United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Operationalizing Ecosystem
Services Endpoints and
Assessment Tools for Supporting
r Risk Assessments in Contaminated
Site Cleanups
Office of Research and Development
Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment
EPA/600/R-23/039 | April 2023 | www.epa.gov/research
-------
EPA/600/R-23/039
April 2023
www.e pa .gov/resea rch
Operationalizing Ecosystem Services Endpoints
and Assessment Tools for
Supporting Risk Assessments
in Contaminated Site Cleanups1
By
Stephanie Kim, Katelyn Barrett, Ned Black, Abby DeBofsky, Paulina Do, Gina Ferreira, Patrick
Field, Jim Harvey, Matthew C. Harwell, Kaitlyn Hines, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Michael
Kravitz, Venessa Madden, Brooke Mastervich, Charles G. Maurice, Wayne R. Munns, Jr., Anne
Neale, Bruce Pluta, Leah Sharpe
1 Superfund and Technology Liaison Research Project Report. Project ID: 2477.
ii
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
This document has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does
not imply an endorsement or recommendation for use. The views expressed here are the authors' own
and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of USEPA.
This is a contribution to the EPA Superfund and Technology Liaison Research Project (Project ID: 2477)
and ORD's Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This work was conducted under a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (L-PESD-0033497-QP-l-l) and the report was subject to external peer
review.
Citation for this Report
Kim, S., K. Barrett, N. Black, A. DeBofsky, P. Do, G. Ferreira, P. Field, J. Harvey, M.C. Harwell, K. Hines, T.
Newcomer-Johnson, M. Kravitz, V. Madden, B. Mastervich, C.G. Maurice, W.R. Munns, Jr., A. Neale, B.
Pluta, and L. Sharpe. 2023. Operationalizing Ecosystem Services Endpoints and Assessment Tools for
Supporting Risk Assessments. Superfund and Technology Liaison Research Project Report. Project ID:
2477. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-23/039.
Acknowledgments
We greatly appreciate the efforts of reviewers who took the time to read the report, including Lawrence
Martin (USEPA Office of Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement) and Kelly Garbach (USEPA Region 9
Brownfields and Land Revitalization). Amy Freitag, Rebekah Gibble, and D. Todd Jones-Farrand provided
valuable technical reviews of this report.
Abbreviations and Symbols
Acronyms and abbreviations used in this report include the following:
BERA Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
CCTE Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure
CEMM Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (referred to
as Superfund)
CESER Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
CICES Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
COPC Contaminants of Potential Concern
CPHEA Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment
EGS Ecosystem Goods and Services
EM Ecological Models
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERA Ecological Risk Assessment
ERAF Ecological Risk Assessment Forum
-------
ERAF EGS WG Ecological Risk Assessment Forum's Ecosystem Goods and Services for Directing and
Communicating Ecological Risk Workgroup
ERT Environmental Response Team
ESML EcoService Models Library
FEGS Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
FST FEGS Scoping Tool
FYR Five-Year Reviews
GAP Gap Analysis Project
GEAE Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoint
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
HUC Hydrological Unit Code
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
NARPM National Association of Remedial Project Managers
NESCS Plus National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OLEM Office of Land and Emergency Management
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORM Office of Resource Management
OSAPE Office of Science Advisor, Policy, and Engagement
OSRE Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
P&S Planning and Scoping
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SAB Science Advisory Board
SHC Sustainable and Healthy Communities
SLERA Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment
STLR Superfund and Technology Liaison Research
USGS United States Geological Survey
VRD Variable Relationship Diagram
iv
-------
Table of Contents
Notice and Disclaimer
Citation for this Report
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations and Symbols
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background
EPA's Ecosystem Services Tools
Relevant EGS Tools at EPA
Workshop
Logistics
Workshop Introduction
Workshop Case Study
Conclusions and Future Directions
References
Appendix 1 - Overview Presentations
Appendix 2 - Theoretical Case Study Presentation
Appendix 3 - EGS Tool Outputs Based on Workshop's Hazardous Site Case Study
-------
Executive Summary
Cleanup of contaminated sites focuses on activities needed to minimize risks of contaminants to human
health and the environment. As part of necessary efforts during contaminated site cleanups, an
ecological risk assessment (ERA) is conducted to examine the extent of potential contamination and
evaluate risks to the environment. In the Superfund context, an ecological risk assessment is a
qualitative or quantitative appraisal of the actual or potential impacts of contaminants from a hazardous
waste site on plants and animals other than humans and domesticated species (USEPA, 1997).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been applying ecosystem goods and services (EGS)
concepts - the benefits we get from nature - in contaminated site cleanups for more than a decade.
Recently, an EPA Superfund Technical Liaison Research (STLR) project focused on the incorporation of
existing EPA/Office of Research and Development (ORD) EGS tools and concepts into the established
ERA process. This effort examined potential strategies for employing EGS tools and concepts to enhance
potential ERA outputs.
Although ecological and human health risk assessments are largely separate undertakings, one
distinctive feature of EGS is that they are able to crosswalk ecosystem quality to human health and well-
being. As such, EGS can provide a profound enhancement to any assessment because they bridge the
ecosystem-human health divide. Thus, incorporating EGS into the ERA process has the potential to
improve the environmental and socio-economic outcomes of contaminated site cleanup. As such, there
is a need for site-specific examples that incorporate EGS into the ERA process for risk assessors and
other technical staff to be able to routinely incorporate nature's benefits to humans into the
investigation, analysis, risk assessment, and remedial decisions of hazardous waste sites. In order to
effectively incorporate EGS into the hazardous waste site remedial process, risk assessors will need the
buy-in, support, and understanding of their project managers and upper management, and in some
cases, resources provided by federal and private contractors.
Overall, these tools and approaches could be useful for ERAs in contaminated sites to achieve better
outcomes and enhance community engagement and support. Until recently, there had been no EGS-
focused coordination or training for ERA practitioners, Remedial Project Managers, Community
Involvement Coordinators, etc. Future work should focus on providing site-specific examples of
incorporating EGS concepts and tools into ERAs focused on: (1) developing real site examples of
operationalizing certain EGS-based tools, models, and assessment endpoints in ERAs conducted at
Superfund fund-lead sites; and (2) providing evidence and framework for others, including state and
tribal environmental agencies, to potentially utilize these examples at Responsible Party (RP)-led
Superfund sites and regional Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites. Additional outreach
to relevant local, state, and federal stakeholders on EGS tools development and application at
hazardous waste sites should be conducted. Additionally, trainings and informational webinars should
be developed and conducted to provide more awareness of EGS tools, their potential benefits, and
examples of their applications.
2
-------
Introduction
Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been applying ecosystem goods and services (EGS)1
concepts in contaminated site cleanups for more than a decade. The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB)
in 2009 identified potential connections between the use of EGS concepts and approaches and steps in
remediation and redevelopment processes (USEPA, 2009). As summarized in Harwell et al. (2021), the
SAB recommended integrating EGS assessments into multiple stages of a contaminated site cleanup
effort. In 2015/2016, EPA efforts focused on developing generic guidelines for incorporating EGS into
ecological risk assessments (ERA) through the development and application of Generic Ecological
Assessment Endpoints that incorporate EGS in ERA (USEPA, 2015; Munns et al., 2016). Other work has
applied EGS concepts in contaminated site cleanups, including in Beneficial Use Impairment
Assessments for the Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Angradi et al., 2016; Williams and Hoffman, 2020),
and the development and retrospective application of a generalizable framework for considering EGS in
contaminated cleanups (Harwell et al., 2021), and the value-added aspects that EGS consideration can
bring to monitoring design and subsequent assessments (Harwell et al., 2022). These advancements
provide inspiration and opportunities to explore options for operationalizing EGS in risk assessments of
hazardous waste sites.
An EPA(2016) report, Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAE) for Ecological Risk Assessment
(2nd Edition) with Generic Ecosystem Services Endpoints, was developed "to assist EPA risk assessors
conducting ecological risk assessments in considering ecosystem services when selecting assessment
endpoints. Incorporating ecosystem services endpoints in ecological risk assessments can make the
assessments more relevant to decision makers and stakeholders with concerns more oriented toward
societal outcomes. Ecological risk assessments that include ecosystem service endpoints provide more
useful information to economists who perform benefit-cost analyses, relative to conventional endpoints
alone. Assessing risks to ecosystem services can highlight potential assessment endpoints that are not
considered in conventional risk assessments such as flood control, nutrient cycling, carbon
sequestration, and soil formation."
In April 2022, Executive Order 14072, Strengthening the Nation's Forests, Communities, and Local
Economies2 was signed, focusing on identifying "key opportunities for greater deployment of nature-
based solutions across the Federal Government, including through potential policy, guidance, and
program changes." Notably, EO 14072 Section (b) charges the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
with issuing "guidance related to the valuation of ecosystem and environmental services and natural
assets in Federal regulatory decision-making." Such OMB guidance will increase the relevance and
significance of efforts to use EGS in contaminated site ERAs by providing concrete ways of incorporating
the value of EGS during decision-making points of the cleanup process.
Although EGS-based tools have been used to produce environmental benefits at Superfund sites (e.g.,
Coeur d'Alene River and Lower Darby Creek; Harwell et al., 2021), currently no examples or applications
exist that demonstrate how EGS-based tools, models, and assessment endpoints can be used in ERAs at
2 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/Q4/22/executive-order-on-
strengthening-the-nations-forests-communities-and-local-economies/
3
-------
Superfund fund-lead sites. Further, there is no guidance or legal requirement that the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) for PRP-led Superfund or RCRA Corrective Action sites incorporate EGS
concepts and tools into any aspect of site investigation and remediation. Thus, at present EPA can only
encourage PRPs to incorporate EGS concepts and tools by explaining the benefits of their use and
application.
Contaminated Site Cleanups and Ecological Risk Assessments
Fundamentally, cleanup of contaminated sites focuses on activities needed to minimize risks of
contaminants to human health and the environment. As part of necessary efforts during contaminated
site cleanups, an ERA is conducted to examine the extent of potential contamination and evaluate risks
to the environment. In the Superfund3 context, an ERA is a qualitative or quantitative appraisal of the
actual or potential impacts of contaminants from a hazardous waste site on plants and animals other
than humans and domesticated species (USEPA, 1997).
Ecological risk assessments for contaminated site cleanups are generally conducted using a phased
approach - a screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) often followed by a baseline ecological
risk assessment (BERA). In SLERAs, the potential for adverse effects to ecological entities are evaluated
using conservative, site-specific exposure scenarios (e.g., maximum measured media concentrations)
and generic screening benchmark values. The exposure and effects of site related stressors
(contaminants for Superfund contexts) on ecological entities are also evaluated in BERAs but they are
analyzed using more refined, detailed, and/or targeted site-specific physical, chemical, and biological
data and field and/or laboratory studies (USEPA, 2008).
The risk assessment team decides that either the SLERA is adequate to determine that ecological threats
are negligible, or that the process should continue to a more detailed BERA. In the latter case, the SLERA
serves to identify exposure pathways and preliminary contaminants of concern for the BERA, and it
reduces the scope of the BERA by eliminating those contaminants and exposure pathways that pose
negligible risks (USEPA, 1997). The results of the baseline risk assessment inform remedial alternatives
development during the Feasibility Study by helping establish acceptable exposure levels.
Superfund Technical Liaison Research Project
An FY21 Superfund Technical Liaison Research (STLR) project examined the incorporation of existing
EPA/Office of Research and Development (ORD) EGS tools into the established ERA process. The
potential for employing EGS tools to enhance potential ERA outputs was explored through a facilitated,
EPA workshop held on February 28, 2022.
The workshop focused on:
3 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. § 9601 etseq.)
4
-------
1) Enhancing Superfund ERA output usefulness (as well as ERA outputs for other EPA hazardous
waste cleanup programs under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)4, Brownfields5,
and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)6) during remediation decision-making
through incorporating EGS approaches and assessments into the existing ERA process; and
2) Demonstrating EGS concepts and tools and discussing of operationalization of EGS-based
concepts and tools in the ERA process.
As recommended in the Executive Summary of USEPA (2015), "In addition to research, training
opportunities for ecological risk assessors and risk managers are necessary to enable them to
understand better how ecosystem services can be used in the ERA and decision-making processes." The
STLR workshop, along with two informational webinars held separately for project managers and risk
assessors, helped to serve that purpose.
The STLR workshop was devised and planned by the Ecological Risk Assessment Forum's (ERAF's)7
Ecosystem Goods and Services for Directing and Communicating Ecological Risk Workgroup (ERAF EGS
WG). This workgroup is composed of USEPA regional ecological risk assessors from EPA Regions 1, 2, 3,
7, and 9 and ORD scientists and managers from the Center for Environmental Measurement and
Modeling (CEMM), Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER), Center for
Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Center for Computational Toxicology and
Exposure (CCTE), Office of Science Advisor, Policy, and Engagement (OSAPE), Office of Resource
Management (ORM), and Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) National Research Program. The
goals of this workgroup were to provide information and resources on EGS-based concepts and tools to
Superfund and RCRA human health and ecological risk assessors, project managers, and other support
teams (e.g., Community Involvement Coordinators) and to delineate how EGS-based tools and
assessment endpoints can be incorporated in the ERAs of hazardous site investigations. For this
workshop, four EPA EGS tools were examined in greater detail: National Ecosystem Services
Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus); Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Scoping Tool (FST);
EnviroAtlas; and EcoService Models Library (ESML).
