Resilient Coastal Wetlands and Communities Workshop Proceedings May 2023


| } •—	r t Coastal Wetlands

I*	I and Communities

Workshop Proceedings

iTotal'Areai
^08 Acres

-------
EPA/600/R-23/050
Final

May 2023

www.epa.gov/research

Resilient Coastal Wetlands and Communities:
Workshop Proceedings

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

Cover Photo Credits:

Wetlands landscape/Wenley Ferguson, Save the Bay
Aerial map/ Wenley Ferguson, Save the Bay
Blue heron/Public domain

Living shorelines project/Mary Schoell, Rl National Estuarine Research Reserve

Preferred Citation:

U.S. EPA. 2023. Resilient Coastal Wetlands and Communities: Workshop Proceedings. Office of Research and Development,
Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-23/050. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/research.

i

-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY AND DISCLAIMER

This work was conducted under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Quality Assurance (QA)
program for environmental information, with an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan, L-HEEAD-
0031309-QP-1-7. Independent QA audits were not deemed necessary; the product was reviewed by QA,
two internal technical reviewers, and two external peer reviewers.

This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. Contractor's role did not include establishing Agency policy.

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY AND DISCLAIMER	ii

LIST OF FIGURES	iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS	v

PREFACE	vi

AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS	vii

LEAD AUTHORS	vii

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS	vii

INTERNAL REVIEWERS	vii

EXTERNAL REVIEWERS	vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	viii

1	Introduction	11

2	Workshop Themes	12

2.1	What is wetland resilience?	12

2.1.1	How to Define, Characterize, and Measure Resilience	13

2.1.2	The Relationship of Resilience to Vulnerability, Threats, and Impacts	16

2.2	How Do We Manage for Resilience Under Changing Environmental Conditions?	18

2.2.1	Site Selection & Working with Marsh Migration	19

2.2.2	Identifying Strategies & Designing Interventions	20

2.2.3	How to Assess Vulnerability and Socioecological Impacts in the Context of Resilience	20

2.2.4	Social-Economic Considerations	22

2.3	How Can Resilient Wetlands Boost the Health and Resilience of Coastal Communities?	22

2.3.1	Coastal Protection	23

2.3.2	Human Health	24

2.3.3	Other Wetland Values and Ecosystem Services	24

3	Synthesis	24

3.1	Strengths	25

3.2	Challenges and Gaps	27

3.3	Emerging principles	29

Appendix A. Workshop Agenda	33

Appendix B. Workshop Presenters and Participants	35

iii

-------
Appendix C. Detailed Results of Mentimeter Polls and Questions 37

C.l. What does resilience mean to you? 37

C.2. How does/should resilience figure into your research and decision making? 38

C.3. What do you see as the biggest connection between wetlands resilience and community
resilience, and how would you measure it? 39

C.4. What is the value gained from partner/stakeholder engagement in wetlands management for
resilience? 40

C.5. What are the top things we need to do to improve as a community of practice on achieving
resilient coastal wetlands and communities? 42

Appendix D. Relevant Information and Links Provided by Workshop Participants 44

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The physical and biological determinants of vulnerability and their relationship to resilience.. 13

Figure 2. Participant inputs on the best indicators of a more resilient wetland 15

Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of key factors driving a coastal salt marsh system, calling out factors that
sustain a marsh and potentially contribute to resilience, that are potentially impacted by anthropogenic
stressors, or that can be influenced by management 17

Figure 4. Participant inputs on how much time they spend considering resilience in the context of five
different aspects of management. Ratings were scaled from 1 (least) to 5 (most); the numbers represent
the weighted average across 40 respondents 18

Figure 5. Social-Ecological Systems, Adaptive Management, and Engagement (SESAME) Framework for
coastal restoration and climate adaptation (Mulvaney et al. 2022) 21

Figure 6. Word cloud of participant inputs describing the nature of stakeholder engagement. Word size
is based on frequency of word choice by multiple participants 23

Figure 7. Participant inputs on their interest and experience with five key cross-cutting topics 25

Figure 8. Participant inputs on how much time is spent considering resilience in the context of five
different aspects of management (on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the strongest) 28

Figure 9. Participant inputs on whether information on managing for resilience is readily available and
sufficient for success 30

Figure 10. Participant inputs on how much emphasis their organizations put on environmental justice. 32

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Examples of CBP climate change indicators representing exposure, impact, and resilience 15

-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADT

Adaptation Design Tool

BMP

Best Management Practice

CBP

Chesapeake Bay Program

CERAP

Coastal Ecological Restoration & Adaptation Plan

DEIJ

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Justice

EJ

Environmental Justice

EPAORD

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development

EPA ORISE Fellow

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Fellow at EPA

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

HCS

Hazardous and Contaminated Sites

MarshRAM

Salt Marsh Rapid Assessment Method

MD DNR

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

NBEP

Narragansett Bay Estuarine Program

NBNERR

Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

NNBF

Natural and Nature-Based Features

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

PDE

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

RAM

Rapid Assessment Method

RAMP

Restoration, Assessment, and Monitoring Program

RIDOH

Rhode Island Department of Health

RINHS

Rhode Island Natural History Survey

RWVF

Relative Wetland Vulnerability Framework

SESAME

Social-Ecological Systems, Adaptive Management, and Engagement Framework

SLAMM

Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model

SLR

Sea Level Rise

TMDL

Total Maximum Daily Load

TtCES

Tetra Tech Center for Ecological Sciences

URI

University of Rhode Island

USGS

United States Geological Survey

VIMS

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

WATCH

Wetland Assessment Tool for Condition & Health

V

-------
PREFACE

This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Research and
Development, as part of the Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program, with
support from Tetra Tech, Inc. The SHC research program is committed to helping communities build
resilience in their socio-ecological systems to optimize health and well-being outcomes. This includes
developing tools, methods, and frameworks to support healthy and resilient ecological and human
communities. USEPA scientists collaborate closely with partners and stakeholders as they use the best
available science to develop effective plans to increase communities' resilience to climate change, land
use activities, and other rapidly changing environmental conditions.

Coastal wetlands are an important part of this equation. States and their constituent coastal
communities recognize that wetlands are a critical environmental component of community resilience
because of the beneficial ecosystem services they provide. One such service—the ability to protect
adjacent upland areas by mitigating the impacts of storms and floods—is of growing interest and
importance to communities facing extreme events of greater frequency and intensity, especially where
man made buffers are too costly or less desirable for ecological or social reasons. Other ecosystem
services, such as water purification, provision offish and wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration, are
also of great value to community and regional stakeholders.

The Resilient Coastal Wetlands and Communities workshop (24-25 May 2022) brought together USEPA
researchers along with a host of other partners and stakeholders virtually, for a cross-organizational and
cross-regional exploration of three scientific themes: characterizing and measuring wetlands resilience;
adapting management to support wetlands resilience; and linking wetlands resilience to the health and
resilience of coastal communities, including those that are overburdened and underserved. The
workshop focused on efforts in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions, but the tools, approaches, and
lessons learned are relevant nationally. This workshop Proceedings synthesizes the results of the
workshop presentations and interactive audience discussions. The aim is to generate new information
and opportunities that will further advance our collective understanding of how to protect and boost
the resilience of our coastal wetlands, and the communities that depend on them.

-------
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS

The Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) research program of EPA's Office of Research and
Development was responsible for producing this report. The report was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc.,
under EPA Contract No. EP-C-17-031. Jordan M. West served as the Task Order Project Officer, providing
overall direction and technical leadership, and was a contributing author.

LEAD AUTHORS

Anna Hamilton, Tetra Tech, Inc.

Jordan M. West, EPA ORD

Jenifer Stamp, Tetra Tech, Inc.

Cathleen Wigand, EPA ORD

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Erin E. Burman, EPA ORISE Fellow

Josh Moody, PDE

Caitlin Chaffee, NBNERR

Kate Mulvaney, EPA ORD

Christine Conn, MDNR

Julie Reichert-Nguyen, NOAA/CBP

LeeAnn Haaf, PDE

Adam Reilly, EPA Region 1

Tom Kutcher, RINHS

Courtney Schmidt, NBEP

Pamela Mason, VIMS

Simona Trandafir, URI

INTERNAL REVIEWERS

Laurie Alexander, EPA ORD

Mary E. Kentula, EPA ORD

EXTERNAL REVIEWERS

Neil Ganju, USGS

Kaitlyn Shaw, NOAA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our appreciation to the many colleagues who contributed valuable insights and
feedback at the workshop and in the development of this proceedings report. Specifically, we thank J.
Siegel (EPA Region 2) and J. Johnson (EPA Region 3) for their expert facilitation and A. Berk (Tetra Tech,
Inc.) and E. Hiett (Tetra Tech, Inc.) for their seamless logistical support throughout the virtual workshop
presentations and interactive discussions. R. Calabro (RIDOH) provided valuable advice during workshop
planning. Finally, we appreciate the support and guidance throughout this work of EPA ORD leadership,
including C. Frey., W. Casio, T. Watkins, S. Julius, and M. Nye.

vii

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

In May 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development hosted a
two-day virtual workshop on resilient coastal wetlands and communities. The goal was to leverage
knowledge and lessons learned from across regions and organizations to help standardize, improve, and
advance methods to support resilience of coastal wetlands and communities. To this end, interactive
online polls, open-ended questions, and chats were used to facilitate sharing of information, ideas, and
lessons learned from diverse approaches to resilience. The over 100 participants on each day included a
broad array of researchers, managers, and decision makers from across multiple regions (Mid-Atlantic
and Northeast), organizations (federal, state, local, Tribal, non-governmental, academic, and private),
and specialties (wetlands resilience and community resilience). This Proceedings synthesizes the results
of the workshop presentations and discussions and explores emerging insights and opportunities to
further advance our ability to achieve resilient coastal wetlands and communities.

This document consists of two main sections. The first is a cross-organizational and cross-regional
examination of three themes: defining and measuring wetlands resilience; adapting management to
support wetlands resilience; and linking wetlands resilience to community resilience. The second section
presents a synthesis of the workshop community's evaluation of where we stand with respect to existing
strengths, challenges and gaps for improvement, and emerging principles.

Themes

What is wetland resilience?

• Resilience is determined by the combination of sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the system
when exposed to climate and other environmental stressors.

• From an ecological perspective, this translates to the ability of a wetland to persist through a
disturbance while maintaining valued functions or services.

• From a sociological perspective, this translates to the ability to effectively engage with partners
(e.g., federal, state, Tribes, local, non-governmental, academic, and private) and stakeholders
(e.g., local governments, communities, individuals, other) to implement best management
practices that preserve services.

• Highest ranked indicators of long-term resilience included: increased acreage of unfragmented
habitat, increased elevation capital, decreased erosion rates, increased ecological diversity, and
increased natural hydrology.

How do we manage for resilience under changing environmental conditions?

• A variety of vulnerability assessment, condition assessment, and impact diagnosis tools are
available to help inform decisions on how to select and design interventions for different sites.

• Participants reported a strong focus on site selection and marsh migration, with an emphasis on
linking evaluation of the problems at sites with design of appropriate interventions.

-------
•	Socio-ecological frameworks are available to facilitate robust partner and stakeholder
engagement in marsh management that includes consideration of marsh values for human
health and resilience.

•	Analyzing trade-offs among social and ecological costs and benefits is essential in decision
making for management adaptations to increase coupled wetland and community resilience.

How can resilient wetlands boost the health and resilience of coastal communities?

•	Participants affirmed the importance, challenges, and benefits of partner and stakeholder
engagement when seeking to link resilience of wetlands to benefits for communities.

•	The main connection perceived between wetlands and community resilience is ecosystem
services (e.g., flood protection, wave attenuation, water quality, water storage, aesthetics).

•	Wetlands contribute to community well-being and human health via interactions that influence
the social determinants of health directly, or indirectly by ameliorating climate change impacts.

•	The combined resilience of connected wetland and human communities will best be measured
by the quality, persistence, and sustainability of both through time, using indicators of
ecosystem service functions, property values, cultural values, and mental health outcomes.

Synthesis

Strengths

An overarching strength of the resilience management community is that the participants self-report a

moderate-to-high level of both focus and experience in five cross-cutting areas.

•	Translating scientific information for decisions is an area of rich exchange and sharing among
participants on a variety of tools, information resources, and initiatives.

•	Working with partners and stakeholders, hand-in-hand with addressing barriers and
opportunities for successful implementation, builds a shared understanding of local
environmental problems and co-production of solutions, leading to greater community support
for resilience activities.

•	Dealing with uncertainty is often handled implicitly in research and project methodologies, and
while always a challenge, is an area in which participants are well-experienced.

•	Capacity building efforts are focused on boosting expertise and resources that enable resilience
management and build community support for inclusive and sustainable goals and projects.

Challenges and Gaps

The workshop participants were asked to evaluate five different categories of challenges and gaps and

identify what would be needed to make improvements.

•	Decision support tools represent a strong area of development, but a remaining challenge is
how to better contextualize how various tools complement or align with each in each situation.

•	Capacity building improvements are needed to increase dedicated staffing and funding for
resilience work, education of community members, and outreach and training to empower
environmental justice leaders and champions.

ix

-------
•	Closing technical research gaps has made good strides, yet more work is needed on the specifics
of management tactics, monitoring to demonstrate effectiveness, how to blend wetland
restoration with improving community health, and understanding unintended consequences.

•	Overcoming barriers to implementation is seen as a challenge, with gaining partner and
stakeholder buy-in, funding, and permitting essential in the context of specific projects, tools,
and programs.

•	Political will is seen as the area needing the most work, including building relationships with
local governments so that a better understanding can help remove barriers to implementation.

Emerging Principles

The participants brainstormed what fundamental advancements are needed to move forward as a
community of practice, and these can be represented by the following principles.

•	Coordination among groups should be greatly expanded and improved through more
widespread and intentional use of cooperative frameworks and information-sharing platforms.

