easier to understand through an organizational framework, and directly relate outcomes to benefits by
using FEGS-based measures of change. The goal was to look for common elements across a suite of case
studies in different regions of the country and dealing with different issues so to inform the transfer and
use of these practical strategies in elsewhere. Whether a decision process is in early or late stages, or
whether a process includes informal or formal decision analysis, there are multiple points where
ecosystem services concepts can be integrated.
This report is centered on Structured Decision Making (SDM) as an organizing framework to illustrate
the role ecosystem services can play in a values-focused decision-process, including:
• Clarifying the decision context: Ecosystem services can help clarify the potential
impacts of an issue on natural resources together with their spatial and temporal extent
based on supply and delivery of those services, and help identify beneficiaries for
inclusion as stakeholders in the deliberative process.
• Defining objectives and performance measures: Ecosystem services may directly
represent stakeholder objectives or may be means toward achieving other objectives.
• Creating alternatives: Ecosystem services can bring to light creative alternatives for
achieving other social, economic, health, or general well-being objectives.
• Estimating consequences: Ecosystem services assessments can implement ecological
production functions (EPFs) and ecological benefits functions (EBFs) to link decision
alternatives to stakeholder objectives.
• Considering trade-offs: The decision process should consider ecosystem services
objectives alongside other kinds of objectives (e.g., social, economic) that may or may
not be related to ecosystem conditions.
• Implementing and monitoring: Monitoring after a decision is implemented can help
determine whether the incorporation of ecosystem services leads to measurable benefits,
or what levels of ecosystem function are needed for meaningful change. An evaluation of
impacts on ecosystem services from past decisions can provide a learning opportunity to
adapt future decisions.
Section 1 of this report introduces the case studies and the bases for comparison. Section 2 reviews
common elements of the decision framework in the context of the six case studies with a focus on
transferability. Section 3 gives guidance for new adopters of SDM as a tool, as well as the ecosystem
services framework, based on the practical strategies and lessons learned from the case study
applications of the framework. This Section also gives entry points for each stage that are meant as a
guide for new users. Section 4 gives supplementary resources for a deeper dive into the framework and
the value of ecosystem services for decision making.
6
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
EPA's Center for Environmental Measurement & Modeling (CEMM) conducts research to advance EPA's
ability to measure and model contaminants in the environment, including research to provide
fundamental methods and models needed to implement environmental statutes. Specifically, CEMM
characterizes the occurrence, movement, and transformation of contaminants in the natural
environment through the application of measurement and modeling-based approaches. CEMM
scientists develop, evaluate and apply laboratory and field-based methods and approaches for use by
EPA and its state, local, and tribal partners to characterize environmental conditions in direct support of
implementation of EPA programs. CEMM scientists also provide scientific expertise and leadership
related to the development and application of complex computational models that provide precise and
detailed predictions of the fate and transport of priority contaminants in the environment to inform the
environmental policies and programs at the EPA, state, local and tribal level. The methods and models
developed by CEMM are typically applied at the airshed, watershed, and ecosystem level.
The following report provides information and guidance on the transferability and utility of an
ecosystem services assessment framework. This framework can aid community decision making to
increase sustainability. This report describes how the ecosystem assessment framework can be applied
across different communities and issues and provides entry points for each step to aid in its use in new
communities. This information and guidance support sustainable decision making that promotes human
well-being.
Alice Gilliland, Acting Director
Center for Environmental Measurement & Modeling
7
-------
Table of Contents
Notice and Disclaimer 3
Acknowledgments 3
Abbreviations and Symbols 4
Executive Summary 6
Foreword 7
List of Figures 11
List of Tables 12
Section 1. Introduction and background on coordinated case studies 13
1.1 Operational framework 13
1.2 Practical strategies 14
1.3 Case study narratives 16
1.3.1. Mobile Bay Case Study 17
1.3.2. Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound Case Studies 18
1.3.3. San Juan Puerto Rico Case Study 19
1.3.4. Oklahoma Small Community Case Study 20
1.3.5. St. Louis River Case Study 22
1.3.6. Tillamook Bay Case Study 25
1.4 Structure of this report 26
1.5 Quality assurance and quality control 26
1.6 Literature cited 29
Section 2. Case study common elements for the decision framework 32
2.1 Introduction to Section 32
2.2 Clarify Decision Context (CE1) 33
2.2.1 Big picture drivers 34
2.2.2. Intermediate drivers 35
2.2.3 Secondary or tangential drivers 35
2.2.4 Scale 36
2.2.5 Scope 37
2.2.6 Resources 37
2.2.7 Authorities 38
2.2.8 Regulatory framework 38
8
-------
2.2.9 Stakeholders 39
2.2.10 Conclusions 39
2.3 Identify Objectives and Performance Measures (CE2) 41
2.3.1 Stakeholder-derived objectives and performance measures 43
2.3.3 Expert-derived objectives 47
2.3.4 Policy-derived objectives 52
2.3.5 Conclusions 53
2.4 Developing decision alternatives (CE3) 55
2.4.1 Methods for choosing alternatives 55
2.4.2 Approaches to prioritizing or ranking alternatives 57
2.4.3 Stakeholder and community engagement 59
2.4.4 Conclusions 60
2.5 Estimating Consequences (CE4) 62
2.5.1 Estimated consequences for decision alternatives 62
2.5.2 Approaches and tools used to estimate decision consequences 63
2.5.3 Communicating estimated consequences to stakeholders 64
2.5.4 Transferability of approaches and tools used to estimate consequences 67
2.5.5 Conclusions 68
2.6. Evaluate Tradeoffs (CE5) 70
2.6.1 Case Study Approach to Trade-offs 70
2.6.2. Stakeholder Engagement and Tools Used for Trade-off Analysis 74
2.6.3. Conclusions 76
2.7 Implementation, Monitoring, and Learning (CE6) 78
2.7.1. Implementation 78
2.7.2. Monitoring 81
2.7.3. Learning 82
2.7.4. Conclusions 85
2.8 Practical strategies and transferability 86
2.9 Literature cited 87
Section 3. Transferability and entry points of the decisional framework 90
3.1 FEGS directly link a decision to human beneficiaries 90
3.2 Structured tools as an entry point for decision framework 90
3.3 Stakeholder engagement is a central, critical element of SDM 90
9
-------
3.4 New communities/same strategies 91
3.5 The way forward 91
Appendix A - Additional resources for more detail on research in the coordinated case studies 97
Appendix B - Example recommendations for action 103
10
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Definition of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services is the link between nature and people.
Diagram taken from Yee et al. 2017 Figure 1.2 13
Figure 1.2 The structured decision-making cycle annotated for practical use. Figure taken from Yee et al.
(2017) Figure 1.4 14
Figure 2.1 Structured decision-making cycle indicating identification of Critical Elements (CE) and report
section links for each one 31
Figure 2.2 DASEES screenshot showing definition of performance measures from stated objectives.
Insert shows method for defining changes in performance measures. Taken from DASEES tool 43
Figure 2.3 Summary of performance measures for restoration work in Mobile Bay case study site -
D'Olive creek 48
Figure 2.4 Objective hierarchy developed by case study researchers based on reviewing the SJBE CCMP
for San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico. Only Ecological and Social objectives shown for example 50
Figure 2.5 Example visualization of model-based Puget Sound case study results found to be effective for
communicating potential long-term consequences of alternative forest management decision scenarios
defined by community forest stakeholders 65
Figure 2.6 DASEES screenshot showing estimated consequences of proposed actions under
consideration 66
Figure 2.7 DASEES outcome screen summarizing consequences of proposed best action. This is the final
'Take Action' page in the DASEES tool 78
Figure 2.8 Example poster from St. Louis River Minnesota HIA final meeting giving participants
opportunities to provide input on recommendations (Williams and Hoffman 2019) 79
11
-------
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Summary table of case study sites indicating important case study properties for the decision
process 27
Table 2.1 Key aspects of the decision context 34
Table 2.2 Description of three categories for development of objectives and performance measures in
community case studies 41
Table 2.3 Objectives and associated performance measures as determined from stakeholder
engagement with the DASEES tool in the Oklahoma Small Community case study 44
Table 2.4 Example table of Tier 1 and 2 performance measures used for the St. Louis River case study. 47
Table 2.5 Description of alternative form, approach for identifying, comparing alternatives, and
stakeholder engagement for five* case studies 56
Table 2.6 Example of trade off analysis associated with the St. Louis River case study, (modified from
Hoffman and Angradi 2019). The trade-off analysis compares the status quo (Alt 1) to three different
project alternatives, including retaining a railroad causeway through the restoration site, converting the
rails use to a trail (rail to trail), or removing the causeway. The analysis is based on ecosystem services
providing areas or ecosystem service proxies. The cells are color coded to help indicate relative change
from current condition among alternatives: yellow = less than a 30% change from current conditions;
blue = at least a 30% increase from current conditions; red = at least a 30% decrease from current
conditions 58
Table 2.7 Examples of communicating case study consequences that have led or may lead to changes in
community planning, a policy, or other action 67
Table 2.8. Case study methods and tools and their transferability to new locations 68
Table 2.9. Description of Trade-offs approach, comparing trade-off options, and stakeholder
engagement for six case studies. Note that 'NA' indicates trade off analysis was not documented for the
Tillamook Bay case study which ended prior to formal decision making 72
Table 2.10 Example stressor matrix under development by the Mobile Bay NEP to collect expert opinion
on ecosystem services impacted by known stressors. Here a theoretical raw sewage spill in Perdido Bay
is examined by connecting habitats to stressor effect through ecosystem services. Committee members
complete the matrix together ending with projected effects (up/down; high, medium, low) in the red
bordered cells. Only two potential habitats are shown here. The CCMP values are general MBNEP
objectives listed in the CCMP 83
Table 3.1 Example applications of practical strategies outlined in Yee et al. (2017) based on case study
experiences 92
Table A.l - Examples of dissemination of case study results through published journal articles, internal or
public-facing reports, and book chapters. More details are available through EPA Science Inventory
(www.epa.gov/si) 97
Table B.l - Recommendations provided by stakeholders to mitigate negative health impacts or improve
positive health benefits of the Kingsbury Bay- Grassy Point restoration project within the St. Louis River
case study 103
12
-------
Section 1. introduction and background on coordinated case studies
1.1 Operational framework
Human and community well-being is dependent on sustainable management of environmental
resources that support human health and the environment (MEA 2005, NRC 2011). Decisions that lead
to sustainable use of resources must balance multiple social, economic, and environmental interests and
do so with limited resources in a way that is defendable to stakeholders. As a practical strategy for
complex decision making, Yee et al. (2017) laid out an operational framework based on the structured
decision-making (SDM) approach (Gregory et al. 2012) and centered on the sustainability of ecosystem
services. This framework is intended to guide complex decision making in a way that is transferable
across locations and issues and is flexible enough to be useful to a range of decisional authorities. There
is growing interest in ecosystem services assessments as a decision tool and this framework can
facilitate this interest to maximize how the natural environment benefits people.
Here we apply the concept of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) as an important element of the
practical strategy framework (Yee et al. 2017). Ecosystem services come from a suite of categories
(regulating, provisioning, etc.; MEA 2005), but can also be separated based on how directly they benefit
people (Figure 1.1). For instance, indirect services, such as healthy fish habitat, are important but should
be separated from services like catchabie fish, which have a direct and identifiable beneficiary (anglers).
Because FEGS have a clear human benefit, they can be a better final objective for decision making
(DeWitt et I. 2020, Harwell and Jackson 2021).
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS)
"[biophysical] components of nature,
directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to
yield human well-being" (Boyd&Banzhaf2007)
Beneficiary
Recreational Birdwatchers
Environmental
Context
Mangroves
Final Ecosystem
Good or Service
Charismatic bird species
Figure 1.1 Definition of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services is the link between nature and people.
Diagram taken from Yee et al. 2017 Figure 1.2.
13
-------
Decisional frameworks help us organize our thinking around how decisions lead to changes in ecosystem
state and function. This is a process that starts with a clear understanding of the decision context
leading to measurable objectives that can be integrated with data, models, and tools to estimate
consequences of decision options. Once potential consequences are known, trade-offs can be estimated
and communicated to stakeholders greatly improving the scientific and social basis for the decision.
These are the steps advocated by Yee et al. (2017) (Figure 1.2) and here we apply these steps and the
practical strategies associated with each one, in a series of case studies intended to be representative of
a range of decision contexts but also comparable across sites to address the utility of each step in each
unique situation. Our goal is to inform community decision making in other locations by moving the
FEGS decisional framework from concept to application.
Figure 1.2 The structured decision-making cycle annotated for practical use. Figure taken from Yee et
al. (2017) Figure 1.4
1.2 Practical strategies
The intended audiences for this report are community decision makers or agencies that work with
communities on integrated decision support as a method for increasing resiliency and sustainability of
resources. While many community leaders see the value in an integrated, more inclusive approach to
decision making, it can be difficult to know how to get started or how to find the resources necessary.
This report is organized around the structured decision-making cycle but also emphasizes a suite of
practical strategies intended to help non-technical users get started using the decisional framework.
These practical strategies are introduced here but are referenced throughout the report. In Section
14
-------
three we address each practical strategy individually by highlighting 'entry points' for each one that
were used in the case studies.
The intended users of this report can find common ground in the case studies, identify what SDM steps
in Figure 1.2 are most important to their situation, and then find the optimal entry points for that Case
study/SDM step combination in Section 3. Tools and approaches for getting started with identified
entry points can then be found in the references and links throughout the report.
Take Home: Applying a structured approach that is focused on Final Ecosystem Goods
and Services (FEGS) helps decision makers better engage all stakeholders, make
• complicated discussions easier to understand through an organizational framework, and
directly relate outcomes to benefits by using FEGS-based measures of change.
Jft
Photo credit: US EPA
The practical strategies for a decisional
framework considered in these case studies
were derived from a detailed examination of
applied SDM (Yee et al. 2017) and a review of
how ecosystem services have been applied in
community decision support (Fulford et al
2016). From these analyses we developed a
set of 17 practical strategies loosely organized
around the steps in SDM (Box 1.1). These 17
strategies are intended to be entry points to
the six SDM steps and our review of the case
studies will include an examination of how
these practical strategies were used. We then
revisit the practical strategies in Section 3 as
entry points for their application in novel
communities. Not all strategies were used in
all case studies described in this report as the
case studies differ in decision context and
authority. Nonetheless, we demonstrate how
these practical strategies can be used and
hopefully the case studies offer some
common ground for other communities to
make use of the information.
15
-------
List of Strategies
Apply FEGS concepts to explicitly connect EGS to people.
Apply principles of SDM to emphasize flexible approaches to FEGS.
Incorporate FEGS concepts at any point in the decision process....
Use FEGS to identify beneficiaries as potential stakeholders
Use conceptual models as a scaffold to visualize cause and effect
A
Use objectives hierarchies to detine what is ii
objectives hierarchies to define what is important about FEGS
Use structured systems as a starting point to identify measurable objectives.
Consider FEGS as means to achieve other objectives
**' Use structured paradigms to link EGS alternatives to broader objectives
Prioritize information and analysis to what is actually needed
Use conceptual models to visualize relationships
Quantify FEGS with ecological production functions
Let objectives drive choice of methods for FEGS benefits analyses.
ft
Use Decision Support Systems to organize and link FEGS analyses
Compare alternatives and gain insights with consequence tables
A
sitS Consider tradeoffs in FEGS benefits relative to other kinds of objectives
&
Monitor impacts to FEGS benefits after a decision to inform future decision
Box 1.1 List of practical strategies as given in Yee et al. 2017. Described here and used in Section 3 to
highlight entry points into the SDM steps.
1.3 Case study narratives
We chose six case studies for this comparative study each with its own characteristics arid decision
context. All six involve either protection or restoration of environmental components that directly
benefit people. However, the case studies differ greatly in the relative emphasis placed on the six SDM
steps as well as the complexity of the target decision(s). These differences provide a useful palate for
comparison. Our goal is to examine the case studies not as isolated examples, but as representative of
similar decisions and issues in other locations. For this reason, we will focus on the transferability and
utility of approaches in each of the six SDM steps both between locations and across issues.
16
-------
1.3.1. Mobile Bay Case Study
The Mobile Bay Estuary Program (MBNEP) was established in
1995 as a part of the United States National Estuary Program
under the Clean Water Act (US Estuaries and Clean Water Act of
2000). The MBNEP seeks to promote stewardship of the water
quaitiy characteristics and living resource base of the Mobile Bay
estuarine system by bringing together citizens, local, state, and
federal government agencies; as well as businesses,
environmental organizations, and academic institutions to meet
the environmental challenges of Mobile Bay and its watershed.
Through partnership, the MBNEP seeks to develop sound scientific information and apply that
information to restoring and protecting the integrity of Mobile Bay.
Mobile Bay receives waters from a 43,662 sq mi watershed that includes land in four states. The
immediate shoreline of Mobile Bay includes parts of Mobile and Baldwin County, AL and includes one
major metropolitan area (City of Mobile) and multiple suburban communities. Mobile Bay is home to a
major port and shipyard, as well as an active commercial and recreational fishery. Sub-watersheds of
Mobile Bay also drain through urban and suburban areas contributing to recreational use (e.g., hiking,
boating), aesthetic value, and residential property value (Vittor 2018). Mobile Bay is subject to multiple
stressors including urban-suburban runoff, shoreline degredation, habitat loss, and impacts of shipping
activity. The MBNEP is a dominant partner in the effort to reverse the negative impacts of these
stressors and protect the services of Mobile Bay for people. To that end MBNEP have developed a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (MBNEP 2019), which is updated every five years
to connect broad stakeholder objectives to investment of conservation resources.
The focus of this case study was the sub-estuary restoration effort coordinated by the MBNEP in the
D'Olive sub-watershed. D'Olive sub-watershed is located along the eastern edge of Mobile Bay in
Baldwin County, AL and includes the cities of Daphne and Fairhope. The sub-watershed consists of three
major creek systems (Joe's Branch, Tiawassee, and D'Olive Creeks) and includes one man-made
reservoir (Lake Forest), which is maintained with a low-head dam near the top of D'Olive Bay.
Restoration activities in D-Olive sub-watershed are representative of MBNEP led efforts in other similar
watersheds adjacent to Mobile Bay. EPA research involved the use of ecosystem service assessment
models to examine change in service production through time. This provided a baseline for restoration
assessment and a tool for restoration planning. Model-based assessment suggests that services lost in
D'Olive sub-watershed via changes in land use (i.e., suburbanization) include water quality, flood
protection, and recreational access.
Restoration in D'Olive sub-watershed is managed with a watershed workplan developed by MBNEP staff
in cooperation with partners using an advisory committee structure established for the purpose (MBNEP
2020). Priorities are set annually based on known impairment and allocation of resources among
watersheds of the Bay on a rotational basis. Specific restoration activities are developed by proposals
with a fixed set of objectives. In the D'Olive sub-watershed case study, the objectives were to restore a
natural flow regime, reduce turbidity delivered downstream to the Bay, and improve habitat quality for
fish and wildlife. This was accomplished through stream channel alteration and clearing that reduced
the 'boom and bust' cycle of major rain events. Research involved the assessment of these activities
17
-------
from an ecosystem services perspective. The focal ecosystem services were clean water, water storage,
and greenspace for recreation. The EPA model results were not used directly for decision making but
were used to guide the development of a stressor matrix tool (See Section 2.7.3) to prioritize identified
stressor-service links for future conservation investment.
1.3.2. Pacific Northwest and Puget Sound Case Studies
The Pacific Northwest (PNW) / Puget Sound case
studies address the growing issue of balancing forestry
ecosystem services with sustainability of
aquatic/estuarine habitat for endangered salmon
species. Intensive forest management in the PNW has
emphasized clearcutting on short harvest intervals (40
years). This highly profitable practice has converted
the region's vast pre-settlement old-growth forests to
young forest landscapes, fundamentally changing their
capacity to sustainably provide essential ecosystem
services for local and downstream communities. Provisioning of drinking water, flood protection, fish
and wildlife habitat, and recreational and cultural opportunities have been significantly degraded across
the region. Indicative of these changes, PNW salmon populations have declined sharply from historic
levels. In Puget Sound, for example, 22 of the estimated 37 stream-reach specific Chinook populations
are now extinct, and many other indigenous fish populations are listed as endangered. In response,
communities, tribes, and state agencies have formed cross-jurisdictional partnerships throughout the
region to implement salmon recovery plans (www.psp.wa.gov/salmon-recovery-overview.php) to
restore hydrological and ecological processes critical to salmon recovery, and more broadly, to the
functioning of entire watersheds and ecosystem services upon which human health and well-being
depend. Case studies in this region have focused on transfer of EPA watershed modeling tools (e.g.,
Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments, VELMA model) to assist such salmon recovery
planning partnerships in achieving their environmental and community goals.
Following NCF's successful
implementation of VELMA,
other groups requested
technical assistance to inform
other PNW salmon recovery
planning efforts. Case study
partnerships with Puget Sound's
Snoqualmie Tribe and the State
of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) are furthest along. A forthcoming report co-
produced by EPA and the Snoqualmie Tribe describes the use of VELMA and Penumbra - a new stream
temperature model - to identify best management practices for restoring salmon habitat in the
Snoqualmie-Tolt River floodplain in Puget Sound. For a project in Oregon, we provided training for
ODFW staff to use VELMA in support of their Oregon Coast Coho Conservation Plan
(https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/crp/coastal coho conservation plan.asp). The ODFW has produced a
report (ODFW 2022) describing their applications of VELMA to assess potential impacts of climate
change scenarios on streamflow and other fish habitat variables within 21 coastal Oregon watersheds,
"Guided by sophisticated new modeling from EPA ORD's Western
Ecology Division in Corvallis, combined with modeling used by the
Nisqually Tribe for salmon recoverythe community forest's
management team will selectively thin the property's timber
stands to encourage old-growth forest characteristics and
increase stream flow during the fall spawning season."
- Nisqualiy Land Trust Executive Director Joe Kane
18
-------
together totaling >10,000 square miles and supporting 56 distinct populations of the Oregon Coast Coho
salmon.
The Nisqually Community Forest, Snoqualmie Tribe, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife case
study stories have prompted other new modeling partnerships with other PNW tribes, NGOs, and state
and federal partners, and increased effort by EPA to streamline our tech transfer and training process.
1.3.3. San Juan Puerto Rico Case Study
The San Juan Bay Estuary Program (SJBEP), Puerto Rico was established in 1992 as part of the United
States National Estuary Program under the Clean Water Act (US Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of
2000). The SJBEP seeks to address threats of degradation to the estuarine system (SJBEP 2000),
including urbanization, aquatic debris, habitat loss, stormwater runoff, sewage discharges, and changing
climate. Watershed management decisions, such as dredging areas of impacted hydrological flow,
sewage discharge interventions, and mangrove restoration, have been developed as part of a
comprehensive management plan and are being implemented to target these threats, and improve the
condition of the estuary.
The estuary is one of the most heavily urbanized in the
United States, with a large proportion of island residents
living within its watershed. Socio-economic conditions
vary widely across the watershed (Azar and Rain 2007),
with some neighborhoods subjected to frequent flooding
events that exacerbate human contact with wastewater
discharges, including untreated sewage and stormwater
runoff (Korfmacher et al., 2015). In consideration of this,
management objectives of the SJBEP include improving
multiple aspects of community well-being for people living
in the watershed, including economic opportunities,
cultural heritage, human health, education, public safety,
social engagement, and good governance, in addition to more typical ecological goals of improving
water quality and habitat. However, being able to predict the potential benefits of environmental
management decisions is complicated by lack of data, uncertainty in relationships between
environmental condition and human well-being, and widely varying socio-economic conditions
throughout the watershed (Azar and Rain 2007).
The aim of the San Juan Puerto Rico case study was to develop scientific information to support and
communicate benefits of estuarine management decisions as they are implemented, including estuarine
condition and potential social, economic, and ecological benefits to people living in the estuary
watershed, including:
• Understanding the impacts of land development and urbanization on the ability of mangroves to
sequester carbon and regulate greenhouse gas emissions (Martin et al. 2020);
• Understanding the contributions of urban runoff, sewage runoff, and reductions in hydrological flow
to nitrogen processing and water quality in the estuary (Oczkowski et al. 2019; Oczkowski et al.
2020);
• Applying ecological production functions (EPFs) to quantify ecosystem services production and
material and energy flows throughout the estuary watershed (Balogh et al. 2021);
• Developing ecological benefits functions (EBFs) to link ecosystem services, such as flood-risk
mitigation and water quality, to human health benefits, including vector-borne illness (e.g., Zika
19
-------
virus; de Jesus Crespo et al. 2019a) and water-borne gastrointestinal disease (de Jesus-Crespo et al.
2019b);
• Conducting field work to link flooding and water quality to impacts on asthma-causing mold and
bacteria (Betancourt et al. 2019) and vector-borne illnesses (Yee et al. 2019); and
• Quantifying spatial variability and disparities in social and economic indicators of human well-being
throughout the estuary watershed, including connection to nature, cultural fulfillment, education,
health, leisure time, living standards, safety and security, and social cohesion (Yee et al. 2020), and
evaluating the degree to which ecosystem services such as green infrastructure and water quality
may impact well-being (Yee 2020).
The case study directly engaged local partners, including the estuary program, community groups, local
universities, and even local residents, in research efforts, which was essential for better understanding
of local concerns, access to field sites, and informal communication and learning opportunities. More
recently, in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in 2017, community and conservation leaders in Puerto
Rico are increasingly considering how green infrastructure solutions can reduce flood risk, improve
livability, and support resilience of the island to future risks (Santiago et al 2020).
Although the San Juan Puerto Rico case study research is specific to
this sub-tropical urbanized location, and the overarching goals and
management aspects of the SJBEP are unique, ecosystem services
and human well-being are often underlying or even overtly stated
goals of environmental management. As such case study research,
including relationships between ecological condition and ecosystem
services, and relationships between ecosystem services and human
health and well-being, are broadly transferable to help monitor long-
term degradation or improvement over time and to better
communicate the potential benefits of ecosystem restoration or
resource management.
1.3.4. Oklahoma Small Community Case Study
The Oklahoma small community case study was conducted in south-central Oklahoma, a region that
encompasses approximately 10 counties. This area is centered around the
Arbuckle Mountains, an ancient, eroded mountain range traversing
approximately 70 miles across the region. There are numerous lakes and
rivers that traverse this landscape and provide water resources and
recreation opportunities. The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer underlies more
than 500 mi.2 of south-central Oklahoma and is a vital groundwater source
of the communities and the principal water source for approximately
40,000 people in the region. Dotted throughout this landscape are
numerous springs that emanate from the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer,
supporting not only base flow for rivers but also in some cases the primary
water source for cities (Christenson et al. 2009). One of the springs, Byrd's
Mill Spring, is the primary drinking water source for the city of Ada
Oklahoma. Ada is in Pontotoc County and serves as the county seat. The Chickasaw Nation, a federally
recognized Native American Nation, also has its nation headquarters located in Ada. The Chickasaw
Nation and the city of Ada work collaboratively to ensure the sustainability and resiliency of the
20
-------
Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer and the water resources provided by this aquifer. Like all communities
located in south-central Oklahoma, the Chickasaw Nation and the city of Ada recognize the ecosystem
service value of the water resources provided by the aquifer and many of the supplemental
impoundments in south-central Oklahoma. There is an ongoing collaborative effort between the city of
Ada, the Chickasaw nation, various state agencies and other communities in south-central Oklahoma to
both understand the hydrology and functioning of the aquifer and learn how to protect and utilize the
resources provided by this aquifer across all of south-central Oklahoma.
In south-central Oklahoma many communities utilize both surface water and groundwater to sustain
and better their communities. They recognize that the water resources in this region are the
underpinning for much of the ecosystem goods and services that are provided in this landscape. They
also recognize that protecting and preserving the overlying landscape features help sustain and improve
numerous ecosystem goods and services, such as drinking water supply, flood control, recreational
activities, wildlife habitat, and irrigation opportunities. There are many challenges that potentially
impact the ability of the system to provide these ecosystem goods and services that these communities
have come to rely on but in many cases take for granted. Like all communities there is an emphasis on
promoting economic growth and providing desired services to the community. This growth, while good
for the community, has impacts on the surrounding landscape area and the potential provisioning of
ecosystem goods and services that communities rely on to sustain this growth. Southern plains
communities in general experience protracted periods of drought, interspersed with periodic flooding
events. There is a recognition that these challenges are shared by all the communities in the south-
central Oklahoma region that they must collaborate to help solve these challenges equitably for all
communities in south-central Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Small Community case study is in south-central Oklahoma and worked across two lines of
effort, one with the city of Ada focused on addressing the needs of the city and surrounding community
and the second more broadly with the Chickasaw Nation focusing on the broader Arbuckle-Simpson
Aquifer. While these efforts were handled separately, they are not mutually exclusive as there is much
overlap between the two efforts. Both efforts were focused on using the EPA developed SDM approach
Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES, Dyson et al. 2019) to
gather information on objectives of the project, develop measures appropriate for tracking these
objectives, and develop alternatives that could be implemented to achieve the overall goals desired by
the stakeholders in the communities.
For the city of Ada effort, the focus was helping them gather the information in support of a water
resources plan titled "Ada's Water Supply-The Path forward." The primary management question facing
the city of Ada was how to develop a reliable and affordable source of water to meet the economic and
social needs of the city of Ada and their surrounding communities. For the Chickasaw Nation effort, the
focus was helping them gather information and support of efforts outlined in the plan titled "Arbuckle-
Simpson Aquifer Drought Contingency Plan". The primary management question facing the broader
Chickasaw Nation was how to sustain the water resources of the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer and the Blue
River.