The objective of the STLR workshop was to help fill information gaps and establish nexuses between ERA
and EGS by introducing new and innovative approaches to develop EGS-specific tools and apply them to
hazardous waste site ERAs. These approaches will help promote the overall goal of incorporation of EGS
in the ERA and decision-making processes used in contaminated sites remediation and redevelopment.
Site examples of operationalizing certain EGS-based tools, models, and endpoints in ERAs can provide
reference examples and frameworks for others (e.g., regional or state site managers, risk assessors,
PRPs) to utilize. The aggregated and organized ERA/EGS information and highlighted major nexuses will
facilitate the generation of example applications of EGS enhanced ERAs at contaminated sites. These
4 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 U.S.C. 82 § 6901 et seq.)
5 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Brownfields; Pub. L. 107-118,115 stat.
2356)
6 1987 US-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) identified Areas of Concern and Beneficial Use
Impairments.
7 The ERAF is a group of EPA risk assessors from Regional and Headquarters Offices that addresses ecological issues
pertaining to hazardous waste sites.
5
-------
examples will then serve as references or case studies that will illustrate how EGS can be incorporated
and will demonstrate the resulting enhanced socio-economic ERA relevance. This should lead to wider
usage of EGS models, assessment methodologies, and other tools. It is important to acknowledge that
there are numerous other ecosystem services tools (e.g., Bagstad et al. 2013), EGS classification systems
(e.g., Finisdore et al. 2020), and related biodiversity tools (e.g., the Map of Biodiversity8) available for
consideration. While this workshop examined USEPA tools, the approach presented would work for
other tools, frameworks, and decision support systems, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service's
Information for Planning and Consultation tool9.
Researchers provided workshop presentations on:
• Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAEs);
• A crosswalk of EGS and ERA;
• An ORD EGS Tool Portal (currently under development); and
• Four publicly available ORD tools:
o the National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus)10;
o the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool (FST)11
o the EnviroAtlas12; and
o the EcoService Models Library (ESML)13.
Workshop participants included EPA Superfund and RCRA ecological risk assessors and project managers
from all 10 EPA Regions, as well as Regional Brownfields project officers, Superfund On-Scene
Coordinators, and Community Involvement Coordinators. Participants from EPA Headquarters included
scientists from Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and Environmental
Response Team (ERT), both within Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) and from Office
of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) within Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA). Participants from ORD included representatives from CEMM, CESER, CPHEA, CCTE, OSAPE,
ORM, and the SHC National Research Program.
8 See https://www.natureserve.org/map-biodiversity-importance
9 See https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/
10 See https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/national-ecosvstem-services-classification-svstem-nescs-plus
11 See https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/final-ecosystem-goods-and-services-fegs-scoping-tool
12 See https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas
13 See https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoservice-models-library
6
-------
EPA's Ecosystem Services Tools
Relevant EGS Tools at EPA
Over the past two decades, EPA researchers have led the development and application of a number of
EGS-related tools (for overview of EPA EGS research, see Harwell and Jackson, 2021). While an individual
tool may have been developed for a specific purpose/application, researchers are exploring how to
translate both EGS concepts and tools for applications across a range of decision-making contexts. From
this perspective, a crosswalk between EGS tools and steps in a contaminated site ERA framework can
advance ERA science. An initial crosswalk table examining EPA EGS tools (Table 1) was developed by
Maurice et al. (2019). The Decision Questions column includes example questions that might be asked
for any given decision context. They are intended to prompt discussion with the decision
makers/stakeholder groups to both increase thinking about what types of EGS are relevant to consider
and to translate that information to understand which tool might be most relevant.
ERA Phases
Example EGS Topics and Activities
Some Potential EPA EGS Tools
Decision Questions
Planning and
Scoping
• Identify EGS in site landscape
• FEGS Scoping Tool
• FEGS Classification System
• National Ecosystem Services Classification
System-Plus (NESCS-Plus)
• Who are the stakeholders and what are their relative standings and levels of impact?
• Do EGS classification systems help with selection, completeness, and comparability
across assessment endpoints?
• Would inclusion of EGS facilitate broader conversation with stakeholders and
include ecosystem structure, function and benefits they had not considered?
Problem
Formulation
• Describe EGS benefits
• Esti mate magn itudes of EGS benefits
• Incorporate EGS into conceptual site model (CSM)
• FEGS Scoping Tool
• EcoService Models Library (ESML)
• Eco-Health Relationship Browser
• EnviroAtlas
• Decision Analysis for a Sustainable
Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES)
• What resources have stakeholders indicated are important for protection?
• What health concerns do they have?
• Has there been prioritization by stakeholders?
• What do spatial data-layers tell us about the site and if s surrounding area?
Analysis
• Evaluate potential EGS/site contaminants connectivity
• Evaluate potential effects of site contaminants on EGS
• Evaluate EGS condition (functionality, impairment level)
• Evaluate EGS resilience/vulnerability to site contaminants
• Calculate EGS cost savings and other benefits
• Assess EGS capacity (type, temporal, seasonal)
• Assess EGS importance to stakeholders
• Assess EGS maintenance effort and cost
• Identify key features or parameters to protect EGS benefits
• EcoService Models Library (ESML)
• EnviroAtlas
• EPA H20 Tool
• Rapid Benefit Indicators (RBI) Approach
• Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management
Assessments (VELMA) Model
• Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision
Information System (CADDIS)
• Are EGS attributes quantifiable (i.e., can they be measured or modeled)?
• Which indicators might serve as proxy for assessing classes of EGS?
• What spatial and temporal factors need to be considered?
• Can EGS related ecological receptors be aggregated in space or across
contaminants?
• What are the estimated differences in benefits between multiple future scenarios?
• How do upstream and downstream areas affect or are affected by the site?
• How might benefits be valued?
Risk
Characterization
• Compare costs and benefits of EGS
• Characterize site contaminant threats to EGS
• Characterize EGS impairment level by site contaminants
• EcoService Models Library (ESML)
• EnviroAtlas
• EPA H20 Tool
• Rapid Benefit Indicators (RBI) Approach
• Would EGS help with risk characterization of aggregate and cumulative risk?
• Can costs and benefits be compared using similar units of measure?
• Where are the beneficiaries?
• Which beneficial uses might be impacted or restored?
Risk
Communication
• Articulate EGS benefits and costs
• All of the above
• What EGS do decision makers and stakeholders care about?
• How do EGS contribute to human health and wellbeing?
Table 1. Crosswalk between EGS Topics/Activities/Tools and ERA Phases. From Maurice et al. (2019)
While there are many EPA EGS tools available, including many developed outside of EPA, the STLR
project examined four EGS tools for their utility in advancing ERA science: NESCS Plus; FEGS Scoping Tool
(or FST); EnviroAtlas; and ESML Information about the tools and their use in relation and relevance to
ERA is presented below.
National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus)
The EPA has developed the NESCS Plus for classifying benefits to human communities from nature
(Newcomer-Johnson et al., 2020). A well-defined framework for classifying EGS is essential for
7
-------
systematically identifying and tracing these linkages. The NESCS Plus includes a suite of definitions and a
classification system that can:
• identify and classify what matters directly to people;
• be applied at multiple spatial scales;
• promote interdisciplinary communication about the nature of EGS; and
• facilitate development of biophysical metrics that could be measured to link EGS to human well-
being.
As solely a classification system, the NESCS Plus only provides the framework for analyzing how, and
how much, changes to ecosystems impact human welfare, rather than being a tool used to conduct such
analyses. Through establishing the framework for analyses, the NESCS Plus enables the analyses for
various types of environmental management actions, policies, and regulations.
From the start, quantifying (and where feasible, valuating) how much changes in an ecosystem can
impact human well-being requires identification of the relevant final EGS (those that directly benefit
people). The NESCS Plus facilitates these analyses by enabling the analyst to answer four questions
about the final EGS: Where? What? How? and Who? Through a user navigating these questions for their
given decision context/location, the NESCS Plus generates a list of potential final EGS that are applicable
to that decision context/location.
The first step in using the NESCS Plus is determining how to query the tool. The user has two initial
choices, i.e., "Browse Core Options" (Figure 3a-c) or "Query All Options" (Figure 4a-b).
Query All Options Which search is best for me?
Click the colored banners to select checkboxes for the classes and subclasses to be included in your query. After finalizing your selections, click on the "Query
Data" button to view the results of your query.
If you would like to download the results to a spreadsheet file, click on the "Export" button.
[+ Where? (Code: WWWi
+ What? (Code: X)
Please choose one: Which search is best for me?
0
Direct Use/User
O
Beneficiary
Query Data
FIGURE 3A
8
-------
Please choose one: Which search is best for me?
Direct Use/User Beneficiary
E
How? (Code: YYYY)
Who? (Code: ZZZZi
Query Data
FIGURE 3B
Please choose one: Which search is best for me?
O I Direct Use/User (^) Beneficiary
+ How? (Code: BBB)
Query Data
FIGURE 3C
Figure 3. The NESCS Plus query option of "Browse Core Options" (A) allows the user to navigate a core set of
potential results by selecting among a suite of options for Where?" and "What?", followed by (B) choosing the path
of a "Direct Use/User" allowing the user to choose among "How?" and "Who?", or choose the path of a (C)
"Beneficiary" to complete the query for a different coding of "How?" From Newcomer-Johnson et al. (2020).
Both approaches in (B) and (C) are designed to support a comprehensive accounting of the different ways in which
humans benefit from ecosystems. Regardless of the search selected, you will receive results for Direct Use, Direct
User, and Beneficiary classes.
The "Direct Use/User" approach (B) uses the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) system - the
standard used by U.S. federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments - to classify Who?" (i.e.,
identify the Direct User) and offers an easy link to other information systems that use NAICS categories or codes to
classify economic or other data.
The "Beneficiary" approach (C) is simpler because it only contains one component, and thus it may be more
intuitive, especially for users that have less experience with NAICS.
9
-------
Browse Core Options Which search is best for me?
C~
Pick one element from each of the four lists below to specify a 4-component Final Ecosystem Service (FES). Click on the "Add" button to add your
selection to the table below. Repeat this process to add each additional 4-componerit FES of interest to the table.
All fields required
Environment (Code: WWW)
Select
Ecological End-Product (Code: X)
Select
Direct Use (Code: YYYY)
Select
Direct User (Code: ZZZZ)
Select
FIGURE 4A
IICIU3 ICUfUIICU
Environment (Code: WWW!
Select
Aquatic
Aquatic - Open Water
Aquatic - Open Water - Rivers and Streams
Aquatic - Open Water - Lakes and Ponds
Aquatic - Open Water - Near Coastal Marine and Estuaries
Aquatic - Open Water - Open Oceans and Seas
- j.
FIGURE 4B
Figure 4. The NESCS Plus query option of "Query All Options" allows the user to (A) navigate the full suite of
potential results by selecting drop-down options among a series of four lists: Environment (shown in B), Ecological
End-Product, Direct Use, and Direct User.
A more detailed description is provided in Newcomer-Johnson et ai. (2020).
10
-------
An example of the NESCS Plus output is shown in Figure 5. The structure of the NESCS Plus output is
intended to help the user trace a chain of interest. This is the results of the Workshop case study
described below and in Appendix 2.
C * 9eepuo.epa.9c'* ¦
$ ©
d if? % A
NESCS Plus ID
(WWW.XWW.ZZZZ)
Environment
Class (W)
Environment Environment
Subclass I Subclass II
(WW) (WWW)
Ecological
End-
Product
Class (X)
Qww
Direct
Use/Non-
Use
Class (V)
Direct
Direct Use/Nan- Use,'Non-
Use Subclass I
(W)
Use
Subclass
VI (WW)
Direct
User
Class (Z)
Direct
User
Subclass
1(22)
Dir
Use
Sul
"(3
11L3.UOV.1531
111.3.110V 1532
Aquatic
111.3.110V 2111
11U.111YL2U1
111,3.Ill Y.2111
Rivers and
Streams
Rivers and
Streams
Rivers and
Streams
Rivers and
Streams
Rivers and
Streams
human property
Protection of
human property
All Dt reel
Use
Subclass lis
Ail Direct
industry
Real Estate
Rental and
Leasing
industry
Real Estate
Rental and
Leasing
Rent
Leas
Serv
Protection of
Direct Use use
human property
Subclass lis
I All Direct
Direct Use Recreation 'tourism use
Subclass lis
trecx Use Recreate tourism
Support of human
Direct Uu 1 health and life or
All Direct
UM
Subclass lis
Figure 5, Example of NESCS Plus output for the Workshop case study (Appendix 2).
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Scoping Too! (FST)
Successful ecosystem-based assessment, protection, and revitalization approaches have advanced both
a social-ecological approach to systems thinking and the application of principles of structured decision
making. The FST too: is a decision support tool designed to help decision makers in the early stages of
their efforts by providing a transparent, repeatable, defendable approach for identifying and
prioritizing stakeholders, the ways in which they use the environment (their beneficiary roles), and the
most relevant environmental attributes necessary to realize those uses. Once decision makers know
how stakeholders are benefiting from the environment, they can be included as part of a larger set of
decision criteria (e.g., measures of cost, human health impacts, etc.) for evaluating tradeoffs across
mitigation and remediation options. This scoping tool uses a tiered multi-criteria decision analysis
approach (Sharpe, 2021) in which an initial prioritization of stakeholder groups is used to prioritize their
beneficiary roles and environmental attributes of interest. The tool can be used with stakeholders for a
given decision context and thus help with stakeholder communication and engagement.