•	Communication, for both coordination and partner and stakeholder outreach, requires expertise
and priority investment to more extensively share failures and associated lessons learned,
better document and share what actually does and does not work, and publicize and celebrate
successes.

•	Planning horizons for shorter and longer time frames will be key for deciding when/how to shift
from shorter- to longer-term objectives, for more robust decisions on allocation of resources.

•	Standardizing approaches-such as monitoring performance metrics, methods for determining
ecosystem service benefits, permitting practices, and assessment frameworks—must be
balanced with the recognition that data and applications may have to remain site-specific.

•	Environmental justice (EJ). along with related concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion, is a
burgeoning area of study and priority action that is widely recognized across organizations but
still has many needs for improvement, especially in implementing EJ actions.

With these Proceedings, the authors hope that the ideas gleaned from the workshop community can be
used to collectively drive continued improvements in effective implementation of strategies to achieve
resilient and sustainable coastal wetlands that in turn support healthy and thriving coastal communities.

x

-------
1 Introduction

In May 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (EPA
ORD) hosted a two-day, interactive virtual workshop to explore evolving concepts of climate change
vulnerability, socioecological impacts, and priority adaptation practices to manage for resilient coastal
wetlands. The goal of the workshop was to leverage knowledge and lessons learned from across regions
and organizations to help standardize, improve, and advance methods to support resilient coastal
wetlands and communities. In developing the workshop, emphasis was placed on interactions among
participants to explore commonalities and differences in methods, areas of success, opportunities for
improvements, and other insights gained from varied approaches applied across regions, organizations,
and practitioners. Participation was achieved using Mentimeter1 as well as the video and chat features
of Microsoft Teams2.

Two parallel lines of related research within EPA ORD on approaches to resilience and wetland
management formed the backbone for this workshop:

1)	a 'Mid-Atlantic' research team led by Dr. Jordan West working with Tetra Tech, the Partnership
for the Delaware Estuary (PDE), and other EPA Region 3 partners to connect information from
EPA's Relative Wetland Vulnerabilities Framework and other EPA tools3 with PDE decision tools
to inform more effective program and project adaptations; and

2)	a 'Northeast' research team led by Dr. Cathy Wigand working with partners in EPA Region 1 to
analyze wetland adaptation efforts and identify areas of success, opportunities for
improvements, and methods to maximize social and ecological co-benefits for restored
wetlands.

The scope and richness of the workshop were further enhanced by participation of regional partners in
panel presentations and discussions focused on their own Mid-Atlantic- and Northeast-based research
and management practices related to coastal and community resilience.

The workshop agenda may be found in Appendix A. The workshop was attended by a diversity of
participants (146 on Day 1, 97 on Day 2) from six federal agencies; more than two dozen state, local, and
Tribal agencies; 16 non-governmental organizations; more than a dozen academic institutions; and
several private companies. The first day consisted of research presentations and interactive discussions
on EPA ORD's Mid-Atlantic and Northeast research tracks. The second day consisted of two panels, each
featuring presentations by four partner organizations. Presenters from the Mid-Atlantic region included
representatives from the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/Chesapeake Bay Program, United States Geological Survey/Chesapeake Bay Program,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary.
Representatives from the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Narragansett Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve, Rhode Island Natural History Survey, and Rhode Island Department of Health
presented during the Northeast session. (Full details on workshop speakers and panel participants are
found in Appendix B.)

1	https://www.mentimeter.com/

2	https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software

3	More descriptive information on and links to tools, methods, and other resources mentioned in this Proceedings can be found
in Appendix D.

11

-------
Each day's presentations were followed by interactive discussions with the audience, and the workshop
concluded with a brainstorming session on lessons learned and emerging insights from across regions
and organizations on how to better standardize, improve, and support the advancement of our
collective wetland resilience efforts. Detailed summaries of the interactive Mentimeter polls may be
found in Appendix C and are referenced throughout this document.

Finally, Appendix D provides a full compilation of specific tools, publications, and information resources
provided by the presenters. These are organized for easy reference according to the workshop session,
region, organization, and presenter, with brief descriptions and links to associated web pages and
publications. Additional resources shared by workshop participants are also included, along with the link
to the workshop page that includes all the presentations.

2 Workshop Themes

Three questions were considered key to advancing the practice of wetlands adaptation and resilience-
based management, and thus were presented as workshop themes:

•	What is wetland resilience?

This theme explores the concepts of resilience utilized by resource managers, restoration
specialists, scientists, decision makers, and other practitioners in their approaches to wetlands
management. As the essential starting point for discussing how to manage for resilient
wetlands, this theme involves consideration of: how to define, characterize, measure, and
monitor resilience; the relationship of resilience to vulnerability, threats, and impacts; and how
to assess vulnerability and socioecological impacts in the context of resilience.

•	How do we manage for resilience under changing environmental conditions?

This theme covers the practical aspects of managing for resilient wetlands. Specific areas of
interest with regard to management applications include: considering resilience when selecting
priority sites; evaluation, prioritization, and design of interventions in the context of resilience;
and socio-ecological trade-offs in decision making for resilience.

•	How can resilient wetlands boost the health and resilience of coastal communities?

This theme explores linkages between ecological and socioeconomic considerations, with a
focus on areas that could be reflected in trade-off analyses during decision making, including:
community resilience through wetland coastal protection; human health benefits of resilient
wetlands; and the role of other wetland values and ecosystem services (e.g., fish and wildlife
habitat) for human health and well-being.

In the sections that follow, workshop findings for each of the themes are explored based on material
shared over the two days of the meeting. Summary information, examples, and key insights are drawn
from across the presentations, panel discussions, and interactive participant feedback sessions.

2.1 What is wetland resilience?

The workshop began by asking participants to consider a conceptual model of resilience used by EPA
ORD (Figure 1). This model is consistent with the climate change science community's widely accepted
conceptualization of the components of vulnerability and shows the relationship of those components
to resilience according to resilience science specialists. Here, vulnerability is determined by the

12

-------
exposures of a system to climate change arid other stressors that result in an impact based on the
sensitivity of the system; but that impact may be mediated by the adaptive capacity of the system to
resist, tolerate, or bounce back. System resilience is thus determined by the combination of sensitivity
and adaptive capacity of the component communities, species, habitats, and interactions, in the context
of wetlands management, the overall goal is to reduce vulnerabilities through management
interventions that either reduce exposures or increase system resilience (by reducing wetland
sensitivities and/or boosting wetland adaptive capacity). The sections that follow further explore
concepts of wetlands resilience from the perspective of the workshop participants.

Exposure

Climate (Change)
Signal

Sensitivity

Potential
Impact

Adaptive
Capacity

Resilience

Maynard et al. (2017)

IPCC AR4 (2007)

Figure 1. The physical and biological determinants of vulnerability and their relationship to resilience.4

2.1.1 How to Define, Characterize, and Measure Resilience

Workshop presentations were all related to coastal wetland resilience, with most presenters defining or
characterizing resilience contextually by examining various aspects of the systems contributing to or
affecting resistance and resilience. A common paradigm was the association of restoring wetlands or
preserving them for the long term as a key aspect of managing for wetland resilience. In other words,

4 IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M,L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J,P. Palutikof, P J. van der
Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 976pp.

Maynard JA, Marshall PA, Parker B, Mcleod E, Ahmadia G, van Hooidonk R, Planes S, Williams GJ, Raymundo L, Beeden R,
Tamelander J (2017) A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support. Nairobi, Kenya: UN Environment.

-------
wetlands persisting into the future represents wetland resilience. For example, Chaffee (NBNERR5)
discussed two case studies of projects in Rhode Island that applied dredged sediments to degraded
coastal marshes to increase elevation, restore the marshes, and increase resilience against sea-level rise
over time. Reichert-Nguyen (NOAA/CBP) and Sullivan (USGS/CBP) presented the CBP's wetland and
climate resiliency goals in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement6. The wetland goal is expressed as
acres of wetland creation or re-establishment, or as functional enhancement of degraded wetlands, to
be accomplished within a defined timeframe (by 2025). The climate resiliency goal aims to increase the
resiliency of the Chesapeake Bay's living resources, habitats (including wetlands), public infrastructure,
and communities to withstand adverse impacts from climate change.

Conn (MD DNR) presented Maryland's approach to building coastal resilience, which includes selecting
priority areas to conserve wetlands. This is achieved using Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM)
projections to identify areas of wetland loss and gain and where wetlands can migrate inland in
response to sea level rise (SLR). This is combined with prioritization of coastal wetland areas that
provide risk reduction benefits (e.g., flood protection) to residents, thereby making a link to the
resilience of human communities. Climate resilience benefits are then, in part, characterized as areas
where marshes can persist through migration in response to SLR. MD DNR's concept of promoting
wetland resilience by enabling marsh migration is also captured in their establishment of coastal
resiliency easements, which include delineation of wetland adaptation buffers to allow wetland
migration. Mason (VIMS) asserted that tidal wetland resilience equals "future" marshes, that is,
preserving or restoring marshes to maintain their services (e.g., water quality, habitat, erosion control,
carbon flux, flood abatement, cultural, historic, recreation and aesthetics). As part of this process,
thought needs to be given to how future marshes need to be preserved-whether to the same extent
(acreage) as they currently exist, in the same locations, with the same distributions, of the same class,
and/or providing the same services.

Another aspect of understanding resilience, from a practical point of view, is how resilience would be
measured and monitored, or what would be considered an indicator of wetland resilience. To gather
initial thoughts from workshop participants on this question, a poll asked them to rank the best among
six categories of resilience indicators; results are shown in Figure 2. Consistent with the common
paradigm among presenters, increased acreage of unfragmented habitat was most frequently ranked as
the best indicator of wetland resilience. Nevertheless, four other potential indicators—increased
elevation capital, decreased erosion rates, increased ecological diversity, and increased natural
hydrology—also were highly ranked. All of these are related to 'healthy' wetland functioning and
provide varying levels of resistance to stressors. Social benefits from wetlands were not as commonly
perceived as an indicator of wetland resilience (Figure 2).

5 For conciseness, organizational affiliations are abbreviated throughout the rest of this document; full names of all
organizations are provided in the Abbreviations section on page i.

6 https://www.chesapeakebay.net/what/what-guides-us/watershed-agreement

-------
26

Increased Decreased Increased Increased Increased Increased
elevation erosion rates ecological acreage of social benefits natural
capital diversity unfragmented hydrology

habitat

Figure 2. Participant inputs on the best indicators of a more resilient wetland.

The CBP is also working on climate-related indicators, and Reichert-Nguyen (NOAA/CBP) and Sullivan
(USGS/CBP) presented an approach in which climate change indicators were grouped into those
representing exposures, impacts, and resilience. Examples are shown in Table 1. SLR is an exposure
(which CBP refers to as a Physical Indicator of climate change). Wetlands loss is an Impact Indicator of
ecological/community threats (from SLR). A change in land use designation to allow for marsh migration
is a Climate Resilience Indicator of preparedness (i.e., a potential response that would help mitigate
marsh losses). In this application, the ability or intent to respond to or resist a threat was part of their
definition of resilience.

Table 1. Examples of CBP climate change indicators representing exposure¦, impact, and resilience.

Exposure

Impact

Resilience

Physical Indicator

Impact Indicator

Climate Resilience Indicator

SLR

wetlands loss

change in land use designation to allow for
marsh migration

In an open-ended poll, workshop participants were asked to submit statements about what resilience
means to them. The most common ecologically oriented responses involved the ability (of a wetland) to
persist through a disturbance. A variety of terms were used in addition to 'persist', including recover,
adapt, survive, resist, absorb, withstand, retain, deal with, maintain and strengthen, bounce back,
rebound, return to a stable state, come back, and respond positively. Other terms used in addition to
'disturbance' were stressors, adverse impacts, extreme events, significant change over time and space,
weather challenges, and droughts or storms. In some cases, the concept was elaborated to include
persisting within certain parameters, or while maintaining a certain ecosystem expression, retaining
ecosystem functions, or continuing to provide ecosystem services.

-------
Some participants also provided responses that reflect human socio-economic aspects of resilience,
ranging from engagement with partners and stakeholders, to implementation of best management
practices (BMPs), to some of the ecosystem services that wetlands typically provide (such as flood
protection). A more complete tabulation of participant inputs on the question "What does resilience
mean to you?" can be found in Appendix C.l.

2.1.? The Relationship of Resilience to Vulnerability. Threats, and
Impacts

Workshop presentations and participant inputs suggested that coastal wetland problems can be
understood through a framework of vulnerabilities, threats, and impacts. This framework helps define
and clarify the actions needed to achieve resilience. Various talks addressed vulnerability assessment
(e.g., Hamilton (Tt CES), West (EPA ORD)), condition assessment (e.g., Kutcher (RINHS), Chaffee
(NBNERR)), diagnosis of threats and impacts (Haaf (PDE), Moody (PDE)), and combinations of these (e.g.,
Conn (MD DNR), Mason (VIMS)). The presenters discussed ways in which resilience management
programs can use results from these types of analyses to help inform decisions on restoration and
climate adaptation priorities of where to work (i.e., site selection for wetland restoration and protection
efforts), what to do in response (i.e., what restoration or protection techniques to apply), and how to
design interventions to be effective.