For both these efforts the decisional authority resides in part with either the city of Ada City Manager
and the Ada City Council (city of Ada effort), the Chickasaw Nation tribal leadership, and state entities
like the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB). There are decisions that can be made at the city of
Ada level or the Chickasaw Nation level for each project without the involvement of State of Oklahoma
regulatory agencies. But ultimately these local decisions must be within the bounds of the state
21
-------
regulatory constraints. That is why both these efforts included representatives from the state of
Oklahoma regulatory agencies, like the OWRB, as part of their stakeholder engagement.
Both City of Ada and Chickasaw Nation efforts have completed workshops with the stakeholder group
where the first phases of the SDM elicitation of objectives and associated measures were completed.
The smaller decision-making groups for both efforts are now reviewing the identified objectives and
measures to determine if the objectives listed are still current and relevant to the overall decisions that
need to be made and if the associated measures for each objective are correctly assigned. The DASEES
SDM process is flexible and iterative in nature and allows the decision makers and stakeholders to revise
aspects of each of the steps as needed or appropriate. It is necessary to have the objectives and
measures component of the process fully in place before moving to the alternative's development phase
of the process. The work with both of these groups is ongoing (as of 9/30/22) and soon will be moving
into the alternatives development phase of the project.
1.3.5. St. Louis River Case Study
The St. Louis River (SLR) case study was focused on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-led
health impact assessment (HIA; US EPA 2021) associated with
a 200-acre habitat restoration project being implemented by
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) at
Kingsbury Bay and Grassy Point, which are adjacent to the City
of Duluth on the Minnesota side of the St. Louis River. The HIA
examined the potential public health implications of the
restoration projects, including the intended restoration
outcomes and how people will access and use the project sites
following restoration. It also examined potential natural area
improvements at both sites by the City of Duluth through the
additions of trails, boardwalks, interpretative signage, fishing piers, birdwatching platforms, boat
launches, and other amenities.
The 288-km long St. Louis River (9,412 km2 watershed) flows through northern Minnesota into Lake
Superior's western end. The mean annual discharge is 73.1 m3 s"1 (USGS Gage # 04024000, Scanlon,
MN). The lower river is bordered by the port cities of Duluth, MN, and Superior, Wl. The river's outflow
is constricted by a natural sand bar that limits exchange to two inlets, one located in each city. Periodic
seiches (7.9-h duration) and weak semi-diurnal tides change the water height in the lower river by an
average of 12.6 cm daily (Trebitz 2006). Seiche-driven inflows reverse river flow direction up to the first
dam (Stortz and Sydor 1980), which is 38 km from the river mouth. The Duluth-Superior area developed
rapidly during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Industrial and urban development resulted in
uncontrolled discharges of sewage, industrial waste, organic contaminants (e.g., polychlorinated
biphenyls, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxins), and heavy metals into the lower river (Dole and
Wesbrook, 1907; MPCA and WDNR, 1992). Early water quality surveys reported sediment contamination
from sawmiii waste, tar substances, and organic matter, and episodic water column anoxia during
summer (MSBH et al., 1929). These conditions virtually eliminated aquatic life in some areas of the
lower river. Although water quality has improved dramatically since the 1970s (Bellinger et al., 2016),
contaminated sediments remain widely distributed throughout the lower river, contributing to fish
22
-------
consumption advisories and causing concerns regarding ecological health (Hoffman et al. 2020, Janssen
etal. 2021).
At Kingsbury Bay, the restoration goals were to restore open water habitat, improve vegetation quality,
and restore the lower Kingsbury Creek channel, all of which have been impacted by extensive
sedimentation that over time filled in a large portion of Kingsbury Bay. Amenities that were considered
included trails, boardwalks, interpretative signage, a stormwater demonstration project, fishing piers, a
kayak launch, and a swimming beach. At Grassy Point, the restoration goals were to restore sheltered
bay habitat and improve both sediment and vegetation quality, all of which had been impacted by
extensive wood debris that had been left by two sawmills that formerly occupied the site. Amenities
that were considered included trails, boardwalks, bridges connecting created islands, interpretative
signage, birdwatching platforms, fishing piers, and a kayak launch.
In this case study, the HIA was used to address two sets of questions, which each generated a separate
analysis. First, the HIA addressed the different health outcomes associated with three different versions
of the project design which varied in geographic extent. These were formal designs (that is, there were
defined project areas and associated scopes of work) brought forward by a state agency for
consideration. Essentially, the three proposals ranged from addressing only the most impacted portions
of the sites (lowest extent) to addressing all impacted portions of the site (greatest extent). Second, the
HIA addressed health mitigation and health promotion by providing stakeholders the opportunity to
recommend design or implementation changes that would limit or mitigate negative health impacts or
improve positive health impacts. These informal alternatives were brought to the decision-makers for
their consideration in a format that explicitly linked the health impact being addressed (e.g., increased
traffic from trucking out sediment by road through the neighborhood) and the associated
recommendation (e.g., move the sediment by barge over water to prevent increased traffic).
The underlying environmental management goals are to address beneficial use impairments in the lower
St. Louis River through the Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC) program, which is under the auspices of
the United States-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA; epa.gov/grtlakes/glwqa/).
The GLWQA designated 43 Great Lakes communities as AOCs, which are locations that have highly
degraded chemical, physical, or biological attributes (referred to as beneficial use impairments, or BUIs).
Nine BUIs were identified for the St. Louis River AOC: restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption;
degraded fish and wildlife populations; fish tumors and other deformities; degradation of benthos;
restrictions on dredging; excessive loading of sediment and nutrients to Lake Superior; beach
closings/body contact; degradation of aesthetics; and loss of fish and wildlife habitat (MPCA and WDNR,
1992; MPCA, 2013). To remove BUIs and delist an AOC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requires that delisting targets and corresponding management actions such as specific remediation or
restoration projects be established by local advisory groups through a remedial action plan (RAP; US
Policy Committee, 2001).
In addition to the environmental management goals, as part of the St. Louis River Corridor Initiative, the
City of Duluth has been enhancing recreational amenities and enhancing public access along the St.
Louis River. Kingsbury Bay sits at the mouth of Kingsbury Creek, downstream from the Lake Superior Zoo
and neighboring Fairmount Park, one of the City of Duluth's targets for renewal as part of the St. Louis
Corridor Initiative. Kingsbury Bay is public land that connects three important public facilities - the Lake
Superior Zoo, Indian Point Campground, and the Western Waterfront Trail (now known as
23
-------
Waabizheshikana or "The Marten Trail"). Kingsbury Bay is located about one mile upriver from Grassy
Point. Grassy Point is a natural area with amenities to support outdoor recreation at the northern end of
an extended Western Waterfront Trail and the only public river access in the Irving Neighborhood of
Duluth.
The HIA was conducted to provide voluntary, evidence-based recommendations to MNDNR and the City
of Duluth to address disproportionate health impacts (i.e., unequal sharing of health burdens and
benefits), mitigate potential adverse health impacts, and enhance potential health benefits of the
projects. MNDNR was responsible for ecological restoration design and implementation on public lands
and waters. They also could support a limited amount of trail and boardwalk construction post-
restoration. The City of Duluth is responsible for park planning, operations, and maintenance at Grassy
Point, Kingsbury Bay, and adjacent Indian Point Campground (a public facility and natural area), as well
as the riverfront trails connecting these two natural areas. The partners for the HIA were MNDNR and
City of Duluth, who were also the decision-makers. At the first workshop held for community members
(i.e., individual citizens), twenty-seven (27) community members attended. Most of the individuals
represented themselves; however, a few also represented other interests, including neighborhood
organizations, local business, parks-related interest organizations, and environmental organizations.
Twenty-two (22) individuals attended the first workshop held for stakeholders (i.e., municipal, county,
state, federal, and tribal agencies, as well as recreational interest groups).
Seven health pathways were examined: Water Habitat and Quality; Equipment, Operation, Traffic, and
Transport; Air Quality; Noise and Light Pollution; Crime and Personal Safety; Recreation, Aesthetics, and
Engagement with Nature; and Social and Cultural. Through these health pathway analyses, both positive
and negative health impacts associated with ecological restoration and park improvement were
identified. Negative health impacts were generally short-term and associated with construction
activities or temporary park closures during construction. Positive health impacts were generally long-
term and associated with future activity within the park areas, experiencing a restored riparian, wetland,
and riverine habitats.
A final set of seventy-three (73) evidence-based recommendations were provided by the HIA. Adoption
of any of these recommendations by the decision makers is voluntary. The HIA Project Team identified
recommendations to maximize the potential positive health impacts (e.g., improved water habitat and
quality, as well as opportunities for outdoor recreation, social interaction, and cultural resources),
minimize or avoid the potential negative health impacts (e.g., air, noise, and light pollution related to
construction, as well as impacts to residents and recreational users), and offer decision alternatives and
health supportive measures (e.g., cultural and social resources, as well as communication and
informational signage). At the time of the HIA (2018), the City of Duluth indicated they would consider
recommendations directed towards park construction, operation, and maintenance as part of their park
planning process, which would occur after the restoration construction period was complete. Forty-six
(46) of the recommendations identified MNDNR as a responsible party for implementation. As of April
2019, twenty-two (22) of the 46 recommendations had been adopted in design and MNDNR was
interested in implementing 5 of those 22 recommendations further as the habitat restoration work
progressed (See Appendix B for details). In addition, MNDNR was also interested in adopting another 23
of the HIA recommendations in the future (data not shown). That is, as of the design process, the
MNDNR had adopted nearly half of the recommendations, all of which were intended to improve the
24
-------
health outcome of the project, and many of which were also intended to improve the ecological
outcome, as well.
1.3.6. Tillamook Bay Case Study
The Tillamook Estuaries Partnership (TEP) is an organization within EPA's National Estuary Program
whose mission is to protect and restore the health of five
estuaries and their watersheds on the northern Oregon coast
(including Tillamook Bay) while supporting economic and
recreational activities (TEP 2021). Through their direct efforts and
partnerships with Federal, State, and County agencies,
businesses, residents, and non-governmental organizations, TEP
serves as a coordinator for addressing major issues facing coastal
communities: loss of key fish and wildlife, declining water quality,
increased erosion, and increasing flooding. Whereas shellfish are
an important natural resource for the estuaries, TEP shares
concerns with Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW),
Agriculture (ODA), and Environmental Quality (DEQ) to ensure the
sustainable production of oysters and bay clams, to improve
water quality, and to minimize the risk of consumption of
bacteria-contaminated bivalves. Those issues are articulated in
TEP's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans under
their Key Habitat Action Plan and their Water Quality Action Plan Goals (TBNEP 1999). In this case study,
we partnered with TEP, ODFW, ODA, and DEQ to identify and address knowledge gaps (i.e., locations of
suitable habitat for bay clams within Tillamook Bay; spatial and seasonal environmental drivers of
elevated concentrations of fecal bacteria within Tillamook Bay) that could improve sustainability of the
shellfisheries and improve the shellfish harvest closure decisions. The primary tools for this cases study
research were quantitative models that align shellfish abundance with habitat characteristics and that
predict fecal contamination of shellfish habitat based on land use and hydrology. Both models were
designed to inform decision making about shellfish harvesting.
Tillamook Bay is the second largest estuary in Oregon, with an area of 34 km2 and an average depth of 2
m. Subject to semi-diurnal tides, approximately half of the estuary is drained twice daily. Numerous
intertwined tidal channels bisect extensive sand and mud flats, most of which are navigable only by
shallow-draft boats. Five rivers (Tillamook, Trask, Wilson, Kilchis, and Miami Rivers) drain into the bay
from the surrounding 1546 krn^ watersheds (TBNEP 1999). Most of the watersheds are undeveloped,
temperate rainforest, but the lowlands surrounding the bay supports three towns (Tillamook, Bay
Center, Garibaldi), rural homes, and extensive dairy agriculture (ca. 100 km2; TBNEP 1999). The economy
of the Tillamook basin is based on dairy farming, forestry, tourism, and shellfisheries, including oyster
aquaculture and commercial harvest of bay clams. Tourism, shellfisheries, and residential real estate are
heavily dependent on the condition of Tillamook Bay estuary for the production of ecosystem goods and
services (TBNEP 1999):
• finfish, crabs and clams for recreational and commercial fishing;
• wildlife and scenic waterscapes for viewing by hikers, homeowners, and passers-by; and
• clean water that supports the production of clams, oysters, crabs, fish, and wildlife; and
facilitates safe contact with the water by boaters, anglers, and shellfish harvesters.
Source: Used by Permission, Don Best
Photography, com.
25
-------
The case study was primarily focused on the Tillamook Bay estuary where oyster aquaculture and
commercial and recreational clam harvesting occur. That is the area in which our research was
conducted. However, the secondary geographic scope of the study includes surrounding watersheds
that are the predominant sources of bacterial contamination that trigger closures of shellfish harvesting.
Oysters produced via aquaculture and naturally occurring bay clams are important resources for the
commercial fisheries, recreational harvest, and tourism of communities along the Oregon coast,
including around Tillamook Bay. Sustaining the production of these shellfish species depends on the
availability of suitable habitat and water quality conditions favored by the bivalves. Sustaining their
harvest depends in part on low risk to consumers for developing gastrointestinal illness caused by
pathogenic microorganisms in shellfish tissues. Urban and rural residential development, farms, pets
and wildlife contribute fecal bacterial contamination to Tillamook Bay via runoff into the bay's
tributaries or non-point discharge directly into the estuary. As summarized in TBNEP (1999), Tillamook
Bay has experienced bacterial pollution problems for decades which led to a federally mandated,
Oregon state shellfish management plan adopted in 1991. The plan regulates shellfish harvest closures
in response to actual or expected elevated concentrations of fecal bacteria in the bay.
The case study research culminated in two peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles that described new
methods for (1) modeling and mapping suitable habitats for five species of bay clams harvested
commercially and recreationally in Tillamook Bay (Lewis et al. 2019) and (b) identifying the relative and
combined contributions of key environmental factors (i.e., tides, wind, precipitation, river flow) to
seasonal and spatial (i.e., regions of the Bay) differences in fecal bacteria concentration (Zimmer-Faust
et al. 2018). The latter study also developed a statistical model that estimated concentrations of fecal
bacteria based on measurements of those key environmental factors. The articles were well received by
TEP and the Oregon State agencies but have yet to be put into practice due to lack of resources within
the agencies.
1.4 Structure of this report
This report is organized so to provide comparative entry points for the SDM cycle and the 17 practical
strategies for community-based decision support. For this reason, we will not walk through each case
study independently but work through the SDM cycle looking at the case studies for common ground
related to their characteristics. This approach will allow readers working in other communities to see
how the approaches used in these case studies may inform their use elsewhere. Section 1 is an
introduction and gives background on the six case studies considered here (Table 1.1). Section 2 is
organized around the six steps in the SDM cycle and in each step the case studies will be examined for
how they approached that step, strengths and weaknesses of the step and common ground across the
case studies that may allow for transference of an approach to novel sites. The common themes across
the six steps are transferability and utility of an approach. In Section 3 we return to the subject of entry
points as a guide for the transferability of approach by directly examining what makes an approach
transferable across sites and between issues. This Section includes an examination of data gaps and
future work to maximize utility of FEGS and the SDM process for community-level decision making.
Finally, Section 4 contains supplementary information for the six case studies that will be useful to
readers interested in application of FEGS and SDM at a novel location.
1.5 Quality assurance and quality control
This report contains qualitative environmental data collected from decision making tools with the
26
-------
Table 1.1 Summary table of case study sites indicating important case study properties for the decision process.
Case
Primary
Decision
Decision
Focal
Major
Critical FEGS Decision
Action
study site
decision
context
Scale (USGS
natural
stakeholder
trade-offs
taken/evaluated
point of
watershed
capital
groups
contact
boundaries)
1.3.1
Mobile Bay
Watershed
HUC12
Stream
Residents of
Recreational
Priority
Stream
Mobile
National
restoration
(partial)
habitat
Mobile and
access, wildlife
setting among
restoration
Bay, AL
Estuary
Program
(water quality)
quality
Baldwin Co.
abundance and
diversity
multiple sub
watersheds
activities
implemented
1.3.2
Nisqually
Restoration
HUC10
salmon,
Nisqually Tribe;
Harvestable
Sustainable
NCF is 3 years into
Pacific
Community
trade-offs:
forest
Nisqually Valley
resources,
forest harvest;
implementing
northwest
Forest
fishing, forest
products;
communities;
traditional
Fishing and
VELMA model-
(NCF);
products; tribal
drinking
fishers; boaters;
lifestyle,
fish habitat;
informed forestry
Oregon
communities
water
forest industry &
recreational
wellbeing
practices for long-
Department
shareholders
opportunities
benefits to
term forest and
of Fish and
local tribe &
salmon habitat
Wildlife
communities
improvements
(ODFW)
1.3.3 San
San Juan
Impacts of
HUC10
Flood
Residents of the
Natural flood
Urban
Flood mitigation
Juan, PR
Estuary
Urbanization
protection
San Juan
protection,
development
and nutrient
Program
Metropolitan
area
wildlife
abundance and
diversity, clean
water
and health
and well-
being benefits
of the estuary
reduction
activities
1.3.4 Ok
City of Ada,
Water
HUC10 to
Surface
Resident of Ada,
Useable Water
Supply of
TBD multi-user
small
OK;
conservation
HUC12
and
OK and
Supply
water for
water plan based
community
Chickasaw
planning
aquifer
surrounding
(quality and
economic
on DASEES
Nation
water
communities.
Residents of
Chickasaw
Nation.
quantity)
development,
recreation,
and
environmental
conservation-
in-stream flow
analysis
27
-------
Primary
decision
point of
contact
Decision
context
1.3.5
St. Louis
River, MN
State of
Minnesota
Urban
estuary
restoration
and
neighborhood
revitalization
HUC12
Coastal
wetland
and
riparian
habitat
quality
1.3.6
Tillamook
Bay, OR
Tillamook
Estuaries
Partnership
(TEP)
Water quality
(bacteria)
effects on
bivalve
fisheries
HUC10
Fishery
species
and
habitat
quality
Major Critical FEGS
stakeholder
groups
Decision Action
trade-offs taken/evaluated
Residents living
in adjacent
neighborhoods,
as well as
surrounding
communities
(Duluth, MN;
Superior, Wl;
Fond du Lac
Band).
Shellfish
growers and
harvesters;
state natural
resource
management
and
environmental
quality
agencies
recreational
fishing,
birding,
cultural value,
public health,
biodiversity,
viewscapes
Harvestable
resources,
recreational
opportunities,
water quality
Design
options for
habitat
restoration
and
associated
shoreline
amenities
Whether to
use new
model to
inform
shellfish
harvest
closures;
whether to
use habitat
suitability
models to
identify
location of
shellfish
populations
Shoreline
restoration
option chosen
and
implemented;
trail, fishing pier,
and boardwalk
design chosen
and
implemented
New model
developed for
estimating
probability of
bacterial water
quality
exceedances in
wet and dry
seasons.
Suitable habitat
identified for
multiple bivalve
species.
28
-------
intended purpose of assisting community stakeholders in their decision making and applying structured
decision-making approach for proof of concept. The development and application of the decision
support tools was done consistent with the requirements outlines in the Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) for Coordinated Case Study Synthesis Report, J-GEMMD-0030992-QP-l-l(approved March 10,
2020). Data quality objectives were described in the QAPP. Any calculations or results generated with
the decision support tools were for demonstration purposes only.
Peer reviews were completed and discussed for all research described herein. The conclusion of the QA
and peer review process is that results presented in this report accurately reflect the course of the
research and are scientifically valid and defensible.
1.6 Literature cited
Azar, D., Rain, D., 2007. Identifying population vulnerable to hydrological hazards in San Juan, Puerto
Rico. GeoJournal 69, 23-43.
Balogh, S., J. Bousquin, T. Munoz-Erickson, E. Melendez-Ackerman, A. Lugo, G. Garcia Lopez, C. Ortiz
Garcia, M. Perez Lugo, and P. Mendez-Lazaro. Ecosystem services and urban metabolism in
shrinking cities: A case study of San Juan, Puerto Rico. (In Review)
Bellinger, B.J., Hoffman, J.C., Angradi, T.R., Bolgrien, D.W., Starry, M., Elonen, C., et al., 2016. Water
quality in the St. Louis River Area of Concern, Lake Superior: historical and current conditions
and delisting implications. J. Great Lakes Res. 42, 28-38.
Betancourt, D., T. Dean, AND E. Huertas. An EPA pilot study characterizing fungal and bacterial
populations at homes after flooding events at the Martin Pena Channel Community.
Microbiology of the Built Environment, Lloyd Harbor, New York, November 03 - 06, 2019.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?dirEntryld=348231
Christenson, S., A.G. Hunt, D.L. Parkhurst, and N.I. Osborn. 2009. Geochemistry of the Arbuckle-Simpson
Aquifer. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009-3013, 4 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3013/.
DeJesus-Crespo, R., J. Wu, M. Myer, S. Yee, and R. Fulford. Flood protection ecosystem services in the
coast of Puerto Rico: Associations between extreme weather, flood hazard mitigation and
gastrointestinal illness. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT. Elsevier BV, AMSTERDAM,
NETHERLANDS, 676: 343-355, (2019). https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.287
DeJesus-Crespo, R., Yee, S., P. Mendez-Lazaro. Linking Wetland Ecosystem Services to Vector-borne
Disease: Dengue Fever in the San Juan Bay Estuary, Puerto Rico . WETLANDS. The Society of
Wetland Scientists, McLean, VA, USA, 39(6): 1281-1293, (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sl3157-017-099Q-5
Dole, R.B., Wesbrook, F.F., 1907. The quality of surface waters in Minnesota. Water Supply and Irrigation
Paper No. 193. United States Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
EPA, 2021. Kingsbury Bay-Grassy Point Habitat Restoration: A Health Impact Assessment. EPA/600/R-
21/130. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C.
Fulford, R., R. Bruins, T. Canfield, J. Handy, J.M. Johnston, P. Ringold, M. Russell, N. Seeteram, K. Winters,
S. Yee. 2016a. Lessons Learned in Applying Ecosystem Goods and Services to Community
Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-16/136.
Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels, D. Ohlson. 2012. Structured Decisionmaking:
A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hoffman, J.C., Blazer, V.S.,Walsh, H.H., Shaw, C.H., Braham, R., Mazik, P.M., 2020. Influence of
demographics, exposure, and habitat use in an urban, coastal river on tumor prevalence in a
demersal fish. Sci. Total Environ. 712, 136512.
29
-------
Janssen, S., J.C. Hoffman, R. Lepak, D. Krabbenhoft, D. Walters, G. Peterson, J. Ogorek, J. DeWild, A.
Cotter, M. Pearson and M. Tate., 2021. Examining historic mercury sources in the St. Louis River
estuary: How legacy contamination influences biological mercury levels in Great Lakes coastal
regions. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.scitotenv.2021.146284
Korfmacher, K.S., Aviles, K., Cummings, B.J., Daniell, W., Erdmann, J., Garrison, V., 2015. Health impact
assessment of urban waterway decisions. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 12, 300-321.
Lewis, NS, EW Fox, and TH DeWitt. 2019. Estimating the distribution of harvested estuarine bivalves with
natural history-based habitat suitability models. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 219:453-
472.
Martin, R., C. Wigand, A. Oczkowski, Alana Hanson, S. Balogh, B. Branoff, E. Santos, AND E. Huertas.
Greenhouse Gas Fluxes of Mangrove Soils and Adjacent Coastal Waters in an Urban, Subtropical
Estuary. WETLANDS. The Society of Wetland Scientists, McLean, VA, 40:1469-1480,
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/sl3157-020-0130Q-w
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and
Trends, Volume 1. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 2013. St. Louis River Area of Concern Implementation
Framework: Roadmapto Delisting (Remedial Action Plan Update). Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/watertypes-and-programs/surface-
water/st.-louis-river-area-of-concern.html, p. 78 and appendices p. 655).
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (MPCA and
WDNR), 1992. The St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan Stage One. p. 263
(http://www.stlouisriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SLRRAP1992.pdf).
Minnesota State Board of Health (MSBH), Minnesota Commissioner of Fish, Wisconsin State Board of
Health, 1929. Investigation of the Pollution of the St. Louis River Below the Junction of the Little
Swan, of St. Louis Bay, and Superior Bay, and of Lake Superior Adjacent to the Cities of Duluth
and Superior, p. 100.
NRC. 2011. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 286 pp.
Oczkowski, A., E. Santos, A. Gray, K. Miller, E. Huertas, A. Hanson, R. Martin, E. Watson, and C. Wigand.
Tracking the Dynamic Ecological History of a Tropical Urban Estuary as it Responds to Human
Pressures . ECOSYSTEMS. Springer, New York, NY, USA, 23: 231-245, (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0021-019-00399-l
Oczkowski, A., E. Santos, R. Martin, A. Gray, A. Hanson, E. Watson, E. Huertas, and C. Wigand.
Unexpected Nitrogen Sources in a Tropical Urban Estuary . Journal of Geophysical Research -
Biogeosciences. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, USA, 125(3): e2019JG005502,
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JG0055Q2.
ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2022. 2022 assessment of naturally produced summer
steelhead in the Umpqua River basin. Science Bulletin 2022-1. ODFW, Salem."
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/docs/north umpqua summer steelhead/2022 NU StS
Assessment FINAL.pdf
Santiago, L.; Flores, D.; Hong, C.Y., 2020. The impact of extreme weather events on community risk
planning and management: The case of San Juan, Puerto Rico after hurricane Maria. Rev. Bras,
de Gestao Urbana 12, e20190062
SJBEP (San Juan Bay Estuary Program), 2000. Program del Estuario de la Bahfa de San Juan:
Comprehensive conservation and management plan. San Juan Bay Estuary Program, San Juan,
Puerto Rico.
Stortz, K.R., Sydor, M., 1980. Transports in the Duluth-Superior harbor. J. Great Lakes Res. 6, 223-231.
30
-------
TBNEP (Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project). 1999. Tillamook Bay Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan, https://www.tbnep.org/comprehensive-conservation-and-management-
plan.php
Trebitz, A., 2006. Characterizing seiches and tide-driven daily water level fluctuations affecting coastal
ecosystems of the Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 32, 102-116.
US Code. Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000. National Estuary Program. Available online:
http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer. htm?volume=114&page=1972.
US Policy Committee, 2001. Restoring United States Areas of Concern: Delisting Principles and
Guidelines (29 pp.).
Yee, S., D. Yee, R. DeJesus-Crespo, A. Oczkowski, F. Bai, and S. Friedman. Linking Water Quality to Aedes
aegypti and Zika in Flood-Prone Neighborhoods . EcoHealth. Springer, New York, NY, USA, 16:
191-209, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/slQ393-019-01406-6
Yee, S. H., E. Paulukonis, & K. D. Buck. 2020. Downscaling a human well-being index for environmental
management and environmental justice applications in Puerto Rico. Applied Geography, 123,
102231.
Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, R. de Jesus-Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M.
Harwell, J. Hoffman, C.J. Littles, J.M. Johnston, R.B. McKane, L. Green, M. Russell, L. Sharpe, N.,
Seeteram, A. Tashie, and K. Williams. 2017. Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services into Community Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-17/266.
Yee, S.H. 2020. Contributions of Ecosystem Services to Human Weil-Being in Puerto Rico. Sustainability
12: 9625. https://doi.org/10.3390/sul2229625.
Zimmer-Faust, AG, CA Brown and A Manderson. 2018. Statistical models of fecal coliform levels in Pacific
Northwest estuaries for improved shellfish harvest area closure decision making. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 137:360-369.
CE6: Implement.
Monitor, and
Review
Section 2.7
CE2: Define
Objectives and
Performance
CE3: Develop
Alternatives
Section 2.4
Figure 2.1 Structured decision-making cycle indicating identification of Critical Elements (CE)
and report section links for each one.
31
-------
Section 2. Case study common elements for the decision framework
This Section describes the application of practical
strategies for decision support (Yee et al. 2017) in six
community case studies within the US and its
territories. The six case studies were selected to
provide a variety of decision contexts, decision
authorities, stakeholder composition and
involvement, and geographic location. While each
case study is unique, they each contain common
elements (CE) that provide a basis for comparison and
a standard for assessment of transferability. These
common elements are organized around the six steps
of SDM (Figure 2.1), as advocated in our practical
1. Applied approaches to clarify the decision context (CE1),
2. Identified relevant objectives and performance measures (CE2),
3. Developed or identified decision alternatives (CE3),
4. Developed scientific information and models to estimate consequences (CE4),
5. Communicated potential tradeoffs and other information to support decision-makers in making
a decision (CE5), and
6. Evaluated outcomes and supported adaptive learning as decisions were made (CE6).
Case studies often approached each of the elements differently; however, through comparison of the
different approaches and identification of similarities, this Section seeks to identify common themes
that emerge. Each common element is addressed in a sub-section with an overall theme of addressing
transferability and utility of approaches used across the case studies. Details are provided on each case
study in Section 1.3. More detail on outcomes is available in the published works specific to each case
study, which are described in Appendix A.