When users open the FST, they are shown a set of criteria for use in prioritizing stakeholder groups
(Sharpe et al., 2021). Users are asked to weight each criterion for their relative importance for
distinguishing among stakeholder groups. They are then asked to score each stakeholder group on that
criterion. Weighting the criteria is a subjective decision, scoring the groups on those criteria should not
be. For example, although different decision makers may disagree on how influential the criterion of
economic interest should be in distinguishing among groups, it should be clear whether any given
group has an economic interest in the outcome of a decision. The tool provides definitions and scoring
metrics
11
-------
for the criteria. The combination of the weights and the scores are responsible for the first output - a
chart showing the relative priority of the stakeholder groups as well as information on how each
criterion is influencing that prioritization (Figure 6). See Sharpe et al. (2021) for an in-depth description.
Stakeholder Prioritization ±
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
| Impact
| Influence
| Interest
Urgency
| Proximity
| Economic
j Rights
| Fairness
|linderrepresented
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Figure 6. Example of the FST stakeholder prioritization output for three different stakeholder groups (Group 1, 2,
and 3). The length of each bar reflects the relative priority of each stakeholder group as a result of how each
criterion was weighted and each stakeholder group scored. The x-axis indicates the relative priority of each group.
Each color represents a different prioritization criterion (see legend). The width of each color reflects how much the
group's score for that criterion contributes to the group's overall priority.
In the second portion of the tool, users are asked to identify, by percentage, the ways in which each
stakeholder group benefits from the environment. This step uses the defined beneficiary classes and
subclasses from NESCS Plus as options to choose from. The output is a beneficiary profile, weighted by
the stakeholder prioritization, for the decision context (Figure 7). This allows users to capture a
comprehensive set of site benefits, identify priority uses, and find common interests across stakeholder
groups. A more detailed description is provided in Sharpe et al. (2021).
12
-------
Beneficiary Prioritization ±
Municipal Drinking Water Plant Operators
Residential Property Owners
Waders / Swimmers / Divers
Students and Educators
Experiencers / Viewers
Transporters of People
Energy Generators
People Who Care
Hunters
Anglers
Boaters
| Group 1
| Group 3
| Group 2
0 2 4 6
8
10 12 14 16
Figure 7. Example of the FST beneficiary prioritization output for the stakeholder groups in Figure 6. The width of
each bar reflects the relative priority of each beneficiary group as a result of how much that beneficiary group is
represented in each stakeholder group (see legend). For example, stakeholder Group 2 includes the beneficiary
groups energy generators, municipal drinking water plant operators, residential property owners, transporters of
people, waders/swimmers/divers, and boaters. The x-axis indicates the relative priority of each beneficiary group.
In the final portion of the tool, users are asked to identify, by percentage, the aspects of the
environment that each beneficiary group relies upon. This step uses the defined environmental end-
product classes and list of environmental attributes from the NESCS Plus as options to choose from. The
output identifies key environmental attributes, weighted by the beneficiary prioritization, for the
decision context (Figure 8). This allows users to identify the most relevant aspects of the environment
and why those aspects are valued. This allows decision makers to choose meaningful ways of
incorporating those valued uses in decision making. For example, although agricultural beneficiaries and
recreational beneficiaries may both be concerned with water quality, the meaningful metric when
tracking the impacts of a project on water quality would likely be different between those beneficiaries.
From a project team/management perspective, these differences might change which endpoints to look
at (e.g., different GEAE), inform the consideration of remediation options (e.g., Harwell et a I., 2021), or
influence how to think about EGS-related monitoring elements (e.g., Harwell et al. 2022).
13
-------
Environmental Attribute Prioritization £
| Agricultural
| Commercial / Industrial
| Governmental / Municipal / Residential
(Transportation
| Subsistence
| Recreational
| Inspirational
Learning
I Non-Use
10 12 14 16 18 20
Figure 8. Example of the FST environmental attribute prioritization output for the beneficiary groups in Figure 7.
The width of each bar reflects the relative priority of each attribute as a result of how much that attribute is valued
by each beneficiary group. The results are displayed as the aggregated beneficiary classes (see legend) rather than
then subclasses used in Figure 8 to improve the figure's legibility. For example, the commercial/industrial
beneficiary class relies upon two of the 11 identified environmental attributes (water quality and water movement).
The x-axis indicates the relative priority of each attribute.
The FEGS Scoping Tool provides an essential methodology to sort, organize, and evaluate the complex
array of stakeholders, their respective interests and priorities, and environmental resources and
attributes, in order to identify meaningful and actionable EGS decision criteria.
EnviroAtlas
The EnviroAtlas is a data-rich, web-based decision support tool that provides geospatial data, easy-to-
use tools, and other resources related to EGS and their chemical and non-chemical stressors (Pickard et
al. 2015). It also demonstrates the linkages between EGS and human health and allows users to assess
equity related to the provisioning of EGS. It can be used by federal and state agencies, tribes, non-profit
organizations, communities, industry, and individuals to help inform policy and planning decisions
related to the ERA paradigm. It can also be used by academics and educators as a source of data and as
a teaching tool. The tool can be used with stakeholders for a given decision context and thus help with
stakeholder communication and engagement for a given decision context.
Many of the data sets contained within the EnviroAtlas have been developed specifically for the
EnviroAtlas. The EnviroAtlas contains two primary tools: An Interactive Map, which provides access to
500+ environmental and demographic maps and an Eco-Health Relationship Browser, which displays
14
-------
evidence from hundreds of scientific publications on the linkages between ecosystems, the services they
provide, and human health.
In addition to the two main tools, the EnviroAtlas website contains an abundance of background
information on EGS, tutorials and guides on how to use the EnviroAtlas, educational modules designed
for use in the classroom, more information about the EnviroAtlas data, and technical resources for more
experienced users.
The Eco-Health Relationship Browser (Figure 9) contains a literature review of over 1,000 articles
investigating the relationships between ecosystems, EGS, and human health. The user can start their
investigation with a human health outcome, an EGS, or an ecosystem. Designed with utility in mind, the
Eco-Health Relationship Browser is an informational tool that can help researchers find articles and
inform decision-makers about possible public health outcomes associated with their decisions. Users
can click on the bubbles or the linkages, learn about the relationships, and view the supporting
literature. The bubbles and lines provide a way for the user to better focus on potential causal chains of
interest. A more detailed description is provided in Jackson et al. (2013).
Eco-Health Relationship Browser
CIkts o?i tfHi 1opin Diibclcs Id explore Click am Itw linkojpsg (; ) 1d vjcw Ihu rnintion*;h>p between i£*jfncntT.
The interactive Map (Figure 10) is an easy-to-use data discovery and display tool providing users easy
access to over 500 environmental and demographic maps (data layers) within EnviroAtlas. The map
layers are organized into themes: EGS and Biodiversity (green background in map table of contents);
Pollution Sources and Impacts (mauve background); People and Built Spaces (blue background); and
Boundaries (grey background). Each of the map layers in the EGS and Biodiversity theme is tagged with
one or more of their related EGS benefit categories: Clean Air; Clean and Plentiful Water; Natural Hazard
Mitigation; Climate Stabilization; Recreation, Culture, and Aesthetics; Food, Fuel, and Materials; and/or
15
-------
Biodiversity Conservation. The Pollution Sources and Impacts theme includes sites such as RCRA and
Superfund sites regulated by EPA. A demographic widget provides access to many data layers derived
from U.S. Census data. These data layers provide a means to assess equity.
The data available includes data for multiple extents and resolutions including many data layers
available for the conterminous United States at either a 30 x 30 square meters resolution or summarized
by medium sized watersheds. Finer resolution data are also available for over 1,400 municipalities and
towns across the United States and are based on one-by-one square meter land cover (meaning there is
a data point for every square meter on the ground).
16
-------
F.nvir@Allas InfttrAcriv* Map
a s T s fi
'Jar.c I Iclp Ltefca Downlooct CofKact Ut
L'arton Storage
:>op fv.-.Hu-tT.TT.-
r, ^ i i' i
-„,i . >i -J EcimOlYie QuUJMUM
UrtdGawriMMr-WiWf
Larid Cover: T«>e
Landscape rttoem
Mwr •'¦SMC Crr.irnnm^—.
FVillurtrrt fc-H.vtvw Ar
HO®®O©0©
^ ig^555BS3W
IW.«*rlHcl LHTd<
m
3 ^ :n -11;
~ICJVXIJ~|iVjr.•»' fv*»tf.-r&.VS
M 12
I us-. -¦-.1.#' | ¦/t.yrti.v
«3j.- c.tjtfi' .=y.-:cir»t
ft..If 7 kni'untj w *n* 'mj-hjpmI
-------
The Interactive Map includes a tour, featured collections of data for targeted uses, two time series
widgets for investigating climate change scenarios, analysis tools, and more. A Dynamic Data Matrix
provides another way to browse data layers and documentation via a table format. Both the Interactive
Map and the Dynamic Data Matrix can be sorted, searched, and filtered to make it easier for user to find
their data of choice. A more detailed description is provided in the resources on the EnviroAtlas home
Page-
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
The ESML is an online database of more than 270 ecological models for estimating the production of
ecosystem goods and services. The ESML contains detailed descriptions for each model to helps users
find, examine, and compare models so that they can understand how the models work and decide if
they want to use them. Scientists across government, academia, and business develop computational
models that describe ecosystem processes that yield EGS. The ESML compiles information about
ecological models in a single, easy-to-use location providing detailed model descriptions to help users
identify the best model for a given situation. The ESML contains >50 individual descriptors for each
model, covering purpose, approach, and environmental use (such as EGS) using the NESCS Plus and the
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) systems, and is searchable by the
type of environment modeled, location, or EGS. The ESML also includes variable relationship diagrams
that show logical relationships between variables. A more detailed description is provided in the
resources on the ESML home page.
Recently, a "Hazardous Waste Site ERA" filter was added to the ESML to provide hazardous waste site
ecological risk assessors as well as interested project managers and stakeholders, a guide to navigate the
ESML. This filter helps facilitate incorporation of EGS (using the Generic Ecological Assessment
Endpoints) into ERA by enabling streamlined identification of applicable EGS-related models. Application
examples of the filter include supporting context establishment for revitalization or reuse plans
development and supporting identification of potential community benefits associated with, and
created or enhanced by, some remedial options. The goal of the ESML Hazardous Waste Site ERA filter is
to maximize ecosystem generated community benefits gained during cleanup activities.
The ESML allows the user several starting options (yellow highlighted menu buttons toward the top of
the ESML home page depicted in Figure 11), consisting of:
• Searching for models;
• Creating a receptacle to collect user-defined ESML model information;
• Learning resources; and
• Viewing of the full ESML data map.
The "Hazardous Waste Site ERA" filter can be accessed by navigating to the Search Ecological Models
(EMs) webpage by selecting "Search EMs" followed by selecting "Hazardous Waste Site ERAs" in the left-
side drop-down menu (highlighted in yellow in Figure 12).
18
-------
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
Home O Ssarcti EMs ffM Mv EMs 1Q> rffc Learn about ESML "J? View ESML Data Mao
Search Ecological Models (EMs)
P
Search the ESML for EMs and related variable and
source document information.
Search EMs
Find Source Document Info
Learn about the ESML
ESML Data and Guiding Concepts
Learn about ecological models, the data contained
within this tool and the underlying concepts
regarding their use.
Using ESML
Understand how to take advantage of the features
available within this tool.
My EMs
Username:
Password:
Login
Forgot my
Usemame
Forgot my Password
Figure 11. The starting screen (yellow highlight added) for the EcoService Models Library.
Search Ecological Models (EMs) Database Last Updated: Ti
Find Source Document Infc
Search Using: (§) Pre-defined Filters O Text Search
Which search is best for me?
Search Criteria: + Show Search Criteria
Clear all Selections Ecological Models (EMs) (265 matching results)
Save Search Criteria
Compare Selected EMs
1 Save Selected EMs to
Filter based on: Q Hide niters
~ Source/Collection H
~ EM Environmental Sub-Class CD
~ Ecosystem Service 0
~ Hazardous Waste Site ERA 0
Generic Ecological Assessment
Endpoints
Full Report
Table 3 lAhnutPDFI EXIT
Show 10 v entries
Type a value or select from list
Q
~
EM
ID
Model
Short
Name
Response
Variable
Name(s)
Human well-
being index,
Pensacola, FL
[Application
with runs]
EM
Environmenta
Sub-Class
Connection to
nature |
Connection to
nature (by
county) | Cultural
fulfilment |
Cultural
fultfillment (by
Terrestrial
Environment (sul
classes not fully
specified)
Figure 12. The "Hazardous Waste Site ERA" filter (yellow highlight added) that can be used to help screen
candidate models in the EcoService Models Library.
19
-------
Workshop
Logistics
The workshop brought together environmental risk assessors at EPA headquarters and within the
Regions along with ORD scientists and staff with expertise in EGS. The workshop planning group
identified the following desired outcomes for the workshop:
• Convincingly articulate the value of incorporating EGS in contaminated site SLERA and BERA;
• Increase awareness and understanding of EGS relevant tools available;
• Explore potential insertion or leverage points to incorporate EGS into a SLERA and BERA; and
• Illustrate the potential use and value of EGS tools and outcomes via a concrete and realistic
contaminated site case study.
To achieve these outcomes, the workshop planning group identified several needs and activities:
1. Describe how the workshop fits within the larger effort to incorporate EGS into remedial efforts
across the remedial programs from site investigation to remedial design and construction.
2. Explicitly state the value of incorporating EGS into ERA and explicitly crosswalk the ideas
between EGS generally and ERA specifically and share possible EGS endpoints for human well-
being.