Several presenters discussed methods or tools for evaluating or comparing wetland vulnerabilities, or
for diagnosing wetland threats and impacts. Hamilton (Tt CES) presented the Relative Wetlands
Vulnerability Framework (RWVF), which uses structured steps to: select and evaluate parameters of
exposure and response (as a combination of sensitivity and adaptive capacity); and integrate these into
a visualization of relative vulnerability that can be compared among sites and regions to support setting
priorities, selecting sites, and designing interventions. West (EPA ORD) used results from the RWVF for a
set of wetlands in Delaware Bay to explore how the results could support management decisions when
linked appropriately to management goals. She discussed the types of trade-offs that might be
considered depending on whether management objectives focused on preserving stable sites or
restoring vulnerable sites; explored how details of vulnerability assessment outputs could inform tactic
selection, particularly at finer spatial scales; and showed the potential for long-term assessment results
to reveal tipping points (e.g., from relatively stable marsh in the short term to high marsh losses in the
long term) that may be important to consider when making management decisions. Jen Stamp (Tt CES)
offered a framework to aid in making selections among the many tools that are available to support
decision making in the form of a conceptual model (Figure 3) that would help define the ecological and
management contexts in which the tool would be applied. The model development supports a
comparison among several EPA and PDE decision support and assessment tools, organizing components
that represent key system drivers, internal marsh processes and responses, stressors (including both
conventional and climate change components), and ecosystem services, with options for inclusion of
socio-economic factors as well. By organizing system components so that they reflect relationships
among climate exposures, other stressors, wetland condition factors, and wetland response metrics, it is
possible to map the components and pathways that each tool covers. A user can use this to ask whether
a tool covers the components that are important to them and are needed in the context of the decisions
they need to make. The conceptual model also can be used to compare tools by showing how they
complement or align with each other.

16

-------
Climate change compcmenta

Uppdf'io1^ soureas of
&sr»&*ors. dir&Oly af*KttKj by
Iwtman activities

I Natural factors not easiy |
rr*an»fwJate<3 or alined

j External (actor* that most *i*ec&y
il nwsh f

Internal marsh

Landward marsh
migration

r ,

sa&t marsh acreage

type oi mareh

log., percent habitat
compovtoiv
ItigtVtowfttta) acreage)

condition of marsh

(e g., percsnl habttal of
quality , percent invasive
specie? M»d-7RAM rnediKsf

Ro»SOrt«

Ecosystem services
beneficial outputs

| «cota/am j

flood pfOidCtWi

carbon storage

water Titration

«e*»eney of

irWflstaxtLfa.

damage com*
avtwkKJ

P.'A species

CWtJOTi'

ol concern

CTHfitS

salt marjfi sparrow
nesting habitat

era& and Ash nursery
and foragng ha&flal

From a different point of view, Burman (EPA ORISE Fellow) considered the future vulnerabilities of
wetland and adjacent upland areas (including human communities) related to the presence of
hazardous and contaminated sites (HCSs) within coastal marsh migration pathways. As wetlands are
submerged and migrate landward with SLR, contaminants within the migration pathway can be exposed
to tidal waters and released into the environment. The severity of risk would be, in part, related to the
type of contaminant and its expected level of effect on human health and aquatic life, a factor that can
be incorporated into an assessment. Her work suggests that the overlap of projected marsh migration

-------
and HCSs is an additional factor that should be considered to inform both hazard remediation and
conservation planning, including determination of overall vulnerability and priority setting. For example,
a heavily polluted marsh site might be considered a poor candidate for restoration if contaminated
sediments would be re-suspended in the process. Many hazard remediation, marsh restoration, and
coastal resilience projects have significant costs and efforts associated with them, so it is important to
consider the intersections of coastal resilience priorities and identify project sites that can accomplish
multiple objectives.

2.2 How Do We Manage for Resilience Under Changing
Environmental Conditions?

There was a mix of technical and practical information shared during the workshop on how resilience
figures into on-the-ground wetlands management work performed by different practitioners and
regional groups. Input from participants was sought on how much time they spend on five different
aspects of resilience-related management activities, as well as how they believe resilience should figure
into their work. The five types of activities were: site selection, working with marsh migration,
identifying and evaluating strategies, designing adaptive interventions, and social-economic
considerations. Averaged over all participants, the distribution of effort among the activities was fairly
even; working with marsh migration received the highest ranking while designing adaptative
interventions received the lowest (Figure 4). The responses were, similarly, very strong that resilience
should be the main driver of all decision-making activities (see Appendix C.2 for further details). A
common perspective was that considering resilience reflects a long-term perspective and should provide
for longer-term success for adaptation projects. The sections that follow further explore these concepts
from the perspective of the workshop participants.

site selection

designing identifying/

adaptive evaluating

interventions strategies

-------
2.2.1 Site Selection & Working with Marsh Migration

Workshop participants indicated that they focus strongly on resilience in the context of site selection
and working with marsh migration (Figure 4). Workshop presentations from several regions/groups
promoted use of comparative vulnerability and/or condition assessments (Hamilton (Tt CES), West (EPA
ORD), Kutcher (RINHS)), diagnosis of threats and impacts (Haaf (PDE), Moody (PDE)), or a combination of
vulnerability based on marsh loss rates with other factors such as migration potential, co-benefits of
coastal community risk reduction, and/or ecosystem services (Conn (MD DNR), Mason (VIMS)) as a basis
for site selection and spatial analysis for working with marsh migration.

Outputs for several metrics contributing to components of vulnerability were shown from application of
EPA's RWVF (Hamilton (Tt CES)), which provide a basis for making both between- and within-site
comparisons in support of selecting priority sites. Further exploration of management applications of
these RWVF results by West (EPA ORD) started with an overarching management question of whether
restoration efforts should focus on the most vulnerable sites or on stable locations. From this initial
decision point, site-specific results were used to set up example site comparisons to illustrate trade-offs
managers might face in setting site priorities. Comparisons among components of vulnerability
contributed to understanding not only where marsh changes were occurring (or projected to occur), but
also why they might be occurring. Such information can inform what interventions might be considered
to reduce and reverse losses, or conversely, preserve stability and boost gains. Additional consideration
of information on tipping points (e.g., a change from a stable marsh site in the short term to one losing
marsh in the long term) might influence short-term site prioritization decisions.

Kutcher (RINHS) outlined a Salt Marsh Rapid Assessment Method (MarshRAM) that assembles and
scores a wide variety of marsh status and condition information, including an index of marsh integrity,
disturbance, elevation, functions and services, migration potential and area, and several other factors,
which can then be compared as a basis for making site-level priority decisions. A color-coded output
matrix of sites by Rapid Assessment Method (RAM) metrics supported a readily justifiable prioritization
of sites for restoration, conservation, and management. PDE's Wetlands Assessment Tool for Condition
and Health (WATCH) (Haaf (PDE), Moody (PDE)) helps a user organize data and evaluate six attributes
that are fundamental for salt marsh function within an interactive spreadsheet model. It uses the inputs
of information on the current state of each attribute, user-defined acceptable ranges/bounds,
information on trajectories of change in the attributes, and time frames of management interest to flag
system deficiencies that can then be used to recognize priority locations in need of management
interventions. At a larger scale, areas of concern identified by stakeholders/other interested parties and
proposed or active restoration sites are mapped with state-identified issues of concern (e.g., wetland
degradation, coastal flooding, underserved communities) in the Coastal Ecological Restoration &
Adaptation Plan (CERAP), which allows users to identify sites that align with a variety of goals for
intervention prioritization (Moody (PDE)).

The Maryland DNR (Conn) uses SLAMM to identify areas available for marsh migration and prioritizes
these areas using criteria that include large contiguous wetland areas, wetland diversity, new wetland
areas, presence of breeding marsh-dependent birds, future wetland areas by year 2100, existing non-
wetland hydric soils, and Maryland's Green and Blue Infrastructure Assessments. They define low,
medium, and high-priority Wetland Adaptation Areas, with medium- and high-priority areas becoming
conservation priorities. They also use a model called GreenPrint7 to identify Targeted Ecological Areas to

7 https://geodata.md.gov/greenprint/

19

-------
prioritize the most ecologically valuable land parcels for acquisition and investment in
protection/restoration.

VIMS (Mason) has been working with the state of Virginia to use an assessment of co-benefits to
prioritize sites. They map existing natural and nature-based features (NNBFs) in coastal Virginia, identify
NNBFs that occur between buildings/other infrastructure and the pathway of inundation from SLR and
storms, and estimate the flood mitigation benefits of the NNBFs based on how many buildings are
protected and whether any of the infrastructure is critical to the community. Co-benefits considered
include Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Community Rating System credit and water
quality/total maximum daily load credit potential. In addition, Virginia developed a biophysical Shoreline
Management Model to rank shoreline sites for application of living shoreline projects, which uses
criteria of fetch, marsh or beach presence, existing structures, nearshore bathymetry, land use, and
proximal infrastructure.

Workshop participants applauded these approaches and agreed that resilience is important to consider
in site selection and related planning activities, such as setting restoration targets and identifying areas
for preservation, restoration, or other adaptation approaches.

2.2.2 Identifying Strategies & Designing Interventions

Workshop participants also indicated that they focus on resilience as part of identifying strategies and
designing interventions (Figure 4). Management planning typically links evaluation of the problem(s) at a
site with selection of appropriate actions to address that problem, and there were several presentations
that referenced tools and approaches that touched on this. PDE's WATCH tool (Haaf, Moody) is explicitly
designed to diagnose deficiencies in marsh condition based on evaluation of six marsh attributes
(vertical or horizontal position, elevation, hydrology, soil condition, and the biological community).
WATCH outputs can be used to help select appropriate interventions to address the identified problems.
Similarly, the outputs of the RWVF (Hamilton, West) provide insights into factors contributing to marsh
vulnerabilities, which can inform potential management interventions. Hamilton (Tt CES) and West (EPA
ORD) discussed two examples from the Delaware Bay case study. One site was projected to lose high
proportions of high marsh due to SLR. Based on site information that was gathered during the
vulnerability assessment, the high marsh area had a relatively low elevation (0.405 ± 0.26m), which
suggests that thin-layer placement could be an effective tactic. The other site was a moderately
vulnerable site with a high starting acreage of marsh and a relatively low marsh loss response to SLR but
had a high storm surge vulnerability, which suggests it could be protected with a tactic such as a living
shoreline.

A more detailed and site-specific design of an intervention, once it is selected for a particular site, can be
achieved using EPA's Adaptation Design Tool (ADT) (Haaf). This tool leads practitioners through a series
of steps to incorporate climate-smart considerations into the design of specific management tactics, and
to brainstorm other potentially applicable interventions. Information on climate change vulnerabilities
and other stressors from tools like WATCH and the RWVF are key inputs for using the ADT.

2.2.3 How to Assess Vulnerability and Socioecological Impacts in the
Context of Resilience

The northeast EPA ORD research team presented study results on the roles of community and other
partner/stakeholder engagement and other human dimensions for marsh resilience management.
Mulvaney (EPA ORD) presented the 'SESAME' framework (Figure 5), which represents adaptive
management with a strong element of partner/stakeholder engagement. The framework supports

-------
collaborative development of human- and ecosystem-focused restoration and adaptation goals,
consensus building, and the opportunity to revisit goals at multiple stages of planning and
implementation. It also supports development of both ecological and social metrics for monitoring. An
identified challenge is related to the duration of project planning, implementation, and monitoring,
during which time consistent participation by the same partners/stakeholders and ongoing maintenance
of responsibilities can become disrupted. Another challenge for increasing consideration of the social
side of restoration is that there is, at present, limited capture of lessons learned from wetlands
resilience efforts from a social perspective.

Figure 5. Social-Ecological Systems, Adaptive Management, and Engagement (SESAME) Framework for
coastal restoration and climate adaptation (Mulvaney et al. 2022)8.

Other socio-economic presentations covered methods for assessing values of marshes and their services
in terms that would support assessment of potential restoration project benefits. Trandafir (URI)
presented a modeling approach to estimate the monetary values of carbon sequestration and non-
carbon ecosystem services. The approach uses SLAMM projections to estimate future marsh losses,
which are then converted to monetary losses that would be prevented or reversed by management
interventions. Such robust economic valuations can be used not only to help managers evaluate and
select adaptation and restoration projects, but also to communicate the values of resilience
management to the public. It should be noted, however, that while monetary valuations provide a
useful means of estimating restoration benefits and communicating those values to the public, direct
indicators of non-monetary values (e.g., ecosystem benefits such as reduced flood risk, recreational and
aesthetic opportunities) also should be considered when evaluating salt marsh management options.

Reilly (EPA Region 1) presented a method for estimating blue carbon sequestration benefits that would
accrue from avoiding the greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions (focusing on methane) that occur as wetlands
degrade and are lost. The method utilizes information on marsh condition, risk of marsh losses, GhG
emission rates, expected emissions with degradation, and causes of marsh degradation with a focus on
salinity effects. These factors are used to estimate GhG emissions that could be avoided with
conservation efforts. These are then related to the social costs of methane emissions. This provides an
opportunity for states and local governments to work towards getting 'blue carbon' offset credits for
coastal restoration efforts. Calabro (RIDOH) discussed climate change as an amplifier of community risk

8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/sll273-022-Q9891-3

-------
to health, and the importance of considering community health when evaluating social impacts and
vulnerabilities.

2.2.4 Social-Economic Considerations

Both process and technical information regarding trade-offs among social and ecological costs and
benefits were presented. Regarding process, Schmidt (NBEP) spoke about the Restoration, Assessment,
and Monitoring Program (RAMP), which seeks to integrate a wide range of partners and their
monitoring and assessment efforts. This provides the benefits of standardized methods, increased
capacity and efficiency of work across agencies, improved assessments, and greater ability (including
funding resources) to preserve wetlands. This program, coordinated through the NBEP, provides the
space and tools to increase emphasis on environmental justice (EJ) and balance priority wetland
restoration activities with community resilience. The CBP (Reichert-Nguyen (NOAA/CBP) and Sullivan
(USGS/CBP)) is also seeking to increase the focus on social factors in trade-off analyses that are used in
decision making by developing and using partner/stakeholder resilience metrics for targeting marsh
restoration projects and aligning partner/stakeholder organizational and geographic priorities with
resilience research opportunities. There also is increasing consideration being given to using blue carbon
offset crediting (i.e., economic incentives based on carbon sequestration services provided by wetlands)
to establish values of and priorities for marsh restoration projects, as presented by Reilly (EPA Region 1).