2.1 Introduction to Section
strategies approach, such that each case study:
32
-------
2.2 Clarify Decision Context (CE1)
The EPA case studies take an approach of using the SDM framework to demonstrate how inclusion of
final ecosystem good and service (FEGS) thinking can improve social and environmental outcomes of
research, management, and decision-making processes (Yee et al. 2017). The first step in any SDM
process is clarifying the decision context. The decision context is "the question or problem that is being
addressed" and "the scope and bounds" of the decision (Gregory et al 2012). This initial step in SDM is
highly influential on the direction of the rest of the decision-making process. Even if this step is not
taken in a deliberate fashion, every decision begins with a context that informs subsequent decision
maker actions. If the decision context is not defined deliberately, the assumptions made about the
context can lead to a less effective decision-making process with less appropriate results. For example,
beginning a flood mitigation project with the question of "Where should levees be placed?" leads to a
very different set of options and solutions than the question of "What flood mitigation projects should
be considered?". When defining the decision context is overlooked, the decision process begins with
assumptions about goals rather than a deliberate articulation. "Asking the right questions to define
context at the beginning of the decision-making process is essential to correctly defining the problem
and avoiding surprises" (http://dssresources.com/faq/).
Clarifying the decision context is critical because it allows for all aspects of the decision to be made
visible so that the work has the appropriate focus. This can decrease the likelihood of unintended social,
economic, or environmental outcomes (Bradley et al. 2015). Properly defining the decision context can
also help in identifying the needed resources and information and ensure important values and
participants in the process are not overlooked (Carriger and Benson 2012, Yee et al. 2017). The more
holistic and comprehensive approach up front also includes the expansion of the viewpoints and values
being considered.
Choosing a decision context has many aspects, and the relative importance of those aspects will shift
from decision to decision. Defining the end goals, however, is always a critical aspect of defining the
decision context because the end goals are particularly informative for determining what other aspects
are needed. To return to the flood mitigation project example, if the end goal is to assess all flood
mitigation options, defining the decision context will require substantially more information on a variety
of topics than it would if the end goal is to construct levees.
The number and complexity of decision context aspects means that defining the decision context can be
challenging. Gregory et al. (2012) gives a straight forward description of the decision context (the
question being addressed and its scope and bounds), but in application this covers an innumerable
range of components, both within and beyond control of the decision makers, including considerations
such as decision drivers, policy objectives, temporal and spatial scales, who needs to be involved, how
they need to be involved, roles and responsibilities of the decision team, and the financial and
regulatory aspects of the decision (http://www.structureddecisionmaking.orgi
http://dssresources.com/faq/ ). There are, however, several key aspects that should always be
examined to achieve a better understanding of the overlapping factors that influence decision options
and outcomes (Table 2.1). In this Section we will examine how these key aspects were addressed in the
six case study examples, how these key aspects led to the case study decision contexts, and how these
examples can help establish decision context in other similar situations.
33
-------
Take Home: Every decision begins with a context that informs subsequent decision
maker actions. Explicit upfront efforts to clarify the decision context increase
transparency and help clarify what other common elements are needed for a project.
2.2.1 Big picture drivers
Projects and decisions often have multiple drivers, but a big picture driver sets the stage for the decision
process. The big picture drivers may be programs, plans, or some other guidance that provides general
direction that guides the context. This is important because being clear about the big picture drivers can
help ensure specific decisions meet policy goals and are context relevant. Clearly articulating the
overarching drivers behind the project helps set the bounds for the additional aspects of the decision
context that need to be clarified.
Table 2.1 Key aspects of the decision context.
What else governs decisions?
Explanation
Big picture drivers
This is the big "why" this decision is
important
Intermediate drivers
Might be similar to big picture drivers, but
might be on a different time/spatial scale
Secondary or tangential drivers
The additional or co-occurring benefits of
the decision, but not the primary focus
Scale
Temporal and spatial boundaries
Scope
The boundaries of the decision
Resources
Financial, technical, personal resources
Authorities
Decision makers and implementation
bodies
Regulatory frameworks
Necessary permits or processes to be
followed
Our case studies provide several different examples of big picture drivers. Three of the case studies are
situated in National Estuary Program (NEP) sites (Mobile, Tillamook, and San Juan;
https://www.epa.gov/nep/overview-national-estuary-program). The NEPs develop Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans (CCMP) to articulate their priorities and vision for the estuaries.
The St. Louis River case study is part of the Areas of Concern program, and that work is centered on
restoring beneficial use in identified Areas of Concern. Less formal partnerships include local
agreements such as the Civic-Tribal agreements on decision making in the Southern Plains case study. In
all these case studies, the work must fit within the larger goals of these programs. The most straight-
forward big picture drivers are adherence to state/federal laws governing use of natural resources, such
as shellfish harvest rules for Tillamook Bay, or salmon management in Puget Sound, WA. Explicitly
identifying this is the first step in defining the decision context.
34
-------
<0
Take Home: Explicitly identifying big-picture drivers, the first step in defining the
decision context, helps set the boundaries of a decision involving an environment or
FEGS component.
2.2.2. Intermediate drivers
The intermediate drivers of the project may be similar or the same as the big picture drivers, but on a
different temporal or spatial scale. Where big picture drivers may work on a timescale of decades (i.e.,
the time it takes to implement a comprehensive plan), intermediate drivers may represent one project
or component of a comprehensive plan. Intermediate drivers can be explained as the "why right now"
for your decision context, as these often represent the urgent or timely need. For example, the big
picture driver in the St. Louis River AOC is to restore the beneficial uses of the ecosystem. To implement
this big picture driver, there are many individual projects remediate legacy sediment contamination and
habitat to restore habitat for fish and wildlife, improve aesthetics, ensure clean drinking water, and
address sediment or nutrient loading. More specifically, the habitat restoration at Grassy Point and
Kingsbury Bay along the St. Louis River is an example of an individual project that improved water and
sediment quality, improved ecological value and aesthetics, and will provide amenities for human use.
Clearly identifying the intermediate drivers of a decision, especially if they differ from the big picture
drivers, will help identify aspects of the decision context that need to be clarified up front. The goal of
habitat restoration, for example, would point to different information needs than a goal of sediment
remediation. Parsing out intermediate from big picture driver is important as the tendency is to move
directly to things like specifics of site restoration, but this needs to be linked to the big picture to have
the most impact. The NEP-focused case studies included both big picture and intermediate drivers in the
development of the CCMP, to capture both long and short-term goals for management. In the Oklahoma
small community case study formal tools (DASEES; Dyson et al. 2019) were used to fully parse out
drivers of water use in the community through focused stakeholder discussion and the development of
an objective hierarchy that seperated fundamental objectives (e.g., provide water to all users) from
means objectives (e.g., create a water use plan).
2.2.3 Secondary or tangential drivers
Many environmental projects provide benefits that could be considered by-products of the original
decision. Those benefits help to explain how society and the economy benefits from environmental
projects. For example, community and ecological revitalization after environmental clean-up could be
considered a benefit to communities. One example of these benefits would be the bike and walking
Take Home: Intermediate drivers of a decision are usually the easiest to identify. Clearly
identifying where they differ from big-picture drivers, helps identify aspects of the
decisions involving an environment or FEGS component.
35
-------
trails that have been constructed next to waterways where sediments have been remediated and
habitat has been restored as identified in the St. Louis River case study (Williams and Hoffman 2021).
The community case studies used different approaches to identify the secondary or tangential benefits
that would result from environmental projects. One of the lessons from the case studies is that the
benefits can best be part of project planning if stakeholders are aware of the possibilities. For example,
SDM tools like DASEES or HIA explore all the potential drivers of a decision as a way of engaging
stakeholders in the decision. In other case studies exploration of secondary outcomes, such as health
impacts (San Juan Puerto Rico), economic revitalization (St. Louis River), or improvement of wildlife
habitat (Mobile Bay, Tillamook Bay, Puget Sound) were specifically included in data collection or models
to inform decisions even when the decisions have well-defined primary drivers .
Being clear about secondary or tangential drivers allows more stakeholders to be deliberately included
in the decision process, while not necessarily letting them pull focus from the primary drivers of the
work. There is a balance to be struck between maximizing stakeholder inclusion and minimizing
decisional complexity. Using the right tools can help strike that balance while demonstrating targets of
opportunity for increasing the benefits from a decision.
Take Home: Being clear about secondary or tangential drivers allows more stakeholders
to be deliberately included in the decision process, while not necessarily letting them
pull focus from the intermediate drivers of the work and increases opportunities for
environmental benefits to be identified.
2.2.4 Scale
It is critical to be clear about both the temporal and spatial scales of the project. This includes the scales
on which the project itself is operating, as well as the ideal scales for the work in question. Clarity about
project lengths can help garner support for long-term projects (Wilson, 2016; Yee et al. 2017). It is
critical to acknowledge how much time and in what space is needed to achieve desired outcomes, as
well as any limitations of the work that can be done within the existing project scale. This clarification is
especially necessary when trying to match landscape-scale processes with more limited project scales.
For example, planning for water use in Oklahoma small communities means operating on two different
timescales. First, communities need to implement community-level infrastructure projects to manage
water use and accommodate economic development to serve their immediate needs. At the same time,
the communities have been engaged in long-term planning with other communities that draw on the
Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer to ensure water for future use. Similarly, the San Juan Puerto Rico case study
involves the integration of watershed-scale management and restoration activities with smaller-scale
health and environmental justice issues in individual neighborhoods prone to flooding. Defining the
decision contexed means deciding on the appropriate scale as a necessary boundary for the decision.
Take Home: It is critical to be clear about both temporal and spatial scales of a project
involving environmental benefits, including the scales on which a project itself is
operating, and the ideal scales for the work in question.
36
-------
2.2.5 Scope
It is important to clarify what decision factors fall within the scope of the project. Another way to think
about the scope of the project is the project boundaries. In this context, boundaries may be
programmatic or geographic. Much like scale, scope is often defined in practice by decision makers.
Examples from the case studies would indicate that this is one of the decision factors over which
decision makers have more control and provide insight for how to collaboratively determine the project
scope. For example, the scope for the habitat restoration and park improvements in the Kingsbury Bay-
Grassy Point (St. Louis River case study) habitat restoration provide an illustration of how project scopes
may appear to overlap. The project scope for the Minnesota DNR was the habitat restoration in the
project area including dredging, sediment transportation, capping, and island construction. After the
completion of the habitat restoration, the City of Duluth will undertake projects to provide access to the
newly restored habitat including constructing trails, fishing piers, and parking. There is no one best way
in practice to clarify project scopes. One case study described a process of workshops, phone calls, and
emails to organize projects. Another case study explained community members made decisions for their
own communities but were respectful to the collectively defined regional goals. One theme that
emerged from the case studies is that the decision makers often define the scope, and it is often closely
related to authority invested in the project or the decision makers. Scope should be clarified during the
decision process as it demonstrates areas for collaboration and integration of effort. Regulatory decision
making may have a rigidly defined scope, but it can be expanded through partnerships. A good example
of this is the NEP system active in three of the case studies, and the cooperative agreement that formed
the AOI focus in the St. Louis river case study.
Take Home: It is important to clarify what decision factors fall within the scope of a
project, ideally done during the decision process, to identify boundaries (e.g.,
programmatic, geographic, environmental benefit) and clearly identify areas for
collaboration and integration of effort among stakeholders.
2.2.6 Resources
Having a full understanding of the resources (i.e., financial, personnel, in kind, etc.) that are needed and
available is necessary to develop a realistic universe of project objectives and decision alternatives.
Resources may be closely related to other decision factors including scope, intermediate drivers, and
stakeholders. Resources are not only financial, and context should include any resource that may be
limiting and therefore can affect the context of the outcomes, such as technical, personnel, and in-kind
contributions.
The most often cited resources in the case studies include:
• Financial resources. Financial resources were mostly of two kinds - funds to plan and funds to
implement projects
• Technical resources included required data, contractors, modelling outputs
• Partnerships are also a resource and include governmental partners, universities,
nongovernmental organizations. They often provide in-kind resources such as meeting space,
administrative support, and supplies.
37
-------
Understanding available resources helps to organize decision processes as they encapsulate what you
can and cannot do, but they are also important opportunities for engaging others and creating collective
decisions.
Take Home: Understanding available resources helps to organize decision processes as
they encapsulate what you can and cannot do, but they are also important opportunities
for engaging others and creating collective decisions. Defining this aspect of the decision
context sets the stage for making sure that the alternatives being assessed, and the
tradeoffs being explored later in the decision process are transparent and well accepted.
2.2.7 Authorities
Authorities in a decision context are about power and responsibility - the individuals or organizations
with the authority to implement or interfere with any aspect of the project. This includes those involved
in the project team, as well as those who are not. Defining authorities can be complicated because many
environmental decisions face overlapping authority structures. In our case studies, authorities included
state agencies, local governments (i.e., city and county), USEPA Regional Offices, tribal governments,
and USEPA programs. Many of the case studies experienced overlapping authorities with jurisdiction in
the spaces they were working. For example, in the San Juan case study, NEP activities are conducted in
partnership and coordination with the government of Puerto Rico, local community groups, USEPA
Region 2, and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); often with different groups responsible for or
leading different aspects of a decision. A comprehensive understanding of authority will include both
who will make the decision, the roles of different authorities in the decision process, as well as who can
influence the decision.
Take Home: Defining a comprehensive look at authorities includes articulating who
makes the decision, who can influence the decision, and the roles of different authorities
in the decision process.
2.2.8 Regulatory framework
Authorities and regulatory frameworks are closely related. It is important to have an understanding of
any regulatory frameworks that will need to be navigated during the life of the project, especially those
that could limit actions taken. One of the most common interfaces with regulatory programs a decision
will face is permitting. Some questions to ask are 1) are there regulations to follow and 2) will the
project need permits. For example, the Tillamook Bay Estuary Partnership (TEP) is a non-profit
organization for the NEP. All NEP activities are directed toward attainment or maintenance of water
quality, which assures protection of public water and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and
allows recreational activities (US Code 1987). A regulatory framework may not be the only authority for
a decision, but it usually is the most obvious element and therefore represents a good starting place.
38
-------
Take Home: It is important to understand any regulatory frameworks that need to be
navigated during the life of a project, especially those that could limit options or actions.
2.2.9 Stakeholders
Stakeholders are crucial to the process of defining the decision context because they may be
collaborators, provide resources, or have technical or local knowledge. Alternatively, stakeholders can
oppose decisions. Involving as many stakeholders as possible ensures that decisions represent diverse
perspectives. For example, the three case studies associated with NEPs (Tillamook Bay, Mobile Bay, and
San Juan) prioritized stakeholder engagement from the beginning to better understand stakeholder
needs and concerns and to better communicate outcome value to the public. This approach of
leveraging partnerships for stakeholder engagement can be helpful to regulatory authorities who may
not have the resources to fully engage the public on their own. In a similar manner the Health Impacts
Assessment used in the St. Louis River case study and the DASEES tool used in the Oklahoma Small
Community case study both maximize stakeholder input and inclusion. Stakeholder identification and
the level of stakeholder involvement suitable for a particular decision context is always case specific, yet
all six case studies here formally engaged the public as part of efforts to support decision-making, which
suggests this is an important and useful element.
2.2.10 Conclusions
There are a variety of approaches for defining the decision context ranging from informal ad hoc scoping
discussions to methods and tools designed specifically for the task. No matter the approach, conceptual
models can help visualize cause and effect and other types of connections between aspects of the
decision, as well as helping decision makers visualize those elements holistically. Web-based tools such
as the EPA developed DASEES tool provide users with a suite of approaches for navigating the SDM
process beginning with scoping out the decision context (Yee et al. 2017). When formal tools are not
used or available, taking an iterative approach or collecting decision context information directly
through surveys or formal committees can be an effective way to ensure a broad perspective is being
taken at this step. The Mobile Bay Case Study used information from surveys and panel discussions to
develop its decision context and the St. Louis River Case Study developed a series of conceptual
pathways that were then verified by research teams assigned to each pathway. These tools are all highly
transferable between sites and issues so that they can be applied at other sites. Whatever approach
decision makers take, developing the decision context in a deliberate fashion at the beginning lays a
Take Home: Stakeholders are important in decisions and involving as many stakeholders
as possible ensures decisions represent diverse perspectives, including providing
technical and local environmental knowledge. The level of stakeholder involvement
suitable for a particular decision context is always case specific.
39
-------
solid foundation for the next steps in the implementation of a project. Once the decision context is
defined, the next steps in the decision framework are to define objectives within the decision context
and identify useful metrics connected to these decision objectives.
-------
2.3 Identify Objectives and Performance Measures (CE2)
Support for local decision making is most effective if the decision context is associated with clear
achievable objectives. For simple decisions, such as whether to build levees in a flood prone community,
the objective is self-evident (e.g., increase public safety). However, for more complicated, multi-faceted
decisions, objectives may cover a myriad of issues and have multi-faceted, even conflicting objectives.
The SDM process prioritizes defining clear, unambiguous objectives prior to assessment in a transparent
and inclusive manner (Yee et al. 2017). These objectives are broken into types starting with fundamental
objectives, but also including means, process, and strategic objectives. Taking the time to figure out
"what do we care about?", rather than jumping straight into "what should we do?" can be more time-
consuming but has the advantage of the decision options being dictated by the objectives rather than
the other way around. The SDM process also separates fundamental and the types of intermediate
objectives with the former linked directly to achieving broader community goals (e.g., increasing public
safety) and the latter being mechanistic mid-points that best measure if a particular action was
successfully implemented (e.g., levee reduces flooding). A structured stakeholder engagement process is
not always feasible and other options for defining objectives that should also be considered (Table 2.2).
Three ways we can evaluate options for defining objectives are inclusiveness of the process to
stakeholders, portability of the process across communities and issues, and objective effectiveness to
positively impact the community .
Table 2.2 Description of three categories for development of objectives and performance measures in
community case studies.
Objective process
Description
Stakeholder
Professional
Example case
engagement
engagement
studies
Stakeholder
Structured
Central element
Variable and
St. Louis River (HIA)
derived
stakeholder
involving a cross-
generally treated
Ok Small Comm.
engagement
section of
like stakeholders
(DASEES)
process beginning
stakeholders
with agreement on
affected by
objectives
targeted decisions
Expert derived
Engagement
Experts are the
Structured
Mobile Bay
process involving a
stakeholders
engagement
San Juan
focus on decisional
process of experts
St. Louis River
experts (e.g., water
for specific decision
quality - state
context
environmental
scientists)
Policy derived
Objectives set in
Experts consulted
Stakeholder
Tillamook Bay
internal policy
on implementation
involvement limited
Puget Sound
discussions typically
of policy
(e.g., public
associated with
comment)
legal standards
(e.g., Clean water
act)
41
-------
Like objectives, performance measures (PM) are an important element of the decision process.
Performance measures are most often used for assessment after decision implementation. Yet, any
decision (e.g., commitment of limited funds) that involves trade-offs can be informed with an accepted
measure of likely return on investment. The SDM process involves the development of PM directly from
established fundamental objectives (Yee et al. 2017). These PM can in turn be integrated into an
assessment as response variables for modeling or empirical data gathering. Well-selected PM are
measurable representations of objectives and effective in communicating change in an unambiguous
way. PM can also be inherited from the past, derived from assessment techniques, or simply chosen
based on the likelihood of changing in response to the action at hand, if they are representative of
fundamental objectives.
Generally, performance measures can effectively measure one of three things that can be referred to as
three Tiers of success for any decision. First Tier is that the decision was successfully implemented. In
the case of building levees, this might be a minimum length of levee wall constructed. Second Tier is that
the system responded adequately to the decision, such as number of flood events per year in levee-
protected areas is lower. The third Tier is that stated fundamental objectives for the decision were met,
such as number of claims for private flood insurance is lower. All three Tiers are meaningful measures of
change, but only the final Tier is tied to fundamental objectives and therefore can inform decision
making. The second Tier is the most common assessment tool and is frequently linked to means
objectives. The third Tier performance measures are necessary and important to outcome assessment
and useful for tying a decision to the fundamental objectives, and as a result are an important piece of
the overall SDM process for decision support.
This report covers use of the SDM-based decision support cycle with a focus on ecosystem services as an
assessment tool. This approach was described in detail in the Practical Strategies Report on ecosystem
services (Yee et al. 2017) and here we focus on objectives and PM used in six case study examples, but
with an SDM focus we are primarily interested in Tier 3 performance measures as they best inform
decision making. Three broad approaches were used for setting objectives and PM across the five case
studies (Table 2.2). First were stakeholder derived objectives established through some form of
stakeholder engagement. This approach is most aligned with the SDM process. Second, were expert
derived objectives and PM, which also require engagement, but limits input primarily to managers,
policy makers, and other experts on the focal issue. Finally, there was policy-derived objectives, which
requires limited direct public engagement but is dependent on legal requirements and/or previous
experience with similar issues in other places. The latter approach tends to be more PM based with
objectives being defined by values for chosen PM. All three approaches have strengths and weaknesses,
and this report will focus on the three standards of inclusiveness, transferability, and outcome for
community benefit.
Take Home: Objectives and performance measures should be linked and informative for
predicting outcomes. Different approaches for setting project objectives and
performance measures, each having strengths and weaknesses, may be used in decisions
involving environment or ecosystem services components.
42
-------
2.3.1 Stakeholder-derived objectives and performance measures
Stakeholder engagement to determine objectives and performance measures refers to an open process
that deliberately seeks a diverse suite of opinions and minimizes pre-conceived boundaries for
outcomes. This level of engagement can be time-consuming and usually involves specific effort to
achieve, independent of implementation or assessment. We have two examples of this approach in our
case studies. In the Oklahoma small community case study, the DASEES tool (Dyson et al. 2019) was
used to facilitate stakeholder engagement, which included a determination and prioritization of
objectives and associated PM. In the St. Louis River case study, a HIA (EPA 2021) was used to gather
community opinion of project objectives. In the latter case PM were derived largely from expert opinion,
but stakeholder objectives were used to determine project endpoints most likely to promote community
health.
OK Small Community Case Study
Define Objectives
Objective Preference
Objective Measures
I
What is your relative preference for Maximize water supply capacity
to support growth over Grow water cluster? [1 is no preference]
Grow water cluster:
Maximize treatment infrastructure to attract industry:
Maximize camping:
Build stakeholder consensus on water planning J
Ensure economically sustainable rural water supply •
Minimize infrastructure failure:
Minimize Aquifer to treatment plant supply side loss ¦
Minimize unmetered use •
Wastewater reuse for Industnal Purposes •
Wastewater irrigation on Golf Course •
Minimize impacts to other cities:
Minimize water supply source costs J
Maximize native riparian vegetation: river cane and black willow ¦
Minimize fish kills ¦
Minimize eutrophication:
Maximize Stormwater recharge •
Minimize flood impacts •
0 0.2 0.5 0.81
Weight
Cancel Objective Waghting
• Minimize long term (5-20 yr) O&M costs
• Ensure economically sustainable rural water supply
— CD Plan for the water future
0 Develop written plan for future water resource needs
+ NewM
Objective j
-------
feature of this approach as a wide diversity of interests needs to be represented. Facilitation of this
approach is also an important feature as development of objectives can be open-ended without some
guidance. Facilitators are familiar with the SDM process but also skilled in leading discussion and
maximizing stakeholder participation. In the Oklahoma Small Community case study, the effort occurred
in steps with personnel trained to use DASEES available at the beginning during the scoping phase. This
is the phase when objectives and performance measures are identified so these items were well fleshed
out. Later phases of the DASEES process involve quantifying PM and setting priorities, which might be
achievable with less facilitation. The DASEES approach is highly inclusive and has potential to provide a
higher level of benefit to the community assuming the results are integrated into the
decision/assessment process.
Table 2.3 Objectives and associated performance measures as determined from stakeholder
engagement with the DASEES tool in the Oklahoma Small Community case study
Objectives
Measures
Root Objective: Sufficient, safe, secure,
reliable and affordable source of water
1. Ensure effective stormwater
management
1.1. Minimize flood impacts
Flood Impacts on housing, loss of property, emergency
response ($; # families temporarily displaced; # people
permanently relocated)
1.2. Maximize stormwater re-use
Homeowner Onsite Stormwater Capture (# of Houses)
1.3. Maximize stormwater recharge
Stormwater recharge collection Areas (# of Collection
Areas)
2. Maximize lake water quality
2.1. Maximize clarity
Secchi depth (inches/feet)
2.2. Minimize eutrophication
Nutrient Inputs (mg/L)
2.3. Minimize sediment loading
Total Suspended Solids inputs mg/L
2.4. Minimize fish kills
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
3. Meet tribal concerns
3.1. Maximize large scale sustainability
Rationing duration (# of days); Rationing events (#/yr)
(22 counties in SE OK)
3.2. Maximize native riparian vegetation:
Riparian Vegetation (# of miles)
river cane and black willow
4. Maximize sustainable water supply
4.1. Maximize water system revenues
4.1.1. Maximize water revenues
Water Revenues from customers (M$/year
4.1.2. Minimize water supply source
Water Supply costs ($/1000g)
costs
4.2. Meet minimal stream flow
Pumped volume of water from Aquifer (Mgal/day)
4.3. Minimize impacts to other cities
Water Flow from Aquifer (Flow trigger) (gal/day-7-day
average)
44
-------
Objectives
Measures
4.4. Develop drought & emergency
Drought/Emergency response plan-Document
response plan
Completed (Y/N)
4.5. Maximize wastewater reuse
4.5.1. Meet golf course watering needs
4.5.1.1. Wastewater irrigation on Golf
Wastewater Reuse (Mgal/day)
Course
4.5.1.2. Onsite Rainwater capture for
Storm Water Capture on Golf Course (Mgal/day)
use on Golf Course
4.5.2. Maximize industrial reuse
4.5.2.1. Wastewater reuse for Industrial
Wastewater reuse substitution for Treated Water
Purposes
(Mgal/day)
4.5.2.2. Industrial Onsite rainwater
Onsite (Industrial) rainwater capture (Mgal/day)
Usage
5. Minimize cost
5.1. Minimize water loss
5.1.1. Minimize unmetered use
Monitor Unmetered Use (gal/day)
5.1.2. Minimize post treatment side
Post Treatment system Leakage (Mgal/day)
distributional loss
5.1.3. Minimize Aquifer to treatment
Supply side transport leakage (Mgal/day)
plant supply side loss
5.2. Minimize short term (1-4 yrs) O&M
O&M Costs - Per Year Costs ($)
costs
5.3. Minimize infrastructure failure
Water line Integrity Evaluation (miles/yr)
5.4. Minimize long term (5-20 yr) O&M
Long term O&M costs - Develop new supplies,
costs
efficiency use of current supplies (M$/yr)
5.5. Ensure economically sustainable rural
Rural water opportunity cost ($)
water supply
6. Develop a plan for the water future
Water Resource Development Plan - Document
Completed (Y/N)
7. Build stakeholder consensus on water
Futures Survey and Stakeholder meetings/engagement
planning
- Completed (Y/N)
8. Maximize quality of life
8.1. Meet residential watering needs
Residential Watering Opportunities (hrs./day)
8.2. Meet recreational water use
8.2.1. Maximize camping
Camping Nights (#/yr)
8.2.2. Maximize fishing
Fishing Usage Days (days/yr)
9. Maximize economic opportunity
9.1. Maximize treatment infrastructure to
Unused water treatment capacity available (Mgal/day)
attract industry
9.2. Maximize water supply capacity to
Unused Water Supply (Mgal/day)
support growth
9.3. Grow water cluster
Attract Water Project-based dollars (M$/yr)
45
-------
Take Home: Stakeholder derived performance measures, developed in a facilitated
workshop setting, can reflect community thinking about potential trade-offs among
beneficiary groups.
Another example of a structured tool for SDM is the Health Impacts Assessment (NRC 2011).
The HIA focuses specifically on objectives tied to health outcomes but like the DASEES tool allows for a
structured form of stakeholder engagement. In the St. Louis River case study, the HIA was used to
compliment an expert-derived opinion approach for setting objectives to broaden the scope of
alternative comparisons to consider health impacts on stakeholders. The case study concerns clean up
and restoration of impaired sites along the St. Louis River and the HIA was used to develop a causative
framework for health impacts that can be used to compare proposed alternative approaches to site
restoration that varied according to endpoint design of the restoration effort. Focal objectives
considered in the HIA were recreational access, aesthetics, and cultural use endpoints and the
restoration alternatives were ultimately evaluated based on the PM impacts of differences in the
restoration process and the amount of woody debris left at the site. These PM are in addition to other
more intermediate PM developed using expert judgement and reviewed in the next sub-section (2.3.3.
Expert-derived Objectives). The outcome distinction between HIA metrics and more traditional metrics
is that woody debris left at the site had less impact on the intermediate metrics than it did on HIA
metrics, particularly for aesthetics and recreational use (EPA 2021, Appendix D). The application of a
hybrid approach to development of objectives and PM is an example of how means and fundamental
objectives can be effectively combined for decision assessment, particularly in cases where established
PM are used and new, broader PM are being proposed (i.e., HIA). The HIA involved multiple stakeholder
engagement exercises combined with literature review and weight of evidence evaluation of pathways
from proposed restoration plans to impact on human health. Health objectives were identified, as well
as proposed evaluation tools that could be used as performance measures for health impacts. Health
related PM are both more complicated to measure and take longer to show a response to restoration
improvements. For example, the HIA identified multiple health objectives of improvements in water
quality including reductions in consumption risk of fish caught in the St. Louis River. The PMs for this
objective are changes in toxicity levels in fish tissue, a reduction in fish consumption advisories, and
improved angler perception of fish quality (EPA 2021). All three of which might take multiple years post
restoration to show a measurable change. These PM are Tier 3 indicators, and this case study is a good
example of mixing longer term PM from the HIA with shorter term Tier 1 and 2 measures adapted from
existing expert judgement (Table 2.4). This hybrid approach is both inclusive and portable given the
resources to conduct an HIA. Potential benefit to stakeholders is also high but dependent on the use of
results later in the decision cycle .