3. Bring risk assessors and EGS tool experts together to make crosswalks explicit and tangible by
discussing how four EGS tools might be applied to steps in the ERA process.
4. Explore how an individual tool might be useful in ERAs by employing breakout groups to allow
risk assessors to interact with the EGS tool expert.
5. Walk the workshop audience through a hypothetical urban, contaminated sediment site with
minimal human health risks but significant ecological risks. Participants were asked how the
tools might be applied at each stage of the ERA process, from early site investigation to
developing the baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA).
Workshop Introduction
About 40 individuals across ten EPA Regions, headquarters, and ORD participated. Program offices
represented included Superfund, RCRA, OECA, and Brownfields.
The Workshop began with an overview of EGS, the many life-sustaining benefits we receive from nature
- clean air and water, fertile soil for crop production, pollination, and flood control (nature's benefits to
humans). Incorporating EGS into ERA can have many benefits, with the two most prominent being: 1)
linking human well-being into the ERA process; and 2) improving communication to the public of EGS -
(nature's benefits) - when describing the problem being addressed and the reasons/benefits for
selected remedies.
Ecosystem services assessment endpoints were introduced. Assessment endpoints are explicit
expressions of the environmental values to be protected, operationally defined as ecological entities
(e.g., an important fish species such as coho salmon) and their attributes (e.g., fecundity and
recruitment of coho salmon). For ERAs, assessment endpoints have traditionally been selected by
ecological risk assessors in consultation with decision makers. These endpoints often have not been
clearly linked with broader societal values and benefits in a way that is most meaningful to the public. It
20
-------
has become clear over time that for ERA results to be relevant, consideration of the environmental and
community settings and contexts should be considered. In such a manner, these endpoints can help
with: illuminating the reasons for actions taken and decisions made; considering financial implications;
and bridging currently disparate assessment and decision approaches.
To advance development of generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAEs), EPA identified a suite of
GEAEsthat: could be useful in decisions; were measurable; definable; and responsive to society's needs
(USEPA 2016). By considering these endpoints early in problem formulation in ERA and tailoring them to
the specific site, risk estimates could be derived for these during the assessment process. These GEAE
included such endpoints as food production and recreational opportunity.
The chart below (Table 2) gives examples of how GEAEs based on EGS can supplement traditional EPA
risk assessment endpoints; the "Benefit" column in Table 2 captures the supplementary benefits that
GEAEs can provide. The reader is pointed to the 2016 EPA report, Generic Ecological Assessment
Endpoints (GEAE) for Ecological Risk Assessment (2nd Edition) with Generic Ecosystem Services Endpoints
for more information (USEPA 2016). The full suite of EGS GEAE are reproduced in Table 3.
Generic Ecosystem
Service
Conventional
Assessment Endpoint
Measu rement
Endpoint
Benefit
Food Production
Fish population vitality
Fish abundance, size
structure, and species
number
Nutrition, recreation,
income, and
enjoyment
Recreation
Bird species diversity
Bird abundance,
species number
Recreation, enjoyment
Table 2: Example Ecosystem Service Assessment Endpoints
Earlier efforts to develop a crosswalk between the ERA process and EGS topics and tools (Table 1) was
also presented, along with example decision questions that could be addressed by such a linkage.
Examples were provided for each of the four ERA phases (Planning and Scoping, Problem Formulation,
Analysis, and Risk Characterization) and the interphasic Risk Communication which is operative during
the entire ERA process. For instance, the EnviroAtlas and NESCS-Plus could be used to identify EGS in the
site landscape during ERA Planning and Scoping to help establish an assessment framework by
organizing the types of ecosystems, benefits, and beneficiaries present. Such EGS activities could allow
the ecological risk assessor to be better positioned to start to answer questions such as:
• What ecosystems and EGS are present?
• Who are the stakeholders?
• What benefits do the stakeholders receive from the EGS?
• How are EGS benefits being impacted and by how much?
• Would inclusion of EGS facilitate a broader conversation with stakeholders, including
discussion of environmental benefits they previously had not considered?
21
-------
Conventional
Ecological
Assessment
Endpoint
GEAE
Possible Generic
Ecosystem Service
Assessment Endpoint
Ecological Benefit
Potential Valuation Methods
• Population abundance
• Population size structure
• Recruitment
• Presence/absence of game species
• Mortality, morbidity, or survival
• Tissue contaminants
• Growth, production, or extirpation
• Taxa richness
Population
abundance
and
production
Food production (e.g.,
catchable, edible fish
for recreational,
commercial and
subsistence uses)—a
final service
• Nutrition
• Recreation
• Income
• Enjoyment of
catching/preparing
food
• Survival
• Market value and rents for
commercial fisheries
• Recreational demand modeling
• Stated preference
• Household production
• Ecosystem functions (e.g., nutrient
and flood water retention, organic
matter degradation)
Ecosystem
function
Water purification for
drinking, domestic,
industrial, and
agricultural uses—a
final service
Support for life, health,
and commerce
• Extraction and treatment costs
• Water rights trading values
• Stated Preference
• Hedonic values for industry
and agriculture production
• Plant community uptake and
deposition of pollutants
Ecosystem
function
Air purification (for
breathing and visibility)
- a final service
Support for life and
health
• Pollution control costs
• Stated preference
• Replacement cost
• Plant community net production
• Carbon sequestration
Ecosystem
function
Climate stabilization—a
final service
Support for life and
health
• Greenhouse gas control
avoided costs (or damages)
• Stated preference
• Benefits transfer
Water retention
Ecosystem
function
Flood and storm surge
regulation—a final
service
Protection of life and
property
• Avoided damage costs of
flooding
• Hedonic (Insurance or costs of
structural mitigation)
• Replacement cost
• Yellow pine production
• Standing biomass of trees
• Cotton production
• Population
abundance
and
production
Raw material
production—a final
service
• Support for life
• Survival
• Products
• Trade
Market value
22
-------
Conventional
Ecological
Assessment
Endpoint
GEAE
Possible Generic
Ecosystem Service
Assessment Endpoint
Ecological Benefit
Potential Valuation Methods
• Assemblage
production
• Income and wealth
• Population abundance
• Pollinator abundance
• Population
abundance
• Assemblage
function
Pollination—an
intermediate service
• Food
• Nutrition
• Survival
• Products
• Trade and income
• Market value
• Stated preference
Soil formation
Ecosystem
function
• Soil formation—an
intermediate service
• Food
• Nutrition
• Survival
• Products
• Trade and income
• Market value
• Pollution control costs
• Stated preference
• Water quality
• Soil quality
Ecosystem
function
Waste assimilation—an
intermediate service
• Waste treatment
• Detoxification
• Pollution control costs
• Stated preference
• Wilderness quality.
• Endangered species
• Habitat area and quality
Area or
quality of
ecosystem
or special
place
Provision of aesthetic,
scientific, recreational,
educational cultural,
medical, genetic,
ornamental, and
spiritual resources-
final services
• Enjoyment of nature
• Cultural fulfillment
• Medical value
• Stated preference
• Hedonic pricing
• Benefits transfer
Table 3: Examples of the relationships among conventional ecological assessment endpoints, GEAEs, generic ecosystem service assessment
endpoints, ecological benefits and valuation (reproducedfrom USEPA 2016).
23
-------
For example, engagement on these questions could amplify and expand the benefits of ERA and work at
contaminated sites so that both ecological and societal benefits are increased. This type of engagement
is one potential way to increase the benefits of the investment of staff time/expertise/partnership
development at contaminated sites (e.g., more benefits per investment of agency & community partner
resources).
Presentation slides can be found in Appendix 1.
Following the introductory presentations, ORD scientists shared background information on four EPA
EGS tools for further consideration by the workshop participants. The four tools' potential role in ERA
phases and actions are noted in Table 4.
ERA Phase
EGS Tool Names
Activity
1 - Planning &
Scoping
EnviroAtlas
Map EGS and biodiversity
FEGS Scoping Tool
Identify and prioritize stakeholders and EGS
NESCS Plus
Identify potential EGS using clearly defined terms and
a comprehensive list
2 - Problem
Formulation
EnviroAtlas
Map EGS and biodiversity
FEGS Scoping Tool
Identify and prioritize stakeholders and EGS
NESCS Plus
Identify potential EGS using clearly defined terms and
a comprehensive list
3 - Analysis
EnviroAtlas
Map EGS and biodiversity
ESML
Find models for estimating EGS
4- Risk
Characterization
EnviroAtlas
Map pollution sources and impacts
ESML
Find models for estimating stressors and impacts on
EGS
5 - Risk
Communication
FEGS Scoping Tool
Framework for identifying priority EGS for
stakeholders
NESCS Plus
Identify potential EGS using clearly defined terms and
a comprehensive list
Table 4: Phases of ERA, EGS Tools, and EGS-related Activity associated with each tool.
The workshop participants then were divided into breakout groups which were moved through round-
robin sessions to discuss each of the four tools. The following are summaries compiled of the
discussions, organized by tool.
24
-------
National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus
What steps in the ERA framework and cleanup process do you see this tool as being most beneficial?
• 1. Planning & Scoping: The NESCS Plus lets one a cast of a wide net then filter down to see what
is relevant.
• 2. Problem Formulation: It is important to identify the tool and items for your specific site
instead of going straight to the community and possibly getting hopes up.
• 5. Risk Communication: The NESCS Plus would let stakeholders understand how ES is
incorporated in decisions.
• Cleanup process: Throughout the whole cleanup process, especially when you start early you
can measure how many benefits you get and how they change over time.
What would be needed to utilize the NESCS Plus?
• A hands-on effort to walk through and understand the thinking process for how to use NESCS
Plus.
• Examples of how the NESCS Plus has been used and what works and what does not to help
document failure.
• Develop case studies and site examples to provide real-world scenarios.
• Demonstrations and virtual trainings.
FEGS Scoping Tool (FST)
What steps in the ERA framework and cleanup process do you see the FST as being most beneficial?
• 1. Planning & Scoping: Most useful in the scoping phase. Important to consider ecosystem
services at the beginning of a project.
• 2. Problem Formulation: Helpful for not only identifying stakeholders but also understanding
which stakeholders we should be investing more time and communication with.
• 5. Risk Communication: Could be useful when talking to communities and human health risk
assessors as well.
• Cleanup process: Tool is more social science based which could help bridge the gap between risk
assessment and ecosystem service thinking and community involvement.
• Cleanup process: Could be useful at multiple stages of the Superfund process. At the beginning,
while trying to determine which remedial action to take, and when making risk management
decisions.
• Cleanup process: This could be helpful to Brownfields grantees' efforts to make sure those
groups are focused on the stakeholders and benefits while still maintaining that enthusiasm for
moving forward.
• Cleanup process: Could be useful for retrospective analyses on their assessment and cleanup
sites.
25
-------
• Cleanup process: From an enforcement perspective it could be helpful early in the decision-
making process and engaging all the team members. Gives an end goal for the project which
would help review or consultation.
• Community Outreach: Great for outreach (community involvement departments and RPMs).
• Community Outreach: Illustrates the link between what one is trying to do on the cleanup side
and ecosystem services - this tool could help show the link to multiple stakeholders.
• Other: Could be useful for projects involving tribal elements to ensure tribal interests are
included.
What would be needed to utilize the FST?
• Case studies using the FST to compare the differences in monetary values or other obvious
human benefits to enhance community understanding.
• Trainings: This presentation or a demonstration with other partners.
• Information on when to use/not use (e.g., it may be hard to see a use for the FST in emergency
response actions).
EnviroAtlas
What steps in the ERA framework and cleanup process do you see the EnviroAtlas as being most
beneficial?
• Step 1. Planning & Scoping: EnviroAtlas can be useful in planning and scoping especially.
• Step 2. Problem Formulation: EnviroAtlas can be helpful in all ERA phases, especially problem
formulation in the SLERA.
• Step 4. Risk Characterization. EnviroAtlas can be helpful in risk investigation (e.g., wetlands,
floodplains, and threatened and endangered species).
• Cleanup process: EnviroAtlas can be helpful at all different stages, including: RI/FS; remedial
design; Five Year Reviews (FYRs); capturing successful remedies and reuse.
• Cleanup process: The EnviroAtlas can be useful for informing a clean-up as well as how the
clean-up will help in the redevelopment process.
What would be needed to utilize the EnviroAtlas?
• Hydraulic connectivity (National Hydrography Data and tool that does overland flow based on
30 m digital elevation model) and habitat connectivity (30 m pixel).
• Land-cover change over time.
• Virtual trainings and expand the training to other federal agencies. Presenting at NARPM
(National Association of Remedial Project Managers).
• Add an "Ecological Risk Assessment Featured Collection" to help the user to find data easily.
• An example site and demo.
• While EnviroAtlas provides information on high priority species (natural heritage data), cannot
get a list of those species easily.
• Individual species lists.
26
-------
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
What steps in the ERA framework do you see this tool as being most beneficial?
• Step 1. Planning & Scoping: More involved in early stages of planning and scoping because can
search the library for key words to see what models are available based on the
habitats/receptors of the project.
• Step 2. Problem Formulation: helpful for thinking pre-planning/ahead.
• Step 4. Risk Characterization: ESML could be helpful at the analysis stage.
• Step 5. Risk Communication: Useful for both modeling and communicating the value of
environmental assessment/cleanup work.
• It is important for each stage to understand full spectrum of risk and what can be done to
alleviate risk, then looking at remedies, and even further to reuse potential.