On a project-specific scale, Mulvaney (EPA/ORD) presented how SESAME (Figure 3) was used in two
different marsh restoration projects in Massachusetts and Rhode Island to collaboratively develop both
ecological (restoring degraded marsh for resiliency) and social (channel dredging for economically
important recreational navigation) goals in a single management project. Values were realized in terms
of greater public engagement (including volunteer assistance in replanting new marsh platform), project
support, municipal funding, and fundraising, as well as multiple benefits, both ecological and social. It
was noted that the process used in the example was not quantitative, and that development of
guidance is needed on how practitioners should approach identifying, comparing, and selecting between
social and ecological restoration goals. In addition, challenges were encountered in collaborative project
design and implementation, in part generated by having larger, more diverse groups of project
participants. Examples included difficulty establishing project goals and objectives with a diverse team,
balancing community objectives with technical requirements of permitting and funding, and shared
project ownership and sharing of ongoing responsibilities.

2.3 How Can Resilient Wetlands Boost the Health and Resilience
of Coastal Communities?

Workshop presentations and participant discussions provided insights into how resilience of wetlands
can contribute to resilience of coastal communities. Throughout the workshop there was recognition of
the key importance, challenges, and benefits of partner/stakeholder engagement when seeking to link
resilience of wetlands to benefits for communities (Figure 6). In an open-ended poll, participants were
asked, "What do you see as the biggest connection between wetlands resilience and community
resilience, and how would you measure it?". Responses emphasized ecosystem services (e.g., flood
protection, wave attenuation, water quality, water storage, aesthetic beauty) as the main connection
between resilience of wetlands and partner/stakeholder communities. Reponses also indicated that the
combined resilience of connected wetland and human communities would best be measured by the
quality, persistence, and sustainability of both through time, using indicators of, e.g., ecosystem service
functions, property values, cultural values, and mental health outcomes (see Appendix C.3 for more

22

-------
details). The sections that follow further explore the role of wetlands resilience for community resilience
as presented and discussed by the workshop participants, focusing on flood protection services, other
valued ecosystem services, and human health and well-being outcomes.

time-intensive	_

participation	two-way , „• Partnership

under-respected	V educating valuable

cooperation time-consuming

partnering 3 o "O challenging

invaluable

collaborative	_ 

* ^ Itime critical - . 5 g a>

>

t!	$ necessary llSlSninCJ £ diverse

3 ^	o , .	I I I	| .	m +-• timeconsuming

II	°trust collaboration 2 g -

° °	inclusive ^n

impactful ^ frog inOlUSIOri	q| S

cn g

collaborating | - QO fTI ITI U fl jCQ t \ O fl C I | I

CO

0)

»s ^ essential difficult challenge

£ a

^ © O	Ul 11 IvJUIL	messy

& I a =onfct interaction «**"»<**'

5 .5	vaned need assessment cctive listening

°	representation	funding

environmental justice

Figure 6. Word cloud of participant inputs describing the nature of partner/stakeholder engagement.
Word size is based on frequency of word choice by participants.

2.3.1 Coastal Protection

The CBP considers the flood and erosion protection services provided by coastal wetlands to adjacent
land areas as part of their site selection analysis (Reichert-Nguyen (NOAA/CBP) and Sullivan (USGS/CBP),
Mason (VIMS)). This recognizes and makes linkages to the benefits to coastal communities from wetland
resilience, in particular community benefits from protecting buildings and other infrastructure, as well
as human-supported land uses (e.g., agriculture). Other organizations/regions address coastal
protection by developing living shoreline projects that consider community resources, existing
stewardship, need for community protection, and EJ as a basis for project siting and design (Moody
(PDE), Mason (VIMS)). Maryland's coastal resiliency assessment identifies flood-vulnerable communities
and shorelines prone to coastal flooding and erosion, and then maps protective coastal habitats to
target protection and enhancement through management of natural coastal habitats that also provide
risk reduction benefits to people (Conn (MD DNR)).

The work of Burman (EPA ORISE Fellow) offers a specific example of coastal protection provided by
wetlands that is important to community health and resilience. For areas where hazardous and
contaminated sites (HCS) occur within wetlands and in adjacent uplands along the path of wetland
migration, progressive wetland losses threaten exposure of the HCS to flooding and release of
contaminants. Thus, management actions that preserve and enhance these wetlands and increase
wetland resilience also protect coastal communities by potentially decreasing the likelihood and/or
severity of contaminant releases.

23

-------
Based on workshop participant inputs, the wetland services of flood protection/mitigation and wave
attenuation/coastal protection (from erosion) were perceived as a direct connection from wetland to
community resilience. This is due to the perceived protections afforded by wetlands to water quality,
houses and other infrastructure, and associated property values.

2.3.2	Human Health

In polls asking about how resilience figures into their work, various participants affirmed the importance
of community health as a major target of their efforts, including mental health benefits, with special
attention needed for increased research and funding to address social vulnerabilities around resilience
and health. Calabro (RIDOH) presented information on community conditions that impact human
health, including interactions with the natural environment that influence the social determinants of
health directly, or indirectly by ameliorating climate change impacts. Other presenters (e.g., Conn (MD
DNR), Reilly (EPA Region 1), Trandafir (URI)) recommended including the values of wetland services such
as recreational activities (with their potential direct influences on human health/well-being), water
quality, and carbon sequestration (with its indirect effects on human health through mitigation of
climate change impacts) as decisions are made regarding managing for wetland resilience. This is an
acknowledgement of the contributions of these services to community well-being and human health. It
will be important to further explore and define the role of ecosystem services provided by resilient
wetlands in protecting human health.

2.3.3	Other Wetland Values and Ecosystem Services

Other wetland services were examined in workshop presentations in relationship to community
resilience. The state of Maryland sets conservation priorities to preserve the state's ecosystem services
based on aquatic/terrestrial biodiversity, the green infrastructure network, water quality, and important
fisheries, as well as climate resilience (Conn (MD DNR)). The CBP has identified a need for research on
the impacts on fish of wetland habitat loss due to climate change—a recognition of this as a value to
human communities (Reichert-Nguyen (NOAA/CBP) and Sullivan (USGS/CBP)). Similarly, water filtration
is listed as a valued wetland service in the non-carbon valuation approach discussed by Trandafir (URI).

Based on workshop participant inputs, the value of wetlands as open space and for visual aesthetics
provides mental health benefits to people and communities, thus contributing to community resilience.
There also was mention of the human benefits from clean water, provision of critical habitats, and
associated opportunities for eco-tourism.

3 Synthesis

In addition to exploring the latest research in the three themes above, a major goal of the workshop was
to synthesize lessons learned from across the themes about how we can better standardize, improve,
and advance methods to support resilient coastal wetlands and communities in the future. This section
explores where we stand as a community of practice in terms of our strengths, challenges and gaps that
remain, and emerging principles for furthering our collective capacity to achieve resilient coastal
wetlands and communities.

24

-------
3.1 Strengths

There were five key topics-representing cross-cutting activities that span all research themes-that
presenters and participants were asked to think about throughout the workshop presentations and
discussions:

A.	Capacity building for improved management of wetland and coastal community resilience

B.	Working with partners/stakeholders via human-centered design

C.	Translating scientific information for decision making at ali levels

D.	Barriers and opportunities for successful implementation of management actions

E.	Dealing with uncertainty associated with data and information limitations.

These topics are not mutually exclusive and have some overlapping elements but can help us evaluate
our levels of strength as resilience researchers and practitioners in these important areas. An
overarching strength of the resilience management community, represented by our workshop
participants, is that the community self-reports a moderate-to-high level of both interest and experience
in all five of the key topics identified (Figure 7). Each topic is discussed further below.

£>
©
C

Capacity building

^ Working with stakeholders

Translating scientific
information for decisions

4	Barriers and opportunities for
successful implementation

5	Dealing with uncertainty

Experience

Figure 7. Participant inputs on their interest and experience with five key cross-cutting topics.

Translating scientific information for decisions was ranked highest for both interest and experience by
the workshop community. Moody (PDE) presented several tools and approaches that help practitioners
identify, gather, and summarize data and other information in a manner that facilitates management
decision making at several levels (site alignment with management goals, site-specific issue diagnosis,
and issue-specific tactic selection). Haaf (PDE) compared PDE's WATCH with EPA's RWVF and ADT in

25

-------
terms of the terminology, attributes, metrics, and steps used in each, to explore how these tools could
complement and be used in concert with each other. All three tools support evaluation and planning
under present and future conditions and offer a systematic but flexible process with management-
relevant outputs. Complementary tools can be used at all three levels of decision making, including
large-scale site selection, within-site condition assessment, and tactic-specific climate-smart design.
There was a rich exchange and sharing among participants of a variety of other tools, information
resources, and initiatives (see Appendix D) that are further evidence of the workshop community's
strengths in this area.

Working with partners/stakeholders tended to be discussed hand-in-hand with barriers and

opportunities for successful implementation; here, interest was high and experience was moderately
high. Mulvaney's (EPA ORD) presentation on the SESAME framework focused on the importance and
value of integrating partner/stakeholder engagement and collaboration in an adaptive management
context to overcome barriers and exploit opportunities for better wetland restoration and climate
change adaptation. She acknowledged that the partner/stakeholder engagement and collaboration
process is sometimes difficult, particularly the challenge of maintaining responsibilities during long-
duration projects. From a technical perspective, Schmidt's (NBEP) presentation on RAMP represents a
framework through which a large group of partnering agencies, NGOs, and others can increase their
capacity for resilience management through collaboration, standardization of methods, and other
aspects of cooperative work. Chaffee (NBNERR) presented some specific challenges associated with
partner/stakeholder interactions in project planning and implementation, including potentially-difficult
communication with contractors. While acknowledging such challenges, workshop participants saw
benefits—and exciting opportunities for further improvement-of partner/stakeholder engagement,
including development of a shared understanding of local environmental problems and co-production of
solutions, leading to greater community support for resilience activities (see Appendix C.4 for more
details).

Dealing with uncertainty was of high interest, with participants reporting a moderate degree of
experience with the topic. With respect to design and implementation of a thin-layer sediment
placement project, Chaffee (NBNERR) had summarized challenges of dealing with uncertainty in aspects
of project design, water management, budget estimation and management, and construction bid
solicitation. Unknowns contributing to these uncertainties, such as quality of the sediment and how
transects were laid out for measurements, were informed to some extent by the experience gained
from the Ninigret thin-layer placement case study. As per an adaptive management approach, this
served to reduce some of the uncertainties encountered, to the benefit of future similar projects.
Another approach is the use of scenarios. Uncertainties in projections of SLR were addressed in a
valuation method (Trandafir (URI)) by presenting different SLR and mitigation scenarios and associated
discounted economic values. For the workshop participants overall, the topic of dealing with uncertainty
was handled implicitly in research and project methodologies rather than being a direct topic of study
but was an area in which they felt fairly well-experienced.

Capacity building, while of high interest, was the one area where participants reported lower levels of
experience (see next section on challenges and gaps). Capacity building can refer to various targets,
from increasing the expertise and resources that enable practitioners to implement resilience
management, to capacity building within partner/stakeholder, community, and volunteer scientist
groups. As an area of high interest, capacity building was reflected in the talks of workshop presenters
such as Conn (MD DNR), who reported on several MD DNR-sponsored mapping, modeling, and data
compilation initiatives that produced a substantial set of technical resources that increase the capacity
of practitioners to perform a range of resilience management tasks. Similarly, Mason (VIMS) presented

26

-------
several technical support tools (mapping/GIS, modeling, and data compilation) developed in Virginia for
the same purpose. PDE (Moody, Haaf) and EPA (West (EPA ORD), Hamilton (Tt CES), Haaf (PDE)) also
have been in the forefront of tool and decision support development that expands the technical
capacity of practitioners. Capacity building within partner/stakeholder and community groups was
addressed in presentations on two pilot thin layer placement restoration projects conducted in
Massachusetts and Rhode Island (Chaffee (NBNERR), Mulvaney (EPA ORD)) that were strongly focused
on integrating partners/stakeholders in both the planning and implementation stages of these projects.
In interactive discussions, presenters and participants collectively indicated that these activities have the
benefit of getting 'buy-in' and community support while also encouraging community participation,
leading to more inclusive and sustainable goals and projects.

In addition to the polled strengths above (Fig. 7), another strength is that the workshop community
indicated that there has already been substantial thought and study on the topic of indicators of
resilient wetlands, evidenced by the varied but confident opinions on this topic offered during the
workshop. Figure 2 (see Section 2), which summarizes participants' opinions on the best among six
categories of resilience indicators, shows that participants considered five of the six options as almost
equally-good indicators, with increased acreage of unfragmented habitat ranking slightly highest. In
further discussions, there was increasing input that elevation capital is key to marsh resilience, with
elucidation of the roles and additional importance of marsh migration potential and community
diversity. Social indicators, particularly reflecting flood protection benefits to human communities, were
recognized as important; however, the disconnect between social benefits and other (ecological)
indicators also was recognized, suggesting this as an area that needs further attention.

3.2 Challenges and Gaps

As discussed by the workshop participants, there remain diverse gaps and challenges for achieving
resilient coastal wetlands and communities. Among five technical and socio-political areas upon which
participants were polled, all were ranked medium-to-low in terms of achievement (Figure 8). Each area
is discussed further below, including participant inputs on what is needed to improve as a community of
practice on achieving resilient coastal wetlands and communities (Appendix C.5).

27

-------
Closing technical
research gaps

Decision support
tools

Political will

Capacity
building/expertise

Overcoming
barriers to
implementation

Figure 8, Participant inputs on where we stand on achieving resilient wetlands with respect to several
factors (on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the strongest).

Decision support tools ranked highest for their availability and support for achieving resilience, although
there is still room for improvement. Despite strong work in this area, a remaining challenge is that, given
the many tools and approaches available, there is a need to better contextualize how various tools
complement or align with each other so practitioners can pick the best tools to use in each situation. As
a possible approach for addressing the challenge of tool selection, Jen Stamp (Tt CES) presented a
conceptual model (Figure 3) that provides context for defining the relationships among climate
exposures, other stressors, wetland condition, and wetland response metrics (and with potential
options for inclusion of socio-economic factors). Parameters included in the diagram then can be
matched to parameters in example tools to help determine where a tool fits for evaluating wetland
processes, thus supporting tool selection for application to different levels of decisions (e.g., site
selection, problem diagnosis, tactic selection and design, etc.). There are certainly potential gaps in the
draft conceptual model in terms of wetland processes and metrics included and the inter-relationships
represented. An ongoing challenge is whether this approach can be usefully expanded for
evaluation/selection of other resilience management support tools.