46
-------
Table 2.4 Example table of Tier 1 and 2 performance measures used for the St. Louis River case study.
Details include current condition value, a minimum reference threshold value, and the associated
Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI; BUI 4 is Degradation of Benthos, BUI 9 is Loss of Fish and Wildlife
Habitat). Metrics cover vegetation status (aquatic macrophyte coverage, floristic quality, acres with
invasive narrowleaf cattail and Phragmites), benthic organism condition (benthic index, species richness,
pore water quality (ammonia, biological oxygen demand [BOD]), shoreline condition (riparian
connectivity), sawmill waste removal (wood waste acres overall and wood waste left in open waters),
and sediment quality (numeric sediment quality targets [SQ.T], including level 1 (provides high level of
protection for benthic organisms) and level 2 (provides moderate level of protection for benthic
organisms).
BUI Metric
Existing
Condition
Reference Value
Threshold
Primary BUI
Association
Macrophyte coverage, %
34
60-80
4,9
Floristic Quality Index
1.1
>7.0
4,9
Narrowleaf cattail monoculture, acres
36.8
13.4
9
Non-native Phragmites monoculture, acres
1.3
0
9
Benthic index
0.51
0.44
4
Benthic species richness
18
17
4
Pore water Ammonia, mg/L
5.2-8.3
<1.9
4,9
Pore water BOD, mg/L
166
<45
4,9
Riparian connectivity, %
~30
>84
9
Wood waste, acres
~60
<5 in open water
4,9
Mill waste within impaired area sediment,
%
>80
<25
4,9
>SQT 1 - < SQT 2 surficial, acres
(0-50 cm; mercury, PAHs)
118
Cover
4
Area >SQT 2 surficial, acres
(0-50 cm; lead, dioxins)
8.1
Cover
4
Take Home: Stakeholder-derived objectives and performance measures are generally
more inclusive but require more effort and engagement to focus and organize the
results. Engagement tools such as DASEES and HIA provide the best approach for
stakeholder engagement on complex environmental decisions. Use of these tools can be
combined with existing expert- or policy derived objectives and performance measures
to make maximum use of existing information .
2.3.3 Expert-derived objectives
Expert-derived objectives and performance measures are chosen primarily based on the more problem-
focused perspective of those directly engaged in the decision-making process. The pool of experts will
certainly contain stakeholders but will not necessarily include the full suite of interests within the
community. In some cases, expert-derived objectives may reflect stakeholder engagement in the past,
but the 'filter' of expert opinion tends to result in a streamlined set of objectives. Expert opinion also
47
-------
tends to be PM focused. Three examples of an expert-derived suite of objectives were identified in our
case study sites. In Mobile Bay and San Juan Bay the influence of the National Estuary Programs was
observed to create a suite of objectives in-line with each program's Comprehensive Coastal
Management Plan (CCMP, e.g., www.tbnep.org/comprehensive-conservation-and-management-
plan.php). In both cases, solicitation of expert opinion resembled an SDM-type stakeholder engagement
process but did not target the full community. Rather, the management community was strongly
engaged through the NEP hierarchy.
Take Home: Expert-derived objectives and performance measures may not necessarily
include a full suite of interests within a community but are helpful in deriving
streamlined of objectives and performance measures for a decision. Solicitation of
opinions from experts on the environment or ecosystem services improve the potential
for capturing human benefits.
Expert opinion in two of the case studies originated from the National Estuary Program effort to engage
local experts. In the Mobile Bay case study objectives were derived from both the Mobile Bay CCMP
(MBNEP 2019) and the D'Olive WMP (Figure 2.3). From the CCMP, stated objectives were to improve
watershed stream quality, restore ecosystem function, and improve human connections to the
Monitored
site
Average
discharge
(cfs1)
Average
discharge
duration
(minutes)
Average
turbidity
(NTU)
Maximum
turbidity
(NTU)
Average
TSS
(mg L)
Maximum
TSS
(mg/L)
Estimated suspended
sediment load
lbs min
t/yr
t/mr yr
JB1—Pre
4.8
115
166
369
719
5.850
5.74
JB1—Post
9.5
725
262
948
536
1.350
7.2
53.6s
JB6—Pre
13.6
1651
4.292
6.280
93.276
341.000
1.840
.TB6—Post
6.4
, 7
ii a~
349
863
370
805
516
34.7
JB7—Pre
4.9
11 a3
797
3.640
4.061
20.000
18.236
82.8907
JB7—Post
2.4
n a3
150
490
263
747
1.034
4.700
Discharge at site JB6 was intermittent during the pre-restoration monitoring period
"Discharge at site JB6 was perennial during the post-restoration monitoring period
"'Discharge at site JB7 was perennial during the pre- and post-restoration monitoring periods
4pounds per minute
5tons per year
^Sediment load estimated for discharge greater than base flow
tons per square mile per year
Figure 2.3 Summary of performance measures for restoration work in Mobile Bay case study site -
D'Olive creek. Reproduced from D'Olive restoration report
https://www.mobilebaynep.com/watersheds/dolive-watershed
watershed. Performance metrics for these objectives included legal standards like delisting of streams
from 303d impaired status under the Clean Water Act (US Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000), but
generally lacked specifically for ecosystem function and human connections. The D'Olive WMP
objectives included improved water quality in targeted streams, increased naturalness of streams, and
reduced stormwater impacts, such as bank erosion and turbidity from heavy stormwater flow. As with
the CCMP objectives, the clearest PM were water quality parameters taken from existing metrics (e.g.,
48
-------
turbidity), while PM for naturalness and stormwater impacts were more qualitative, such as flow
calming effects during storm events as measured by flow gauges put in place specifically for restoration
assessment (www.mobilebaynep.com/assets/pdf/DOIive-Final-Report-Full.pdf). Model-based
assessments were included post-restoration to include ecosystem services related to the latter two
objectives, such as ground water storage capacity and carbon and nitrogen sequestration (Fulford et al.
2022). The intent was to apply alternative techniques to post-restoration data gathering to broaden the
available PM to include all stated objectives. NEP objective development was through a committee
structure of local expert stakeholders combined with contract consultants working on the specific
restoration projects. Primary PM were developed as a part of the project development process.
Secondary PM based on ecosystem services were developed during the model development process but
reflected NEP objectives to improve stakeholder awareness of project benefits. Models increase
portability of the outcomes between sites because they come from work in other watersheds (Russell et
al. 2015) .
The NEP organization of experts was also important in the San Juan Puerto Rico case study. The SJNEP
CCMP (estuario.org/plan-integral-de-manejo-y-conservacion-del-estuario-de-la-bahia-de-san-juan-
ccmp/) includes developed objectives and PM for protecting the integrity of the San Juan Bay estuary.
Case study researchers initially developed objective hierarchies (Figure 2.4) based on reviewing
objectives as described in the San Juan Bay Estuary CCMP. Additional objectives were derived from
other existing management and planning documents, using a Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response
(DPSIR) framework (Bradley et al. 2015) to help identify means objectives as Responses (R) to modify
Drivers (D) or alleviate Pressures (P) and fundamental objectives as important components of ecosystem
state (S) or Impacts (I) to human health and well-being. Because the origins of the objectives in this case
study were existing management documents, we classify this effort as being based on expert opinion.
49
-------
Maximize Ecological Integrity
£
Minimize Water Quality
Degradation
Maximize:
• Groundwaterquality/quantity
• Sediment quality
• Natural hydrology and flow
¦ Riparian buffers
Minimize:
• Toxics
¦ Pesticides
¦ Household chemicals
• Nutrients
¦ Atmospheric deposition
• Pathogens
¦ £. coli
• 'Other anthropogenic
contaminants
¦ Petroleum hydrocarbons
• Thermal pollution
* Trash/debris
• Sedimentation
• Eutrophication/Algal blooms
• Hypoxia/Low dissolved
oxygen
• Hydrolagic modifications
San Juan Bay
Maximize Habitat
Quality/Quantity
Maximize:
¦ Natural habitats
• Wetlands
• Submerged aquatic
vegetation
* Upland forests
• Mangroves
* Corals
¦ Water quality/quantity
¦ Sediment quality
Minimize:
¦ Loss
• Fragmentation
¦ Dredging
* Bulkheading/diking
» Unsustainable land
use
• Environmental degradation
• Erosion
» Scarring/laceration
* Turbidity
* Saltwater discharge
Maximize Living
Resources
Maximize Social Benefits
Maximize:
• El io diversity
• Habitat quality/quantity
• Nesting/nursery
* Endangered/threatened
species
• Sea turtles
• Manatees
• Birds
• 'Desirable" species
¦ Fish
• Shellfish
• Birds
• Vegetation
* Water quality/quantity
* Sediment quality
Minimize:
* Environmental degradation
• Resource degradation
¦ Diseases
• Impingement
¦ Invasive species
£
Maximize Beneficial
Uses for the Public
Maximize:
• Recreational potential
¦ Fish in g/Sh ellfish in g
• Boating
• Outdoor activities
¦ Open access
¦ Heritage
• Fishing/harbor
businesses
• Aesthetics
• Native species
• Living resources
• Fisheries
• Biodiversity
Minimize:
• Closures
¦ Beaches
• Harvesting areas
Minimize Public Health
Threats
Maximize:
• Drinking water
quality/quantity
• Natural hazard protection
* Floods
• Storms
• Sediment quality
• Access to safe housing
Minimize:
• Adverse effects fro m
pathogenic contamination
¦ Ad verse effects fro m
seafood contamination
¦ Adverse effects fro m
su rfa ce w ater/sediment
contact
Figure 2.4 Objective hierarchy developed by case study researchers based on reviewing the SJBE CCMP for San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico, Only
Ecological and Social objectives shown for example.
50
-------
Performance measures in the San Juan case study were identified by leveraging expert opinion on
measurable components of ecosystem state and identifying measurable impacts to ecosystem services
and human well-being. Example sources for metrics were the Human Well-being Index (HWBI; Smith et
al. 2013), the FEGS Classification System (Boyd et al. 2016), and the EPA' Eco-Health Relationship
Browser (http://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas). Weight of evidence approaches were used to identify
linkages between environmental and human health endpoints, and to prioritize which health-related
objectives were most likely to respond to environmental decisions or where more information was
needed to reduce uncertainty in relationships (de Jesus-Crespo and Fulford 2018; e.g., Box 2.1). This
case study involved a general comparison of FEGS across NEP sites (Yee et al. 2019) and metrics of
human well-being across the United States (Orlando et al. 2016), so has a large potential for
transferability.
Box 2. 1. Causal criteria analysis (de Jesus-Crespo and Fulford 2018) is a weight of evidence
method for combining scientific evidence for EGS-health links when direct study is too
complicated to provide a clear picture. The figure shows weight of evidence both for and
against a given EGS-health link with greater weight placed on designed studies. This can be
viewed as formalized expert opinion in the prioritization of objectives and performance
measures. (Image taken from de Jesus-Crespo and Fulford 2018)
Green Spaces-Clean Air
Green Spaces-Clean Water
Heat Hazard Mitigation-Heat Morbidities
Water Hazard Mitigation-GI Disease
—
Green Spaces-CVD
Green Spaces-GI Disease
-300-250-200-150-100-50 0 50 100150 200 250 300 350
¦ Weight of Evidence not in Favor ¦ Weight Evidence in Favor
In St. Louis River case study, expert opinion was derived through existing restoration authority and the
state DNR. As mentioned above, this site also employed a stakeholder engagement process to support
the expert-derived process, but this was secondary, so the St. Louis River objectives and PM are
considered to be primarily expert-derived and related to adherence to legislative standards such as the
Clean Water Act (Table 2.4). The state of Minnesota has developed two multimetric indices used in this
case study: The macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity (MPCA 2014 a&b), and the floristic index
(Bourdaghs et al. 2006). Together these indices measure habitat quality based on biotic response to
change which is a structural/functional approach to measuring outcomes. In the short term they both
51
-------
reflect structural changes in the restored system, but over time these indices reflect functional
improvement through diversity and abundance of preferred species. The development of these indices
was a statewide effort based on spatial differences in aquatic habitat (Bourdaghs et al. 2006; MPCA
2014 a&b). As such they represent a nominal PM for aquatic habitat statewide to meet designated use
criteria under the Clean Water Act and more importantly have clear management thresholds that can be
used in an SDM framework to guide decision making .
Take Home: A suite of objectives taken from management plans can be used to generate
pre-project performance measures related to addressing regulatory and programmatic
goals. These objectives can be supplemented with the use of expert opinion. Once a
comprehensive list of relevant performance measures is identified, various approaches
(e.g., individual analyses; weight-of-evidence analyses) and efforts are needed to predict
measurable impacts of a project to ecosystem services and human well-being. This is a
process of converting Tier 1 and 2 PM into Tier 3 PM for the purpose of informing
decision making .
2.3.4 Policy-derived objectives
There is no clear line regarding policy and solicitation of expert opinion, however in many cases
objectives are well-established, even codified to the point that further adaptation is not a part of current
analysis of trade-offs. Examples of this situation often involve heavily managed activities such as
resource extraction and/or trade-offs among such activities. Well-defined policy objectives are the result
of extensive study and there is benefit in stability as it allows for a focus on comparing alternatives as
opposed to defining objectives. The best-case study examples of this approach are the Tillamook Bay
and Puget Sound cases studies, which focused on balance between watershed forestry management
and habitat quality for aquatic resources (e.g., salmon and shellfish) within the target waterbody.
Overall objectives were to maximize shellfish and salmon population sustainability while allowing for
watershed development that impacts aquatic habitat through nutrient and sediment delivery into the
Bays. Objectives in both cases come directly from state resource management plans. Additional input
was also derived from relevant partners, such as the Tillamook Bay NEP, for overall estuary health, but
the focus of both case studies was a model-based assessment centered on existing management
objectives. The combination of policy derived objectives with model-based estimates of associated
performance measures is a well-developed tool for informing decisions.
A good example of combining policy objectives with model-based estimates comes from a habitat
suitability analysis in Tillamook Bay. The key ecosystem service examined here was fishery sustainability
for harvested crab species, such as Cancer magister, and clam species, such as Clinocardium nuttallii
(Lewis et al. 2019, Lewis et al. 2020). The Tillamook estuary is a known nursery ground, so protection
and restoration of crab nursery habitat is a key objective in this system. Subobjectives include
maximizing vegetative coverage and reducing water quality impairment caused by excess nutrients and
E. coli (Zimmer-Faust et al. 2018) entering from the landscape. Predetermined PM for these objectives
were easily identified as measures of vegetative coverage, as well as nutrient and E. coli concentrations
particularly associated with storm events. Policy derived objectives and PM make this element of SDM
straight forward and the focus of this case study was on the estimation phase discussed in Section 2.3.
52
-------
A more complicated example of combining policy-derived objectives with model-based PM can be
found in Puget Sound, where the focus is a management trade-off between two extractive ecosystem
services: forest harvest and salmon production. Both services include the objective of maximizing
sustainability of production. The PM for this linked decision were straightforward and well-defined
involving salmon habitat quality and amount of forest products produced. A more complex model was
needed to estimate outcomes as links between forest practice and salmon production had to be
examined in a way that made them comparable (McKane et al. 2020). Policy-derived objectives and
associated performance measures are easy to understand, but also limited to Tier 1 or 2 as defined at
the beginning of Section 2.3 so not as useful for guiding a decision without the addition of predictive
tools such as models. This will be addressed in detail in Section 2.5 .
Take Home: Well-defined and established policy objectives have a benefit in terms of
creating stability, allowing for a focus on comparing alternatives as opposed to defining
• ! j objectives, and can be relevant in examining environmental management tradeoffs in
heavily managed activities. Policy-based objectives and performance measures require
historical data or model-based predictions to inform decisions. Optimally, policy-based
thresholds for PM are also defined to better characterize change in the context of the
decision.
2.3.5 Conclusions
Development of objectives and corresponding PM are the link between decision context and assessment
of decisional consequences. All three approaches described here are valid and capitalize on existing
needs and resources. In cases where stakeholder engagement is possible this represents the most
comprehensive method for objective development. Expert derived objectives are the most common
choice and often parallel stakeholder priorities. Yet expert opinion tends to focus on the big picture and
may miss important ancillary interests among stakeholders. Policy derived objectives are the most
focused on the problem at hand (e.g., forestry impacts on shellfish) and are more useful for a technical
analysis of the issue. They also are the least flexible and most likely to overlook objectives not directly
related to the analysis at hand (e.g., aesthetics, coastal recreation). Even if a policy- or expert-derived
approach is used, a stakeholder engagement exercise can help increase transparency and inclusiveness
by allowing for an open discussion of why particular objectives were used. A stakeholder engagement
process for development of objectives is also highly portable as demonstrated using SDM in multiple
case studies.
Performance measures should be associated with objectives and not be chosen based on convenience.
Three levels of PM exist for any issue and most restoration projects focus on reporting measures of
completion (Tier 1) and measures of response (Tier 2), while limiting use of PM measuring achievement
of fundamental objectives (Tier 3). This is a natural result of a focus on assessment rather than decision
53
-------
making and not having clear fundamental objectives at the onset of the action. It is important to
remember that PM tied to fundamental objectives (Tier 3) can be used for assessment post-action but
can also inform decisions which is a central element of the SDM process. Whether or not monitoring
extends long enough to measure achievement of fundamental objectives, they should have defined PM
to support decision making. Finally, Tier 3 performance measures are highly transferable among
locations and issues as the associated fundamental objectives (e.g., increase public safety) tend to be
more consistent through time and space than more specific issue-associated objectives (e.g., reduce
turbidity).
Photo: This spot on a small estuary in Rhode Island is popular with boaters and recreational anglers
but is especially popular with kayakers and standup paddleboarders. Define objectives and
performance measures based on beneficial use. (Photo credit: W. Berry),
54
-------
2.4 Developing decision alternatives (CE3)
Decision alternatives are an important part of decision making and allow for multiple points of view.
Alternatives must be clearly stated and connected to O&PM to be effective. The basic alternative for any
decision is whether to act or not, but more complex considerations are frequently at least implicitly
considered. Formal stakeholder engagement often leads to a suite of alternatives for comparison that
may consider multiple points of view about the final objectives. For example, flood protection for a river
community will often involve building levees, however a closer examination might yield multiple
alternatives for levy design that vary in terms of recreational access to the river or use of land adjacent
to the levy. Multiple potential alternatives can be compared simultaneously based on how they are
predicted to change selected performance measures. A key consideration for the development of useful
alternatives is the process by which those alternatives are developed, especially with regards to the
project objectives and stakeholder input. In this Section, the development of alternatives in the six case
studies will be examined with a focus on how they were developed and the transferability of these
alternatives to other sites and issues.
2.4.1 Methods for choosing alternatives
Four of the case studies conducted either a formal or informal analysis of alternatives (Table 2.5). An
alternative can refer to a project design, a decision about where to conduct management activities, or a
set of management actions. By formal alternatives analysis, we mean that distinct, competing (albeit not
necessarily mutually exclusive) proposals were developed and compared prior to any decision. The
comparison among alternatives was made using the same set of criteria to evaluate trade-offs between
adopting one alternative compared to another. By informal alternatives analysis, we mean that
additions or subtractions to an existing proposal were considered by decision-makers at one or more
times during the decision-making process. These informal alternatives were not necessarily considered
as competing proposals or subject to the same criteria. For example, in the Mobile Bay case study, as
part of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) development, the scientific
advisory committee in consultation with stakeholders made determinations of priority watersheds and
the sequencing of work among watersheds. These decisions were revisited intermittently as work
progressed. Such a process informally evaluates the options as the program progresses. In the Tillamook
Bay case study, the goal was to improve bivalve stock assessment methodology by considering spatial
additions or subtractions to the design as informal alternatives. In contrast, in the St. Louis River case
study, during the design phase, three competing restoration designs were formally considered based on
common criteria relating to overall ecological impact and ecosystem services to be provided. A final
design was chosen based on the trade-off analysis that was conducted. Also, the two approaches can be
combined. For example, in the St. Louis River case study, at the same time the three formal alternatives
were being evaluated, stakeholders and community members were offering project recommendations
to add or subtract elements. Note that the agency that was undertaking the restoration was involved in
both alternative analyses and integrated the two analyses through the project design.
55
-------
Table 2.5 Description of alternative form, approach for identifying, comparing alternatives, and stakeholder engagement for five* case
studies.
Case Study
Alternative
Alternatives
Approach for Identifying
Approach for
Stakeholder Engagement
Form
Considered
Alternatives
Comparing
Alternatives
Mobile Bay
Informal
Which watershed to
Consultation with CCMP
CCMP deliberations,
Engagement conducted with city
conduct work
scientific advisory
committee and
stakeholders
project scheduling, bid
process
and county officials, academic
partners; held public meetings
Oklahoma
Formal
Management
Consultation with
Decision Analysis for a
Representative group of
small
scenarios (groups of
stakeholders
Sustainable
stakeholders participating in
community
management
options)
Environment,
Economy, and Society
(DASEES)
decision-support process (via
DASEES)
Tillamook
Informal
Determine most
Consultation with state
Ecological models
Model development and analysis
Bay
suitable locations
for shellfish culture
and harvest
management agencies
(Habitat suitability)
with state management agencies
Puget Sound
Informal
Alternative forest
Consultation with state,
Ecological model
Model development and analysis
watershed
tribal, and community
(VELMA)
with state, tribal, and community
management plans
partners
partners
St. Louis
Formal
Competing wetland
Introduced by
Health Impact
Stage agency participating as a
River
restoration designs
management agencies
Assessment (HIA)
partner in the HIA
St. Louis
Informal
Recommendations
Consultation with
Health Impact
Stakeholders and community
River
to add or subtract
actions to the
project
stakeholders and
community partners
Assessment (HIA)
members participating in
decision-support process (via
HIA)
*San Juan case study did not include the formal development of decision alternatives, but instead looked more generally at
understanding relationships between means objectives (e.g., reducing urban runoff, changing land use/landcover) and fundamental
objectives (e.g
;., ecosystem services and human well-being) that inform decision alternatives.
56
-------
The alternatives were identified through diverse approaches, ranging from direct consultation to the
application of formal decision-support tools (Table 2.5). In the Tillamook Bay case study, alternatives
were developed in direct consultation with state management agencies to meet their needs for
information about shellfish habitat. Similarly, in the Puget Sound case study, alternatives were
developed in direct consultation with state, tribal, and community partners, and the alternatives
development was informed through research with an existing ecological model. In the Mobile Bay case
study, alternatives were developed as part of the CCMP writing process involving stakeholder
committees. In the St. Louis River case study, the formal alternatives were developed by state agencies
through direct consultation whereas the informal alternatives were developed by stakeholders and
community members through an associated HIA (EPA 2021). The Oklahoma Small Community case study
also used a formal SDM approach, DASEES, to consider and develop alternatives. All case study leads
agreed that these processes were readily transferred to other similar settings and primarily differed by
what type of stakeholders and how many were consulted.
Take Home: Choosing decision alternatives should follow a deliberate process. The use
of formal, informal, or mixed approaches to defining alternatives, whether decision
support models and tools are used or not, is relevant across a range of decision contexts
for projects involving decisions with environment benefits. Alternatives considered
should be well-aligned with stated objectives for the decision.
2.4.2 Approaches to prioritizing or ranking alternatives
As with the development of alternatives, the ranking or prioritizing of alternatives was completed using
a diversity of approaches (Table 2.5). In the Mobile Bay case study, the informal alternatives were
prioritized through deliberations among the management partners, considering both management
objectives and logistical considerations such as project scheduling and bid process. In the Puget Sound
case study, alternatives were compared using the ecological model (VELMA) and prioritized based on
comparing the model outputs to management goals (e.g., improved habitat, water quality, cultural
benefits). In the St. Louis River case study, the HIA was used to evaluate and rank both formal and
informal alternatives, which meant that all alternatives were evaluated using similar information and
criteria. The ranking of formal alternatives was completed by the technical team leading the HIA and
occurred by comparing the overall health outcomes of each restoration design. Within the approach,
the connection between ecological change and health was made through application of ecosystem
service models, which can be used to contrast anticipated future state of the system based on the
alternative (e.g., Table 2.6). In contrast, the ranking of informal alternatives (which were identified as
"recommendations" within the HIA) was completed by both stakeholders and community members and
was done by voting for preferred actions. In the Oklahoma Small Community case study, DASEES was
chosen as the approach for evaluating and ranking alternatives. Here, alternatives are a collection of
options grouped into management scenarios. A consequence table is developed that shows a visual
comparison of the outcomes of the management scenarios with respect to the management objectives.
Preference weighting of the management objectives is then used to rank or prioritize the management
scenarios. More detail on comparing alternatives is provided in Section 2.6.
57
-------
Among the case studies, several factors were considered important to success during the identification
and evaluation of alternatives. For the Tillamook Bay case study, having existing, widely supported
management plans (e.g., a CCMP) and good relationships with partners, especially partners with a
strong comprehension of the decision-context, were deemed important by project participants. For the
Puget Sound case study, technology transfer was important for success because it was at times
necessary that partner agencies or stakeholders have the information and skills to operate the
ecological model used to identify and evaluate alternatives. In the Oklahoma case study, success was
dependent on organizing a representative group of stakeholders to increase the diversity and creativity
of alternatives. Similarly, broad stakeholder and community engagement was important in the St. Louis
River case study to meet the principles of HIA, which are designed to achieve trust, transparency, equity,
and knowledge exchange within the community.
Table 2.6 Example of trade off analysis associated with the St. Louis River case study, (modified from
Hoffman and Angradi 2019). The trade-off analysis compares the status quo (Alt 1) to three different
project alternatives, including retaining a railroad causeway through the restoration site, converting
the rails use to a trail (rail to trail), or removing the causeway. The analysis is based on ecosystem
services providing areas or ecosystem service proxies. The cells are color coded to help indicate
relative change from current condition among alternatives: yellow = less than a 30% change from
current conditions; blue = at least a 30% increase from current conditions; red = at least a 30%
decrease from current conditions.
Ecosystem Service (units)
Cu rrent
Retain Rail,
Rail to Trail,
Remove
Condition
North Opening,
North Opening,
Causeway,
(Alt 1)
Bay Mouth Bar
Bay Mouth Bar
North Opening,
(Alt 2)
(Alt 3)
Bay Mouth Bar
(Alt 4)
Highly-sheltered bay (acres)
23.4
30.9
30.9
Fill in public waters (lineal feet)
4894
4782
4782
3067
Protected shoreline (lineal feet)
4379
4107
4107
High density submerged aquatic
vegetation (acres)
75.9
79.3
79.3
73.3
>50% likelihood of floating leaf
vegetation occurrence (acres)
42.2
57.9
57.9
Power boating (acres)
75.9
75.9
75.9
:
L10.9
Human-power boating (acres)
129.7
129.7
173.4
184.0
Gamefish spawning (acres)
75.7
78.9
78.9
72.9
Designated shore fishing (acres)
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.2
Boat/ice fishing (acres)
144.6
149.2
149.2
160.6
58
-------
Choosing and ranking alternatives is tied to accepted objectives, and alternatives can be broad or
proscribed according to the diversity of these objectives. All cases studies began with the simple
alternative to act or not within the chosen decision context, and the range of approaches in the case
studies for expanding the list of alternatives reflects the range of methods used to define objectives. The
utility of an approach for defining alternatives will be maximized if it matches the diversity of objectives
under consideration. Offering insight into how an approach for defining alternatives is chosen so that it
aligns with project objectives should be a high priority for transferring these techniques to other similar
sites.
Photo of community meeting gathering community feedback on proposed alternatives via participatory
mapping (credit EPA)
2.4.3 Stakeholder and community engagement
Stakeholders can be informed of decision alternatives, consulted in their development, and even
engaged to assess and prioritize. In the cases studies, the form and breadth of stakeholder and
community engagement was related to the approach chosen for identifying and evaluating alternatives
(Table 2.5). Two of the case studies used decision-support tools that relied on extensive engagement
(Oklahoma Small Community case study - DASEES, St. Louis River case study -HIA), including working
through the entire decision-making process with a diverse group of stakeholders and partner
management agency representatives. Both these tools emphasize two-way communication with
stakeholders, and so require additional communication support both to document stakeholder input
and share the documentation with stakeholders to ensure accuracy. To develop trust with the
community, in the Mobile Bay case study, engagement included interactions with city and county
officials and academic partners, as well as conducting open public meetings to discuss and present
management objectives, alternatives, and priorities. The other two case studies relied on consultation
with stakeholders and management agencies that were already engaged in the management plan (as
59
-------
with a CCMP) or decision-making process. The former involves standing, long-term engagement
activities and the latter is more short-term engagement focused on a particular decision .
Take Home: Identifying and ranking decision alternatives is an effective way to engage
stakeholders and communicate reasons for decision outcomes. The form and breadth of
stakeholder and community engagement is strongly related to the approach chosen for
identifying and evaluating alternatives. Emphasizing two-way communication with
stakeholders involves additional investment in effort and helps develop trust with the
community.
2.4.4 Conclusions
Decision alternatives can be simple or detailed according to the specific needs of the action under
consideration. Similarly, how alternatives are ranked and compared can be formal or informal based on
need and resources. The six case studies spanned the range of options including Tillamook Bay which
addressed the pre-determined alternative of status quo vs. the use of models to inform shellfish
management. At the other end of the spectrum, there were case studies that used a formal
development process for alternatives usually involving application of a formal tool like DASEES to guide
the process. Several consistent outcomes of alternative development were evident across the case
studies. First, stakeholder engagement is an important element in alternative development. Any action
has the implicit alternatives of "act" or "don't act" and stakeholder input will be a valuable tool for
moving beyond this binary question to consider the most beneficial way to invest valuable resources.