What would be needed to help you utilize the ESML?
• Information on how to use on a very rural site (e.g., an old mine/acidic stream that is not
suitable for fishing but there is general support based on public recreation activities/forest
services).
Workshop Case Study
The last part of the workshop focused on a conversation around a hypothetical case study (Appendix 2)
to explore how the EGS tools might be used during phases of an ERA. The case study site is an
abandoned hazardous waste site located in central New Jersey along the Raritan River. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and metals (arsenic and mercury) were found at elevated concentrations in shallow
surface sediments of the stream channel and at lower concentrations within the marsh itself and at
deeper sediments. Examples of ecological receptors for measures of effects at the site include: Aquatic
macroinvertebrates (blackworm: Lumbriculus variegatus); terrestrial invertebrate community
(earthworm: Eisenia fetida); estuarine fish population in the Raritan River; and bird and mammal
population abundance in the marsh and the river.
The slides from the presentation of the case study are presented in Appendix 2. The following
summarizes the discussion that was focused on several key questions.
From the four EGS tools discussed, which can be applied and utilized during the Planning & Scoping
phase of the site?
• Tool: Participants mentioned that the FEGS Scoping Tool, the EnviroAtlas, and the NESCS Plus
could be used in the SLERA.
• Tool: The tools can produce a large amount of information for RPMs/contractors to process. A
quick run (less than 10 min) of NESCS Plus for the site identified 69 potential EGS. The next step
would be to determine what the classical risk assessment endpoints are for the site and how
they would connect to potential services (e.g., fish consumed by people and fishable waters).
27
-------
• Tool: The EnviroAtlas could be used for land use and cover in order to figure out what the
conditions are adjacent to the site, whether water is moving through the site, and the impact on
threatened and endangered species.
• Tool: The EnviroAtlas could be used to help with formulating more direct precise questions for
the SLERA. It may be possible to import other local datasets for the BERA (more recent and/or
better resolution).
• Other: Some Regions are short-staffed and, therefore, rely on contractors for tasks during the
planning and scoping phase. EPA teams could potentially utilize contractors to use the tools
during Planning & Scoping. It is important to train contractors in the tools being used and
provide guidance about how they should be integrated.
• Other: The balance between ideal and reality varies from EPA Region to Region and, even RPM
to RPM. External support for use of EGS tools might not necessarily align with what is being
done in a given Region.
Post-workshop, the four EGS tools were applied to this theoretical case study. Results of those exercises
are presented in Appendix 3.
A SLERA was conducted for the site to determine which contaminants and exposure pathways
presented ecological risks based on conservative assumptions. Three primary contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs) identified in the marsh and associated drainage ways were PCBs, arsenic,
and mercury. The SLERA endpoints are the protection of the survival, growth, and reproduction of
certain ecological receptors including aquatic invertebrates, forage fish, the short-tailed shrew, marsh
birds, and amphibians. What generic EGS endpoints can be created for the SLERA? How can the EGS
tools discussed today be applied and utilized for the SLERA?
The generic EGS endpoints identified and discussed included:
• The protection of fish and the benefits for subsistence and recreational fishers;
• The presence of the green frog and the benefits for recreational opportunities for enjoying
charismatic wildlife;
• The presence of red-tailed hawks and recreational birdwatching;
• The presence of crabs and potential crab consumption; and
• The presence of amphibians and their role in insect control (mosquitoes).
BERA endpoints in the marsh and river ecosystems include aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrate
community abundance and population production in marsh sediment/soil, estuarine fish population
abundance and community structure in the Raritan River, and Wildlife population abundance in the
marsh and the river. What site-specific EGS assessment endpoints might be relevant?
The site-specific EGS endpoints identified and discussed included:
• Subsistence and recreational fishing;
• Vector (mosquito) control;
• Flood management;
• Carbon sequestration;
• Bank stabilization;
28
-------
• Other: At a base level, things like climate mitigation can be considered relevant EGS even
though they are not necessarily directly applicable to the risk assessment. They could still be
considered during the baseline phase, rather than solely as endgame concepts.
What site-specific GEAEs might assist with risk management decisions and remedy selection?
• Can relate benefits to humans from ecological risk-driven remedies such as remediating large
scale sediment sites.
• Can use EGS context to support the selected remedy based on the context of our programs.
• Focus on what is important to people in the SLERA and BERA and the surrounding environment.
How can the EGS tools discussed be applied and utilized for the BERA?
The discussion focused on the need for continual efforts on translation of EGS information for
contaminated site cleanup practitioners:
• It is unclear whether the tools presented make things easily understandable. For example,
should benthic organisms be considered directly or indirectly (as the base of the food chain)?
(Information about why you should care about benthic organisms (and other ecological
receptors) is available in the EnviroAtlas' Eco-Health Relationship Browser).
What are the biggest challenges to getting RPMs to incorporate EGS tools? What would be helpful
going forward?
The discussion focused on several themes (examples, value added information, training, awareness,
acceptance):
• Examples: Site-specific examples of the tools being used.
• Value Added Information: A deeper understanding of the added value of incorporating these
tools, beyond just regulatory mandates or other external reasons.
• Training: Training in using the tools for new RPMs who may be unfamiliar with ecological health
concepts (particularly for the Eco-Health Relationship Browser).
• Awareness: Raising awareness about the existence of tools (for example, presenting at the
National Association of Remedial Project Managers' conference).
• Acceptance: Building buy-in among RPMs first then managers, as opposed to the other way
around.
Conclusions and Future Directions
Conclusions related to incorporating EGS into ERAs, and ultimately the remedial process, illustrate that
there is a real need for site-specific examples of this process for risk assessors and other technical staff
to be able to routinely incorporate nature's benefits to humans into the investigation, analysis, risk
assessment, and remedial decisions at hazardous waste sites. Also evident is the value of incorporating
EGS into the risk assessment process, and how that can be used to supplement current risk assessment
methodologies, although it was recognized that this area still needs further development and
explanation. To effectively incorporate EGS into the hazardous waste site remedial process, risk
29
-------
assessors need the buy-in, support, and understanding of their project managers (and upper
management) and, in some cases, federal and private contractors.
The ERAF EGS workgroup had reviewed the existing EGS literature and found that there may be many
benefits to incorporating EGS into the ERA process. Primarily, EGS concepts can incorporate human well-
being into the process, which is especially important for those sites where remedy decisions are based
primarily on risks to ecological receptors such as large-scale sediment remediation sites. Using EGS
assessment endpoints enables a clearer explanation of the problem being addressed and provides
obvious linkages to human well-being, providing a stronger basis for decision making. Further, risk
communication is improved by including EGS into the ERA process since ecosystem services are readily
translated into benefits that society understands and cares about. In summary, based on the existing
literature cited herein, and the outcomes of the workshop discussions, incorporating EGS into the ERA
process has the potential to improve the environmental and socio-economic outcomes of contaminated
site cleanups.
During presentation and discussion of the ORD EGS Tools in the STLR workshop, it was apparent that
some tools are best used in the Planning & Scoping phases (e.g., the FEGS Scoping Tool and the NESCS
Plus) and others are useful in the screening level and baseline ecological risk assessment phases (e.g.,
the EnviroAtlas and the ESML). Workshop participants stated many times that just a list of ORD EGS
tools makes it difficult for risk assessors to know how to use them without specific examples, case
studies, and assistance in navigating EGS tool selection. Risk assessors and other technical staff will likely
need additional training and technical assistance to learn about, apply, and effectively use the EGS tools.
Creative approaches need to be developed for helping stakeholders with using tools. Access and support
for the tools will need to be more specific to cleanups to be utilized effectively.
Overall, these tools and approaches could add value to the use of ERAs at contaminated sites by
achieving better outcomes and enhancing community engagement and support. Until recently, there
had been no EGS-focused coordination or training for ERA practitioners, Remedial Project Managers,
Community Involvement Coordinators, etc. Future work will focus on providing site-specific examples of
incorporating EGS concepts and tools into ERAs, this can be done through a retrospective analysis (e.g.,
Harwell et al. 2021) or looking forward with existing projects. The ERAF EGS workgroup will work on
developing real site examples of operationalizing certain EGS-based tools, models, and assessment
endpoints in ERAs conducted at Superfund fund-lead sites. The workgroup will also look to provide
evidence and framework for others, including state and tribal environmental agencies, to potentially
utilize these tools at PRP-led Superfund sites, regional RCRA sites, and hazardous waste sites in general.
The ERAF EGS workgroup will also collaborate with the EnviroAtlas tool lead to create an ERA-featured
collection. Additional outreach to relevant local, state, and federal stakeholders on EGS tools
development and application at hazardous waste sites will also be conducted at internal and external
meetings as well as at national and international conferences. Moreover, trainings and informational
webinars will be developed and conducted to provide further awareness and examples of EGS tool
applications to site project managers, risk assessors, contractors, and other technical staff working on
hazardous waste sites.
30
-------
References
Angradi, T., Launspach, J., Bolgrien, D., Bellinger, B., Starry, M., Hoffman,J., Trebitz, A., Sierszen, M.,
Hollenhorst, T. (2016). "Mapping ecosystem service indicators in a Great Lakes estuarine Area of Concern."
Journal of Great Lakes Research. 42. 10.1016/j.jglr.2016.03.012.
Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R. (2013). "A comparative assessment of decision-support
tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation". Ecosystem Services. 5. 27-39.
Finisdore, J., Rhodes, C., Haines-Young, R., Maynard, S., Wielgus, J., Dvarskas, A., Houdet, J., Quetier, F.,
Lamothe, K.A., Ding, H., Soulard, F. (2020). "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification
systems". Ecosystem Services. 45. p.101160.
Harwell, M.C., Jackson, C.A., Kravitz, M., Lynch, K., Tomasula, J., Neale, A., Mahoney, M., Pachon, C.,
Scheuermann, K., Grissom, G., Parry, K. (2021). "Ecosystem services consideration in the remediation process
for contaminated sites." Journal of Environmental Management. 285. 112102.
10.1016/j.jenvman. 2021.112102.
Harwell, M.C., Jackson, C.A. (2021). "Synthesis of Two Decades of US EPA's Ecosystem Services Research to
Inform Environmental, Community and Sustainability Decision Making." Sustainability. 13. 8249.
10.3390/su 13158249.
Harwell, M.C., W.J. Berry, T.H. DeWitt, C.L. Hernandez, J.C. Hoffman, C.A. Jackson, M. Kravitz, J. Lazorchak, B.
Mastervich, T. Newcomer-Johnson, L.M. Sharpe, and D. White. (2022). Chapter 4: Additional Considerations
for Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Cleanup and Restoration of Contaminated Sites. In: Jackson et al.
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring & Assessment: Frameworks,
Tools, and Examples. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-22/080. pp. 143-192.
Jackson, L.E., Daniel, J., McCorkle, B., Sears, A., Bush, K.F. (2013). Linking ecosystem services and human
health: the Eco-Health Relationship Browser. International Journal of Public Health. 58(5): 747-755.
Maurice, C.G., Duncan, B., Mazur, S.L., Russell, M. (2019). Incorporation of Ecosystem Goods and Services into
Ecological Risk Assessment. Annual Meeting of SETAC Midwest Regional Chapter. Link.
Munns W.R. Jr., Rea, A.W., Suter, G.W., Martin, L., Blake-Hedges, L., Crk, T., Davis, C., Ferreira, G., Jordan, S.,
Mahoney, M., Barron, M.G. (2015). "Ecosystem services as assessment endpoints for ecological risk
assessment." Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12(3): 522-528.
Newcomer-Johnson, T., Andrews, F., Corona, J., DeWitt, T.H., Harwell, M.C., Rhodes, C., Ringold, P., Russell,
M.J., Sinha, P., Van Houtven, G. (2020). National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) Plus. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-20/267. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/nescs-plus.
Pickard, B.R., Daniel, J., Mehaffey, M., Jackson, L.E., Neale, A. (2015). "EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool
to foster ecosystem services science and resource management." Ecosystem Services. 14 (2015): 45-55.
31
-------
Sharpe, L.M. (2021). FEGSScoping Tool User Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL,
EPA/600/X-21/104.
Sharpe, L. M., Harwell, M. C., Jackson, C.A. (2021). "Integrated stakeholder prioritization criteria for
environmental management". Journal of Environmental Management. 282:111719.
10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111719. PMID: 33413974.
USEPA. (1997). Ecological risk assessment guidance for Superfund: Process for designing and conducting
ecological risk assessments—Interim final. USEPA. EPA 540-R-97-006. Link.
USEPA. (2002). Framework for ecological risk assessment. USEPA. EPA 630-R-92-001.
https://www.epa.gov/risk/framework-ecological-risk-assessment.
USEPA. (2006). U.S. EPA. 2006. Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan. EPA-240-R-06-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. (2008). "Eco Update/Ground Water Forum Issue Paper." Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response Publication 9285.6-17. USEPA. EPA-540-R-06-072. Link.
USEPA. (2009). Valuing the protection of ecological systems and services: a report of the Scientific Advisory
Board. USEPA. EPA-SAB-09-012.
USEPA. (2015). Ecosystem services as assessment endpoints in ecological risk assessment—Technical
background paper; EPA/100/F-15/004; U.S. EPA: Washington, D.C. Link.
USEPA. (2016) Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints (GEAE) for Ecological Risk Assessment (2nd Edition)
with Generic Ecosystem Services Endpoints; EPA/100/F15/005; U.S. EPA: Washington, D.C. Link.