Capacity building is an area of growing strength, but more progress is needed. Some participants
indicated that their agencies and partners need improvement in capacity building in areas such as
dedicated staffing and funding for resilience work; education of community members in general, or
specifically to cultivate citizen science capacity; and outreach and training to build capacity and
empower DEIJ (diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice) leaders, mentors, and community champions,
(see Appendix C.5 for more details).

Closing technical research gaps is an area where the community has made good strides, as indicated by
much of the tool and decision support development, modeling, data compilation, and case study
development that has been presented in this report. Examples were provided from the thin-layer

28

-------
placement pilot projects presented by Chaffee (NBNERR), with a variety of lessons learned regarding
types of elevation controls to use, approaches for sediment control during and after placement, and the
need for and success of revegetation. More work is needed on specifics of some management tactics. In
general, more case studies are needed to improve techniques/approaches, as well as related studies to
improve specific information on restoration techniques. More effective and cost-efficient monitoring is
needed to demonstrate effectiveness, share results, and establish long-term data sets. Gaps also were
identified in knowledge of social vulnerability and how to blend wetland restoration with improving
community health; understand unintended consequences of decisions; and demonstrate success
through identification and monitoring of resilience indicators and reporting of results (see Appendix C.5
for more details).

Overcoming barriers to implementation is seen by practitioners as a challenge for resilience-based
management. Workshop discussions were not focused specifically on identifying barriers, although
gaining community acceptance/buy-in, funding, and permitting were identified in the context of specific
projects, tool application processes, and programs. Based on workshop discussions, increasing inclusion
of socio-economic efforts within management planning and project development and including greater
partner/stakeholder engagement at multiple levels would contribute to progress on some of these
fronts. Such progress will depend on increasing partner/stakeholder capacity to participate meaningfully
in the process, increasing project support, and improving support for funding.

Political will was identified as the area of resilience management needing the most work. This includes
building relationships with local governments so that a better understanding on their part can help
remove barriers to implementation. Workshop participants asserted that more interaction is needed
with regulators and permit writers to improve understanding of new restoration/adaptation techniques
that bring results but may require alternative permitting considerations. It was also perceived that
building better connections with funders is needed to help reduce funding barriers and streamline
bureaucratic processes.

o o Fmprginp nrinrinlp^

s L*. 1 1 1 V«»» I jr-% 1 I I V-s k/ I 1 I I V-»» 1 ky I

More than half of the workshop participants were not sure that the information needed to manage for
resilience is readily available or sufficient to assure success, while 30% were sure it is not (Figure 9).
Drawing from participant inputs over the two days of the workshop, it is possible to identify some
emerging principles and fundamental advancements needed to move forward and improve as a
community of practice.

-------

Not sure

Yes

Figure 9. Participant inputs on whether information on managing for resilience is readily available and
sufficient for success.

Coordination among groups could be greatly expanded and improved to facilitate collaborations and
accelerate progress toward successful resilience management. Developing more regional collaborations
would facilitate sharing of information and experience within and across states and regions.
Coordination across organizations and regions to conduct site visits could be an effective, hands-on
mechanism of sharing information and experience. Topical needs are to improve and coordinate more
effectively on funding for restoration/adaptation, including developing connections among potential
funders, reducing funding barriers, and streamlining bureaucratic processes. Increased sharing of
experiences and lessons learned also would help practitioners understand the unintended
consequences of decisions. Example mechanisms could include:

• Development of a mid-Atlantic (or beyond, including New England) program similar to the South
Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative (SASMI), or perhaps one patterned after RAMP.

• Development of a shared listserv and/or newsletter for work done on a regional basis.

Communication—in support of the coordination needs above but also for improved outreach to
partners/stakeholders—is an area of expertise and investment that was highlighted throughout the
workshop as a priority for expansion. Communications and interactions across the adaptation science
and resilience management community could be used more extensively to share failures and associated
lessons learned; better document and share what actually does and does not work; and publicize and
celebrate successes. Specific ideas that were raised include:

• Developing "clearinghouses" of relevant information, so practitioners do not have to search
multiple places for information and resources. This could include a clearinghouse or repository
of information on available tools. A website with available resources might also be considered.

• Instituting regular meetings/communications via a Community of Practice (perhaps similar to
the Salt Marsh RAMP working group).

• Investing in more widespread and improved public relations to advertise/communicate needs
and successes with different groups of partners/stakeholders.

• Compiling summaries of successful case studies and lessons learned to share with officials and
partners/stakeholders on current projects.

-------
Planning horizons around shorter- and longer-term time frames represent an important emerging
insight from the workshop. Participants reflected that, simultaneous with managing for shorter-term
goals, it may be necessary in many cases to also engage in a longer-term planning perspective, one that
places more emphasis than may have previously been made on longer-term success and sustainability of
the overall system. In summary, the perspective was:

• The practice of resilience management would be improved by taking a longer-term perspective,
improving the chances that restoration/protection work that is done is going to last.

• A longer time scale should take future conditions into account, including long-term projections
of SLR and a changing landscape context, when prioritizing restoration/protection activities.

• Benefits of stronger partner/stakeholder engagement would include development of long-term
solutions, and greater longevity of projects and project support.

Planning for when and how to shift from a shorter- to a longer-term set of objectives within and among
wetland sites in a region could result in more robust decisions on the allocation of resources for
adaptation. For example, wetland vulnerability results (and associated implications for decisions) can
vary drastically depending on the time frame used for model projections. Using shorter-term (mid-
century) SLR projections to estimate wetland vulnerability, as would be done to support the more
traditional near-term management decision making, can yield very different results compared to longer-
term (e.g., end of century) SLR projections. The differences can include threshold shifts of wetlands from
stable or gaining, to abruptly undergoing major losses. These differences have the potential to drive very
different decisions about objectives and actions in the near term versus in the longer term.

Standardizing approaches was a key objective for discussion at the workshop. The intent was to gain
some insight into how much the practice of managing wetlands for resilience could be generalized,
versus how much needs to be region- or location-specific. In summary:

• Aspects of wetlands resilience work that could be standardized include practices that are
universally applicable and beneficial to compare across regions and applications, such as
monitoring methods, metrics (e.g., of performance/success); methods for determining benefits
and ecosystem services, permitting practices; and terminology. Also, standardization could be
pursued in the form of a systematic process that steps through the critical elements required for
rigorous resilience-based evaluation and planning.

• Aspects of wetlands resilience work that will likely need to be tailored include biological
restoration and site-specific designs, and potentially decision tools, community needs, and other
social connections. Also, addressing EJ needs must be tailored to place. Additional consideration
of EJ is discussed in the next section.

Environmental justice (EJ), along with related concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion, was identified
as a burgeoning area of study and priority action across the workshop community. Most workshop
participants reported that their organizations put a large or some emphasis on EJ (Figure 10), but most
also recognized many needs for improvement, especially in implementing EJ actions. Other points of
interest include how to better identify problems; integrate EJ into work plans; and build relationships
and capacity with trusted community champions, leaders, and mentors.

-------
• No emphasis
^ Little emphasis

A large emphasis 50%

Some emphasis

Figure 10. Participant inputs on how much emphasis their organizations put on environmental justice.

In terms of integrating (and making actionable) EJ within specific management activities, workshop
participants consider it important to include prioritizing marshes for restoration based on benefits to
historically overburdened and under-represented communities. This requires quantifying existing and
potential users of the marsh and identifying the primary beneficiaries of restoration and protection for
different marshes in the area.

Other key activities would be:

• Understanding the relative importance of marshes to underserved and native/Tribal
communities, and that there is a connection between historically under-represented
communities and recognizing Tribal uses/values.

• Having policies in place that assure "greening" of neighborhoods with natural features
(wetlands) does not displace low-income housing.

• Assuring that vulnerable communities are recognized, as projects currently often go to the best-
resourced communities.

• Building local capacity and supporting local leaders in EJ communities.

• Transferring power to Native, Tribal, and marginalized stakeholders when possible.

In conclusion, these results of the Resilient Coastal Wetlands and Communities Workshop have shown
how new insights, innovative ideas, and emerging needs are revealed when diverse participants gather
to explore commonalities and differences in methods, areas of success, and opportunities for
improvements across regions, organizations, and areas of expertise. In addition to celebrating strengths
and successes, participants were able to share challenges and areas for improvement. When asked what
is needed to continue improving as a community of practice, many participants expressed a desire to
hold regular gatherings such as this workshop, to achieve improved technology transfer and join forces
in creating solutions to complex challenges. Only through expanded partnerships, collaborations, and
information-sharing will it be possible to achieve our shared wetland protection and restoration goals,
incorporate the benefits of local wetlands into decision-making activities for communities, and ensure
that the benefits of environmental protection are shared by all.

-------
Appendix A. Workshop Agenda

Resilient Coasi -II ¦•ill >h-! >h-! ¦-¦riit		 s: Multi-Regional Workshop

» 'hlii!¦', I ll.~ _ ! J , J1'1,_ <¦"• I I Mh Ipirn "" .ill '

Goal: Leverage knowledge and lessons learned from across regions and organizations to help
standardize, improve, and advance methods to support resilient coastal wetlands and
communities.

Objectives: Share scientific perspectives and feedback on: 1) Coastal wetlands vulnerability and
resilience; 2) Applications of resilience-based management; 3) Implications for coastal
community resilience

Agenda	

Day 1— Tuesday, May 24,2022	

11:00-11:40 am Welcome and Introduction

•	Wayne Cascio, Director, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development
(ORD)

	• Chris Frey, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science Policy, U.S. EPA ORD	

11:40-1:05 pm EPA Mid-Atlantic work:

Wetland vulnerability assessment and links to management

•	Framework for wetland vulnerability assessments: Delaware Estuary case study,
Anna Hamilton, Tetra Tech, Inc.

•	Interpreting vulnerability information for adaptive management of high marsh
habitat, Jordan West, U.S. EPA ORD

Considering coordinated use of multiple wetland assessment tools

•	A crosswalk of PDE and EPA tools for wetland assessment, LeeAnn Haaf
Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

•	Contextualizing multiple tools with a marsh conceptual diagram, Jen Stamp, Tetra

	Tech, Inc.	

1:35-3:00 pm EPA Northeast work:

Social-ecological perspectives for resilient coastal wetlands

•	Open SESAME: A Social-Ecological Systems framework for collaborative Adaptive
Management and Engagement in coastal restoration and climate adaptation, Kate
Mulvaney, U.S. EPA ORD

•	Hazardous and contaminated sites within salt marsh migration corridors in Rhode
Island, USA, Erin Burman, U.S. EPA ORISE Fellow

Valuation of resilient coastal wetlands

•	Economic value of salt marshes under uncertainty of sea level rise: A case study of
the Narragansett Bay, Simona Trandafir, University of Rhode Island

•	Fantastic wetlands and why to monitor them: Demonstrating the social and
financial benefit potential of methane abatement through salt marsh restoration in

	Massachusetts, U.S.A., Adam Reilly, U.S. EPA Region 1	

3:00-3:45 pm Interactive Discussion with Audience Participation

33

-------
3:45-4:00 pm

Wrap Up

Day 2— Wednesday, May 25,2022

11:00-11:30 am Welcome Back and Day 1 Recap

• Tim Watkins, National Program Director (Acting), Sustainable and Healthy
Communities Research Program, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency

11:30-12:55 pm Partner Panel 1, Mid-Atlantic:

Resilient coastal wetlands benefits, research, and partnerships

•	Coastal Wetlands Resilience: Co-benefits in restoration, protection and targeting,
Pam Mason, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences

•	Enhancing Partnership Support for Marsh Resilience Research and Restoration in
Chesapeake Bay, Julie Reichert-Nguyen and Breck Sullivan, Chesapeake Bay
Program

Decision making and tools for implementing resilience interventions

•	The science to implementation pathway for resilient coastal ecosystems, Christine
Conn, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

•	From Data to Decisions: Tools for Salt Marsh Restoration and Conservation, Josh
Moody, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

1:35-3:00 pm Partner Panel 2, Northeast:

Implementing salt marsh adaptation and restoration

•	Planning and implementing a salt marsh adaptation action, Caitlin Chaffee,
Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

•	Assessing salt marsh condition to help guide restoration and conservation
prioritization, Tom Kutcher, Rhode Island Natural History Survey

Building resilient wetlands and communities

•	Salt marsh Restoration, Assessment, and Monitoring Program: Using a RAMP to
move quickly and efficiently towards resiliency, Courtney Schmidt, Narragansett
Bay Estuary Program

• Building resilient communities with a focus on health equity, Rachel Calabro, Rhode
Island Department of Health

3:00-3:40 pm

Cross-regional Interactive Discussion with Audience Participation

3:40-4:00 pm

Wrap Up and Next Steps

34

-------
Appendix B. Workshop Presenters and Participants

EPA research teams and panels from the two focus regions included representatives from the following
groups (with presenters shown in parentheses):

Mid-Atlantic:

•	EPA wetland vulnerability and adaptation team (Jordan West/EPA ORD, Anna Hamilton/Tetra
Tech, Jen Stamp/Tetra Tech)

•	Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (LeeAnn Haaf/PDE, Josh Moody/PDE)

•	Chesapeake Bay Program Resiliency Workgroup (Julie Reichert-Nguyen/NOAA/CBP, Breck
Sullivan/USGS/CBP)

•	Chesapeake Bay Program Wetlands Workgroup/Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (Pamela
Mason/VIMS)

•	Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Christine Conn/MD DNR)

Northeast:

•	EPA climate adaptation and resilient wetlands team (Cathleen Wigand/EPA ORD, Kate
Mulvaney/EPA ORD, Erin E. Burman/ORISE Fellow at EPA, Adam Reilly/EPA Region 1, Simona
Trandafir/University of Rl partner)

•	Narragansett Bay Estuary Program (Courtney Schmidt/NBEP)

•	Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (Caitlin Chaffee/NBNERR)

•	Rhode Island Natural History Survey (Tom Kutcher/RINHS)

•	Rhode Island Department of Health (Rachel Calabro/RIDOH)

The workshop was facilitated by two EPA technical facilitators, Joseph Siegel (EPA Region 2) and Joan
Johnson (EPA Region 3), and two Tetra Tech process facilitators, Adrianna Berk and Elizabeth Hiett. The
workshop was attended on Day 1 by 146 participants (excluding the 22 hosts, facilitators, and
presenters), and on Day 2 by 97 participants. From a participant survey taken at the beginning of Day 1,
representation according to different categories of participant affiliations are shown below.