Second is that connecting alternatives to the full list of stated objectives is important for remaining
consistent to the SDM process. It is easy to develop a set of objectives but then focus on only a few in
defining alternatives, which leads to predetermined outcomes and disenfranchised stakeholders. It is
optimal to be comprehensive at this stage and leave evaluation to the trade-off process described in
section 2.6. Finally, the alternatives must be measurable to be comparable so make sure performance
measures are chosen that align with all the alternatives (quantitative and qualitative) as in Table 2.6. The
most transferable approach will be the formal process included in tools like DASEES that also maximize
stakeholder engagement, but the most useful approach for any new site will be the case study most
closely matched to this new issue or context. Once alternatives are agreed upon, the next step is the
process of determining outcomes for evaluation. This involves the chosen performance measures and
some formal process of considering success in meeting objectives under each alternative. The
information needed for this process is obtained through the evaluation of consequences for each
alternative and is the subject of the next section.
60
-------
61
-------
2.5 Estimating Consequences (CE4)
Once objectives, PM, and decision alternatives have been defined for a case study, the next step is to
develop estimates of decision consequences so that the proposed alternatives can be effectively
compared. As with the prior steps, the approach and complexity of estimating consequences should be
tailored to the circumstances and the objective at hand. This section describes the processes of
estimating and reporting consequences of case study decision alternatives outlined in Section 2.4.
Consequences as direct estimable outcomes of defined decision alternatives are the primary focus.
Methods used to estimate consequences varied across the six case studies, owing to the wide range of
environmental, social, and economic conditions and stakeholder priorities encountered. We discuss
cross-site commonalities and differences in the context of informing the decision process.
2.5.1 Estimated consequences for decision alternatives
Consequences are changes in the value of PMs associated with identified decision alternatives. This
definition makes the process of estimating decision consequences a linked step of each study's SDM
process, whereby consequences estimated needed to align with stakeholder-defined priorities for the
decision context (Section 2.2), objectives and PMs (Section 2.3), and decision alternatives (Section 2.4).
For example, all six case studies - St. Louis River, Mobile Bay, San Juan, Oklahoma Small Community,
Puget Sound, Tillamook - used this process to estimate consequences of local and regional concern for
decision alternatives affecting water quality and/or quantity. The nature of those concerns varied across
study sites, reflecting place-based cultural, economic, and human health priorities. For Tillamook and
Puget Sound, water resource concerns included potential impacts of land management on specific biota
of economic and cultural importance - shellfish and salmon, respectively. For San Juan, St. Louis River,
and Oklahoma, primary objectives were to estimate consequences of decisions affecting the connection
between water quality and/or quantity and community health and wellbeing. Priorities included
remediation of polluted urban floodwaters (San Juan); reducing estuarine sources of toxic chemicals
that bioaccumulate in freshwater gamefish (St. Louis River); and protection of surface water and
groundwater sources necessary for sustaining drinking water supplies for communities (Oklahoma).
In turn, the response of PMs for targeted environmental and human health consequences were
estimated for each decision alternative under consideration. For instance, expert- and policy-derived
water quality objectives (Section 2.3) were connected to performance measures for shellfish habitat, as
in the Tillamook Bay case study that estimated specific consequences for shellfish harvest trends
assuming water qualtiy impacts on habitat. This can be contrasted with stakeholder-derived
performance measures, as for the St. Louis River case study that considered a qualitative set of
consequences across a suite of factors, or the Puget Sound case study that used process-based models
to estimate quantitative performance measures based on land use decision alternatives. All these
examples underscore the necessity of linking an approach for estimating consequences to the
performance measures and decision objectives for any given location and community (see Section 2.3
for a discussion of performance measure selection).
62
-------
Take Home: Estimated consequences of decision alternatives should be communicated
with established PM for the decision. Effective application of SDM concepts in decisions
involving ecosystem services needs to have consequence estimation align with
stakeholder-defined objectives and performance measures provide the link for this
alignment.
2.5.2 Approaches and tools used to estimate decision consequences
The tools and approaches used to estimate consequences varied across case studies, largely as a
function of differences in stakeholder objectives and associated PM requirements. The comprehensive
SDM tools (DASEES, HIA) described in preceding sections provide stakeholder-oriented platforms for
estimating consequences for alternative decision options. For example, for the Oklahoma Small
Community case study DASEES was used to integrate water quality data, stakeholder preferences, and
other information to generate consequence charts for identified decision alternatives aimed at
protecting and sustaining limited drinking water supplies. The DASEES tool combines stakeholder input
on decision consequences with visual comparison tools that clearly demonstrate trade-offs among
alternatives affecting multiple stakeholders.
The Mobile Bay and Puget Sound case studies used quantitative models like EPA's VELMA
ecohydrological model (McKane et al. 2014) to estimate consequences of stakeholder-identified
priorities - land use and restoration options for improving suburban water quality and quantity in
Mobile Bay, and forest management options for restoring in-stream habitat for endangered salmonid
populations in Puget Sound (McKane et al. 2018; 2020; and in review; Fulford et al. 2022). These
quantitative tools directly compare different decision options and provide visualization capabilities for
communicating results and associated PMs to stakeholders (Section 2.5.3). Because implementation of
tools like VELMA requires some GIS and modeling skills, the EPA case study teams generally
implemented the tools and interpreted the results for stakeholders. The Puget Sound community forest
stakeholder group was an exception, and with a modest amount of training (1-2 weeks in-person or
online, plus 1-2 months practice) were able to independently develop and apply their own watershed
management scenarios and interpret the results. For the Mobile Bay case study, the optimal entry point
was a hybrid approach that considered more traditional monitoring of simple water quality criteria while
also exploring broader model-based assessments.
The St. Louis River and San Juan case studies used combinations of quantitative and qualitative tools to
estimate human health consequences of estuarine restoration. The Great Lakes study applied a Health
Impacts Assessment (HIA) framework combined with restoration monitoring data for the St. Louis River
estuary to statistically estimate potential human health consequences for alternative cleanup scenarios
(Williams and Hoffman 2020). HIA emphasizes stakeholder input and provided a comprehensive
comparison of restoration outcomes in the St. Louis river that were easily communicated to
stakeholders using both maps, figures, and other visualization tools (EPA 2021).
The San Juan case study used the HWBI (Smith et al. 2013) and EPA's Eco-Health Relationship Browser in
combination with empirical data gathering to develop a methodology that communities can use to
estimate consequences of decision alternatives on San Juan Bay water quality, ecosystem services and
63
-------
human well-being (Yee et al. 2017, 2020). Such 'weight of evidence' approaches are useful tools for
making full use of best available information for estimating consequences where data are limited locally
(de Jesus-Crespo and Fulford 2018).
Such human health and well-being assessments could in principle have been applied to the Puget Sound,
Tillamook Bay, and Mobile Bay case studies. However, the decision contexts, geographic scales, and
modeling infrastructure required for such assessments were beyond the scope of these case studies.
Nonetheless, work to date can potentially provide a foundation for larger scale coastal zone
assessments including health impacts. For example, scalable multi-model decision support frameworks
such as ENVISION (http://envision.bioe.orst.edu/) are designed for integrated evaluations of ecological,
economic, social, and health consequences of stakeholder-defined ecosystem management decision
alternatives (e.g., Bradley et al. 2016, Jaeger et al. 2017). It is also feasible to develop tool-specific
"plugins" for ENVISION, including VELMA and other EPA modeling tools designed for coastal ecosystem
services assessments (McKane et al. 2020).
2.5.3 Communicating estimated consequences to stakeholders
As described in Section 2.5.2, stakeholders provided community-based preferences and supporting
information that EPA team members then analyzed using appropriate tools (e.g., VELMA, HIA, HSI) to
generate estimated consequences with appropriate performance measures for identified decision
alternatives. Communication of results back to stakeholders was generally designed to provide clearly
framed, intuitive views of likely consequences for alternative decision scenarios. Some examples follow.
For the Oklahoma Small Community, Mobile Bay and Puget Sound case studies, EPA team members
used DASEES (Oklahoma) or VELMA and associated tools (Puget Sound, Mobile Bay) to synthesize
stakeholder preferences and supporting data inputs to estimate water quality/quantity consequences of
decision alternatives. Modeled results from these tools can be voluminous (gigabytes in some cases),
posing significant analytical and communication challenges. VELMA and supporting data analysis tools
were specifically designed to facilitate communication of large, complex model outputs to stakeholders
via data visualization methods (McKane et al. 2015).
Figure 2.5 is one example of a Puget Sound case study visualization found to be effective for
communicating complex model results to community forest stakeholders seeking to evaluate potential
long-term consequences of alternative forest management scenarios. As shown in this figure, the
technique of normalizing disparate PMs for a range of objectives enabled stakeholders to quickly
evaluate co-benefits and tradeoffs associated with each forest management scenario. In turn,
stakeholders have used similar visualizations to communicate their preferred management objectives to
state and federal agencies responsible for land-water management and policy decisions.
64
-------
Scenario 1:
Current Industrial
Forest Practices
(maximize timber
yield & profit)
Scenario 2:
No Forest Harvest
(maximize ecological /
benefits)
Objectives
Scenario 3:
Multi-Stakeholder
Community Forest Plan
(optimize ecological,
yeconomic & cultural benefits ,
for tribes, community
stakeholders)
Forest Products
(1.0 = Most Board Feet)
Local Forest Sector Income
(1.0 = Most Local Income)
Salmon Habitat Quality
(1.0 = Most Salmon)
Ecosystem Carbon Stocks
(1.0 = Most Carbon Stored)
Figure 2.5 Example visualization of model-based Puget Sound case study results found to be effective
for communicating potential long-term consequences of alternative forest management decision
scenarios defined by community forest stakeholders.
Performance measures for each management objective (see legend) were normalized (0-1, y axis) with
respect to the maximum value of a particular objective across three decision scenarios. (McKane et al.
2018). The objective is to present data in a format optimized for comparing alternatives to each other in
the context of establish performance measures as opposed to a simple presentation of data which may
not inform the decision process.
Similarly, the DASEES tool incorporates various features to help stakeholders visualize and sort through
complicated multi-objective environmental issues in an objective way. DASEES is designed to accomplish
this interactively, for example, during workshops in which stakeholders are engaged in exploring how
specified decision alternatives produce different consequences (Figure 2.6).
65
-------
Brainstorm
Define Objectives
I Adaptive Management
Watershed SDM
Adaptive Management
U Reload O Help
Sediment Yield
J Checkpoint Date: j 06/11/2021
Monitoring Data
Date Level
9/1/2019 100.00
10/1/2019
11/1/2019
12/1/2019
1/1/2020
2/1/2020
3/1/2020
4/1/2020
5/1/2020
6/1/2020
7/1/2020
8/1/2020
j3 Checkpoint Level: 50
8- Observations 0 Checkpoint
coral cover a |
Description
daptive Managem
Mit Associate Data
Adaptive Manage
Checkpoint Date:
06/11/2021
|J3|
Checkpoint Level: 150
Monitoring Data
• Observations # Checkpoint
Date
Level
eoo-
2019-09-01
10.00
550-
2019-10-01
9.00
500-
2019-12-01
11.00
<00-
2020-01-01
20.00
aj 350-
/
/
2020-02-01
25.00
° 300-
/
2020-03-01
45.00
—
/
2020-04-01
75.00
2
I
2020-05-01
121.00
U 200-
2020-06-01
234.00
150-
2020-07-01
356.00
100-
2020-08-01
567.00
^
Detober 2020 Apnl July October 2021 Apr
Refresh Chart
Date
Figure 2,6 DASEES screenshot showing estimated consequences of proposed actions under
consideration.
Main figure is the determined flow chart from actions to outcomes and the inserts show
estimated change in performance measures combined with checkpoint values for evaluation.
In summary, stakeholders across all case studies were keenly interested in the process of estimating
consequences for all decision alternatives, positive or negative, and how those aligned with their
preferred objectives. Trust is a necessary prerequisite when complex data are presented in this way to
compare proposed actions, and this is best accomplished through stakeholder involvement in all steps in
the process. Knowledge of outcomes associated with different decision alternatives - for example,
business-as-usuai versus conservation-based management options - provided context for understanding
tradeoffs and scientific backing for stakeholders seeking to implement and/or advocate for changes in
environmental management and policy. The case studies varied in how they communicated
consequences, but they all demonstrate the importance of the effort (Table 2.7).
66
-------
Take Home: Consequences of decision alternatives should be estimated as a part of the
decision process based on the best information available. Whether the decision context
is data rich or data-poor, consequence estimation should make use of best available
information and engage stakeholders. Transparent consequence estimation is optimal
for evaluating and communicating tradeoffs and to advocate for changes in
environmental management and policy.
Table 2.7 Examples of communicating case study consequences that have led or may lead to changes
in community planning, a policy, or other action.
Case Study Communication of estimated consequences to stakeholders
San Juan
San Juan Bay Estuary Program and Martin Pena neighborhood community organization are
using empirical results to communicate potential benefits of management actions to local
communities, and to advocate for the dredging of the Martin Pena canal (pending). For
example, a Zika vector-borne illness study was used to advocate for environmentally safe
clean-up solutions over traditional pesticide spraying.
Mobile Bay
Modeled consequences of alternative suburban stream restoration scenarios were reported
to National Estuary staff for them to evaluate new priorities for meeting NEP goals.
Consequences were reported as changes in ecosystem services value, as well as changes in
water storage across the watershed with an emphasis on restoration sites.
St. Louis River
The HIA Project Team identified and summarized four scenarios for St. Louis River Estuary
revitalization, which were reported to decision makers as maps with PM narratives in
support. Adoption of these recommendations is at the discretion of Minnesota DNR and City
of Duluth case study partners.
Oklahoma
Small
Community
DASEES structured decision-making workshops were used to generate visual consequence
charts for identified decision alternatives aimed at protecting and sustaining scarce drinking
water supplies.
Tillamook Bay
The Oregon Department of Agriculture is considering whether to pursue further
development of the fecal bacteria environmental-drivers model to help inform shellfish
harvest closure decisions in this National Estuary.
Puget Sound
and PNW
Modeled visualizations of consequences of alternative forest management practices and/or
climate change were communicated to, and in some instances codeveloped with,
stakeholders including the NCF, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (SIT), and ODFW. These
stakeholders have in turn communicated this information forward to successfully advocate
for state funding to purchase new community forest lands for the protection of endangered
salmonid species (NCF); identify optimal habitat management practices for salmon recovery
on ancestral tribal lands (SIT); and prepare a public report describing projected climate
impacts on Oregon Coast coho salmon stream habitat (ODFW 2022).
2.5.4 Transferability of approaches and tools used to estimate consequences
All tools and methods for estimating consequences described in this report are transferable, though to
varying degrees that depend upon the scale and complexity of decision contexts encountered, and
expertise of the research team. Table 2.8 summarizes the primary tools used for each of the case
studies, and the primary factors affecting their transferability for estimating consequence in new
locations.
67
-------
Table 2.8. Case study methods and tools and their transferability to new locations.
Case Study
Methods and tools used
Transferability to new locations
San Juan
HWBI framework, Eco-Health
Browser, l-Tree, Invest, and
EPA H20 models provided
inputs for statistical analysis of
environmental variables
affecting estuarine water
quality and human health.
The modeling frameworks and ecosystem production
function (EPFs) used have been demonstrated to be
transferable. But whether the statistical results for this
case study are transferable is unclear. Probably
qualitatively but maybe not quantitatively - there are
unique technical challenges with this sub-tropical
environment.
Mobile Bay
H2O model and VELMA
watershed analysis to identify
suburban restoration options
for improving estuarine water
quality
EPA H2O model is transferable as demonstrated by its
transfer from Tampa, FL to the Mobile Bay watershed.
Details on transfer can be found in Russell et al. 2013.
VELMA model: See Puget Sound, below
St. Louis River
Health Impact Assessment
(HIA) and statistical analysis
connecting improvements in
estuarine water quality and
human health
These tools and methods have been demonstrated to be
transferable and have been used at other locations. The
main factors that could limit transferability are availability
of water quality and health impacts data, and technical
expertise.
Oklahoma
Small
Community
DASEES-guided structure
decision making is being used
to assist community
stakeholders formulate
sustainable management of
limited water supplies in
Southern Plains dryland
landscapes
DASEES is designed to be generally applicable for any
decision-making context and is increasingly being used
nationally to assist diverse community groups facing
difficult planning decisions. The only limitation
encountered is an initial reluctance to try a new
approach, which can often be overcome as familiarity
builds.
Pacific
Northwest:
Tillamook Bay
Statistical analysis of
environmental conditions
favoring estuarine fecal
bacteria outbreaks
necessitating shellfish bed
closures
The approaches used to develop the shellfish habitat
suitability and fecal bacteria environmental models are
transferable. Similarly, the advantages that could flow
from using the two models are likely to be useful in other
estuaries in the PNW and around the country. Factors
that would limit the estimation of consequences center
on whether data exist to develop site-specific models.
Pacific
Northwest:
Puget Sound
VELMA watershed analysis to
identify forest management
best practices for salmon
recovery
VELMA is applicable to any terrestrial ecosystem and has
been successfully applied across various inland and
coastal watersheds, including six National Estuary
locations. The model can be set up and run based only on
publicly available data. Technical expertise in
ecohydrological modeling is the only limitation to its use,
but stakeholders and case study teams have gained this
through workshops and prepared tutorials.
2.5.5 Conclusions
Estimating consequences is a critical step linking established decision priorities to a formal trade-off
analysis described in the next section. The six coordinated case studies successfully implemented tools
and methods that were responsive to the unique environmental, economic, social, and health needs and
68
-------
preferences of stakeholders encountered at each site. Of all the steps in the SDM process, estimating
consequences varies the most across case study sites. This cross-site diversity required flexibility in the
choice of methods used to estimate consequences of identified stakeholder decision alternatives. This
was facilitated by the transferability of essentially all the tools and methods used in this study, as
evidenced in part by this study (Table 2.8) and by previous studies by other researchers working in other
locations (per references cited). A key driver of which method to use will be the level of stakeholder
involvement in estimating consequences and how the outcome will be communicated. In the examples
highlighted in this section, the choice of method was largely based on access to resources and technical
knowledge, and the consent of important stakeholder groups. These issues represent good starting
points for choosing a method and fit well into the overall SDM approach to decision making. The
examples of case study consequences that have led or may lead to changes in community planning,
policies, or other actions demonstrate the effectiveness of the overall SDM approach and the tools and
methods used across the case studies.
Skyline bordering estuary near San Juan, Puerto Rico. (Credit - San Juan Estuary Program)
69
-------
2.6. Evaluate Tradeoffs (CE5)
Communities and community leaders make complex decisions every day. Some of these decisions may
be simple and can be made implicitly while others are more complicated and require decision makers to
explicitly detail how they arrived at the decision they chose to implement. Typically, environmental
management decisions faced by communities are complicated and have multiple facets that are not
easily addressed without some form of formal explicit evaluation. Multiple competing interests from
stakeholders, limited resources to apply to community problems, and outcomes that may have varying
effects on economic, social and environmental aspects of the community all need to be considered. This
necessitates having a process where established alternatives can be compared and chosen to ultimately
achieve community goals. This is the process of making trade-offs.
All decisions involve trade-offs even if it is simply the cost of acting or not. Once the decision context is
clearly defined and articulated, the objectives and performance measures have been clearly identified, a
range of decision alternatives have been identified, and the consequences of implementing the decision
alternatives are estimated, it is time to look at trade-offs between the different approaches to achieve
the community goals as identified by the objectives. Selecting among options characterized by multiple
objective consequences is not always straightforward and necessitates methods and approaches for
evaluating trade-offs in terms of objective gains and reductions across the options. There are a wide
range of approaches and techniques ranging from intuitive heuristics to rational quantitative methods.
There is no one universally accepted approach or right way to evaluate trade-offs. Some methods may
be more effective and explicit, but the goal is to make trade-offs that make sense to the stakeholders
and achieve the objectives that the community is trying to achieve. To better understand some of these
methods, Hammond et al., (1999) and Gregory et al., (2012) provide an overview of methods, suggested
processes to utilize them, and example applications.
Trade-off analysis is part science and part art and involves judgments on how much of one objective can
be reduced to gain in another objective (Gregory et al., 2012). Reasonable and defensible decisions are
justified based on accepted amounts of potential gains and reductions among objectives. It is critically
important that both decision-makers and stakeholders understand why certain reductions in the
achievement of some objectives are related to the gains realized in other objectives and what the
rationale was for making the decisions to go one way versus the other. It has been said that the only bad
trade-offs are the ones made unknowingly or without fully appreciating their implications (Gregory et al.
2012). Here we take a comparative approach among the six case studies to examine how trade-offs
were defined, measured, and applied to the decisional process.
2.6.1 Case Study Approach to Trade-offs
Every case study had some form of trade-off approach, whether it was visibly recognized or not. In order
to implement any decisions when looking at environmental issues, the fact that there are multiple
desired objectives but limited resources to allocate across all these objectives inherently requires trade-
offs and how the objectives are pursued and implemented. Trade-offs will ultimately be made either
formally or informally. Formal trade-off analysis involves a deliberate comparison of pre-defined
alternatives usually involving comparison tools (e.g., DASEES), while an informal approach is not defined
or structured, may primarily involve ad hoc discussions among experts, and may occur after the decision
has been made. Across the six case studies considered for this report, three (Puerto Rico, Mobile Bay,
Puget Sound) employed an informal trade-off process, one case study (Oklahoma) employed a formal
trade-off process, and one case study (St. Louis River) utilized both a formal and informal trade-off
70
-------
process based on how they split the stakeholder groups up. (Table 2.9) The final case study (Tillamook)
did not execute a trade-off comparison process but involved tools to inform examination of
Tradeoffs occur when benefits from ecosystem services like resource extraction come with costs such
as need for roads through a natural areas and habitat loss. Decisions should be informed by a clear
understanding of trade-offs involved in decision options under consideration. (Photo credit: Ted
De Witt EPA).
71
-------
Table 2.9. Description of Trade-offs approach, comparing trade-off options, and stakeholder engagement for six case studies. Note that 'NA'
indicates trade off analysis was not documented for the Tillamook Bay case study which ended prior to formal decision making.
Case Study
Trade-off
Form
Information
Considered for
Trade-offs
Tools or approaches
Used for Trade-offs
Trade-off Analysis
Used for Choosing
Options to Implement
Stakeholder Engagement for
Trade-off Process
San Juan
Puerto Rico
Informal
Ecosystem services
and health impacts
Graphical comparisons with
charts, HWBI information
No formal tradeoff
analysis. Decisions paths
already set.
Stakeholder engagement primarily
through information briefings
Mobile Bay
Informal
CCMP goals and 303d
status and water
quality criteria
Ad hoc approach with NEP
staff using CCMP end points
as end goals
No formal trade-off
analysis, committee
deliberations.
Interviews and surveys. Decision
made by committee of experts.
Oklahoma
Small
Community
Formal
Environmental, social,
economic, water
quantity and quality,
recreational, future
costs
SDM approach with
stakeholder participation
using EPA DASEES tool.
Decision Analysis for a
Sustainable Environment,
Economy, and Society
(DASEES)
Representative group of
stakeholders from city, tribal,
county, and local businesses
participating in decision-support
process (via DASEES)
Tillamook
Bay
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Puget Sound
Informal
Water quality, salmon,
sustainable forestry,
tourism, health and
recreational
Ecological model (VELMA)
to support stakeholder
group deliberations
Ecological model
Visualizing Ecosystem
Land Management
Assessments (VELMA)
Stakeholder groups generally made
trade-off assessments individually.
Trade-off assessments typically
informal
St. Louis
River
Formal
Health pathways:
water habitat and
quality, social and
transportation issues
Health pathway analysis
(part of HIA) to guide
decisions of decision
makers
Health Impact
Assessment (HIA)
Stage agency participating as a
partner in the HIA
St. Louis
River
Informal
Same as formal
Qualitative consultation
with stakeholders and
community partners.
Health Impact
Assessment (HIA)
Stakeholders and community
members participating in decision-
support process (via HIA)
72
-------
trade-offs by other authorities. The decision to examine trade-offs with a formal or informal process,
and whether that process is implicit or explicit is up to the stakeholders and decision-makers in each
case study. The subsequent discussion of trade-offs will focus on and provide information from the San
Juan, Mobile Bay, Oklahoma Small Community, Puget Sound and St. Louis River case studies.
The importance of including trade-off analysis varied across the case studies. In the case of San Juan
Puerto Rico many of ecosystem services or health impacts were looked at separately, and not really
considered simultaneously. In the case of Mobile Bay, no formal trade-off analysis was completed. The
development of an annual NEP workplan included trade-offs regarding where to invest restoration
resources with that plan being developed by NEP staff in consultation with expert committees. The
Oklahoma Small Community case study was designed from the beginning to follow an SDM approach
where trade-offs analysis and process would be integral in determining what decisions were
implemented to achieve objectives. The Puget Sound trade-off analysis was used where all of the
stakeholders (community, tribal, state, federal decision-makers) were interested in knowing how
different watershed management alternatives resulted in different outcomes, specifically what are the
trade-offs for management options X, Y, and Z example, and this was informed by model-based analysis
In the St. Louis River, a formal trade-off analysis was critical to agency agreement regarding the scope of
the project the informal trade-off process typically conducted by non-agency or non-expert stakeholders
was used for improving project design and construction with respect to health outcomes.
Information used in the case studies to conduct trade-offs and do trade-off analysis included
information from environmental, social, economic and health aspects that were important for the
communities in the final decisions that would be made. The San Juan case study considered impacts of
urban runoff, vegetative cover, urbanization, and other factors on multiple ecosystem services such as
air quality, carbon sequestration, nitrogen removal, and urban heat islands and the potential linkages to
multiple metrics of human health and well-being. In Mobile Bay, CCMP goals like level of impairment of
individual candidate sites, such as 303d (US Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000) status, water quality
criteria, and fish and wildlife habitat quality metrics were used as part of the trade-off analysis
information. No economic or social criteria were used overtly for decision-making; however, priority is
typically given to sites with social or economic importance in committee deliberations. The Oklahoma
Small Community case study was designed to integrate aspects of environmental, social, and economic
considerations into the trade-off analysis through an organized stakeholder engagement process. This
effort is primarily about water sustainability and resiliency. Thus, most of the options are directed at
protecting water supplies, minimizing waste of this water through leakage in the system, providing
sufficient quantities and quality of water for domestic and economic usage and creating recreational
opportunities for the local community. The SDM process applied in the Oklahoma Small Community case
study includes formal trade-off analysis as a key step in maximizing benefits to as many stakeholders as
possible. Puget Sound case study included multiple aspects of environmental, economic, and social
considerations for their trade-off process. Environmental considerations were restored salmon habitat,
clean drinking water, flood protection, and climate regulation, which included aspects of carbon
sequestration. The economic information used in sustainable forest products and associated local job
opportunities included local and regional tourism dollars associated with restored salmon populations.
Social aspects included cultural benefits of healthy salmon populations, health, and recreational benefits
of clean water supplies. Information used in the St. Louis River case study was collected through a
formal Health Impacts Assessment (HIA; EPA 2021). This information included benefits of the project
73
-------
such as water habitat and quality, recreation, aesthetics, and engagement with nature both social and
cultural; but also, costs associated with project implementation, such as equipment operation, traffic
and transport, noise and light pollution, air quality, crime and safety.
Take Home: Multiple competing interests from stakeholders and limited resources to
apply to community problems require trade-offs. Comparison of identified alternatives in
a trade-off analysis adds transparency to a decision and increases acceptance. Case
study details in Table 2.9 can help start a trade-off analysis in a new location.
2.6.2. Stakeholder Engagement and Tools Used for Trade-off Analysis
The use of stakeholders and stakeholder engagement varied across the case studies. Most of the Case
studies had some form of stakeholder engagement involved to look at alternatives or scenarios that
were under consideration for implementation. The only case study that examined trade-offs but
indicated stakeholders were not engaged in the trade-off process was the San Juan case study. For the
most part decisions were already underway and analysis from the case study was used to provide
additional support in terms of expanding knowledge of potential benefits of those decisions. Results
from these discussions were provided back to stakeholders through briefings, conference calls, and
sharing of journal articles that were published with this information. The Mobile Bay case study was
similar in that established CCMP goals guided the trade-off analysis, but trade-off decisions were made
by committees comprised of federal, state, county, civic, and private experts. These committees were
made up of the representative stakeholders in the process and the work of these committees represent
the contribution of the stakeholders to the trade-off assessment.
Two of the case studies used formal stakeholder engagement, which extended to trade-off analysis. For
the Oklahoma Small Community case study, the entire process is stakeholder informed from the very
start with the stakeholders providing the objectives and criteria as the basis for the study. This tight
integration between steps led smoothly to the analysis of trade-offs based on a direct comparison of
scenarios. This engagement is aided by visualization tools that display alternatives in terms of their
collective impact on PMs. While it is understood that those empowered as the decision-makers will
ultimately choose the final approach to implement, the process will be conducted in an open and
transparent manner that includes the stakeholders so they will have ownership in the final decisions.
The second case study with formal engagement on trade-offs was St. Louis River. The St. Louis River case
study engaged stakeholders in a formal and informal trade-off analysis process. The informal process
involved an informal alternatives process (making recommendations) that included all stakeholders and
community members. After this informal process a formal trade-off analysis occurred through agencies
like the Minnesota DNR and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) where the alternatives
developed and informed through the informal process were compared and final trade-off decisions
were made.