Williams, K., Hoffman, J. (2020). Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization: Engaging Communities to
Support Ecosystem-Based Management and Improve Human Wellbeing at Clean-up Sites. 10.1007/978-3-030-
45843-0 27.
32
-------
Appendix 1 - Overview Presentations
v>EPA
Operationalizing Ecosystem Services Endpoints and
Assessment Tools for Supporting Risk
Assessments and Contaminated Site Cleanups
Slide
2/28/2022
Superfund Technology Liaison Research (STLR) - Funded Workshop
by Ecological Risk Assessment Forum (ERAF) Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) Workgroup
Co-chairs: Gina Ferreira and Steph Kim
CBI Facilitators: Pat Field and Brandon Chambers
Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of ttie U.S. EPA
U.-S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERAF Workgroup:
EGS for Directing & Communicating Ecological Risk
• Co-chairs (Gina Ferreira & Steph Kim)
• Members (ORD & Regional Colleagues)
Ned Black
Abby DeBofsky
Paulina Do
Kelly Garbach
Jim Harvey
Matt Harwell
Michael Kravitz
Venessa Madden
- Charles Maurice
- Wayne Munns
- Tammy Newcomer-Johnson
- Bruce Pluta
- Marc Russell
- Leah Sharpe
- Cody Schumacher
33
-------
WHAT ARE ECOSYSTEM GOODS & SERVICES (EGS)?
are the many life-sustaining benefits we receive from nature - clean air and water, fertile
soil for crop production, pollination and flood control (nature's benefits to humans).
EGS Milestones
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005
• ORD Ecosystem Services Research Program 2007
• 2015 Draft OPM Directive (M-06-01 Memorandum Incorporating
Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making)
• 2015/2016 - Initial ORD work connecting ES and risk assessments
Wayne Munns, et al.
• 2021 Translational Ecosystem Services workshop series
I
34
-------
Benefits of Incorporating EGS into the ERA
• Incorporates human well-being into the ecological risk assessment
(ERA) process
• Improves communication to the public of EGS - (nature's benefits) -
when describing the problem being addressed and the
reasons/benefits for selected remedies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
STLR Workshop Agenda
Overview of incorporating EGS tools and
ecosystem service assessment endpoints into
ecological risk assessment framework
Facilitated breakout discussions of EGS tools
application: National Ecosystem Services
classification System (NESCS) PLUS, Final EGS
(PEGS) Scoping, EnviroAtlas, and EcoService
Models Library (ESML)
Discuss applications of EGS tools and ecosystem
service assessment endpoints in a case study
35
-------
Teams Instruction
>
Turn VPN off for best bandwidth
Need to be on Teams computer audio to participate in breakout group
sessions
Option to turn video on/off when speaking
"Mute" on your end when not speaking
Zoom in on presented information using (1) focus on content option in
settings on Teams and/or (2) two fingers to zoom in/out on the
laptop's mouse track
Use "hand raising" button to speak during breakout sessions and case
study and/or use chat throughout the entire workshop
Virtual Workshop Instruction
> Listen and learn
> Engage please!
> Engage across disciplines and offices
> Leave your emails, laundry, napping and
other work for another time please.
Feel free to snack while we work
One person speak at a time
Park other issues in a parking lot as needed
>
36
-------
Mentimeter Poll
• Mentimeter link and code: Provided in chat
• CLICK on the URL and the questions will appear
• RESULTS will be shown by us on screen after
• INITIAL QUESTIONS
• What's your region?
• What's your tenure at EPA?
• Which program do you work under?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Presenter Bio: Wayne Munns, PhD
Agency
Wayne R. Munns, Jr. is Director of US EPA's Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, an
acknowledged expert in the fields of ecosystems services and ecological risk assessment, a past
member of US EPA Risk Assessment Forum, and past Chair of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry's (SETAC) Ecological Risk Assessment Advisory Group. Wayne was a
principal author of the Agency's Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan, a core contributor
to the development and oversight of US EPA's Ecosystem Services Research Program and has
supported several national and international efforts to advance methods to inform environmental
protection and management policy and decisions. He has presented concepts and approaches for
population risk assessment and ecological benefits assessment at annual risk assessors' meetings
and regional risk assessors' meetings and provided training to the ERAF on assessing risks to
populations. Flis current interests include ecological risk assessment, ecosystem services, and
applying the tenants of translational science to encourage solutions driven research that yields fit-
for-purpose solutions meeting stakeholder needs.
Office of Research end Development
37
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Generic Ecosystem Services
Assessment Endpoints
Wayne R. Munns, Jr.
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Research and Development
Ecological Risk Assessment
Environmental1 Protection W
Agency
¦Well developed process to inform environmental protection &
restoration decisions
Focus on assessment endpoints (AE) - explicit expressions of
the environmental values to be protected, operationally
defined as ecological entities & their attributes
¦AEs traditionally selected by risk assessors (ecologists) in
consultation w/decision makers
Office of Research and Development
-------
EPA Context
V>
United States
(Environmental Protection
Agency
~ AEs typically reflect ecologists' values, often disconnected from
broader societal values & benefits
• Growing awareness that environmental management is improved by
considering explicitly how decisions affect well-being of people &
society
•"Societally relevant" AE that resonate most w/the public
-demystify actions & decisions
-might have financial implications
-can help to bridge currently disparate assessment & decision approaches
(e.g., Superfund & NRDA)
Office of Reseaxi and Development
v»EPA Ecosystem Services
United States »
t nv ironmentaI Pr o lectio n
Agency
•Functioning ecosystems contribute to well-being of ecological, social
& economic components of the larger social-ecological system (aka
sustainability)
•Structural components & processes interact functionally to benefit all
life
•Contributions of ecological systems to vitality of human & non-human
species alike can be considered ecosystem services (ES)
• ES complement traditional assessment endpoints by communicating
benefits & costs of decisions
Office of Researc i and Development
39
-------
'S'iRk Conceptually
Environmental Protection B »
Agency
Ecosystem
Components
Ecological
Production
Function
y ¦
Policies/
Decisions
Final
Ecosystem
Services
complementary
goods & services
Economic
Demand
Function
Ecosystem-
derived
Benefits
perceived quality,
scarcity &
substitutability
of services
evot'vwtf from: Wamgsr & Boyd (2009). Valuing ecosystem services.
In: Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans,
McLeod 6 Leslie (eds ), iSand Press,
Office of Reseaxi and Development
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Advantages of ES
Assessment End points
•More complete assessment of composite values of
ecosystems & tradeoffs associated w/alternative decisions
•Enhanced social relevance, clarity & communication of
decisions & rationale
•Decreased likelihood of unintended consequences
•Quantitative input to benefit-cost analysis
Office of Researc i and Development
40
-------
x>
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Considering Generic
Endpoints
Generic ecological assessment endpoints (GEAE)
-broadly described assessment endpoints for ERA (US EPA 2003)
-applicable in a variety of environmental management contexts
-considered in problem formulation
15 originally described to guide planning of ERAs based on:
-usefulness in informing EPA decisions
-practicality of their measurement
-clarity with which they can be defined
-responsiveness to society's needs
Office of Reseaxi and Development
w
United State9
Environmental Protection
Agency
GEAE Use in ERA
Analyst* and Risk
Characterization
\
Risk Estimates for
Each Endpoint
)
Office of Reseax 1 and Development
41
-------
0 EpA US EPA Risk Assessment
Forum Technical Panel
•Provided rationale for generic ES
assessment endpoints
•Described linkages among traditional
endpoints & ecosystem services
•Offered generic ES assessment endpoints
for use in ERA & other assessments
•Evaluated value added in case studies
•Prepared guidelines in 2016*
* Generic Ecological Assessment Endooints (GEAEs) For Ecological R sk Assessment:
Second Edition With Generic Ecosystem Services Endpoints Adcfed <2016)
Office of Research and Development 19
AEpA Example Generic ES
Assessment Endpoints*
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Generic
Ecosystem
Service
Conventional
Assessment
Endpoint
Measurement
Endpoint
Benefit
Food
production
Fish population
vitality
Fish abundance
Size structure
Species number
Nutrition
Recreation
Income
Enjoyment
Recreational
opportunity
Bird species
diversity
Bird abundance
Species number
Recreation
Enjoyment
Nutrition
Income
Office of Researc i and Development
"Additional ES-GEAE given In 2™1 edition
42
-------
-------
oEPA
United Statftt
Environmental Protection
Ajjency
A Crosswalk between
EGS Tools and the ERA Framework
Charles G Maurice1, Bruce Duncan , Sarah L Mazur', Marc Russell'
1 Office of Research and Development
2 Region 10 (Retired)
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. EPA.
Office of Research and Development
Sust ainable arid Healthy Communities (SHC) Research Program
Incorporation of EGS into ERA Workshop
28 February 2022
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
ERA Phases x EGS Activities Crosswalk
ERA Phases
Example EGS Topics and Activities
Some Potential EPA EGS Toots
Decision Questions
Planning and
Scoping
* Identify EGS in site landscape
• PEGS Scoping Too'
• FEGS Classification System
• Natl anal Ecosystem Serv ces Classiftcatfon
System-Plus (NESC5-Plus>
• Who are the stakeholders and 'what are their relative standings and levels of impact-1
• Do EGS classification systems help with select ion. comp leieness. and comparabil lly
across assessment endpoints?
• Would inclusion of EGS faci "tate broader conversation with stakeholders and
indude ecosystem staicture. function and oenefiisthev had not considered?
Problem
formulation
• Describe £G5 benefits
• Estimate magnitudes of EGS benefits
• Incorporate EGSinloconceptual site model |CSM}
• FEGS Scopi^ Too
• EcoService Modes s Library {ESML)
• Eco-fteaHh Relationship Browse*
• EnwroAtlas
• Decision Analysis ^br a Susta>nable
Environment, Economy, and Society (OAStES}
• What resources have stakeholders indicated are important *or protection'
• What health concerns do they nave?
• Has there been prioritization by stakeholders''
• What do spatial data-layers tell us about the site and it's surrounding area?
Analysis
~ Evaluate potential EGS/ste contaminants connectivity
~ Evaluate potential effects of site contaminants on EGS
~ Evaluate EGS condition (functionality, impairment level)
* Evaluate EGS resilience/vulnerability to site contaminants
• Ca culate EGS cost savings and other benefits
• Assess EGS capacity (Type, tempers , seasonal )
+ Assess EGS importance to stakeholders
• Assess EGS ma intenance effort and cost
* Identify key features or parameters to protect EGS benefits
• EcoSer vice Mode< $ U Drary {ESML)
¦ EnwroAtlas
• EPA M2Q Tool
• Rapid Benefit lnd> cators (Mty Approach
• VTsuafizing Ecosystem Land Management
Assessments IVELMA) Model
• Ca usal Ana ryS'S/Diagnosi Deo; an
Information System (CADDIS)
• Are EGS attributes quantifiable (i.e.. can they be measured or modeled)?
• Which indicators might serve as proxy for assess! ng classes of EGS?
• What spattal arid temporal factors need to be considered>
• Can EGS reSatedecotog'cal receptors be aggregated in space or across
contaminants?
¦ What a^e the estimated differences in oenef'ts between mu'tiple future scenarios?
• How do upstream and downstream areas affect or are affected by the site?
• How night benefits be valued?
Risk
Characterization
~ Compa re costs aid benefits o f EGS
• Character'ze site contaminant threats to EGS
* Characterize EGS impairment level by site contaminants
• EcoService Mode s Library {ESML)
• EnwroAtlas
• LPA H2G Tool
• Rapid Benefit btdkatort |RBt) Afipu;uth
• Would EGS help with risk characterization of aggregate and ctrrulative risk?
• Can costs and benefits be com oared u sing si mllar units of measure?
• Wnei e ate the beneficiaries?
¦ Which tx--irfici.il uses might be impacted or revered?
Risk
Communication
* Articulate EGS benefits and costs
• All of the above
• What FGSdc decision makers and stakeholder* care about'5
• How do EGS contribute to husma n health and wdlbcinE?
Office of Research and Development
Sustainable and HeaJthy Communities 1S*4C) Research Program
Incorporation of EGS into ERA Workshop
28 February 2022
44
-------
vvEPA
United Statee
Environmental Protection
Agency
ERA Phases x EGS Activities Crosswalk
ERA Phases
Example EGS Topics and Activities
Some Potential EPA EGS Tools
Decision Questions
Planning and
Scoping
• Identify EGS in site landscape
* FEGS Scoring Tool
* TEGS Claudication System
* National ecosystem Services Classification
System-Plus (NESCS-Plus)
* Who are the stakeholders and 'what are their relative standings and levels of impact?
• Do EGS classification systems help with selection, completeness, and comparability
across assessment end points?
~ Would inclusion of EGS facilitate broader conversation with stakeholders and
Include ecosystem structure, function and benefits they had not considered?
Problem
Formulation
• Describe EGS benefit*.
« E$tfmate -nasnitudes o f EGS benefits
• Incorporate EGS fnto conceptual site model (CSM)
• FEGS Scoping Tool
• EcoSe-vice Models Library (ESML)
• Eco-Health Relationship Browser
• EnviroAtias
• Decision Analysis for a Sustainable
Environment. Economy, and Society (DASEESl
• What resources nave stakeholder:- ind'caled are important for protection7
* What health concerns do 1 hey have?
~ Has there been prioritization by stakeholders7
• What do spatial data-layers tell us about the site and it's surrounding area?