35

-------
43

State/local Non- Public Academia Federal Private Other

agency governmental stakeholder government contractor

organization

Figure Bl. Distribution of workshop participant affiliations.

Based on registrations, participants came from:

• Federal agencies (e.g., EPA, NOAA, USGS, USFWS, IMPS, the Navy)

• State, local, and tribal agencies (e.g., Maryland Dept. of the Environment, Maryland Dept. of
Natural Resources (DNR), Rhode Island Dept. of Health, Washington DNR, West Virginia DNR,
the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, Washington DC Dept. of Energy and
Environment, City of Norfolk, City of Hampton, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River
Basin, Delaware Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Connecticut Dept. of Energy &
Environmental Protection, Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management, Missouri Dept. of
Natural Resources, the Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, the South Carolina Dept. of Health
and Environmental Control, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, the NH Dept. of Environmental
Services, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, the North Carolina Dept. of
Environmental Quality; Rhode Island Division of Statewide Planning; the Southern Ute Indian
Tribe, Long Beach Township, Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island Natural
History Survey)

• Academia (e.g., Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Mass. Institute of Technology, Univ. of
Rhode Island, Columbia Univ., Univ. of Maine, Univ. of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science, Maryland Sea Grant College, Univ. of North Carolina Wilmington, Northeastern Univ.,
Univ. of New Hampshire, Cornell Univ., Univ. of Connecticut, the Stevens Institute of
Technology, Louisiana State Univ., Ocean County College)

• Non-governmental organizations (e.g., Chesapeake Bay Program, Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, The Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society,
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, the Environmental Law Institute, Nantucket Conservation
Foundation, Biohabitats, Ducks Unlimited, the Littoral Society, the James River Association, the
Carolina Wetlands Association, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Save Barnegat Bay,
the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association)

• Other private companies (e.g., Inter-Fluve, Mott MacDonald, Pare Corporation, Kimley-Horn,
RK&K Civil Engineering).

-------
Appendix C. Detailed Results of Mentimeter Polls and
Questions

C.l. What d« ^ ^	mean to you?

Participants were asked about the meaning of resilience (Table C.l). Responses could generally be
grouped into 'ecological' and 'socio-economic' categories.

•	"Ecological" — recover/rebound/adapt/persist

•	"Socio-economic" - engagement, tools, BMPs

Table CI. Summary of participant inputs on the meaning of resilience.

Summary of most frequent, similar responses: What does resilience mean to you?	

Ability to recover/bounce back/rebound/returning to a stable state/come back/respond positively
from a disturbance/stressors/adverse impacts/extreme events/ significant change over time and
space /weather challenges/droughts or storms

Ability to survive/persist/resist/absorb/withstand/retain/deal with/maintain and strengthen a
disturbance/etc. (as above)

One of the above concepts (recovering, persisting, or sustaining after a disturbance, change, or
impact) within certain parameters, or while maintaining certain ecosystem expression/retaining
ecosystem functions/continuing to provide ecosystem services

Ability to adapt to disturbances/climate change/change; or simply adaptation, or adaptation and
flexibility; or adaptation to ensure security
Sustainability or self-sustainability

Being prepared for climate change in a way that minimizes loss

Other responses:	

The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize in ways that retain essentially the
same functions, structures, identities, and feedbacks

Applying foresight to preempt future climate-related challenges and disasters

Capacity to persist indefinitely

The ability of a system to return to equilibrium

Overcoming change and thrive/survive

Being better prepared for change to minimize negative effects
Keep on keeping on

Bouncing back, but not in the same way
Buying time
Being prepared
Safety

Community Engagement
Community wellness
Decreased flooding

Forethought in emergency planning, preparation and execution that is in sync with changing
conditions

Being prepared for climate change in a way that minimizes loss

Taking out useless dams to provide better flow and less flooding	

37

-------
Community survival despite environmental or societal change

BMPs implemented

Needs-assessment

Auxiliary source of water supply

Retain native vegetation

There were myriad ways to express the concept of being able to recover from disturbance. The portion
of the concept, "recovery', was most frequently expressed as rebounding, coming back, responding
positively, or moving forward (after). However, the slightly different concepts of surviving, persisting,
resisting, absorbing, withstanding, retaining, or maintaining and strengthening were also raised. The
idea of 'avoiding and minimizing" also came up. In addition, some inputs included the idea of "preparing
for" disturbances or change. The second portion of this concept was often referred to as 'disturbance',
but other references were to change, stressors, adverse impacts, extreme events, weather, etc.

C.2. How does/should resilience . ,	your research and decision

mal<

Participant responses to an open-ended question "How does or should consideration of resilience figure
into your work or decision making?" are summarized in three broad categories below (Table C.2).

Table C.2. How does or should consideration of resilience figure into your work or decision making?
Responses - How does or should consideration of resilience figure into your work or decision
making?	

Approaches/General Considerations	

Needs to be fully integrated into decision making, if not the primary driver

Integrated into all planning activities

It is integrated throughout management planning

One of the dominant drivers

It absolutely has to, with limited $ resources available and the overall geographical need

Resilience/restoration/adaptation projects are so resource intensive (money, time, people, attention)

that they need to be considered for the long run, not short term

Need to shift to a longer-term perspective for resilience planning and management

It should form the foundation for every project in terms of unintended consequences

Success of restoration projects

Why do this work if it's not going to last?

Protection of our collective future

Good use of public funding

DEIJ to re-think the framework for decision-making

Aspects of Programs/Decisions	

Site selection, design and planning horizons
Identifying priority areas for preservation
Prioritizing habitats to protect/restore
Setting restoration targets

The sites we select to work in, and the type of project we conduct are based heavily on resilience
considerations

38

-------
Considering resilience is very important to restoration and climate adaptation decisions
Understanding long-term sustainability

Manage for conservation of cultural and natural resources into the future

Have to focus on resilience improvement to the land behind the restoration as well as on the

resilience of the restored habitat itself

Nature-based solutions perspective

Co-benefits to maximize partners and funding

Maximizing multiple benefits (carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, water quality improvement,
habitat for fish and birds)

Better connection between habitat restoration and community benefits to coastal residents
Prioritize sacked ecosystem services

Tradeoffs become essential from the resilience perspective

Specific Applications/Targets

Future ecosystem services

Resilient fisheries management decision making

Community health

Protecting critical assets

Protect the built environment

Resilience is a critical point for restoration of wetlands to mitigate flooding

Regulating tidal marsh conservation for the future

Protects military missions

Protection of critical facilities

Adaptive management thresholds

Maintenance costs should be included for projects so that we still see the benefits after the project is
over

Supports recreational fisheries

Restoring Rumney Marsh	

Out of 41 responses, five indicated resilience should be the main driver of all decision-making activities.
A few responses mentioned that resilience reflects a long-term perspective, and others that it assures
longer-term success for resilience projects.

C.3. What do you see as the biggest connection between wetlands

resilience and community resilience, and how would you measure it?

Participant inputs on connections between wetlands resilience and community resilience were most
often related to the benefits (ecosystem services) provided to humans/communities by wetlands (Table
C.3).

39

-------
Table C.3. Participant inputs on the biggest connections between wetlands resilience and community
resilience.

Responses - What do you see as the biggest connection between wetlands resilience and
community resilience, and how would you measure it?	

Flood protection

Time both exist together, measured in years

The biggest connection is the societal benefits that coastal wetlands provide.

Flood mitigation and measure by reduction of flooding incidents

The tidally flooded back yards of houses, measured by inches and frequency of flooding
People are the biggest connection. I would measure how people perceive the wetland, their
community, and their perspective of having that wetland in their community
Wave attenuation

Property value - resilient wetlands providing protection to inland communities/development.

Open space, visual aesthetics, mental health

Measure through increased quantity and quality of public access spaces
Sustainability of BOTH wetlands and their adjacent communities

Marshes provide water storage, water quality improvement, and provision of commercial fisheries

To directly measure societal benefits will require better valuation methodologies and better K-12

education of habitat values. Kids are the future stewards and decision-makers.

Understanding by the community of all the "services" that wetlands provide, and their valuing those

wetlands

Mitigation and wave attenuation of wetlands

Protected communities and healthy wetlands measured by reduced impacts to communities and

wetland condition assessments

Flood protection, social and economic benefit

Open space

Under or not properly valued

Living sustainably to reduce environmental impacts

Clean water, critical habitats, eco-tourism

A resilience mindset

People protect what they love

Native American valuation which promoted respect and seventh generation valuation	

C.4. What is the value gained from partner/stakeholder engagement in
wetlands management for resilience?

Workshop participants associated partner/stakeholder engagement with concepts of collaboration,
communication, inclusion, listening, partnering, cooperation, and need. Many other meaningful
concepts (e.g., respect, trust, understanding) and modifiers (e.g., time-consuming/intensive,
challenging) paint a more nuanced picture. In interactive discussions, participants were asked to
elaborate on "What is the value gained from stakeholder engagement in wetlands management for
resilience?" Perceived values emphasized ownership, buy-in, and community support, as well as
capacity building (Table 4).

40

-------
Table C.5. Participant inputs on the value gained from stakeholder engagement in wetlands
management for resilience.

Responses - What is the value gained from stakeholder engagement in wetlands management for
resilience?

Support	

Buy-in by coastal residents
Ownership and stewardship

Reality based: ground-truthed community buy in for project goals

Behavior change toward nature-based strategies when understanding their value

Ownership and monitoring for maintenance

Understanding their needs and desires

Public support

Public support for funding

Funding

Community support

Understanding barriers to acceptance of strategies

To ensure projects are meeting community needs if possible

Ensuring that the work provides the info actually needed by the stakeholders

The stakeholders become protective of "their" projects

Can also gauge if stakeholders are willing to help maintain sites

Continued monitoring (low rigor) and maintenance, community support to move adjacent projects
forward

Potential for longer-term and/or broader support for activities
Identifying stakeholders/benefactors

Longevity	

Longevity

Long term solutions

Supports longevity of the project if you get buy in

Shared Understanding	

You understand how the wetlands are used or perceived. This is high value to understanding how to

manage the wetland

Understanding cultural relevance

Historical context and importance

Shared understanding of ecosystem services

Learn more about perception of the coastal residents. Including objections. Allows for a better
conversation

Understanding objections to projects like dam removals, however, it's not a democracy
Develop a level of understanding
Create sense of shared responsibility

Co-Production	

Identifying potential roadblocks to implementation up front
Post-installation monitoring - community scientists
Community resilience
Measurement and long-term monitoring

Create a larger "tent"	

41

-------
Citizen science

Building volunteer capacity

Building capacity

Obtain all needs of the various stakeholders not just the ones who know who to talk to
Chance to learn from stakeholders and under-represented folks

Education/Outreach	

Environmental literacy
Education

Increase capacity for community members to learn from their peers

Public education and outreach

Public understanding of the value of wetlands

C.5. What are the top tx - ue need to do to improve as a community

of practice on achieving resilient coastal wetlands and communities?

Participants were asked, "What are the top things we need to do to improve as a community of practice
on achieving resilient coastal wetlands and communities?" Responses covered a range of factors, from
working with communities and stakeholders, to working with regulators, changing the focus of how we
currently work, sharing information (including successes and failures), and changing the way we
communicate (Table C.4).

Table C.4. Participant inputs on the top things we need to do to improve as a community of practice on
achieving resilient coastal wetlands and communities.

Responses - What are the top things we need to do to improve as a community of practice on
achieving resilient coastal wetlands and communities?	

Work with Community/Stakeholders/Build Capacity	

Include communities in planning and decision making
Creating in-roads with the trusted members of a community
Working as a network for restoration projects instead of individual areas.

Build community buy-in/ownership

Be sensitive to the needs of the community, build capacity

Prioritize building relationships and thoughtfully identifying and engaging stakeholders
Build capacity for participation
Build community support

Educate, volunteer opportunities to collect scientific data, connect with stakeholders

Keep it simple! Less is more- people are overloaded with information, we need clearer and more

concise (and consistent!) messaging

Focus on engagement and be willing to pay for it

Find, train, empower DEIJ leaders, mentors, champions

Work with Regulators	

Work/Coordinate with regulators

Connect with permit writers for them to understand new techniques that bring results
Building relationships with local governments...to aid and not block projects

Other Aspects of Approach	

42

-------
More attention to social vulnerability and how to blend wetland restoration with improving
community health

Dedicate staff resources to restoration planning and implementation

Remove barrier - literally and figuratively

Understand the unintended consequences of our decisions

Break down silos, and join forces to implement projects with multiple co-benefits

Groups coordinating and working together to make the most progress

Work together

Overcome social conventions and political momentum. Demonstrate accuracy of models and

projections and demonstrate results so science is accepted rather than disparaged

Leverage current/past work/efforts- avoid duplication

Time scale vs sea level rise projections

Think long-term

Invest in adaptive management

Consider and estimate future conditions (SLR, landscape context, etc.) when prioritizing restoration,
protection

Studies	

Case studies

Conduct more heat island studies
Identify gaps in needed research or data

Share Successes and Failures	

Acknowledge and share what doesn't work/what went wrong, in addition to just celebrating what does

Celebrate successes

Learn from previous failures

Share failures as much as we share successes

More/ better information sharing

Learn from failures

Assemble summaries of successful case studies to share with officials and stakeholders for current
projects

Monitoring	

Effective and cost-efficient monitoring

Continue to build out Coastal Wetlands Monitoring like the MAAWG is to freshwater wetlands
Allow greater flexibility with the WPDG to support long term data sets
Demonstrate the successes by monitoring and reporting results
Funding

Connect with funders

More funding for community health and restoration efforts.