The final two case studies applied a free-form type of stakeholder engagement for analysis of trade-offs,
but the analysis was based on model-based outcomes, so it was more data-driven than in the other case
74
-------
studies. In the Tillamook Bay case study, quantitative habitat assessments were developed to consider
trade-offs for management, but stakeholders were simply provided with the data to include or not in
their assessment. In the Puget Sound case study, the different stakeholder groups looked at the model
output for specific scenarios amongst their groups and separate from the other groups. Stakeholders
generally made their own assessment of economic and social trade-offs/benefits associated with
projected environmental outcomes for different watershed management options. Trade-off
assessments by communities and tribes were often informal, reflecting their social, economic, and
cultural values. Assessments by state land management agencies were more quantitative, but generally
still focused on environmental endpoints rather than economic and social impacts as they tended to be
risk-averse to entering into public controversies
Quantitative and qualitative tools help to organize and visualize data in a way that is specific to
comparing trade-offs among decision alternatives. The approaches used to conduct and make trade-off
analysis varied across the case studies and how this information was presented to those involved in the
trade-off analysis varied by case study as well. In the San Juan Puerto Rico case study, differential
impacts were compared graphically (i.e., bar charts, spider charts) or with maps (i.e., impacts of
population loss on multiple ecosystem services; impacts of ecosystem services on multiple human well-
being impacts) but no formal tradeoff analysis was conducted (e.g., swing-weighting or ranking). For the
most part decisions were already underway, and the case study analysis only provided support in terms
of providing knowledge specific to potential benefits of those decisions. The Mobile Bay case study
decisions were made by committee in an ad hoc process that greatly benefited from a formal
assessment of decision alternatives. For instance, Mobile Bay NEP staff are working with partners on the
stressor matrix describing how key stressors are related to the CCMP endpoints. The matrix was
intended to provide a formal process for committee decisions. It can and was most likely used to identify
projects based on key stressors and to rank them by importance to facilitate decisions on what to
implement and what to set aside. The Oklahoma Small Community case study use the DASEES tool to
collect and organize data for the trade-off analysis. Assessed facts are evaluated, aggregated, and then
visualized for comparison in the DASEES consequence chart. Stakeholders commented that the DASEES
tool visuals are very effective for communicating consequences based on fundamental objectives,
measures, options, and stated preferences of the stakeholders. The DASEES trade-off effort is designed
to provide a balance across multiple stakeholder values and needs and facilitate the adoption and
implementation of an agreed-upon approach to achieve the objectives identified by the stakeholders.
The most quantitative analysis of trade-offs occurred in the Puget Sound case study. In the Puget Sound
case study, the VELMA tool was used to conduct the trade-off analysis. Results generated from the
VELMAtool address most of the listed environmental trade-offs associated with different watershed
management options (e.g., Figure 3 in McKane et al. 2020). For the Puget Sound case study, the VELMA
tool facilitated comparisons between differing alternatives such as business as usual for history on
private lands (forty-year harvest intervals) versus salmon friendly, ecosystem-based forest management
(long harvest intervals coupled with thinning and riparian protections) allowing stakeholders the ability
to assess the pros and cons of adopting one alternative over the other. The VELMA tool is optimized for
visualization of alternative scenarios, but unlike the DASEES tool VELMA does not consider stakeholder-
derived PM but rather is programmed for preset PM with a focus on land use and natural water
movement. The St. Louis River case study utilized the health pathways analysis, which is part of the HIA
tool. Formal trade-offs were analyzed both quantitatively (data visualization) and qualitatively (expert
75
-------
opinion). Informal alternatives were chosen to identify ways to improve either the project design or
construction to improve health mitigation or health outcomes and lacked a formal trade-off analysis.
Take Home: Targeted stakeholder engagement, using formal and informal trade-off
approaches, can be effective at examining alternatives or scenarios under consideration
for implementation. Open and transparent approaches involving stakeholders during this
step provides opportunities to examine stakeholder values and concerns over
alternatives and ultimately improve ownership and support of final decisions.
2.6.3. Conclusions
The utility and transferability of approaches to trade-off analysis will be, as with other steps in the
decision process, dependent on matching an approach to the needs in other, novel sites. The ad hoc
process used in several case studies of developing information and passing it along to decision makers
(i.e., San Juan and Tillamook Bay) is best suited to informing a formal policy decision process (e.g.,
fishing rules). In these cases, Information on differential responses of ecosystem services or human
health outcomes to specific management actions will be provided to partners to support ongoing
decisions and communication of potential benefits. In the Mobile Bay case study even though no formal
trade-off analysis was conducted, tools are being developed to specifically address trade-offs (e.g., H20
model, stressor matrix) and the information provided to the committees and used in their deliberations
was considered a useful part for allocating resources and ensuring public support for the planned work.
These informal approaches can be contrasted with the use of formal tools like DASEES or HIA, which
require more resources but also generate more decision specific information. The Oklahoma Small
Community case study has not reached the point where trade-off analysis has been conducted but when
the stakeholders were given an overview of the DASEES process many said they were looking forward to
the trade-off process to help them select better management approaches. In the St. Louis River case
study, the stakeholders felt the overall HIA approach and the subsequent trade-off analysis portion of
the HIA was very useful. In this case study the trade-offs were also visually communicated, which made
the information more accessible even after the decision was implemented.
Combinations of multiple management questions generated more complex trade-offs and made optimal
use of quantitative tools. The Puget Sound case study stakeholders felt the model-based trade-off
process they used was very useful. For example, the Nisqually community forest has already adopted an
ecosystem-based watershed management option that VELMA model results have shown to provide
marked improvements in stream habitat favorable to restoration of salmon and other ecosystem
services important to local and downstream communities.
Overall, partners in every case study felt the approach they used would be very transferable to other
locations. There was a broad recognition that there may be some modifications and adjustments
needed depending on where future community case studies might be cited. Thinking broadly, there is a
balance to be struck between the complexity of the decisions on the table and the value of a formal
trade-off analysis involving stakeholder engagement. In some cases, decisions are constrained to a
limited set of options (example setting TMDL) that may not merit an extensive evaluation. However, it is
increasingly common that options for investing limited resources can be varied, and in these cases a
76
-------
structured trade-off analysis (e.g., DASEES, HIA) can be valuable both for transparency and for informing
a comparison of disparate decision options.
Counting Dungeness crabs in Tillamook estuary, (photo credit Ted
DeWitt).
77
-------
2.7 Implementation, Monitoring, and Learning (CE6)
Once potential benefits and tradeoffs among decision alternatives have been considered (Section 2.5),
decision-makers should have the best available information to make a decision and to document the
rationale for their choices. The ultimate decision may not be an 'optimal' solution or even represent a
consensus among stakeholders, but through the SDM process decision-makers should have a better
understanding of stakeholder willingness to accept tradeoffs that can help inform the ultimate choice of
action (Gregory et al. 2012). Some decision alternatives may be quickly dismissed, for example because
they have little or unacceptable effects on stakeholder objectives. Other alternatives may be put on a
short-list as acceptable to stakeholders. If a clear winner cannot move forward, additional work may be
needed to modify alternatives to make them more acceptable, or to even reconsider stated objectives
or performance measures to better discern among alternatives. The bottom line is that in most cases a
decision must be made based on Best Available Information (BAI) and an important objective of this
final step is to improve both quality and availability of information going forward .
Take Home: In most cases, a decision must be made based on best available information
(BAI) and an important objective of the implementation, monitoring, and learning step is
* y-\) to improve both quality and availability of information going forward. The goal is to
improve BAI.
2.7.1. Implementation
Structured decision software platforms, such as DASEES (Decision Analysis for Sustainable, Economy,
Environment, and Society; Dyson et al. 2019), not only provide guidance but can provide a virtual
workspace to document the steps of a decision process and collect the information that informed the
ultimate decision. The Oklahoma Small Community case study has been using the DASEES tool to
document the decision process with stakeholders. Although the decision process in this case study is still
ongoing, the process is well communicated and mapped out. DASEES can be used to produce a report
Watershed SDM
& OS
Figure 2.7 DASEES outcome screen summarizing consequences of proposed best action.
This is the final 'Take Action' page in the DASEES tool.
78
-------
that collects the information from the individual decision process steps and combines it into a
comprehensive report. A part of this report includes the fifth and final step in DASEES: "Take Action &
Adaptive Management" (Figure 2.7). This step documents the preferred decision to be implemented,
and guides users through monitoring the success of that decision once it is implemented. The "Decision
Charter" tool then compiles all the information gathered and developed as part of the DASEES project
workspace and renders it into a file that can be edited and shared with stakeholders and decision-
makers. It can also be used as a basis for a more detailed final report.
Even in the absence of a visualization/decision platform like DASEES, a structured decision process can
help to organize the information that went into a decision in a transparent way. The St. Louis River
Minnesota case study used Health Impact Assessment (HIA), which has SDM steps similar to DASEES, to
organize and present findings and recommendations to the community, decision-makers, and
stakeholders. The HIA results were organized as a presentation, with each of the seven impact pathways
(e.g., noise & light pollution; water habitat & quality; air quality; traffic & transport; recreation &
aesthetics; social & cultural; crime & personal safety) having a similarly formatted poster explaining the
results and recommendations, on which community members and stakeholders had the opportunity to
note which recommendations they considered a priority (Figure 2.8). The HIA process, findings, and
recommendations were included in a final report available to the community (EPA 2021).
SEPA AIR QUALITY: PRELIMINARY HIA RECOMMENDATIONS
What's the connection to health?
• Burning of diesel fuel in construction equipment and truck and vehicle traffic release pollutants such as PM2.5, particulates, ozone, and other toxics.
• Exposure to air pollutants and particulates can exacerbate asthma conditions and cause respiratory illness or disease, heat-related illness, chronic disease (such
as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, stroke, and cancer), and even premature death.
• Children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions are more vulnerable to these health impacts.
.. . Equipment operation and truck and vehicle traffic will increase air pollution in the study Community/Stakeholder Input
' area and have the potential of placing construction crews, residents, and recreational
Finding users at increased risk of exposure to air pollutants (fumes, particulate matter, fuel
combustion pollutants, dust, etc.) and their adverse health impacts.
¦ Clearly communicate the project, its duration, and expected air pollution levels to residents, schools
and daycare centers, senior centers and care facilities, businesses, and recreational users in the
project area and along the transport route
• Provide a means for residents and other affected populations to provide feedback and/or lodge
complaints about excess air impacts
¦ Include mitigation specifications in the contract (reduced idling and requirements for equipment fitted
with catalysts and filters) and incentives for contractors with idle reduction policies, and newer or
retrofitted equipment
• Route trucks and other equipment/vehicle traffic away from neighborhoods, schools, daycare centers,
senior centers and care facilities, and recreation areas to minimize exposure to air pollution
¦ Consider the use of rail or barge to transport sediment between the two sites, as these routes would
greatly minimize traffic-related air pollutants in the residential areas.
• Implement fugitive dust mitigation measures, including covering transport vehicles, watering access
routes, and covering exposed soils/stockpiles
Maior The vegetative features created by the habitat restoration and park improvements will
_ 1 ,. have the ability to filter air pollutants and particulates and reduce surface and air
Flndln0 temperatures.
¦ Select native trees and plants for planting. Trees have the greatest potential to filter air pollutants,
followed by shrubs, and then grasses
¦ Select trees that have tall, broad canopies for increased shading and place in areas where people
may congregate
Figure 2.8 Example poster from St Louis River Minnesota HIA final meeting giving participants
opportunities to provide input on recommendations (Williams and Hoffman 2019),
79
-------
For most of our case studies, presentations or reports summarizing scientific findings were the most
common way to provide scientific results supporting decision-making to community members,
stakeholders, or decision-makers (Appendix A). The Puget Sound Washington case study, for example,
used a combination of written reports and presentations via project meetings and webinars with key
partners to summarize model results and recommendations for optimizing ecosystem services of
interest. The visualization tools, VELMA and VISTAS (McKane et al. 2014), were particularly useful in
conveying the spatially explicit modeling results and to visually communicate main findings (McKane et
al. 2018). The case studies also presented results at scientific conferences and documented research
efforts through journal articles (Appendix A). Though more targeted for a scientific audience, journal
articles and scientific conferences enhance the scientific credibility of the information being developed
to support decision-making and provide opportunities for relationship building, particularly with
scientific representatives from partner organizations. It is also important that such information is
adapted to a public audience with summaries or visualizations such as those used in the St. Louis River,
Puget Sound, and Oklahoma Small Community case studies. This will maximize its utility and
transparency.
The information and scientific research developed by each case study was in some cases very directly
used to make and implement a decision. For the St. Louis River Minnesota case study, based in part on
the HIA, a decision was made to undertake the most extensive restoration project among three formal
alternatives considered, with many of the informal recommendations also adopted in the project design.
In the Puget Sound Washington case study, the ecosystem services analysis helped to inform the
decision to adopt salmon-friendly forest management recommendations that include longer harvest
intervals coupled with thinning of young stands to improve summer flows, salmon migration, and
habitat quality.
For most of the other case studies, the decision process is still ongoing, but information on ecosystem
services is being reported back to local partners to continue to advocate for decisions to be
implemented, or in some cases to support or motivate urgent short-term decisions as they arise. In the
San Juan Puerto Rico case study, for example, the dual crises of the Zika outbreak in 2016 and Hurricane
Maria in 2017, highlighted the relationships between water quality, flooding, and human health, and the
potential role of improved environmental conditions and ecosystem services (e.g., flood regulation,
water retention, biological control of mosquito vectors) as a sustainable alternative to built
infrastructure or pesticides (de Jesus-Crespo et al. 2016; de Jesus-Crespo et al. 2017). For other case
studies, though existing plans are moving forward as is, ecosystem services research is being considered
for incorporation into future planning or monitoring. In both the Mobile Bay and the Tillamook Bay case
studies, new models and data based on ecosystem services are now available for inclusion into a
recurring decision process that requires the new data be accepted as a portion of best available
information for the decision. This acceptance process is aided by scientific support such as scientific
peer-review and public support gathered through stakeholder engagement. The case studies
demonstrate transferable methods for pursuing both at the same time.
Determining whether the chosen alternative was successful at meeting management objectives is
challenging. For the Mobile Bay case study, the management activities are ongoing, and so determining
if the chosen projects are meeting the stated management objectives is a continual and iterative process
that feeds back on future decisions in a cyclical fashion. In the Puget Sound case study, management
plans for the NCF are being implemented based on the model-based alternative evaluation process. The
80
-------
management goals being addressed are diverse (habitat, land acquisition strategy, increasing
recreational and cultural opportunities, increase job, inform carbon trading strategies) and thus
determining success will be multi-faceted and will take years or even decades to fully measure some
goals. Similarly, for the St. Louis River case study, a wetland restoration project design was chosen and
implemented. Owing to the large size of the restoration, it will take multiple years to complete, and it is
anticipated that the ecological response and community benefits will also take years to manifest.
Take Home: Decision implementation is not the end but the next step in the SDM cycle.
0{\ . A key element of this step is communicating outcomes to stakeholders and investing in
monitoring and learning.
2.7.2. Monitoring
By bringing together a diverse group of experts and stakeholders as part of a values-focused decision
process (Gregory et al. 2012), the implemented action is anticipated to produce desirable end results.
However, there is often uncertainty in the information that goes into making a decision and
implemented actions may or may not achieved desired end goals. Also, decisions involving limited
resources or other trade-offs need to be validated through the reporting of outcomes to stakeholders.
As decisions are implemented, existing and accepted PM connected to stated objectives should be
monitored over time to gauge whether the action has been successful in achieving these objectives, or
whether new actions are needed. Monitoring can also help practitioners better understand what levels
of ecosystem condition and function are needed to achieve desired levels of change, and then apply that
knowledge to adapt future decisions and to reduce decision uncertainties (Yee et al. 2017). Ultimately
monitoring is controlled by resource availability in the form of personnel and equipment needs for a
monitoring plan, but we advocate a process that first considers outcomes (what is needed) prior to
considering necessary resources (what is possible).
Monitoring can be used to evaluate whether implemented decisions are achieving desired objectives,
including predicted ecosystem services benefits. Optimally, monitoring will be guided by PMs developed
during the decision process (Section 2.3). For the Puget Sound, Washington case study, USGS stream
gage streamflow data, including peak and low flows that affect salmon spawning and rearing habitat,
are being monitored frequently to evaluate the success of implementation of salmon-friendly forest
management recommendations. Ideally, soil moisture and stream temperature would also be collected
to better validate model predictions and outcomes for salmon recovery. In the St. Louis River,
Minnesota case study, the project plan identified a number of ecological PMs for pre- and post-
construction monitoring, including water quality variability, benthic integrity indices, and species targets
(EPA 2021), to evaluate outcomes as recommendations from the HIA are implemented. The addition of
social monitoring in addition to ecological monitoring, specifically human health outcomes, is actively
under consideration as well. The St. Louis River is part of the Great Lakes AOC program that uses an
adaptive management framework, so monitoring is specifically designed, in part, to iteratively learn
from past decisions to inform future decisions. The DASEES process, being used for the Oklahoma small
81
-------
community case study, includes a step "Take Action & Adaptive Management" (Figure 2.8) specifically
designed to guide users through establishing an adaptive management strategy by identifying a series of
decision points, known as triggers, where evaluations of process and success of implemented actions
will be evaluated (Dyson et al. 2019). Proactively setting trigger points will ensure project success is
evaluated in a timely manner to allow course corrections, if needed. As with the other steps, monitoring
is greatly aided by use of the structured tool DASEES, as it provides a clear link between monitoring
activities and the decision process. This can be contrasted with monitoring plans developed based on
other priorities, such as historical monitoring or logistics, which may not directly inform stated
objectives.
Monitoring protocols for the NEP have been written into specific project work plans, driven by the
specific objectives of the workplan (e.g., turbidity, shellfish stock, fecal bacteria). The Tillamook Bay case
study identified environmental conditions, such as strong winds and tidal extremes, which may influence
fecal bacteria levels and risk to shellfish harvesting but are not currently being monitored in concert
with river flow and precipitation to make harvest closure decisions (Zimmer-Faust et al. 2018). As a
complement to ecological field monitoring, the Mobile Bay Alabama case study demonstrated how the
use of modeling tools, such as EPA H20 (Russell et al. 2015), can be used to quantify ecosystem services
benefits of restoration, based on observed changes in landcover (Fulford et al. 2022). The potential
ecosystem services impacts identified in these case studies are being discussed with partners to guide
future monitoring plans.
Take Home: Monitoring, ideally guided by PM tied to decision objectives can be used to
evaluate whether implemented decisions are achieving desired objectives, including
predicted ecosystem services benefits, and help understand what levels of ecosystem
condition and function are needed to achieve desired levels of change.
2.7.3. Learning
Monitoring the outcomes of a decision action is a direct example of how learning can be used to
evaluate success or whether additional follow-up actions are needed. Learning, however, does not just
take place after a decision is made (Gregory et al. 2012). Collaborative learning is important throughout
the decision process, not only in informing the current decision through a shared understanding and
common language, but also folding lessons learned into future decision activities through adaptive
management (e.g., Williams et al. 2009). New information, even from monitoring, must be actively
integrated into the decision process to be useful and this process is a form of learning. For example, the
Mobile Bay case study currently involves the development of an ecosystem stressor matrix (Table 2.10)
intended to link known stressors to high priority parts of the ecosystem in a way that is useful for both
setting priorities and projecting impacts of decisions. The stressor matrix, when completed and
available, will greatly aid in integrating new information into future decisions (MBNEP personal
communication).
82
-------
Table 2.10 Example stressor matrix under development by the Mobile Bay NEP to collect expert opinion on ecosystem services impacted by
known stressors. Here a theoretical raw sewage spill in Perdido Bay is examined by connecting habitats to stressor effect through ecosystem
services. Committee members complete the matrix together ending with projected effects (up/down; high, medium, low) in the red bordered
cells. Only two potential habitats are shown here. The CCMP values are general MBNEP objectives listed in the CCMP.
Raw Sewage Spill in Perdido Bay
Impacted Habitats
CCMP Values
Ecosystem
Services
Event/Response
Stressor
Stressor
Stressor
Estuaries
ACCESS
Estuaries
WILDLIFE
Estuaries
HERITAGE
Estuaries
BEACHES
Estuaries
RESILIENCE
Shoreline
ACCESS
Shoreline
WILDLIFE
Shoreline
HERITAGE
Shoreline
BEACHES
Shoreline
RESILIENCE
83
-------
Improving scientific knowledge can help to reduce uncertainties and improve the effectiveness of future
decisions. From an SDM perspective (Gregory et al. 2012), the most important sources of uncertainty
are those that influence the ability of decision makers to make informed choices either because the
choices are not clear, or the outcomes cannot be predicted. By conducting scientific research within the
context of ongoing decisions, the case studies were able to identify key sources of uncertainty where
more research is needed. For many of the case studies, though knowledge of potential economic and
social outcomes of ecosystem services were desired, lack of data inhibited the ability to do economic,
cultural, or public health evaluations. The case studies relied on model-based predictions, proxies,
traditional ecological knowledge, or expert opinion to fill gaps, and are considering the potential value of
including ecosystem services and health related metrics in future monitoring. All of these data sources
should be considered when compiling BAI for a decision.
In the Puget Sound Washington case study, validation of VELMA modeling results (McKane et al. 2018)
relies heavily on published empirical data, which is often at different spatial or temporal resolutions
than model outcomes. VELMA results describing different streamflow outcomes for forest stands of
different ages could not be directly validated at the stand-level, until the publication of recent empirical
data on the effects of stand age on low summer flows (Perry and Jones 2017). This recent validation has
led to increased interest in the use of VELMA for municipal watershed planners for evaluating drinking
water supplies, especially in dry summer months. In the Mobile Bay case study, assessment of
ecosystem services benefits is currently limited by the lack of a quantitative baseline for evaluating
change in response to restoration. Empirical data on this subject is hard to acquire as it requires both
social and ecological data however model-based assessment are being developed that inform decision
making by setting a baseline relative to historic change in ecosystem services in the target watersheds.
This approach is readily transferable to other sub-watersheds of Mobile Bay (Fulford et al. 2022).
Collaborative learning through the decision process can help participants gain new perspectives on what
objectives matter about a decision, and to gain trust in resource managers and the credibility of
information (Gregory et al. 2012). Joint fact-finding is one approach that encourages experts,
stakeholders, and decision-makers to work closely together to gather information and leverage multiple
sources of knowledge. The San Juan case study engaged local residents in research efforts to collect data
for quantifying ecosystem services, such as flood regulation and water quality, with related human
health outcomes, such as household mold or mosquito borne illness (Betancourt et al. 2019; Yee et al.
2019). The research was dependent on this local on-the-ground support from partners and
homeowners, but additionally provided an opportunity for the public to become aware, personally
invested, and highly engaged in the research outcomes.
For the Puget Sound Washington case study, a key priority is to the reduce the expert dependence of
using scenario modeling via VELMA to develop information (McKane et al. 2018). The case study team
has invested energy and time in training for stakeholders to be able to transfer the use of VELMA from
model experts to decision-makers for incorporation into their own planning. Similarly, the positive
reaction of stakeholders and decision-makers who participated in the St. Louis River case study HIA
process shows their interest in using HIA in their own future project planning.
In addition to learning how to use tools, it is often the case that incorporation of ecosystem services into
decision making is limited by stakeholder understanding of ecosystem service benefits (Boyd et al.
2016). Extractive services, such as harvesting natural resources, pose no conceptual challenge but other
84
-------
services, such as recreational access and clean water, are both harder to value and communicate to
stakeholders.
VELMA training workshop (photo credit B. McKane).
Take Home: Learning is about making a more informed decision. Dedicated attention to
learning can help evaluate success of the decision, identify whether additional follow-up
actions are needed (i.e., adaptive management), and improve stakeholder awareness of
ecosystem service benefits provided by the decision.
2.7.4. Conclusions
While partners and stakeholders in the case studies recognized and appreciated the value of considering
ecosystem services, their successful inclusion of ecosystem services in implementation was variable.
While two case studies implemented decisions directly based on the ecosystem services assessment, the
majority of other case studies are continuing to consider how ecosystem services information might be
incorporated in future planning. Data limitations, especially for social, economic, or health outcomes,
can limit the ability to estimate potential benefits of decisions, and most case study partners recognized
a need for collecting the kind of data needed for ecosystem services assessment. However, often
multiple agencies, scientific advisory boards, internal approvals, or public review may be required to
make changes to existing monitoring protocols, so it may be unrealistic to expect rapid implementation
as new information becomes available. Furthermore, monitoring an ecological project for social and
health outcomes is a relatively novel idea, and may be reported at different spatial or time scales than
ecological data, for example to protect personal identities. Here we encounter again the notion of BAI
and how new ideas and data become accepted and integrated as a part of BAI for a particular decision.
All of the case studies should be viewed as cyclical in that some decisions, as well as the BAI used to
make them, are revisited regularly. The most transferable and useful element of the case studies is a
85
-------
structured incremental process for incorporating ecosystem service concepts into BAI. This is not SDM
itself, rather how new information is integrated into the SDM cycle over time. The structure of SDM
makes this process both easier and more transparent.
Overall, the case studies highlight the importance of using a structured process to engage community
members and stakeholders. This allows the establishment of clear expectations and timelines; facilitates
communication among community members, experts, and decision-makers; and undertakes a process
with transparency. Stakeholders in the St. Louis River case study appreciated that the decision process
was flexible; connected an ecological project with social, safety, and human health concerns; followed a
systematic process; and that facilitators continually followed-up with participants (EPA 2021).
Community members may be more likely to accept the ultimate decision if they feel they have been
heard and played a role in impacting the decision, even if they disagree with it (Gregory et al. 2012).
Furthermore, a process that engages collaborative learning can set the foundation for more effective
planning and implementation of future decisions.
2.8 Practical strategies and transferability
The ecosystem services practical strategies report (Yee et al. 2017) outlined the SDM approach to
decision support that was applied here in the case studies, as well as a suite of practical strategies
intended to be a guide for the transferability of this approach to other locations and issues. The goal for
Yee et al. (2017) and this coordinated case study comparison is to demonstrate the value of an SDM
approach based on ecosystem services, but also to facilitate its use elsewhere. In this coordinated case
study comparison, not all the steps were fully implemented for all the case study sites. Further, the
cases studies applied a range of tools best suited to the location, the issue at hand, and the
organizational structure of the decision authority involved. All steps should be used, if possible, but each
step can be approached differently if needed. Overall, a structured decision support tool like HIA or
DASEES offers the best entry point as they include all steps in the process and follow a guided, logical
path for stakeholders, but they require more time and technical investment to use. The SDM framework
that was demonstrated is intended to be modular and flexible. Its primary elements are stakeholder
engagement and the inclusion of ecosystem services as both objectives and as assessment tools. The
next section builds on this theme of transferability by considering entry points for the SDM process as a
guide for applying the SDM approach at new sites. These entry points along with the practical strategies
represent key lessons learned during the case study project.
Take Home: All steps of structured decision making should be used, if possible, but each
step can be approached differently for a specific decision context. This is a balance
between the common elements and locally specific characteristics.
86
-------
2.9 Literature cited
Biedenweg, K., A. Hanein, K. Nelson, K. Stiles, K. Wellman, J. Horowitz, and S. Vynne. 2014. Developing
human wellbeing indicators in the Puget Sound: focusing on the watershed scale. Coastal
Management, 42(4), pp.374-390.
Betancourt, D., T. Dean, and E. Huertas. 2019. An EPA pilot study characterizing fungal and bacterial
populations at homes after flooding events at the Martin Pena Channel Community.
Microbiology of the Built Environment, Lloyd Harbor, New York, November 03 - 06, 2019.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?dirEntryld=348231
Bolte, J., & Vache, K. (2010). Envisioning Puget Sound alternative futures: PSNERP final report.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Boyd, J., Ringold, P., Krupnick, A., Johnston, R., Weber, M., & Hall, K. (2016). Ecosystem services
indicators: improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses. International
Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 8, 359-443.
Bradley, P., et al. (2015). Application of a structured decision process for informing watershed
management options in Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico. Washington D.C., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Bradley, M.P., Fisher, W., Dyson, B., Yee, S., Carriger, J., Gambirazzio, G., Bousquin, J. and Huertas, E.,
2016. Application of a structured decision process for informing watershed management options
in Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency.
Bourdaghs, M., C.A. Johnson, and R.R. Regal. 2006. Properties and performance of the floristic quality
index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 26(3): 718-735.
Carriger, J. and W.H. Benson. 2012. Restoring and Managing Gulf of Mexico Fisheries: A Path toward
Creative Decision-Making. Chapter 13 in: Estuaries, Classification, Ecology, and Human Impacts.
Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppage, NY, 291-334.
de Jesus-Crespo, R. and R.S. Fulford. 2018. Eco-health linkages: assessing the role of ecosystem goods
and services on human health using causal criteria analysis. International journal of public health
(2018) 63: 81-92.
de Jesus-Crespo, R., J. Wu, M. Myer, S. Yee, and R.S. Fulford. 2019. Flood protection ecosystem services
in the coast of Puerto Rico: Associations between extreme weather, flood hazard mitigation and
gastrointestinal illness. Science of the total environment 676 (2019): 343-355.
Dyson B., Carriger, J., Newcomer-Johnson, T., Moura, R., Richardson, T., Canfield, T. 2019. Community
Resilience Planning: A Decision-Making Framework for Coastal Communities. EPA/600/R-19/066
July 2019
EPA. 2020. Kingbury Bay-Grassy Point Habitat Restoration: A Health Impact Assessment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2021. Kingsbury Bay-Grassy Point Habitat Restoration: A Health Impact Assessment. EPA/600/R-
21/XXX . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C.