Analysis
• Equate potential EGVsite contam inants connectivity
• Evaluate potential effects of site contaminants on EGS
• Evaluate EGS condition (functionality, impairment level-
• Evaluate EGS resilience/vulnerabil it-y to site contaminants
• Calculate EGS cost savi ngs and other benefits
• Assess EGS capacity {type, temporal, seasonal)
• Assess EGS irrponance to stakeholders
• Assess EGS maintenance effort and cost
• Identify key features or parameters to protect EGS bene*"its
* EcoService Models library (ESML)
» EnvircAtJa'S
* EPA H20Tool
* Rapid Benefit Indicators (RBI) Approach
* Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management
Assessments (VELMA) Model
* Causa Analysis.it] iagnosls Decision
Information System 1 CADDIS}
• Are EGS attributes quantifiable (i.e., can they Pe measured or modeled)?
• Which indicators might serve as proxy for assessing classes of EGS?
• What spatial and temporal factors need to be considered''
• Can EGS related ecolog cal receptors oe aggregated in space or across
contaminants?
• What arc-the estimated differences in benefits between multiple future scenarios?
• How do upst-eam and downstream a-eas affect or are affected by the site?
• How mi#.t benefits be valued?
fthk
Characterization
• Compare costs and benefits of EGS
• Character zt site contaminant threats to EGS
• Characterize EGS impairment level by site contaminants
• EcoSe'vice Models Library (ESML)
* EnvfroAtlas
* EPAH20TooJ
• Rjpid Benefit Indicators (RBI) Approach
• Would EGS hesp with risk characterization of aggregate and cumulative risk?
• Can costs and benefits be compared using similar units of measure''
• Where are the beneflcianes?
• Wfe'th benef-ci.il uses might be impacted or restored?
Risk
Communication
• Articulate EGS benefits a nd costs
• All of the above
• Wnat EGS do decision makers and stakeholders care about?
• How do EGS contribute to human health and wellbeing?
Office of Research and Development
Sustainable drid Healthy Communities
-------
vvEPA
United Statee
Environmental Protection
Agency
ERA Phases x EGS Activities Crosswalk
ERA Phases
Example EGS Topics and Activities
Some Potential EPA EGS Tools
Decision Questions
Planning and
Scoping
* Identify EGS In site landscape
• PEGS Scoping Tool
• FEGS Classification System
• National Ecosystem Services Classification
5y*tem-ftus {NESCS-Plusl
• Who are the stakeholder and what are their relative standings and levels of impact ?
• Do EGS classification systems help with selection, completeness, and comparability
across assessment endpoints?
• Would inclusion of EGS faci 'tate broader conversation with stakeholders and
indude ecosystem structure, function and benefits they had not considered?
• FEGS Scoping Too
• EcoService Mode's Library {ESML)
• Wnat resources haye stakeholders indicated are important *or protection*
Problem
formulation
• Estimate magnitudes of EGS benefits
• Incorporate EGS into conceptual site model |CSM|
• Eco-Heafth Relationship Browser
• EhvtroAtlas
• Decision Analysis ^or a Sustainable
Environment, Economy, and Society (DASCES)
• What health concerns do they have?
• Has there been prioritization by stakeholders'*
• Wnat do spatial data-layers tell us about the site and it's surrounding area?
Analysis
~ Evaluate potential EGS/ate contaminants connectivity
~ Evaluate potential effects of site contaminants on EGS
~ Evaluate EGS condition (functionality, impairment level)
~ Evaluate EGS resilience/vulnerability to site contaminants
~ Calculate EGS cost savings and other benefits
~ Assess EGS capacity (type, tempore . seasonal!
~ Assess EGS Importance to stakeholders
~ Assess EGS it 3 intenance effort and cost
~ Identify key featu res or parameters to pi otect EGS benefits
• EcoService Modeis Library {ESML)
• EnwroAtlas
• EPA H20 Tool
• Rapid Benefit Ind.cators Approach
• visualizing Ecosystem Land Management
Assessments (VELMA) Model
• Causal Anafysis/Diagnos's Decision
Information System (CADDIS)
• Are EGS attributes quantifiable (i.e., can they be measured or modeled}?
• Which indicators might serve as proxy for assessing classes of EGS?
• Wnat spatial and temporal factors need to be considered*
• Can EGS related ecological receplors be aggregated in space or across
contaminants?
» Wnat are the estimated diferences in benefits between multiple future scenarios?
• 1 low do upstream and downstream areas affect or are affected by the site?
• How n ight benefits be valued?
Risk
Character iiation
• Compa re costs and benefits of EGS
• Characterize site contaminant threats to EGS
• Characterize EGS impairment level by site contaminants
• EcoService Mode s Library {ESML)
• EnvtroAtlas
• LP A H20 Tool
¦ Rapid Benefit Indicators (RBI) Approach
• Would EGS help with risk characterization of aggregate and orrulatrve risk?
• Can costs and benefits be compared using similar units of measure?
• Wnere are the beneficiaries?
• Wnich beneficial .«*» mighi be impacted or restored?
Risk
Communication
~ Articulate EGS benefits and costs
* All of the above
• Wnat FGS dc decision makers and stakeholders care shout*
• How do EGS contribute to huma n health and wdlbeing?
Office of Research and Development
Sustainable and Healthy Communities (NESCS-Plusl
Whs are the stakeholders and what are their relative standings and levels of impact?!
Do EGS classification systems help with selection, completeness, and comparability
across assessment endpoints?
Would inclusion of EGS facilitate broader conversation with stakeholders and
Include ecosystem structure, function and benefits they had not considered?
Problem
Forrnulalkiri
Oesera* EGS benefits
Estimate magnitudes of E6S benefits
Incorporate ECS into conceptual site model (CSM)
FEGS Scoping Tool
EcaSe-vice Models Library (ESML)
Eco-Health Relationship Browser
EnviroAttas
Decision Analysis for a Sustainable
Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES)
What resources ^isve stakeholders indicated are important far protection?
What health concerns do they have?
Has there been prioritization by stakenolders7
What do spatial data-layers tell us about the site and it's su'rounding area?
Analysis
Evaluate potential EG5/site contam inants connectivity
Evaluate potent is i Hfect', of site contaminants on EGS
Evaluate EGS condition (functionary, impairment levels
EvaluateEGS resilience/vulnerability to site contaminants
Ca rulate EGS cost savings and other benefits
Assess EGS capacity (type, tempera , seasonal)
Assess EGS irrportance J a stakeholders
Assess EGS maintenance effort and cost
Identify key features or parameters to protect EGS benefits
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
EnviroAtla-Si
EPA H20Too^
Rapid Benefit Indicators (RBI) Approacn
Vlsualiiir^g Ecosystem Land Management
Assessments (VELMAj Model
Causai Analysis/Diagnosis Decision
Information System | CADDIS)
Are EGS attr butes quantifiable (i.e., can they be Tieasured or modeled}?
Wh" ch indicators might serve as proxy for assessing classes of EGS?
W'vat spatial and temporal factors need to be considered*
Can EGS related eoolog cal receptors oe aggregated in space or across
contaminants?
What are the est=rnated differences in benefits between multiple future scenarios?
How do upst'eam and downstream 3'eas affect or are affected Cry the site?
How rni^t benefits be valued?
RtSik
I Characterization
Compare cosu and benefits of EGS
Characterize site contaminant threats to EGS
Character -re EGS impairment level by site contaminants
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
EnviroAtias
EPA H20 Tod
Fapid Benefit Indicators (RBI) Approach
Would EGS heiip with risk characteriza ton of aggregate and cumulative risk?
Can costs and benefits be compared using similar units of measure''
Where are the beneficiaries?
Which benel ci4l use* might be impacted or restored?
Risk
Communication
• Articulate EGS benefits and costs
All of the above
What EGS do decision Makers end stakeholders care about'?
How do EGS contribute to human heallh and wellbeing;?
Office of Research and Development
Sustainable and Healthy Communities 1S*4C) Research Program
Incorporation of EGS into ERA Workshop
28 February 2022
46
-------
vvEPA
United Statee
Environmental Protection
Agency
ERA Phases x EGS Activities Crosswalk
Example EGS Topics aid Activities
Some Potential EPA EGS Tools
Decision Questions
Plan-ling and
Scoping
* Identify EGS rn site laidscas>c
FEGS Soaping Tool
FEGS Classification System
Matronal Ecosystem Servfces Classification
System-P' us (NESCS-Plos)
Who arc :he stakeholders and what arc their relative standings and levels of impact?!
Do £GS classification systems help with selection, completeness, and comparaoillty
across assessment endpoints?
Would inclusion of EGS facilitate broader conversation with sta
-------
SEPA
STLR Workshop for Potential
Incorporation of EGS into ERA
Description of the ES Tools Portal
(Currently Under Development)
Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Matt Harwell, Leah Sharpe
February 28, 2022
Featured Tools for today's workshop:
NESCS Plus EriviroAtlas
FEGS Scoping Tool EcoService Models Library
Stallholder
PrwritirstiO*
e^iafidary
Profile
Featured Tools for today's workshop:
NESCS Plus EnviroAtlas
FEGS Scoping Tool EcoServlce Models Library
Outline
EcoServlce Mod
rrocJWS Id /lefti mar*!tei:
~ EPA ES Tools
~ ERA Phase and Activities Crosswalk
~ ES Portal Demo
~ ERA Phases Vs. Today's Featured Tools
SERA fEesScwlnsTool
48
-------
I nKWMid
Launch the Browser
EPA ES Tools
EcoServfce Models Library (ESML)
ERA Phases and Activities
1 Planning & Scoping
Identify and pnortdie 5takphnld*f. *nd ES
Identify established links between ESand human health
Identify potent^! ES using dei redefined termsaod a comprehensjve list
Map E5an*d biodiversity
2 - Problem Formulation
Cre.it* conceptual model tai howKWitori impact ES
Identify and pnortpzesfcaktsholdfl-* and ES
Identify pnWntal 6S uimg claary defined t»rm& and * enmprahwrniv* list
Map ESard biodiversity
3 - Analysis
Find models fur eitknatms ES
Map alternative land use scenarios and ES jmpacts
Map ES at d biodiversity
Modal and vr.ua liae haw contaminant fat* and transport impact ES
Lie ¦vtandsrdiied method ta examine how ttresscrs can impact ES
4- Risk Characterital ion
Examine F5 benefit Co compare ^nd communicate decision alternatives
Find models for estimctsiifi stressors and mpacts on ES
Map atiernawe land use scenarios and ES
Map pollution sou roe; and in'pacts
Model and vaua lite how contaminant lata and transport impact ES
i . .m l::. . -J I-'.-j examine Ydw ur*ssc'icanInnfMCtES
5- Risk Communication
Examine ES benefits to compare And communicate nedsinn alternatives
Find strategies for aroculabngand Gonmu nits ting ES risks and benefits
Framework for identifying priority ES for stakeholders
Identify established l=nfc Between ESand human health
Identify most relevant and meaningful ES metrics
Identify points' ES using clear^ defined term<; and a comprehensive list
Map alternative land use scenarios and ES
Model and visualize how contaminant face and transport impact E 5
Use standardized method to examine how stressors can Impact ES
FEGS Scoping Tool
U.S. Errv'ronmertal Protection Agency
49
-------
ES Tools Portal
Mock-Ups for your
Feedback
U.3. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA's Ecosystem Services
Tool Selection Portal
Your selections:
Risk Assessment > Select Process Phase
Where in your process do you want to incorporate Ecosystem Services?
X Cigar selections
Ef Planmrtg K Scoping ©
~ Problem Formulation ©
~ Analysis 0
W Risk Characterization O
~ Risk Communication Q
Seteci ali
Next >
For more on these phsses sfthe Risk Assessment process see Conducting
an Ecoloaieai Risk Asses-smalt.
ES Tools Portal
Mock-Ups for your
Feedback
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CPA's Ecosystem Services
Tool Selection Portal
Van nrfKtisro
ftbk Ail*
Wis: do wu pcm Mp dang7
:• ^Kt Ti«i
Vour Totf
PlfflBmaASwjffllfl
. aid prismas siafcetvcrtde'i and
ES
W Mt*i ES ainf bkHjKtaartf dl the sK*
Oenttv esta» isfied !n*s Drtweeti L3 arc
' ' fw«n he»"h
p. WenlJr iKilwilidl ES jjittu dt^arlj iMbhs)
u xrr~i snfl a comprctensfeiv llsr
Rli* fh>rarawt?*itnii sell
11 list W3nlwtow
1J 3W£*wa can irrf^a ES
Ul Msp olwr»w*ve 191KI y»«s potential LU usmq cieart> defined terms
ani a (xrnpsetMKisiw list
Find strateqies far arscutaanq trc carrrv.rrealm
£$ risks arc beneffis
tack oc. a mmcted laalsa view dsatfa
Process Phase
RkowikkW Fcos»wer» Serufces Tools
Planrero & Stc^r
ui FnvfceAiaa
FEGS Stuui'iiiTj-:'
His* Owactenzar
Don tcoUflnKW Mode's Ltrary £t»0.)