Reduce funding barriers and streamline bureaucratic processes

Identify funding for project maintenance/monitoring/adaptive management

Other	

Hold an annual workshop like this one
Continuing to communicate
Find common ground

Better public relations to advertise needs and successes

43

-------
Appendix D. Relevant Information and Links Provided by Workshop Participants

All presentation slide decks are available on the Resilient Wetlands and Communities Workshop website found at https://resilience~
workshop.tetratech.com/, or by request to Jordan West (west.jordan@epa.gov). Links to a variety of associated tools, publications, and other
resources are provided here.

Links to tools, publications, other resources:

EPA Mid-Atlantic Team Resources:

Tool/Method/Approach;
(presenter)

Description

Link or reference

SLAMM; (several
presenters)

Sea-Level Affecting Marshes Model estimates projected
wetland response to long-term SLR. Integrates numerous
variables into the response metric (acreage change), including
historic global SLR trends, global mean SLR projections, vertical
land movement, elevation, slope, tide range, salt elevation (30-
day inundation level), accretion, erosion and land use. Includes
three protection scenarios that account for potential manmade
restrictions on marsh migration: no protection, protection of
dry developed land and protection of all dry land. Generates
spatially-explicit projections of SLR-induced changes in marsh
acreage for each site.

Lower Delaware Bav SLAMM Report: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 2019.

Application of the Sea-Level Affecting Marshes
Model (SLAMM) to the Lower Delaware Bay,
with a Focus on Salt Marsh Habitat. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/R-18/385.

EPA's Relative Wetlands
Vulnerability Framework
(RWVF) (Anna Hamilton (Tt
CES), Jordan West
(EPA/ORD), LeeAnn Haaf
(PDE)

A systematic process with five steps (classification, attributes,
principal factors, metrics, relative vulnerability) that examines
exposure and response components of vulnerability, generates
vulnerability profiles that can be compared within and among
sites to support site selection, and can be linked to evaluation
of management tactics to support adaptation.

RWVF article. Wardrop, D.H., Hamilton, A.T., Nassrv,

M.Q., West, J.M. and Britson, A.J., 2019. Assessing
the relative vulnerabilities of Mid-Atlantic
freshwater wetlands to projected hvdrologic
changes. Ecosphere, 10(2), p.e02561.

RWVF Application for Lower Delaware Bay:
Stamp, J., Hamilton, A.T., Haaf, L., Liang, M. and
J.M West. In prep. A management-relevant
framework for assessing salt marsh
vulnerabilities to sea level rise: Delaware Bay
case study. PLOS ONE.

-------




Broader assessment adding storm surge and
condition: Hamilton, A.T., Stamp, J., Haaf, L.,
Liang, M., and J.M. West. In prep. Salt marsh
vulnerability to sea level rise and storm surge,
influenced by marsh condition: Delaware Bay
case study. PLOS ONE.

EPA's Adaptation Design
Tool (ADT); (LeeAnn Haaf
(PDE))

A structured approach that guides users through a series of
steps to: 1) apply climate-smart design considerations to
management tactics; 2) brainstorm additional adaptation
activities that may be critically needed; and 3) identify and
record insights on information gaps & research needs, and on
synergies, conflicts & sequencing considerations among actions.

About the Adaptation Design Tool (ADT)

Adaptation Design Tool (Coral Reef Pilot): West,
J.M., Courtney, C.A., Hamilton, A.T., Parker,
B.A., Gibbs, D.A., Bradley, P. and S.H. Julius.
2018. Adaptation design tool for climate-smart
management of coral reefs and other natural
resources. Environmental Management, DOI:

Adaptation Design Tool (Chesapeake Bav
Program Application): Chesapeake Bav Program
2018. Chesapeake Bay Program: Climate-Smart
Framework and Decision-Support Tool.

Johnson, Z. (ed), Hamilton, A., Hoffman, J.,
Herron, H., West, J., Julius, S. and D. Gibbs. CBP
Climate Resiliency Workgroup, Chesapeake Bay
Trust, Annapolis, MD. 43 pp.

Adaptation Design Tool Online Training: Corals
and Climate Adaptation Planning: Adaptation
Design Tool Online Course. 2017. The Nature
Conservancy, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

PDE's Wetland Assessment
Tool: Condition and Health
(WATCH); (LeeAnn Haaf,
Josh Moody (PDE))

A spreadsheet model to organize data, evaluate marsh health
and diagnose deficiencies. Hoiistically evaluates 6 attributes
fundamental for salt marsh function using scientifically
defensible methods; guides the user through choosing metrics
aligned with DE & NJ LS monitoring frameworks. User inputs

https://delawareestuary.org/science-and~
research/tools/watch-tool/

45

-------


data regarding its current state, its acceptable range/bounds,

Partnership for the Delaware Estuarv fPDE)



(criteria), its trajectory, and a timeframe of interest. WATCH

s



uses these inputs to diagnose attribute(s) deficiencies indicative





of impaired functionality.



EPA Northeast Team Resources:

Tool/Method/Approach;
(presenter)

Description

Link or reference

SESAME; (Kate Mulvaney
(EPA/ORD))

The Social-Ecological Systems, Adaptive Management, and
Engagement (SESAME) framework provides reciprocal
connections between the human and ecological components of
restoration efforts and the resulting management and
engagement needs. Incorporates stakeholder engagement
through planning and implementation, reflecting aspects of
collaborative adaptive management.

httpsi//pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/36643969/

Mulvaney, K. K., Ayvazian, S., Chaffee,
C.,Wigand, C., Canfield, K., and Schoell, M.,
2022. Open SESAME: a social-ecological
systems framework for collaborative adaptive
management and engagement in coastal
restoration and climate adaptation. Wetl. Ecol.
Manag. 52. doi:10.1007/sll273-022-09891-3.

SCoRR; (Erin Burman (EPA
ORISE Fellow))

Sediment Bound Contaminant Resiliency and Response uses SLAMM
to project marsh migration, areas of future marsh with SLR;
identifies locations and types of hazardous and contaminated
sites (HCSs) within marsh migration pathways; yields)
contaminant hazard rankings: 4) hazardous effects on
human/aquatic life; 3) slightly hazardous effects on
human/aquatic life; 2) mild effects on human/aquatic life; and
1) little to no hazard risk to human/aquatic life. Overlays
SLAMM projected current and future marsh areas with HCS
points. Density and types of HCSs in marsh migration corridors
can result in re-suspension of contaminated sediments;
knowledge of these consequences can be used to identify
priority marshes for conservation and/or restoration.

AboutUSGSSCoRR

Burman, E., Mulvaney, K., Merrill, N., Bradley,
M., Wigand, C. 2023. Hazardous and
contaminated sites within salt marsh
migration corridors in Rhode Island, USA.
Volume 331, 1 April 2023, 117218,
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.1172
18

Reilly, T. J., Jones, D. K., Focazio , M. J., Aquino,
K. C., Carbo, C. L., Kaufhold , E. E., . .. Schill,
W. B. (2015). Strategy to evaluate persistent
contaminant hazards resulting from sea level
rise and storm derived disturbances Study
design and methodology for station
prioritization (2015 1188A). Retrieved from
Reston, VA: Open-File Report 2015-1188-A

46

-------
Blue Carbon (Adam Reilly
(EPA Region 1))

Increasing marsh salinity and marsh degradation due to SLR
increases release of stored methane. Estimation of GHGs
emitted and how much emission would be avoided with
restoration, and costs of not conserving marshes contribute to
site selection/prioritization and justification for restoration
(avoided cost as benefit). Also apply avoided methane
emissions to carbon-equivalent crediting initiative (blue carbon
offset crediting).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-
12138-4: Kroeger, K.D., Crooks, S., Moseman-
Valtierra, S. and Tang, J., 2017. Restoring tides
to reduce methane emissions in impounded
wetlands: A new and potent Blue Carbon
climate change intervention. Scientific reports,
7(1), p.11914.

Other

methods/resources



Wetland Loss Patterns and Inundation-
Productivitv Relationships Prognosticate
Widespread Salt Marsh Loss for Southern New
England: Watson E.B., Wigand C., Davev E.W.,
Andrews H.M., Bishop J., Raposa K.B. (2017)
Wetland loss patterns and inundation-
productivity relationships prognosticate
widespread salt marsh loss for Southern New
England. Estuaries and Coasts 40:662-681.



A Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for

Management of Coastal Marsh Systems 1
Science Inventory I US EPA: Wigand C. et al.

(2017) A climate change adaptation strategy
for management of coastal marsh
systems. Estuaries and Coasts 40:682-693.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl

e/pii/S0301479720308574 Perrv. D.C., C.
Chaffee, C. Wigand, and C. Thornber. 2020.
Implementing adaptive management into a
climate change adaptation strategy for a
drowning New England salt marsh. Journal of
environmental management, 270, p.110928.

47

-------
Mid-Atlantic Partner Panel Resources:

Tool/Method/Approach . . ,. , r

Description Link or reference

(presenter)

VIMS Center for Coastal
Resources Management,
Nature Based Solutions;

(Pam Mason (VIMS))

Documents and evaluates natural & nature-based features
(NNBFs), including coastal forests, wetlands, beaches, and living
shorelines, for potential to provide multiple benefits for coastal
communities, including storm protection, soaking up floodwaters,
improving water quality, providing recreation areas and
maintaining important habitats. NNBFs can be viewed in the
AdaptVA Interactive Map. Criteria for ranking NNBFs include:

•	NNBF flooding mitigation services

•	How many buildings does the NNBF benefit?

•	Are there any critical community facilities the NNBF benefits?

•	Can the NNBF be used to take advantage of existing
programmatic incentives?

Nature-Based Solutions I Virginia Institute of

Marine Science (vims.edu)



VIMS Center for Coastal
Resources Management
Shoreline Management
Model (SMM); (Pam
Mason (VIMS))

Ageospatial data model run in ArcGISthat processes shoreline
condition factors including:

•	Presence or absence of natural buffers - tidal marshes,
beaches, riparian forests, submerged aquatic vegetation SAV

•	Bank height

•	Nearshore bathymetry

•	Wave exposure (fetch)

•	Existing defense structures and proximity of upland
development

•	Other locally-based GIS data

through decision flow charts to reach recommendations for
shoreline stabilization, tidal shoreline erosion control, and living
shoreline suitability. Model output viewed and analyzed with
interactive map viewers.

Center for Coastal Resources Management

Chesapeake Bay Marsh
Resilience Targeting;

(Julie Reichert-Nguyen

A project report focused on two primary questions: 1. How do
climate change and variability affect nutrient/sediment cycling in
the watershed?; and 2. How do climate change and variability

A Svstematic Review of Chesapeake Bav
Climate Change Impacts and Uncertainty:
Watershed Processes, Pollutant Delivery, and

BMP Performance

48

-------
(NOAA/CBP), Breck
Sullivan (USGS/CBP))

affect BMP performance?, to support Chesapeake Bay
nutrient/sediment TMDL attainment under climate change.



Website providing up-to-date CBP science needs determined by
the Strategic Science and Research Framework (SSRF).

Chesapeake Bav Program Science Needs
Database

Synthesis of Shoreline,
Sea Level Rise, and
Marsh Migration Data
for Wetland Restoration;

(Julie Reichert-Nguyen
(NOAA/CBP), Breck
Sullivan (USGS/CBP))

Project report that provides 1) a compilation of existing datasets
and information related to marsh migration under sea level rise-
driven inundation due to forecasted climate change, topography
of bay shorelines, shoreline condition (e.g., erosion rates,
hardening, existing natural resources), existing wetland area and
potential migration corridors, and other relevant data from
around the Chesapeake Bay and 2) a methodology that
synthesizes the information in a format that can be used to assist
with marsh conservation and restoration decisions under multiple
sea level rise scenarios.

Synthesis of Shoreline, Sea Level Rise, and
Marsh Migration Data for Wetland
Restoration

Maryland Targeting
Tools (Christine Conn
(MDNR))

A report summarizing the development of new criteria to target
land acquisitions and conservation easements as a Maryland
adaptation strategy. New land conservation strategies to address
climate change impacts within Chesapeake bay focus on
preserving the long-term survival of coastal wetlands that provide
storm surge buffering to communities as well as critical habitat
for aquatic and terrestrial species.

Coastal Land Conservation in Marvland:

Targeting Tools and Techniaues for Sea Level
Rise Adaptation and Response

Maryland Coastal
Resiliency Assessment;

(Christine Conn (MDNR))

A landscape-level spatial analysis and modeling effort that
identifies where natural habitats provide the greatest potential
risk reduction for coastal communities. Includes considering co-
benefits of community protection with habitat, water quality, and
recreational benefits. Includes a Shoreline Hazard Index.

Coastal Resiliency Assessment
fmarvland.gov)

Natural Shorelines/Flood
Risk, Maryland;

(Christine Conn (MDNR))

A collaboration between The Nature Conservancy, George Mason
University, and Maryland Department of Natural Resources, this
website supports decisions about where Maryland and its natural
resource partners should conserve, restore or enhance wetlands,
submerged aquatic vegetation and shorelines to enhance
community resilience by providing study results quantifying the
wave attenuation and flood reduction benefits of salt marshes,
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and other natural and

Assessing Nature's Role in Resilience
(conservationgatewav.org), Ecosystem
Services (maryland.gov),

49

-------


nature-based features (NNBF) along the shores of Maryland's
Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal bays. Wave attenuation benefits
are being modeled by integrating hydrodynamic and habitat field
data with updated SLAMM results into coupled local and regional
hydrodynamic and wave models (ADCIRC + SWAN, XBeach).