Fulford, R.S., M. Russell, M. Myers, M. Malish, M. Stavely, and A. Delmaine. 2022. Models help set
ecosystem service baselines for restoration assessment. Journal of Environmental Management
317:115411.
Gregory, R., et al. (2012). Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management
choices. London, UK, Wiley-Blackwell.
Hammond, John S, Keeney, Ralph L., Raiffa, Howard. 1999. Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making
Better Life Decisions. Harvard Business School Press.
87
-------
Hoffman, J., and T. Angradi. Mud Lake alternatives ecosystem services analysis. U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
Jaeger, W.K., Amos, A., Bigelow, D.P., Chang, H., Conklin, D.R., Haggerty, R., Langpap, C., Moore, K.,
Mote, P.W., Nolin, A.W. and Plantinga, A.J., 2017. Finding water scarcity amid abundance using
human-natural system models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(45),
pp.11884-11889.
Lewis, N.S., E.W. Fox, and T.H. DeWitt. 2019. Estimating the distribution of harvested estuarine bivalves
with natural-history-based habitat suitability models. Estuarine, coastal, and shelf science
219(2019): 453-472.
Lewis, N., D.R. Young, C.L. Folger, and T.H. DeWitt. 2020. Assessing the relative importance of estuarine
nursery habitats - A Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) case study. Estuaries and coasts
https://doi.org/10.1007/sl2237-020-0Q821-l.
MBNEP (2019). Respect the Connect: Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Alabama's
estuaries and coast 2019-2023. M. B. N. E. Program. Mobile, AL, MBNEP.
McKane, B., N. Stevenson-Molnar, P. Pettus, J. Halama, A. Brookes, B. Barnhart, K. Djang. Visualizing
Terrestrial and Aquatic Systems in 3-D. Long Term Ecological Research All Scientists Meeting,
Estes Park, CO, August 31 - September 02, 2015.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryld=309391
McKane, R., J. Halama, P. Pettus, B. Barnhart, A. Brookes, K. Djang, G. Blair, J. Hall, J. Kane, P. Swedeen,
and L. Benson. How Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments (VELMA) modeling
quantifies co-benefits and tradeoffs in Community Forest management. Keynote address at
Northwest Community Forest Forum, Astoria, OR, May 10-11, 2018.
McKane, R.B., A. Brookes, K.S. Djang, J. Halama, P. Pettus, B. Barnhart, M. Russell, K.B. Vache, and J.P.
Bolte. 2020. An Integrated Multi-Model Decision Support Framework for Evaluating Ecosystem
Based Management Options for Coupled Human-Natural Systems. Ecosystem-Based
Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications.
Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 255-274, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03Q-45843-
0 13.
McKane, R.B., J.J. Halama, P.B. Pettus, B.L. Barnhart, A.F. Brookes, K.S. Djang, V. Phan, L.H. Chang, M.
Rylko, C. Spiry, M.J. Baerwalde, D. Steiner, B. Cluer. Modeling Floodplain and Watershed
Restoration for Salmon Recovery in the Tolt River Watershed, Washington - A Snoqualmie Indian
Tribe and US EPA Collaborative Effort. In review.
MPCA (2014a) Development of a fish-based Index of Biological Integrity for assessment of Minnesota's
rivers and streams. Document number wq-bsm2-03. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, St. Paul, MN.
MPCA (2014) Development of a macroinvertebrate-based Index of Biological Integrity for assessment of
Minnesota's rivers and streams. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Analysis
and Outcomes Division, St. Paul, MN.
NRC (2011). Improving Health in the United States: The Role of Health Impact Assessment. National
Research Council (NRC). National Academies Press.
ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2022. 2022 assessment of naturally produced summer
steelhead in the Umpqua River basin. Science Bulletin 2022-1. ODFW, Salem."
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/CRP/docs/north umpqua summer steelhead/2022 NU StS
Assessment FINAL.pdf
Orlando, J. and S.H. Yee. 2016. Linking sediment threat to declines in coral reef ecosystem services.
Estuaries and Coasts 40:359-375
Perry, TD, Jones, JA. Summer streamflow deficits from regenerating Douglas-fir forest in the Pacific
Northwest, USA. Ecohydrol. 2017; 10:el790. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1790
88
-------
Russell, M., J. Harvey, P. Ranade, K. Murphy. 2015. EPA H20 User Manual. US. EPA Office of Research
and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology
Division. No. EPA/600/R-15/090.
Skagit County 2021. ENVISION Skagit County 2060.
https://skagitcountv.net/Departments/EnvisionSkagit/main.htm
Smith, L.M., et al. 2013. Relating ecosystem services to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a
US index. Ecological Indicators 28: 79-90.
US Code 1987. US Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 USC 1330 Section 320. National Estuary
Program. Available online: http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=101&page=61#
(accessed on 3 July 2019).
Villarreal, M. L., Labiosa, B., & Aiello, D. (2017). Evaluating land-use change scenarios for the Puget
Sound Basin, Washington, within the ecosystem recovery target model-based framework (No.
2017-1057). US Geological Survey.
Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the
Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC.
Williams, K.C. and Hoffman, J.C., 2020. Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization: Engaging
Communities to Support Ecosystem-Based Management and Improve Human Wellbeing at
Clean-up Sites. Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity,
p.543.
Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T. Canfield, T. DeWitt, R. de Jesus-Crespo, B. Dyson, R. Fulford, M. Harwell,
J. Hoffman, C. Littles, J. Johnston, R. McKane, L. Green, M. Russell, L. Sharpe, N. Seeteram, A.
Tashie, and K. Williams. 2017. Practical Strategies for Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services into Community Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze,
FL, EPA/600/R-17/266.
Yee, S.H., Paulukonis, E. and Buck, K.D., 2020. Downscaling a human well-being index for environmental
management and environmental justice applications in Puerto Rico. Applied Geography, 123,
p.102231.
Yee, S.H., E. Paulukonis, C. Simmons, M. Russell, R. Fulford, L. Harwell, L.M. Smith. 2021. Projecting
effects of land use change on human well-being through changes in ecosystem services.
Ecological Modelling 440: 109358, https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109358.
Yee, S.H., A. Sullivan, K. Williams, 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 16:2351. doi:10.3390/ijerphl6132351.
Zimmer-Faust, A.G., C.A. Brown, A. Manderson. 2018. Statistical models of fecal coliform levels in Pacific
northwest estuaries for improved shellfish harvest area closure decision making. Marine
pollution bulletin 137(2018): 360-369.
89
-------
Section 3. Transferability and entry points of the decisional framework
The practical strategies report (Yee et al. 2017) outlined a suite of steps based on SDM (Gregory et al.
2012) that can guide the inclusion of final ecosystem services (FEGS) into environmental decision
making. This report has described a set of case study applications of these practical strategies with the
objective of providing transferable tools and entry points (Table 3.1) for application in other locations to
address a variety of important decisions. The goal is to make the application of FEGS in decision making
more understandable and accessible. The case studies include a mix of decisions, decision authorities,
and tools that should give interested readers some common ground no matter what their situation may
be. However, any effort to include ecosystem services into decision making should consider the
following base elements for success .
3.1 FEGS directly link a decision to human beneficiaries
The advantage of FEGS as a tool for informing decisions is that they link the decision outcome directly to
human benefit in as comprehensive a manner as possible. For example, in the Oklahoma Small
Community and St. Louis River case studies the primary effort at the beginning of the process was a
scoping of potential human benefits that could be connected to the decision at hand. Such efforts are
time consuming but highly beneficial as the end products are well and clearly aligned with how they
benefit people. Less formal entry points for this include expert opinion approaches, such as the stressor
matrix applied in the Mobile Bay case study or the human health links built in the San Juan case study.
Identification of high priority FEGS in any context, as well as how to measure change in FEGS production,
is an important step for decision support .
3.2 Structured tools as an entry point for decision framework
Expanding decision support to consider FEGS is a part of achieving BAI for a decision. That said the case
studies demonstrate that doing so is not a simple straight path to inclusion of new information. Complex
decisions often require organized approaches for the inclusion of new data. The structured decision
tools, such as HIA or DASEES, represent the most inclusive application of SDM and offer clear entry
points for new sites and decision contexts. They begin with clearly defining the decision and engaging
stakeholders and progress to clear metrics, useful visuals for comparison of decision alternatives, and a
framework for reporting the outcome in an understandable way. Tools like DASEES are complicated and
require facilitation to use them well. They are also time and data intensive. For these reasons we
consider adaptive endpoints as alternative entry points (Table 3.1) but recommend the use of structured
tools whenever possible and practical.
3.3 Stakeholder engagement is a central, critical element of SDM
One of the central elements of incorporating FEGS into decision support is the connection to people.
Some benefits of a decision are usually well understood, such as the sustainable harvest of shellfish in
the Tillamook Bay case study. However, many less obvious benefits may exist and should be considered,
and stakeholder engagement is a critical tool for increasing the inclusivity, transparency, and acceptance
90
-------
of a decision outcome. In the St. Louis River case study, stakeholder engagement in the form of
workshops was used to broaden the scope of decision alternatives to consider not just environmental
restoration metrics, but also human health endpoints. These new endpoints altered the discussion of
alternatives beyond site clean up to consider the impact of restoration implementation on the
neighborhood and to examine post restoration use of the site. These were novel objectives used to
compare alternatives. In the Mobile Bay case study, existing stakeholder committees were given
opportunity to steer decisions about how and where to make restoration investments. These represent
examples of both formal (St. Louis River) and adaptive (Mobile Bay) methods for stakeholder
engagement that can be applied in other situations (Table 3.1) .
3.4 New communities/same strategies
It is well accepted that every community has its own unique characteristics, history, and issues that will
affect the decision process no matter what the issue at hand may be. That said, an examination of
environmental decision making across the cases studies demonstrate a large amount of common ground
that allows for transferable lessons and strategies as we have outlined here and in previous reports (Yee
et al. 2017, Fulford et al. 2016). Further the SDM process and the approach for inclusion of FEGS into
decision making are both designed to be flexible and transferable across locations and issues. The case
studies demonstrate the idea of new communities/same strategies, and this report provides key entry
points for those interested in adapting these strategies to a new decision context. The goal is for each
new community to find the entry points that best fit their situation as a starting point with the end goal
being a comprehensive inclusion of FEGS in decision support. This approach allows new FEGS
practitioners to start small and build a good foundation as a long-term effort to improve not just the
decision outcome but also the decision process.
Take Home: All steps of structured decision making should be used, if possible, but each
step can be approached differently for a specific decision context. Existing research has
f demonstrated a suite of entry points whereby decision makers can most easily take
advantage of these new concepts in environmental decision making.
3.5 The way forward
This case study research was aimed at establishing the utility and transferability of the FEGS decision
framework between communities and across issues. The key to this approach is the 17 practical
strategies that were 'lessons learned' across all the case studies (yee et al. 2017), as well as viable entry
points for implementing these practical strategies (Table 3.1) with links to resources to make the
practical strategies useful. New users of this FEGS decision framework can use this report to choose
entry points for each practical strategy that suits their own situation and based on the work conducted
in the six case study sites (Appendix A). Final ecosystem goods and services are an important tool for
assessment of decisions based on how they benefit people. An adaptation of any environmental
decision to better or more completely consider human benefit is a change for the better in that the
91
-------
decision will be clearly justifiable, accepted by stakeholders, and adaptable as priorities change or new
information becomes available. Taken together and applied well, these practical strategies have high
potential to improve economic, social, and environmental benefits of complex decisions.
Table 3.1 Example applications of practical strategies outlined in Yee et al. (2017) based on case study
experiences.
Entry points represent approachable ways to start with each strategy both formally (Formal) and in an
adaptive manner that builds on existing decision strategies (Adaptive). Representative case study
examples are given for each entry point. Case studies are: Mobile Bay (MB), San Juan (SJ), Southern
Oklahoma (SOK), St. Louis River (SLR), Puget Sound (PS), and Tillamook Bay (TB).
Practical strategy
SDM step (Section link)
Entry points
1. Apply FEGS concepts to explicitly
connect EGS to people
The concept of FEGS explicitly connects
ecosystem services to the people that
benefit from them, leading to
identifying biophysical metrics that are
more meaningful to a community and
what they care about.
Overall SDM element (2.1)
Formal example case study
(SLR; 1.3.5)
Adaptive example case study
(PS; 1.3.2)
Formal - Use SDM tools such as
DASEES, HIA, or DPSIR to identify
important FEGS through stakeholder
engagement. (Ex. SLR, SOK)
Adaptive - Identify FEGS using
expert opinion and existing
objectives with opportunistic
inclusion of non-target FEGS also
impacted. (Ex. TB, PS)
2. Apply principles of SDM to
emphasize flexible approaches to
FEGS
Principles of SDM can provide a
philosophy for integrating FEGS into
decision making by emphasizing
flexible approaches to develop
creative alternatives that are
responsive to what stakeholders care
about.
Overall SDM element (2.1)
Formal example case study
(SOK; 1.3.4)
Adaptive example case study
(SJ; 1.3.3)
Formal - Use SDM tools such as
DASEES, HIA, or DPSIR for walking
through the entire SDM decision
cycle. (Ex. SLR, SOK, SJ)
Adaptive - Identify SDM steps in
existing decision process with an
effort to expand and educate
stakeholders. (Ex. MB, SJ, TB)
3. Incorporate FEGS concepts at any
point in the decision process
Ecosystem services concepts can be
integrated at multiple points in a
decision process, whether that process
is in early or late stages, or whether
that process includes informal or
formal decision analysis.
Overall SDM element (2.1)
Formal example case study
(SLR; 1.3.5)
Adaptive example case study
(MB; 1.3.1)
Formal - Use SDM tools such as
DASEES, HIA, or DPSIR to connect
FEGS to objectives, performance
metrics, and as an assessment tool
in analyzing trade-offs. (Ex. SLR,
SOK)
Adaptive - Identify important FEGS
and connect to an existing decision
process based on expert opinion
with an effort to educate
stakeholders. (Ex. MB, SJ)
4. Use FEGS to identify beneficiaries
as potential stakeholders
Clarify Decision Context (2.2)
Formal - Use SDM tools such as
DASEES, HIA, or DPSIR to identify
beneficiaries through inclusive
92
-------
Practical strategy
SDM step (Section link)
Entry points
FEGS is a useful construct for ensuring
potential benefits and costs of
environmental impacts are under
consideration and identifying
beneficiaries to engage as stakeholders
in the decision process.
Formal example case study
(SJ; 1.3.3)
Adaptive example case study
(PS; 1.3.2)
stakeholder engagement. (Ex. SLR,
SOK, SJ)
Adaptive - Beneficiaries identified
by expert opinion and existing
stakeholder input process, such as
committees. Process should be open
to identification of new
beneficiaries. (Ex. TB, MB, PS)
5. Use conceptual models as a
scaffold to visualize cause and
effect and relationships
Conceptual models can help visualize
cause and effect between decisions,
stressors, FEGS, and benefits. They
help provide a common language,
guide discussions, and elicit
information, especially when built
from a structured generic model as an
underlying scaffold.
Clarify Decision Context (2.2)
Formal example case study
(SLR; 1.3.5)
Adaptive example case study
(MB; 1.3.1)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES,
HIA, or DPSIR can be used to build
conceptual models of a given
decision context. (Ex. SJ, SLR)
Adaptive - Conceptual models can
be developed as an ad hoc process
to describe a decision, usually as a
part of stakeholder deliberation or
because of the inclusion of new
data. (Ex. MB)
6. Use objectives hierarchies to
define what is important about
FEGS
Depending on the context, FEGS may
be fundamental objectives or means to
achieving other social or economic
objectives, such as better health or
more jobs. Objectives hierarchies can
help clearly define what is important
about ecosystem services
(intermediate or final), and the means
to achieve it.
Define objectives and
performance measures (2.3)
Formal example case study
(SOK; 1.3.4)
Adaptive example case study
(MB; 1.3.1)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES,
HIA, or DPSIR can used to build an
objective hierarchy to maximize
inclusion of all objectives. (Ex. SJ,
SOK, SLR)
Adaptive - Listing of all objectives
associated with a decision via expert
stakeholder deliberations can result
in an objective hierarchy, but the
objectives need to be linked and
ranked. (Ex. PS, TB, MB)
7. Use structured systems as a
starting point to identify
measurable objectives
Structured approaches to indicator
development, such as the FEGS
Classification System, Rapid Benefits
Indicators, and the HWBI, can provide
a starting point for clarifying objectives
and how to measure them in ways that
reduce ambiguity.
Define objectives and
performance measures (2.3)
Formal example case study
(SOK; 1.3.4)
Adaptive example case study
(PS; 1.3.2)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES,
HIA, or DPSIR can used to convert a
list of objectives into measurable
performance indices. (Ex. SOK, SLR)
Adaptive - Performance indices
developed via regulation or through
expert judgement can be linked to
objectives and should allow for
expansion of metrics if all objectives
are not measured. (Ex. MB, PS)
8. Consider FEGS as means to achieve
other objectives
Depending on the decision context,
FEGS may be means to achieving other
Develop alternatives (2.4)
Formal example case study
(SLR; 1.3.5)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES,
HIA, or DPSIR are designed to
consider all objectives identified
through stakeholder engagement.
(Ex. SOK, SLR, SJ)
93
-------
Practical strategy
SDM step (Section link)
Entry points
economic, social, health, or general
well-being
objectives, and may provide an
opportunity for developing creative
alternatives alongside more typical
social or economic initiatives.
Adaptive example case study
(MB; 1.3.5)
Adaptive - Novel objectives can be
identified through ad hoc
consideration of ecosystem goods
and services by considering impacts
on stakeholders. (Ex. MB, PS)
9. Use structured paradigms to link
FEGS alternatives to broader
objectives
Structured paradigms, such as FEGS or
the HWBI, can provide a starting point
for identifying alternatives that
leverage ecosystem services
(intermediate or final) to achieve
economic or well-being objectives.
Develop alternatives (2.4)
Formal example case study
(SLR; 1.3.5)
Adaptive example case study
(PS; 1.3.2)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA are designed to identify
formal decision alternatives and link
them to performance measures to
ease comparison. (Ex. SOK, SLR)
Adaptive - Existing decision options
can be evaluated with ecosystem
services metrics identified by expert
opinion or through stakeholder
engagement. (Ex. MB, PS, SJ)
10. Prioritize information and analysis
to what is actually needed
Information collection and application
of tools should be prioritized to what is
needed to estimate consequences of
alternatives on measurable objectives,
and to reflect the uncertainty decision
makers are able to tolerate. Complex
FEGS assessments or economic
valuations may or may not be needed.
Estimate consequences (2.5)
Formal example case study
(SLR; 1.3.5)
Adaptive example case study
(TB; 1.3.6)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA formally consider only
those objectives identified as
important through stakeholder
engagement through an organized
and facilitated process. (Ex. SOK,
SLR)
Adaptive - Adapting an existing
decision process, such as resource
management, to consider all needed
information typically requires a
stepwise process including a new
data champion, review of new data,
and expert discussion. (Ex. MB, PS,
SJ, TB)
11. Use conceptual models to visualize
relationships
Conceptual models allow for a clear
understanding of assumptions being
made in estimating consequences.
Such visual models can be built as a
part of a formal discussion or
borrowed from existing information.
Consensus on content of these models
is important.
Estimate consequences (2.5)
Formal example case study
(SOK; 1.3.4)
Adaptive example case study
(MB; 1.3.5)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
provide a framework for turning
targeted discussions into a visual
conceptual model (Ex. SOK).
Adaptive - Conceptual models of
relationships can be derived from
informal discussion or existing
documents as a part of estimating
consequences and then confirmed
with experts (Ex. MB, PS).
12. Quantify FEGS with EPFs
A number of mathematical modeling
tools, ranging from fairly simple
lookup tables to complex biophysical
models, can quantify the effects of
Estimate consequences (2.5)
Formal example case study
(PS; 1.3.2)
Formal - Develop new modeling
tools specifically to quantify
ecosystem services and compare
decision scenarios defined by
decision makers. (Ex. PS)
94
-------
Practical strategy
SDM step (Section link)
Entry points
alternative scenarios on provisioning
of ecosystem services through the use
of EPFs.
Adaptive example case study
(TB; 1.3.6)
Adaptive - Adapting an existing
decision process with model-based
information and projections can
help improve BAI. Inclusion of new
data is gradual. (Ex. TB, MB)
13. Let objectives drive choice of
methods for FEGS benefits
analyses
Choice of methods to estimate
ecosystem services benefits (EBFs)
should primarily be driven by 1)
benefits endpoints under
consideration and 2) the information
required to make a decision.
Estimate consequences (2.5)
Formal example case study
(PS; 1.3.2)
Adaptive example case study
(TB; 1.3.6)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA formally link objectives to
benefits analysis. (Ex. PS, SOK, SLR)
Adaptive - Gradual inclusion of
FEGS benefit assessment into an
existing decision process occurs by
working backwards from known
beneficiaries to FEGS to decision
options. The monitoring cycle is
important here for development.
(Ex. MB, TB, SJ)
14. Use Decision Support Systems
(DSS) to organize and link FEGS
analyses
DSS can help engage stakeholders in a
step-by-step process by organizing
information and models linking
decisions to ecosystem
services (EPFs), to benefits (EBFs), and
to facilitate estimation of
consequences.
Estimate consequences (2.5)
Formal example case study
(SOK; 1.3.4)
Adaptive example case study
(SJ; 1.3.3)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES,
HIA, or integrated modeling tools
such as Envision, VELMA, InVEST,
and EPA H20, can be applied from
the beginning to guide a decision
and engage stakeholders. (Ex. SOK,
SLR)
Adaptive - Gradual inclusion of DSS
might include expansion of
objectives, addition of stakeholder
engagement, and development of
conceptual models describing an
issue. (Ex. MB, SJ)
15. Compare alternatives with
consequence tables and trade-offs
in FEGS benefits
Consequence tables are a useful tool
to display effects of decision
alternatives and understand trade-offs
among decisions, particularly FEGS
trade-offs, which are more directly
relevant to beneficiaries.
Estimate consequences (2.5)
Formal example case study
(SLR; 1.3.4)
Adaptive example case study
(MB; 1.3.5)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA include use of consequence
tables and FEGS trade-offs. (Ex. SOK,
SLR)
Adaptive - Consequence tables and
FEGS trade-off assessments can be
developed independently as an
entry point for existing decisions.
(Ex. MB, SJ)
16. Consider trade-offs in FEGS
benefits relative to other kinds of
objectives
Trade-off analysis is a valuable step for
considering how FEGS benefits, like
human health, compare to more
immediate benefits like achieving
water quality goals.
Evaluate trade-offs (2.6)
Formal example case study
(SLR; 1.3.4)
Adaptive example case study
(SJ; 1.3.3)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA use stakeholder input to
organize all benefits of a decision.
(Ex. SOK, SLR)
Adaptive - Benefit outcomes of a
decision can be identified by experts
or data and results organized using
ad hoc tools. (Ex. MB, SJ)
95
-------
Practical strategy
SDM step (Section link)
Entry points
17. Monitor impacts to FEGS benefits
after a decision to inform future
decisions
FEGS objectives should have their own
PMs and these PMs should be included
in long-term monitoring to improve
future decisions.
Implement, monitor, and
learn (2.6)
Formal example case study
(SLR; 1.3.4)
Adaptive example case study
(SJ; 1.3.3)
Formal - SDM tools such as DASEES
and HIA provide the basis for
monitoring and assessment by
following the SDM cycle. (Ex. SOK,
SLR)
Adaptive - Planned monitoring and
assessment can be adapted to a
FEGS approach by considering
additional PMs. (Ex. MB, SJ, PS)
96
-------
Appendix A-Additional resources for more detail on research in the
coordinated case studies
Table A.l - Examples of dissemination of case study results through published journal articles, internal
or public-facing reports, and book chapters. More details are available through EPA Science Inventory
(www.epa.gov/si).
Case Study
Type of
Citation
Product
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Alsip, P., J. Hartig, G. Krantzberg, K. Williams, and J. Wondolleck. Evolving institutional Journal
arrangements for use of an ecosystem approach in restoring Great Lakes Areas of Article
Concern . Sustainability. MDPI AG, Basel, SWITZERLAND,
Angradi, T., J. Launspach, D. Bolgrien, B. Bellinger, M. Starry, J. Hoffman, A. Trebitz, Journal
M. Sierszen, and T. Hollenhorst. Mapping ecosystem service indicators in a Great Article
Lakes estuarine Area of Concern . JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH. International
Association for Great Lakes Research, Ann Arbor, Ml, USA, 42(3): 717-727, (2016).
Angradi, T. A predictive model for floating leaf vegetation in the St. Louis River Model
Estuary. US EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
Angradi, T., J. Launspach, and R. Debbout. Determining preferences for ecosystem Journal
benefits in Great Lakes Areas of Concern from photographs posted to social media . Article
JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH. International Association for Great Lakes
Research, Ann Arbor, Ml, USA, 44(2): 340-351, (2018).
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jglr.2017.12.007
Angradi, T., K. Williams, J. Hoffman, and D. Bolgrien. Goals, beneficiaries, and Journal
indicators of waterfront revitalization in Great Lakes Areas of Concern and coastal Article
communities . JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH. International Association for
Great Lakes Research, Ann Arbor, Ml, USA, 45(5): 851-863, (2019).
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jglr.2019.07.001
Angradi, T., P. Ringold, and K. Hall. Water clarity measures as indicators of recreational Journal
benefits provided by U.S. lakes: Swimming and aesthetics . ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS. Article
Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA, 93:1005-1019, (2018).
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.001
Angradi, T., W. Bartsch, A. Trebitz, V. Brady, and J. Launspach. A depth-adjusted Journal
ambient distribution approach for setting numeric removal targets for a Great Lakes Article
Area of Concern beneficial use impairment: Degraded benthos . JOURNAL OF GREAT
LAKES RESEARCH. International Association for Great Lakes Research, Ann Arbor, Ml,
USA, 43(1): 108-120, (2017).
Bolgrien, D., T. Angradi, J. Bousquin, T. Canfield, T. DeWitt, R. Fulford, M. Harwell, J. Report
Hoffman, T. Hollenhorst, J. Johnston, J. Launspach, J. Lovette, B. Mckane, T.
Newcomer-Johnson, M. Russell, L. Sharpe, A. Tashie, K. Williams, and S. Yee.
Ecosystem goods and services case studies and models support community decision
making using the EnviroAtlas and the Eco-Health Relationship Browser. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
Bracey, A., M. Etterson, F. Strand, S. Matteson, G. Niemi, F. Cuthbert, and J. Hoffman. Journal
Foraging ecology differentiates life stages and mercury exposure in common terns Article
97
-------
Case Study
Type of
Citation
Product
(Sterna hirundo). Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. Allen
Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS, USA,
Hoffman, J., and T. Angradi. Mud Lake alternatives ecosystem services analysis. U.S.
EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
Technical
Fact Sheet
Hoffman, J., V. Blazer, H. Walsh, C. Shaw, R. Braham, and P. Mazik. Influence of
demographics, exposure, and habitat use in an urban, coastal river on tumor
prevalence in a demersal fish . SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT. Elsevier BV,
AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, 712:12 pg., (2020).
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136512
Journal
Article
Holifield, R., and K. Williams. Recruiting, integrating, and sustaining stakeholder
participation in environmental management: A case study from the Great Lakes Areas
of Concern . JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. Elsevier Science Ltd, New
York, NY, USA, 230:422-433, (2019). https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.081
Journal
Article
Holifield, R., and K. Williams. Watershed or bank-to-bank? Scales of governance and
the geographic definition of Great Lakes Areas of Concern . Environment and Planning
E: Nature and Space. SAGE Publications, THOUSAND OAKS, CA, USA,
Journal
Article
Lepak, R., J. Hoffman, S. Janssen, D. Krabbenhoft, J. Ogorek, J. DeWild, M. Tate, C.
Babiarz, R. Yin, E. Murphy, D. Engstrom, and J. Hurley. Mercury source changes and
food web shifts alter contamination signatures of predatory fish from Lake Michigan .
PNAS (PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES). National Academy
of Sciences, WASHINGTON, DC, USA, 116(47): 23600-23608, (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907484116
Journal
Article
Preiner, K., and K. Williams. Expanding the narrative of tribal health: The effects of
wild rice water quality rule changes. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa,
MN, USA, 2018.
Summary
Sierszen, M., L. Schoen, J. Kosiara, J. Hoffman, M. Cooper, and D. Uzarski. Relative
contributions of nearshore and wetland habitats to coastal food webs in the Great
Lakes . JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH. International Association for Great
Lakes Research, Ann Arbor, Ml, USA, 45(1): 129-137, (2019).
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jglr.2018.ll.006
Journal
Article
Steinman, A., B. Cardinale, W. Munns Jr, M. Ogdahl, D. Allan, T. Angradi, S. Bartlett, K.
Brauman, M. Byappanahalli, M. Doss, D. Dupont, A. Johns, D. Kashian, F. Lupi, P.
Mclntyre, T. Miller, M. Moore, R.L. Muenich, R. Poudel, J. Price, B. Provencher, A. Rea,
J. Read, S. Renzetti, B. Sohngen, and E. Washburn. Ecosystem services in the Great
Lakes . JOURNAL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH. International Association for Great
Lakes Research, Ann Arbor, Ml, USA, 43(3): 161-168, (2017).
Journal
Article
Williams, K. IFBRP Open House and Stakeholder Group Comment Analysis. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
Summary
Williams, K., and J. Hoffman. Mud Lake future alternatives community values and
health impact analysis. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington,
DC, USA, 2019.
Summary
Williams, K., and J. Hoffman. Remediation to restoration to revitalization: Ecosystem
based management to support community engagement at clean-up sites in the
Laurentian Great Lakes. Chapter 7, Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services
Book
Chapter
98
-------
Case Study
Type of
Citation
Product
and Aquatic Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg,
GERMANY, 543-559, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_27
Williams, K., D. Bolgrien, and J. Hoffman. How the community value of ecosystem
goods and services empowers communities to impact the outcomes of remediation,
restoration, and revitalization projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC, 2018.
Report
Williams, K., E. Washburn, D. Augsburger, J. Hembd, S. Mahmud, G. Epping Overholt, J.
Schomberg, and H. Sorensen. People and Places Forum Workshop Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC,
Internal
Report
Williams, K., J. Carlson, and D. Bolgrien. Analysis of Health Comments from the City of
Duluth Comprehensive Plan Kick-off Event. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
Report
Williams, K., J. Carlson, and D. Bolgrien. Analysis of the comments about fairness from
the City of Duluth Comprehensive Planning kick-off event. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Internal
Report
Williams, K., J. Hoffman, and N. French. From remediation to restoration and
community revitalization: The St. Louis River story. Chapter 10, J.H. Hartig, G.
Krantzberg, J.C. Austin, and P. Mclntyre How restoring polluted waters leads to rebirth
of Great Lakes Communities. International Association for Great Lakes Research, Ann
Arbor, Ml, USA, 61-66, (2019).
Book
Chapter
Mobile Bay and Gulf of Mexico
Jackson, C., P. Schmutz, M. Harwell, and C. Littles. The ecosystem service of property
protection and exposure to environmental stressors in the Gulf of Mexico . Ocean &
Coastal Management. Elsevier, Shannon, IRELAND,
Journal
Article
Lewis, M. Near-Coastal Ecosystem Vulnerability: Plant-Dominated Fringe Habitats,
Anthropogenic Non-Nutrient Chemicals and Risk Assessment Considerations .
AQUATIC BOTANY. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA,
Journal
Article
Lewis, M., J.T. Kirschenfeld, and T. Goodhart. Environmental Quality of the Pensacola
Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and
Rehabilitation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
Report
Yee, S., E. Paulukonis, C. Simmons, M. Russell, R. Fulford, L. Harwell, and L. Smith.
Forecasting effects of land-use change on human well-being through changes in
ecosystem services . ECOLOGICAL MODELLING. Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam,
NETHERLANDS,
Journal
Article
Fulford, R., and M. Jackson. EPA H20: Assessing ecosystem services in D'Olive
Watershed.
Technical
Fact Sheet
Fulford, R., K. Houghton, J. James, and M. Russell. Habitat specific differences in
nitrogen cycling in a Gulf of Mexico Estuary. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT.
Elsevier BV, AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS,
Journal
Article
Fulford, R., M. Russell, J. Hagy, and D. Breitburg. Managing estuaries for ecosystem
function . Global Ecology and Conservation. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS,
21(e00892): 13, (2020). https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00892
Journal
Article
99
-------
Case Study
Citation
Type of
Product
San Juan Bay Estuary and Puerto Rico
Balogh, S., J. Bousquin, T. Munoz-Erickson, E. Melendez-Ackerman, A. Lugo, G. Garcia
Lopez, C. Ortiz Garcia, M. Perez Lugo, and P. Mendez-Lazaro. Ecosystem services and
urban metabolism in shrinking cities: A case study of San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Journal
Article
DeJesus-Crespo, R., J. Wu, M. Myer, S. Yee, and R. Fulford. Flood protection ecosystem
services in the coast of Puerto Rico: Associations between extreme weather, flood
hazard mitigation and gastrointestinal illness . SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT.
Elsevier BV, AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, 676: 343-355, (2019).
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.287
Journal
Article
DeJesus-Crespo, R., Yee, S., P. Mendez-Lazaro. Linking Wetland Ecosystem Services to
Vector-borne Disease: Dengue Fever in the San Juan Bay Estuary, Puerto Rico .
WETLANDS. The Society of Wetland Scientists, McLean, VA, USA, 39(6): 1281-1293,
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/sl3157-017-0990-5
Journal
Article
Giri, C. Mapping and Monitoring of Mangrove Forests of the World Using Remote
Sensing. 1st. Chapter 13, Lisamarie Windham-Myers, Stephen Crooks, Tiffany G.
Troxler (ed.), A Blue Carbon Primer: The State of Coastal Wetland Carbon Science,
Practice and Policy. CRC Press - Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 163-
177, (2018).
Book
Chapter
Huang, Y., S.L. Pimm, and C. Giri. Using metapopulation theory for practical
conservation of mangrove endemic birds . CONSERVATION BIOLOGY. Blackwell
Publishing, Maiden, MA, USA, 34(1): 266-275, (2020).
https://doi.org/10.llll/cobi.13364
Journal
Article
Martin, R., C. Wigand, A. Oczkowski, A. Hanson, S. Balogh, B. Branoff, E. Santos, and E.
Huertas. Greenhouse Gas Fluxes of Mangrove Soils and Adjacent Coastal Waters in an
Urban, Subtropical Estuary. WETLANDS. The Society of Wetland Scientists, McLean,
VA, USA, 40: 1469-1480, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/sl3157-020-01300-w
Journal
Article
Oczkowski, A., A. Hanson, and D. Katz. Science and Social Justice at the Cano Martin
Pena Estuary in San Juan, Puerto Rico. In: CERF's Up!, Coastal & Estuarine Research
Federation, Port Republic, MD, USA, issue}: 4-5, (2020).
Newsletter
Article
Oczkowski, A., E. Santos, A. Gray, K. Miller, E. Huertas, A. Hanson, R. Martin, E.
Watson, and C. Wigand. Tracking the Dynamic Ecological History of a Tropical Urban
Estuary as it Responds to Human Pressures . ECOSYSTEMS. Springer, New York, NY,
USA, 23: 231-245, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0021-019-00399-l
Journal
Article
Oczkowski, A., E. Santos, R. Martin, A. Gray, A. Hanson, E. Watson, E. Huertas, and C.
Wigand. Unexpected Nitrogen Sources in a Tropical Urban Estuary. Journal of
Geophysical Research - Biogeosciences. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC,
USA, 125(3): e2019JG005502, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JG005502
Journal
Article
Orlando, J., S. Yee, L. Harwell, and L. Smith. Technical Guidance for Constructing a
Human Weil-Being Index (HWBI): A Puerto Rico Example. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
Report
Yee, D., R. DeJesus-Crespo, F. Hunter, and F. Bai. Assessing natural infection with Zika
virus in the southern house mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, during 2016 in Puerto
Journal
Article
100
-------
Case Study
Type of
Citation
Product
Rico . Medical and Veterinary Entomology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA,
32(2): 255-258, (2018). https://doi.org/10.llll/mve.12289
Yee, S. Contributions of Ecosystem Services to Human Well-being in Puerto Rico . Journal
Sustainability. MDPI AG, Basel, SWITZERLAND, Article
Yee, S., D. Yee, R. DeJesus-Crespo, A. Oczkowski, F. Bai, and S. Friedman. Linking Journal
Water Quality to Aedes aegypti and Zika in Flood-Prone Neighborhoods . EcoHealth. Article
Springer, New York, NY, USA, 16:191-209, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0393-
019-01406-6
Yee, S., E. Paulukonis, and K. Buck. Downscaling a Human Weil-Being Index for Journal
Environmental Management and Environmental Justice Applications in Puerto Rico . Article
ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA,
Puget Sound, Tillamook Bay, and Pacific Northwest
Halama, J., B. Barnhart, R. Kennedy, B. Mckane, J. Graham, P. Pettus, A. Brookes, K. Journal
Djang, and R. Waschmann. Improved soil temperature modeling by using spatially Article
explicit solar energy driver data . WATER. MDPI AG, Basel, SWITZERLAND, 10(10):
1398, (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/wl0101398
Kaldy, J., and T. MochonCollura. Zostera japonica mapping surveys in Skagit Bay and Dataset
Port Susan, Puget Sound Washington, U.S.A.: Summary Report. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
McKane, B., A. Brookes, K.S. Djang, J. Halama, P. Pettus, B. Barnhart, M. Russell, K.B. Book
Vache, and J.P. Bolte. An Integrated Multi-Model Decision Support Framework for Chapter
Evaluating Ecosystem Based Management Options for Coupled Human-Natural
Systems . Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic
Biodiversity: Theory, Tools and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg, GERMANY, 255-
274, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_13
Brown, C.A., T. Mochon Collura, and T. DeWitt. Accretion rates and carbon Dataset
sequestration in Oregon salt marshes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
Dumbauld, B., L. McCoy, T. DeWitt, and J. Chapman. Population Declines of Two Journal
Ecosystem Engineers in Pacific Northwest (USA) Estuaries. Article
Lewis, N., and T. DeWitt. Effect of Green Macroalgal Blooms on the Behavior, Growth, Journal
and Survival of Cockles (Clinocardium nuttallii) in Pacific NW Estuaries . MARINE Article
ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES. Inter-Research, Luhe, GERMANY, 582: 105-120, (2017).
https://doi.org/10.3354/mepsl2328
Lewis, N., D. Young, C. Folger, and T. DeWitt. Assessing the Relative Importance of Journal
Estuarine Nursery Habitats - a Dungeness Crab (Cancer magister) Case Study. Article
Estuaries and Coasts. Estuarine Research Federation, Port Republic, MD, USA, (2020).
Lewis, N., E. Fox, and T. DeWitt. Estimating the distribution of harvested estuarine Journal
bivalves with natural-history-based habitat suitability models.. ESTUARINE, COASTAL Article
AND SHELF SCIENCE. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA, 219: 453-472, (2019).
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.02.009
Marois, D., and J. Stecher. A simple, dynamic, hydrological model for mesotidal salt Journal
marshes . ESTUARINE, COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, Article
NY, USA,
101
-------
Case Study
Type of
Citation
Product
Zimmer-Faust, A., C. Brown, and A. Manderson. Statistical models of fecal coliform Journal
levels in Pacific Northwest estuaries for improved shellfish harvest area closure Article
decision making . MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY,
USA, 137: 360-369, (2018). https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.09.028
Syntheses of Relevance Across Multiple Case Studies
Fulford, R., I. Krauss, S. Yee, and M. Russell. A keyword approach to finding common Journal
ground in community-based definitions of human well-being . Human Ecology. Article
Springer, New York, NY, USA, 45(6): 809-821, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0745-
017-9940-3
Fulford, R., M. Russell, J. Harvey, and M. Harwell. Sustainability at the community Report
level: Searching for common ground as a part of a national strategy for decision
support. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
Fulford, R., R. Bruins, T. Canfield, J. Handy, J. Johnston, P. Ringold, M. Russell, N. Report
Seeteram, K. Winters, and S. Yee. Lessons learned in applying ecosystem goods and
services to community decision making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
Yee, S., A. Sullivan, K. Williams, and K. Winters. Who Benefits from National Estuaries? Journal
Applying the FEGS Classification System to Identify Ecosystem Services and their Article
Beneficiaries . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
Molecular Diversity Preservation International, Basel, SWITZERLAND, 16(13): 2351,
(2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerphl6132351
Yee, S., J. Bousquin, R. Bruins, T. Canfield, T. DeWitt, R. DeJesus-Crespo, B. Dyson, R.
Fulford, M. Harwell, J. Hoffman, C. Littles, J. Johnston, B. Mckane, L. Ruiz-Green, M.
Russell, L. Sharpe, N. Seeteram, A. Tashie, and K. Williams. Practical Strategies for
Integrating Final Ecosystem Goods and Services into Community Decision-Making. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
Report
102
-------
Appendix B - Example recommendations for action
Table B.l - Recommendations provided by stakeholders to mitigate negative health impacts or improve positive health benefits of the
Kingsbury Bay- Grassy Point restoration project within the St. Louis River case study.
Recommendations were associated with one more health pathways (e.g., Water Habitat and Quality), which were the causal
pathways between restoration actions or park improvements and health outcomes. Recommendations were assigned to either of the
decision-makers for the restoration work and associated park improvements, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)
or the City of Duluth. As of April 4, 2019, the restoration project was under contract; recommendations included in the design or
contract by MNDNR are indicated. As of that date, the City of Duluth had not yet undertaken a review of the park plans, and so no
action was yet possible (N/A).
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Water Habitat & Quality
Follow best practices for stormwater management,
erosion and runoff, and equipment leaks during the
construction phases and implement mitigations, as
necessary
MNDNR, City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in design,
included in EAW
City of Duluth - N/A
Water Habitat & Quality
Develop habitat plans for marsh birds, wading
birds, and migratory waterfowl
MNDNR, City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in design,
included in EAW
City of Duluth - N/A
Water Habitat & Quality
Develop a long-term, non-native species
management plan for both Grassy Point and
Kingsbury Bay
MNDNR, City of Duluth
N/A
103
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Water Habitat & Quality
Where compatible with project goals, protect
existing high-quality aquatic plants at Kingsbury Bay
MNDNR
MNDNR - adopted in design,
included in EAW
Water Habitat & Quality
Develop a sediment remediation target protective
of human health based on surface-weighted area
contaminant concentration, particularly for dioxins
MNDNR
MNDNR - adopted in design,
included in EAW
Water Habitat & Quality
For a future project, cap or remove sediments to
the east of the Grassy Point project area (currently
outside the project area) to reduce bioavailability
of dioxins
MNDNR
N/A
Water Habitat & Quality
Design the stormwater pond identified in the
concept plan to intercept stormwater to maximize
its ability to protect Kingsbury Bay water quality
City of Duluth
N/A
Water Habitat & Quality
Conduct creel surveys focused on fishing within the
AOC, and include information on race, ethnicity,
location of residence, age, and fish consumption
habits
MNDNR
N/A
Water Habitat & Quality
Implement a fish monitoring program that includes
mercury, dioxins, and PCBs, and targets both
resident and migratory fish species
MNDNR, MDH
N/A
104
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Water Habitat & Quality
Provide ethnically-appropriate communication on
consumption-related risk that addresses specific-
contaminant risk as well as fish species and size
MNDNR, MDH
N/A
Water Habitat & Quality
Should contaminant concentrations of certain fish
species or sizes at the project sites meet human
health guidelines, promote the consumption of
local fish due to its health benefits
MNDNR, MDH
N/A
Water Habitat & Quality
Identify upland habitats within the site suitable for
trees, and develop goals for the upland plant
community that take into account future changes in
invasive species, water level, and climate, as well as
crime prevention and safety guidelines (e.g., Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design
guidelines)
MNDNR, City of Duluth
N/A
Water Habitat & Quality
Identify regional stormwater outfalls or other
sources of Escherichia coli and implement
additional best management practices to improve
water quality at the future swimming beach at
Kingsbury Bay
City of Duluth
N/A
Water Habitat & Quality
To sustain the ecological integrity of the site,
provide interpretative signage that provides
information on wetland habitat types and the
City of Duluth
N/A
105
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
benefits each habitat provides for fish, reptiles,
birds, and people
Water Habitat & Quality
Implement routine beach monitoring at the future
Kingsbury Bay swimming beach
MDH
N/A
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Air Quality
Noise and Light Pollution
Clearly communicate the project, its duration,
project updates (including issues and concerns),
and expected roadway and water traffic impacts,
air pollution levels, and noise levels to residents,
schools and daycare centers, senior centers and
care facilities, businesses, and recreational users in
the project area and along the transport route
MNDNR, City of Duluth
N/A
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Air Quality
Noise and Light Pollution
Provide a means for residents and other affected
populations to provide feedback, questions and/or
lodge complaints about general construction
activities and excess traffic, air, and noise impacts
MNDNR, City of Duluth
N/A
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Hire companies with a proven safety record; local
companies given priority in hiring can benefit the
local economy
MNDNR, City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in contract
City of Duluth - N/A
106
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Air Quality
Noise and Light Pollution
Route trucks, other equipment and vehicle traffic
away from neighborhoods, schools and daycare
centers, senior centers and care facilities, and
recreation areas to the extent possible to minimize
the risk of traffic impacts and exposure to noise and
air pollution
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and associated
contractors
N/A
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Take additional safety measures and/or limit the
amount of truck traffic at the start and end of the
school day to create safe routes to and from school
for children
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and associated contractor
N/A
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Take into account traffic patterns, road geometry,
and frequency and timing of trips to minimize
traffic disturbance and congestion
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and associated
contractors
N/A
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Repair damage to roadways caused by construction
vehicles and transport (e.g., potholes, broken
curbs, collapsed manholes, rail crossing damage)
MNDNR, City of Duluth
and associated
contractors
MNDNR - adopted in contract
City of Duluth - N/A
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Air Quality
Consider the use of rail or barge to transport
sediment between the two sites, as these routes
would avoid residential areas, minimize roadway
traffic impacts, likely reduce the number of trips
(given the larger capacity of rail cars and barges),
MNDNR and associated
contractors
N/A
107
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
and minimize traffic-related air pollutants in the
residential areas
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Route material transport traffic away from
neighborhoods, schools and daycare centers, senior
centers and care facilities, and recreation areas to
minimize the risk of exposure to particulate matter
and contaminants in excavated material
MNDNR and associated
contractors
N/A
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Minimize impacts of the hydraulic pipeline and
project-related barge traffic on recreational boaters
and the navigation channel of the St. Louis River by
using signs, markings, and warnings
MNDNR and associated
contractors
MNDNR-included in EAW,
adopted in contract
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Air Quality
Minimize exposure to material in transport by
covering transport vehicles and implementing other
fugitive dust measures, including watering access
routes, and covering exposed soils/ stockpiles
MNDNR and associated
contractors
MNDNR-included in EAW,
adopted in contract
Equipment Operation,
Traffic, and Transport
Crime and Safety
Implement traffic calming measures (such as speed
humps, raised crosswalks/ intersections, traffic
circles, medians, curb extensions or bump-outs,
and signage or pavement markings) and bikeway
improvements (such as clear painted bike lane
markings and signage to already designated bike
routes) to improve safe access to the parks and
City of Duluth
N/A
108
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
Recommendation,
for Implementation
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
minimize the risk for increased accidents should the
parks and other nearby enhancements increase the
amount of traffic in the area post-construction
Air Quality
Include mitigation specifications in the contract
(reduced idling and requirements for equipment
fitted with catalysts and filters) and incentives for
contractors with idle reduction policies, and newer
or retrofitted equipment
MNDNR, City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in contract
City of Duluth - N/A
Air Quality
Select native trees and plants for planting that will
do well in warming climate
Note: Trees have the greatest potential to filter air
pollutants, followed by shrubs, and then grasses
City of Duluth and
associated contractors
N/A
Air Quality
Select trees that have tall, broad canopies for
increased shading and place in areas where people
may congregate
City of Duluth and
associated contractors
N/A
Noise and Light Pollution
Include noise mitigation criteria/ specifications in
the contract (e.g., absolute noise criterion for
equipment, restricted idling, and use of mufflers,
dampeners, shieldings, and enclosures)
MNDNR, City of Duluth
MNDNR-included in EAW,
adopted in contract
City of Duluth - N/A
Noise and Light Pollution
Include incentives or priority in hiring for
contractors who have established noise mitigation
programs/policies and/or newer fleets
MNDNR, City of Duluth
N/A
109
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
Recommendation,
for Implementation
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Noise and Light Pollution
Limit construction activities to daylight hours or the
hours specified in the Duluth noise ordinance (7 am
- 9 pm), whichever is more restrictive (i.e., sunset
December-March is between 4:30 and 7:30 pm).
Limit noisy operations to non-sensitive time periods
(e.g., mid-day)
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and associated
contractors
MNDNR - contractor must
adhere to city code
City of Duluth - N/A
Noise and Light Pollution
Avoid nighttime construction activity to the extent
possible. During winter, sunset is between 4:30 and
7:30 pm (much earlier than 9:00 pm). When
necessary, implement measures to minimize light
illumination impacts on nearby residences
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and associated
contractors
MNDNR - contractor must
adhere to city code
City of Duluth - N/A
Noise and Light Pollution
Implement noise monitoring in the vicinity of both
sites to assess overall noise levels (i.e., baseline
noise plus project noise) and implement mitigation
measures, as necessary, to minimize impacts
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and associated
contractors
MNDNR - contractor must
adhere to city code
City of Duluth - N/A
Noise and Light Pollution
Position stationary noise sources as far away as
possible from noise sensitive areas (areas where a
quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or
attribute, such as residential areas, parks,
recreational and wilderness areas, and cultural and
historical sites)
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and associated
contractors
MNDNR - contractor must
adhere to city code
City of Duluth - N/A
110
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
Recommendation,
for Implementation
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Noise and Light Pollution
Implement hearing protection and operations
schedules to avoid exposure of construction
workers to noise above NIOSH recommended
exposure limits (73% of the time construction
workers are exposed over the recommended
exposure limits)
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and associated
contractors
MNDNR - adopted in contract
City of Duluth - N/A
Noise and Light Pollution
Prohibit the use of truck engine brakes, unless in
case of emergency
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and associated
contractors
N/A
Noise and Light Pollution
Ensure any lighting used in the parks are
intelligently-designed, low glare, efficient outdoor
lighting fixtures that direct illumination toward the
ground (rather than upward) and evaluate the
potential for motion sensors on lighting in certain
areas of the parks or parking lots to minimize over-
illumination
City of Duluth
N/A
Crime and Safety
Construction activities that alter existing routes and
access points should have clear signs and barriers
to minimize the potential for trespassers
MNDNR, City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in contract
City of Duluth - N/A
Crime and Safety
Clearly communicate the improvements being
made to Grassy Point to alleviate existing
City of Duluth
N/A
Ill
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
perceptions of crime and personal safety issues and
encourage utilization of the space post-restoration
Crime and Safety
Follow Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED) guidelines, including lighting and
planting configurations. Where possible, reduce
dense planting and shrubs around narrow
pedestrian paths
City of Duluth
N/A
Crime and Safety
Lighting should be improved and police surveillance
considered to reduce crime and the perception of
risk at these sites
City of Duluth
N/A
Crime and Safety
Provide clear signage and maps for pedestrian and
bicyclist access to the parks. Important elements of
access and design include effective wayfinding
systems such as the use of landmarks, signage,
distance to destination markers, and interest points
to assist in navigating the routes easily
City of Duluth
N/A
Crime and Safety
After improvements of parks begin, increase
enforcement or police presence to "set the tone."
Communicate to police department that their
presence is important in the beginning to deter bad
behavior and reduce crime. This is especially true at
Grassy Point where it is more secluded and
City of Duluth
N/A
112
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
thereby, necessitates more formal surveillance.
Delegation of those resources should be
determined by the number of visitors and the
expected frequency of crimes
Crime and Safety
Consider using the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA's)
Walkability and Bikeability Checklists to inform
design of trails within the parks and leading to the
parks
City of Duluth
N/A
Crime and Safety
Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to Grassy
Point from the Irving neighborhood; current access
is by footpath or walking/biking along Waseca
Industrial Road
City of Duluth
N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Recommend that the City solicit deliberative
community and stakeholder engagement and
examine the pathways through which the park
efforts could impact health to help inform the park
improvements design and implementation
City of Duluth
N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Offer diverse opportunities for recreation at both
sites, including publicly-accessible gathering spaces,
fishing piers, birding platforms, access to the water
for water-based recreation, and trails, considering
maintenance requirements of installed features
MNDNR, City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in design,
included in EAW
City of Duluth - N/A
113
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Preserve and enhance fishing opportunities, with
more formal locations (e.g., piers) and social
gathering opportunities adjacent to those locations.
The creation of Big Island at Grassy Point would
provide an opportunity for a fishing pier and access
to a fishery with more biodiversity; a bridge would
be needed to access Big Island
MNDNR, City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in design,
included in EAW
City of Duluth - N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Create a higher upland area on Big Island to form a
more sheltered bay, providing safer harbor for
kayaks and canoes
MNDNR
MNDNR - adopted in design,
included in EAW
City of Duluth - N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Crime and Safety
Areas that support both human-powered and
motorized boats should include measures to
enhance safety and minimize potential for user
conflict
MNDNR, City of Duluth
N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
All swimming areas should include measures to
enhance safety and minimize potential for user
conflict. Measures should include signage about the
availability of lifeguards and current water quality
status. Buoys should separate swimming and
boating areas
City of Duluth
N/A
114
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
Recommendation,
for Implementation
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Social and Cultural
In advance of construction and in all project phases,
clearly communicate to recreational and water
users, through multiple media sources, reliable and
timely information about the construction periods,
disruptions to the Western Waterfront Trail and
walkability and accessibility to both project sites,
and the planned changes at both sites so that users
can anticipate the improved resources and plan to
visit
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
and nonprofit
organizations
MNDNR - adopted in contract
City of Duluth - N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Provide additional parking to increase access to and
utilization of the restored Kingsbury Bay and Grassy
Point sites, using caution to minimize any potential
environmental impacts of the added parking
City of Duluth
N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Perform wetland restoration at the mouth of
Kingsbury Creek to preserve the cold-water habitat
for trout and provide deeper water for kayak and
canoe access
MNDNR
MNDNR - adopted in design,
included in EAW
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Social and Cultural
The planners should strive to create natural spaces
for social interaction and opportunities for social
gatherings near the additional planned fishing
piers, especially at Grassy Point, similar to the
improvements at Chambers Grove Park
MNDNR, City of Duluth,
other partners
MNDNR - adopted in design
City of Duluth - N/A
115
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Because recreational amenities are enjoyed by
residents, any plans for future changes should
include recognition of the value placed by residents
who use the resources frequently
City of Duluth
N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Preserve and upgrade current birding locations, as
well as enhance access to newly created birding
habitat. Signage, raised platforms, and telescopes
are all potential amenities. Upland plant
communities should be restored to maximize
potential for pollinator, including bird, habitat
MNDNR and City of Duluth
N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Recognizing the value placed on the existing
resources, any changes to park amenities could add
new features to existing parks and green space
City of Duluth
N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Create a water trail to serve as a by-way for kayaks,
which can be nominated as a nationally designated
water trail, and may provide opportunities for
recognition and funding
City of Duluth and
nonprofit organization
partners
N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Research and develop co-management models,
where neighborhood organizations have more
formal responsibility for park management. Co-
management arrangements could empower the
neighborhood and ease the maintenance burden
on the city of Duluth
City of Duluth, EPA, other
academic and nonprofit
organization partners
N/A
116
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
Recommendation,
for Implementation
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Social and Cultural
The City should provide a means for assessing park
usage and the ends to which the sites are being
used (e.g., for social cohesion, spiritual reflection,
and access to cultural resources). This could include
reaching out to the University of Minnesota-Duluth
Environmental and Outdoor Education program or
other local organizations to create a service
learning or citizen science project that monitors,
through a 5-year monitoring and evaluation
timeline, the use of the parks for these means or
providing signage at the sites that includes a
description of how to report usage of the park,
including a QR code that sends them directly to a
feedback form
City of Duluth, UMD, and
nonprofit organization
partners
N/A
Recreation, Aesthetics,
and Engagement with
Nature
Explore partnerships with organizations to facilitate
access, education, and equipment sharing,
additional recreational opportunities and
leadership capacity building for underrepresented
communities
City of Duluth, EPA, other
academic and nonprofit
organization partners
N/A
Social and Cultural
The planning team should conduct stakeholder
meetings to the extent possible to gather
information needed to understand the social and
cultural significance of these parks to the various
populations in the community, including but not
MNDNR and City of Duluth
N/A
117
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
Recommendation,
for Implementation
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
limited to a cultural heritage assessment of the
sites
Social and Cultural
The planners should strive to create natural spaces
for solitary spiritual reflection. Attention should be
paid to develop spaces for spiritual reflection that
minimize the noise and distraction from the nearby
industry and take into account the vistas from the
space
MNDNR and City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in design
City of Duluth - N/A
Social and Cultural
Signage may be considered that demarcate
culturally-significant spaces and promote quiet
reflection. The Duluth Indigenous Commission,
Fond du Lac Band, and 1854 Treaty Authority
should be consulted when developing signage to
denote spaces that are significant for Native
American populations
City of Duluth
N/A
Social and Cultural
The planning team should prioritize the placement
of native, medicinal, and culturally-significant
plants
MNDNR and City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in design
City of Duluth - N/A
118
-------
Pathway(s)
Recommendation
Party(ies) Responsible
for Implementation
Recommendation,
Adoption,
Implementation
(as of April 4, 2019)
Social and Cultural
Attention should be paid to promote the presence
of wildlife that may be culturally significant and
specifically the abundance of fish for subsistence
fishing
MNDNR and City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in design,
included in EAW
City of Duluth - N/A
Social and Cultural
Consult with 1854 Treaty Authority, Duluth
Indigenous Commission, and Fond du Lac Band
resource managers to identify significant sites for
any use and determine the best approach to
preserve, enhance or interpret resources
MNDNR and City of Duluth
MNDNR - adopted in design
City of Duluth - N/A
Social and Cultural
Outreach should be conducted to engage and
encourage park use by the African American youth
in Duluth, perhaps through the YMCA, the Valley
Youth Center, and the Duluth Outdoor
Collaborative
City of Duluth and
nonprofit organization
partners
N/A
Social and Cultural
To encourage park use by minority groups, the City
of Duluth Parks Department could hire leaders from
these underrepresented populations to work in
public engagement, outreach, and park operations
City of Duluth
N/A
Social and Cultural
Bag stations for dog poop pick-up should be
installed at each park
City of Duluth
N/A
119
-------
c/EPA
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% posteonsumer fiber content processed chlorine free
------- |