Maryland Coastal Atlas;

(Christine Conn (MDNR))

A mapping tool that allows state and local decision-makers to
visually analyze and explore coastal data layers to support project
planning, including siting, identifying potential conflicts, helping
communities identify areas vulnerable to sea level rise, flooding,
and erosion, matching dredging areas with restoration areas, etc.

The Coastal Atlas (maryland.gov)

PDE Living Shoreline
Feasibility Model; (Josh
Moody (PDE))

Evaluates a suite of metrics to assess factors related to
constructing and maintaining a living shoreline at a specific
location. Guides collection of information on physical and
ecological site characteristics, site access, and community
resources, which is integrated into a summary of baseline existing
conditions and information on team building, project design, and
installation planning.

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (PDE)
Tools

Living Shoreline
Storymap (Josh Moody
(PDE))

Description of the Delaware Estuary Living Shoreline Initiative.

PDE Living Shoreline Storvmap

Delaware Living
Shoreline Information

(Josh Moody (PDE))

Information and photo-documentation of living shorelines as a
natural and effective way to protect Delaware's shorelines.

Delaware Living Shorelines Committee

Delaware Framework for
Living Shoreline
Monitoring (Josh Moody
(PDE))

A goal-based framework for developing monitoring plans for
living shoreline projects in Delaware; a step-wise procedure for
selecting relevant metrics and appropriate methods to assess
performance and adaptive management needs.

DE Monitoring Framework

MACWA (Josh Moody
(PDE))

the Mid Atlantic Coastal Wetland Assessment (MACWA). MACWA
supports a comprehensive assessment of coastal wetland
condition across the Mid Atlantic region. MACWA is a 4-tier
monitoring and assessment program; provides rigorous,
comparable data across all tidal wetlands of the Mid Atlantic (the
Delaware Estuary within Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,
as well as Barnegat Bay in New Jersey).

PDE Mid-Atlantic Coastal Wetland
Assessment (MACWA) Program

50

-------
New Jersey Framework
for Coastal Restoration
and Living Shoreline
Monitoring (Josh Moody
(PDE))

A framework for developing monitoring plans for coastal wetland
restoration and living shoreline projects in New Jersey;
recommended data collection and evaluation of project
performance to facilitate adaptive management and improve
future project designs.

NJ Monitoring Framework

NJ CERAP (Josh Moody
(PDE))

The NJ Coastal Ecological Restoration and Adaptation Plan
(CERAP) identifies areas for ecological projects that increase
community resilience, ecosystem health, and/or carbon
sequestration. Will result in an online mapping tool that meets
decision-support needs of coastal stakeholders; will be iteratively
developed with additional calls for project nominations in the
future.

NJDEP Coastal Ecological Restoration and
Adaptation Plan (CERAP)

Northeast Partner Panel Resources:

Tool/Method/Approach
(presenter)

Description

Link or reference

Dredged sediment
placement (thin-layer
placement); (Caitlin
Chaffee, (NBNERR))

Case studies using placement of dredged material for coastal
wetland restoration, including particular consideration of
public/stakeholder engagement throughout project planning
and implementation, including: establishing project goals and
objectives with a diverse team; balancing community
objectives with permit and funding requirements; sharing
project ownership; communication with consultants; and
dealing with uncertainty in project design, water
management, and budget and construction bid solicitation.

ementing Adaptive Management into a
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for a
Drowning New England Salt Marsh -
ScienceDirect: Perrv D.C., Chaffee C., Wigand C.,
Thornber C. 2020. Implementing adaptive
management into a climate change adaptation
strategy for a drowning New England salt
marsh. Journal of Environmental
Management 270:110928.

Raposa, K. B., Bradley, M., Chaffee, C., Ernst, N.,
Ferguson, W., Kutcher, T. E., McKinney, R. A.,
Miller, K. M., Rasmussen, S., Tymkiw, E., and
Wigand, C. 2022. Laying it on thick: Ecosystem
effects of sediment placement on a microtidal
Rhode Island salt marsh. Front. Env. Sci.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.939870.

51

-------




Vegetation Dynamics in Rhode Island Salt
Marshes During a Period of Accelerating Sea Level
Rise and Extreme Sea Level Events: Raposa K.B.,
Weber R.L.J., Ekberg M.C., Ferguson W. 2017.
Vegetation dynamics in Rhode Island salt marshes
during a period of accelerating sea level rise and
extreme sea level events. Estuaries and
Coasts 40:640-650.

Raposa K.B., Wasson K., Woolfolk A., Endris C.A.,
Fountain M.C., Moore G., Tyrrell M., Swerida R.,
Lerberg S., Puckett B., Ferner M., Hoi lister J.,
Champlin L., KrauseJ.R., Haines D., GrayA.B.,
Watson E.B. In review. Evaluating thin-layer
sediment placement as a tool for enhancing tidal
marsh resilience: a coordinated experiment
across eight U.S. National Estuarine Research
Reserves. Submitted to Estuaries and Coasts.

Restoring

hydrology/runnels;
(Caitlin Chaffee
(NBNERR))

Results of a workshop on the use and efficacy of runnels
(shallow channels to drain standing water, recently used to
restore marsh vegetation) for coastal wetland restoration;
and results of a case study in which vegetation was restored
at a degraded marsh within a few years of runnel
construction. Runnel construction alone unlikely to improve
long-term marsh resilience, but may "buy time" as a part of
holistic climate plan that includes other management
interventions.

https://link.springer.com/article/lQ.lQQ7/sl2237-

021-01028-8 Besterman A.F., Jakuba R.W.,
Ferguson W., Grennan D., Costa J.E., Deegan L.A.
2022. Buying Time With Runnels: a Climate
Adaptation Tool for Salt Marshes. Estuaries and
Coasts. Correction to: Buying Time with Runnels:
a Climate Adaptation Tool for Salt Marshes:

Watson, E.B., Ferguson, W., Champlin, L.K.,
White, J., Ernst, N., Sylla, H., Wilburn, B. and
Wigand. C. 2022. Runnels mitigate marsh
drowning in microtidal salt marshes. Front. Env.
Sci., (Conservation and Restoration Ecology
section). DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.987246

52

-------
RAMP; (Courtney
Schmidt (NBEP), Tom
Kutcher (RINHS))

Salt Marsh Restoration, Assessment, and Monitoring Program
(RAMP) formalizes a long-term collaboration among federal,
state, local, non-profit, and academic groups, featuring a
regional strategy, standardized methods, prioritization
systems, and information exchange. It includes 3 tiers of
assessment (landscape, rapid, and intensive). Developed
resources include: the Rhode Island Coastal Wetland
Restoration Strategy; and the Strategy for Developing a Salt
Marsh Monitoring Program.

Salt Marsh Restoration Assessment and
Monitoring Program — Narragansett Bav Estuarv

Program (nbep.org): Multiple agencies and
organizations with different missions and
mandates work efficiently and collaboratively
towards the goal of preserving coastal wetland
throughout Rhode Island. Point-of-
contact Courtney Schmidt.

Salt Marsh Rapid
Assessment Method
(MarshRAM) (Tom
Kutcher (RINHS))

The Salt Marsh Rapid Assessment Method 'MarshRAM' fills a
need for broad, science-based information to guide
management by documenting information characterizing salt
marsh type, setting, ecological value, disturbance, integrity,
and opportunity for landward migration at the site scale.

Uses a Wetland Disturbance Index (a checklist that ranks the
intensity of individual and cumulative human disturbances)
and an Index of Marsh Integrity (IMI) (using a novel walking-
transect approach to rapidly characterize site-wide
vegetation-community composition) that also could be used
as an index of marsh resilience.

pid Method to Assess Salt Marsh Condition
and Guide Management Decisions: Kutcher T.E.,
Raposa K.B., Roman C.T. 2022. A rapid method to
assess salt marsh condition and guide
management decisions. Ecological
Indicators 138:108841.

The Rhode Island Climate
Change and Health
Program; (Rachel Calabro
(RIDOH))

Recognizes climate change as a risk amplifier, with impacts
on human health as well as on the environment. Vulnerable
groups likely to suffer disproportionately. The Rl Social
Vulnerability Index includes 8 dimensions: the elderly,
children, poverty, income, vehicle access, educational
attainment, immigrant populations, and linguistic isolation.
Integrates consideration of related environmental conditions
and direct climate impacts on health (e.g., tree canopy cover
and the average afternoon heat index). RIDOH Health Equity
Measures include fifteen measures that look at determinants
of health in five domains (e.g., community resilience, physical
environment, etc.).

The Rhode Island Climate Change and Health
Program: Building Knowledee and Community
Resilience: Calabro, R. and Hoffman, C. 2021. The
Rhode Island Climate Change and Health
Program: Building Knowledge and Community
Resilience. Rl Medical Journal, Nov, pages 45-48.

Other related resources

Restoring a Degraded Marsh Using Thin Layer Sediment Placement: Short Term Effects on Soil Physical and

Biogeoehemieal Properties: VanZomeren C.M., Berkowitz J.F., Piercv C.D., White J.R. (2018) Restoring a degraded

-------

marsh using thin layer sediment placement: short term effects on soil physical and biogeochemical
properties. Ecological Engineering 120:61-67.

Evaluating Tidal Wetland Restoration Performance Using National Estuarine Research Reserve System Reference
Sites and the Restoration Performance Index (RPI): Raposa K.B., Lerberg S., Cornu C., Fear J., Garfield N., Peter C.,
Weber R.L.J., Moore G., Burdick D., Dionne M. (2018) Evaluating tidal wetland restoration performance using
National Estuarine Research Reserve System reference sites and the restoration performance index
(RPI). Estuaries and Coasts 41(1):36-51.

Guidance for Thin-Laver Sediment Placement as a Strategy to Enhance Tidal Marsh Resilience to Sea Level Rise:
Raposa K., Wasson K., Nelson J., Fountain M., West J., Endris C., Woolfolk A. (2020) Guidance for thin-layer
sediment placement as a strategy to enhance tidal marsh resilience to sea-level rise. Published in collaboration
with the National Estuarine Research Reserve System Science Collaborative.

Elevation Change and the Vulnerability of Rhode Island (USA) Salt Marshes to Sea-Level Rise: Raposa K.B., Cole
Ekberg M.L., Burdick D.M., Ernst N.T., Adamowicz S.C. (2017) Elevation change and the vulnerability of Rhode
Island (USA) salt marshes to sea-level rise. Regional Environmental Change 17(2) 389-97.

Mitigating the Legacy Effects of Ditching in a New England Salt Marsh: Burdick D.M., Moore G.E., Adamowicz S.A.,
Wilson G.M., Peter .CR. (2020) Mitigating the legacy effects of ditching in a New England salt marsh. Estuaries and
Coasts 43:1672-1679.

Declining Sediments and Rising Seas: an Unfortunate Convergence for Tidal Wetlands: Weston N.B. (2014)
Declining sediments and rising seas: An unfortunate convergence for tidal wetlands. Estuaries and Coasts 37:1-23.

-------
Additional resources that were shared by participants in the Chat function of the online workshop are
also provided below:

• USGS UVVR: unvegetated: vegetated ratio for salt marshes:
https://wim.usgs.gOv/geonarrative/uscoastalwetlandsvnthesis/U.S. Coastal Wetlands Synthesis

• Sesame framework. See also Bierbaum, R., Smith, J. B., Lee, A., Blair, M., Carter, L., Chapin, F. S.,
... & Verduzco, L. (2013). A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States:
more than before, but less than needed. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change,
18(3), 361-406.

• Lauren I. Josephs and Austin T. Humphries. 2018. Identifying social factors that undermine
support for nature-based coastal management. Journal of Environmental Management 212: 32-
38. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.ienvman.2018.01.085.

• Reilly, T.J., Jones, D.K., Focazio, M.J., Aquino, K.C., Carbo, C.L., Kaufhold, E.E., Zinecker, E.K.,
Benzel, W.M., Fisher, S.C., Griffin, D.W., Iwanowicz, L.R., Loftin, K.A. and Schill, W.B., 2015,
Strategy to evaluate persistent contaminant hazards resulting from sea-level rise and storm-
derived disturbances—Study design and methodology for station prioritization: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 2015-1188A, 20 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr2.0151188A. ISSN
2331- https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20151188A

• How Wetlands & Living Shorelines Support Programs & Policies: Virginia:
https://www.chesapeakebav.net/channel files/44615/wetlands co-
benefits factsheet virginia.pdf

• Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Planning for Equity: https://www.nbep.org/planning-for-
equitv

• Bringing EJ and restoration efforts together-highlights the disparities in where restoration
projects were funded: Matthew Adam Dernoga, Sacoby Wilson, Chengsheng Jiang, and Fred
Tutman. 2015. Environmental justice disparities in Maryland's watershed restoration programs.
Environmental Science & Policy 45: 67-78.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114Q01634

• Chesapeake Bay Program science needs database: https://star.chesapeakebav.net/

• Here is the link to the report that reviewed existing literature on climate change impacts on best
management practices (BMPs) and uncertainty:

https://www.chesapeakebay.net/document ;tematic Review of Chesapeake Bay Clima

te Change Impacts and Uncertainty Watershed Processes, Pollutant Delivery, and BMP
Performance Final 14Feb2022.pdf

• Here's a project webpage for the EESLR study on Assessing Nature's Role in Resilience-The
Conservation Gateway is for the conservation practitioner, scientist and decision-maker; share
the best and most up-to-date information to inform our work at The Nature Conservancy):
https://www.conservationgatewav.org/ConservationBvGeographv/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/
md/Pages/EESLR-Studv.aspx

• An example of restoring wetlands in urban areas :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307191168 Assessing the Benefits of Wetland Re
storation A Rapid Benefit Indicators Approach for Decision Makers

-------