FPAH2C
P.toil E-refit Imtetffc*
-------
ES Tools
Portal Mock-
Ups for your
Feedback
0 Steps in Ccototyr-si ftisk Assessment this Tw»J is Suited Fo*
v banning £ Scepng
V ftoate7» Fs*f*wlaCort
V Analysis
•> Risk Cotrmufltcatjon
0 Stccs *n C-ontafnitwtwl Srw Cioanup (his looJ is Suited hot
ffl Steps in Gtfcer Doc«wn Wafcng Contacts this Tool ra Suited F«
ERA phases vs. today's featured tools
EPA's Ecosystem Services
Tool Selection Portal
V«»i*rtinn*
tt :ki%£5C5STcrr-. > ^anrra&^SSfllML. > Map fcS - > ti^noAdao
fcimroAlias 13 an inters enve we&caoed tort contain ino rnore man 400 environmental and aociai
-------
Seneficiary
Profile
Questions will be discussed in
breakout session *>EPA
• Tammy: Newcomer-Johnson.Tammy@EPA.gov
• Matt: Harwell.Matthew@epa.gov
• Leah: Sharpe.Leah@>epa.gov
Up next - Today's featured tools:
FF6S ¦looping Tfcol
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
ERAF EGS STLR Workshop:
National Ecosystem Services
Classification System (NESCS Plus)
Presenter: Matt Harwell
Facilitator: Marc Russell
Recorder: Brooke Mastervich
Tool lead: Tammy Newcomer-Johnson
52
-------
&EFA
Urtftaa Su-u.
Pnnaction
• What is this tool?
.. • Why bother with it?
Outline
• How does it work?
Examples of how it could be used
What is this tool?
Agorsv
NESCS Plus is an organizer. It aids identifying and
classifying what matters directly to people.
Environment & Ecosv
Final Ecosystem
Good or Service
Charismatic bird species
Environmental
Context
Mangroves
Beneficiary
Recreational Birdwatchers
oeople
&
~ Grat-ndwatcr rocha-gc
' Hi-lrhrH cyclirig
* Pullii idtio i...
codes
„IU iniegrdiiun wiui ursu luuib
Where? Who?
'12
53
-------
SEFA
Urittcn States
jxvironnwrrtal ProooRion
What is this
tool?
5 Components;
Flexible
Hierarchies; &
Discrete Classes
and Codes
SEFft
Unltca Su-.-ss
Ervironmonlal PnnoKmn
Agercy
What is this
tool?
Visualizing the
Components of
FEGS Classification
44
1. Environment
Classification
Code: WWW
2. EcologicalEnd-Product
Ciassif cation
Code: X
H Plus
4. Direct Use
Classification
Code: YYV
5. Beneficiary
Classification
Code: BBB
3. Direct User
Classification
Code /:/:/:/.
54
-------
&EPA
UnfteD Sta-^i.
Ervironrnwrtal Pro'-OKion
AgorcY
What is this
tool?
Visualizing the
Components of
FEGS Classification
dBK
Urirtc d Sba-^s
Environmental Ptn:oK'wn
Agarcy
What is this
tool?
Visualizing the
Components of
FEGS Classification
55
-------
&EFA
United Sums
Ervin)nm
-------
&EPA
&EPA
How does it work?
weloomel The National rccsystem Services Classification System Pfcjs can aid in the
analysis of different types of environmental management actions, policies, and regulations.
Choose an optfon to continue
Learn
Explore
T*e Nagpnal Eo&system 5
Learn aboutME5C5 PU»s
«v|- v in t» impori-int lb 'i-WS. J
IHjw to NESCS Plus Jflffe!
How cafl NESCSK/s it»b]
Show me how
to u=ie NESCS Plus
FhmI Fcosystnm
Goods and Service©
Brows* Core OpOons
H
By using NESCS Plus, you acknowledge the limitations outlined in our dtsdaimgr.
Prtrtftdektcdlwck
Click the ootofed tie oners to. stiea'Cfieck&oxesto/ jae classes and tofcclasses to Be Mduded in your que*y. Afcsc flnaiiHng your selections, die*, or. t*>e 'Ooeiy Data' b jam to view the o*
your query.
tl you Would tike U»downlead the nr-.u.ti.lo a spreadsheet file, tick a-i the "E*port" button.
Whcrof tCoo^WMPWl
+ WtutMork-:*!
Please ch»Me ^e: Whicli se»rdi is best for m*7
Direct U$e/(I*er
brtiiua Su.iL
Srvi.-onrrr«iMal Purwetkw
A0*r*y
Qsiietklary
How does it work?
NESCS Plus Webtool
Provide feedbac
The National Ecosystem Services Classification System • NESCS] Plus Is a classification system for final ecosystem services.
Learn about NtSCS Plus
Why Is it important to have a classification system for ecosystem services?
How is NESCS Pius different from other systems?
How can NESCS Plus help rive?
Browse Core Options
Query All Options Which search Is best lor me.'
Click the colored banners to select checkboxes for uie classes and subclasses to be included in your query. After finalizing your selections, click on the "Query Data" button to view the resufts of your
query.
i f you would tike to download the results to a spreadsheet File, click on tne "Export" button.
~ Where? Code: WWW:
tmwnmfctoBn . ind
we the aaatlai envrnnmcta wtert each ecotofScal entf-jroduct la located .ijed.
Cit»A»l Sf!^.i».^
[~] l - A<^i3tJc ED
~ »¦
Terrestrial IE
D 11 Open Water 51
~
21 - Forests H!
3 111 - Risers and Streams QG
~
22 - Agro-ecosystems EH
I 112 - Lakes and Ponds 00
~
23 - Grasslands CO
ti3 Near coastal Mttffne/Estuartne [f]
~
24 Scrubland/Slvubland IX
Q 114 - Open Oceans and 5eas CO
~
25-Tundra ED
0 U • Wetlands CD
~
26 - tef and Soow III
~
27 - U>*tja:r..suburt5an 11
57
-------
SEFA
Linitnd SUui
— Examples of how it could be used
Growth of
Invasive
Plant Species
Growth of
Native Plant
Species
Bird Habitat
Grassland/He rbaceous
mi
Pollinator
Habitat
Growth of
Pollinator
SpeciesJ
Grassland Restoration
LIST OF AFFECTED FINAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (FES)
Where? What? How? Who?
environment Ecological Cnd-
Subdass II [WWW) Product Class (X)
Direct Use/W oil-Use
Subclass II (YYYY)
Direct User
Subclass II fzzzz)
1 NESCS Plus ID
(WWW.X.YYYY.ZZZZ)
/ >
12311 h)
Aesthetic appreciation; In-stti,-
1062)
Households
(21111
pi.5.i0«2 2111
Grassland/Herbaceous Flora
12311 Sj
Property protection; In-sNu
1102]
Administration of
Environmental Qualty
Programs 13924)
1231.5.1102.3924
Recreation; lit-sttu
imii
Households
ami
"lanl ai(Ovation; In-sttu
lOtt)
f liwil orMvatlori; in sHu
10831
Households
(2U1I
271.4.1083.2111
Cmp Production
Hull
222.4
Removal of invasive plants 1
Planting of native species
\
Households
mm
:auna
W
Iln
-------
&EPA
UnfteD Sta-^i.
Ervironrnwrtal Pro'-OKion
AgorcY
Examples of how it could be used
FEGS Scoping Tool
• Project Scoping
• Stakeholder Engagement
EnviroAtlas
• Spatial datasets
• Visualizations
NESCS"Plus
• Classification System
Library for Coding & Searching FEGS
• Webtool
EBM Textbook
• International
textbook
• Multiple case
studies
demonstrating
ORD tools
FEGS Metric Report
I
> What to measure?
• FEGS Units
EcoService Models Library
• Published models for estimating ES
SERA
UrkituQ SU.iL
Ervi.-ornrrarrtsl ftoioetion
An*r*y
Thank you!
Questions will be discussed in
breakout session
• Matt: Harwell.Matthew@epa.gov
• Marc: Russell.Marc@epa.gov
• Brooke: Mastervich.Brooke@epa.gov
• Tammy: Newcomer-Johnson.Tammv@epa.gov
55
59
-------
ERAF EGS STLR Workshop
Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services Scoping Tool
Tool Lead; Leah Sharpe
Facilitator: Bruce Pluta
Recorder: Katelyn Barrett
Unttsd Sbca.
Ervi'omrmntal PnoWetkw
AQ*p«y
What is this tool?
Outline
Why bother with it?
How does it work?
Examples of how it could be used
S7
60
-------
&ERA
linitua SUul
ErwwwMrrtal Ptmactiofi
Aljrtf^r
n
Stakeholder
Prioritization
Beneficiary Profile
Key Attribute
Identification
¦¦ ™ *
Designed for community decision-makers
Used at an early project scoping stage of decision-making
To help identify and prioritize:
• Stakeholders,
• The ways they are benefiting from the ecosystem, and
• The environmental attributes necessary to realize those benefits
Unttsd Sbca.
Ervi'omrmntal PnoWetkw
AQ*p«y
Considering ecosystem services is important in
decision making for the environment and public
health
Why bother
with the
Scoping
Tool?
Identifying more relevant ecosystem services
ensures they are considered in the decision-
making process
Uses final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS),
the elements of nature that directly benefit
humans, used in other QRD tools
Decision makers are already doing ad hoc
prioritizations, this tool makes the process
transparent, the priorities explicit, and the results
explainable
61
-------
&ERA
Linitua
Stakeholder Prioritization
Color Criterion Weight
Magnitude^
I Probability of >0
Impact
¦ Level of Influence | 50
Level of Interest
Urgency &
Temporal
Immediacy
Proximity
Economic Interest 15
Mights | 0
Fairness I to
Underrepresented
& Unrterserved o
Proximity (28 2%)
Economic (4 2%)
Urgency (7%)
Fairness (113%)
Interest (21.1%)
Impact (14 1%)
Influence (14 1%)
Screenshots from tool: weighting step
SERA
Urtitud Su.iL
Srvi.-onm«iMal Pn»Wetk>n
An*r*y
Stakeholder Prioritization
Stakeholders
Identify your stakeholder groups. Enter the name of the group and press Add stakeholder group
Notes B'
Your notes here...
Stakeholder group name |
Add Stakeholder Group
Screenshots from tool:
scoring step
61
62
-------
&ERA
linitua SUul
ErwwwMrftal Ptmactiofi
Aljrtf^r
Stakeholder Prioritization
Level of Influence
Does this stakeholder group have any formal or informal influence over the decision making process?
Please enter a number 0 to 100.
• 100 = This group has formal influence over the decision-making process (i.e. can have the project stopped, must be consulted with).
• 50 = This group has informal influence over the decision-making process.
• 0 = This group has no influence over the decision-making process.
Group l
Group 2
Screenshots from tool:
scoring step
• Score each stakeholder group using
the provided metrics as a guide
• Objective!
Stakeholder Prioritization
Local Farmers and Gardeners
Bird and Butterfly Watchers
Nature Enthusiasts'Hikers
Educators and Students
Adjacent Park Users
Community Members/Land Owners
Parks Department
Downgradlent Well Users
| Impact
| Influence
| Interest
Urgency
| Proximity
| Economic
| Rights
| Fairness
| Underrepresented
—i—
10
—i—
20
—i—
30
~40~
—i—
50
~60~
—i—
70
Screenshot from tool:
prioritization results
• Bar chart shows relative priority of
stakeholder groups and what criteria are
driving that prioritization
~ East Mount Zion landfill revegetation
(simplified and tweaked)
63
-------
£ER&
linitua SUul
ErwwwMrftal Ptmoctiofi
Aortf^r
Beneficiary Profile
Identify, by %, how each
stakeholder group benefits
from the site
Screenshot from tool
- beneficiary step
¦ct«s iSitet8d*t.5wiui-
I OwnftrwUerf rt»ll i \^r. and Prrf-^r', '"v.iw) *
Commercial i Industrial
Thrt stakeholder group does rot directly benefit 'rom the ecosystem
Cwemmental / Menklpel/Rcsidewtial
;yrv»nwnen*al {
V Jt:it3|»al '
ftevuWilid
Uu|-Clp.»l Pll.KtUlg
WWtwrRjrt
ap*rat©rs
V jfeftc tnet$(
GeneRrtix:
Pubttc Sector
Prtoetty Owneft
W*t»"t Subsist***
Tlmi>*l / Fftfcr f
Cnun»«nta>
Subsis&ari
F.ullairjMawfial
PwwidH saaUrferf tfca Oofwrn^fllty
Uiil tUlVJIOi'HWlt l -JI wfrWgy
produrr-on firpls«n?ntofpav#r
ecnsi J ton stfuttures fex !K
community, »r»c'ud« pewer
plants lelertnr and nudwk
dams. turbitet wind. »*«*», wi
«<»!, >nUr p*ii«Iil and
fcadrMTul sysi* ms
Momeo*r.ncs ofpnvsfr land
J sos iKe flnvHwmftnt for
placement cd rr frmtortwe or
tiaitinii«aWi(ti«s
Ua&s or bcn«iliU fiani ttiu
•rviromiant a:ano*neroi
property1 and In a way not
speeded m $therficv*mrr»epi.
rti.il- dp»l, and r«niii«^tv»j
subcla&m-
O.tltK on natural zqj'~bs fc* watw
ir-cluding drinWn# water ar.d
tribal rr tr»dHkinal van (may jse
cisterns, r,»ifi CMifcfts, tMo
-J sea mtt ural sources of edible
1or». 'auna. and lunfi as a majc
vauro? of keu|- fait I .iu« huntmfc
rikWikg, *r«J gathering A* *»K Mi
Crt^-fftflba'ortradklori itsk
S«li*»«Wt lir(it«-. I.b*i, CI UUMJ
M>r survival, inc&jdir j trail oc
cultural traditions (« £. fif awoodi
St-lto on naf^rii mjaens:'. for
infrastructure and homing
&EPA
Urkitud SU.iL
Environmental Proioetion
An*r*y
Beneficiary Profile
Farmers
Residential Property Owners
Water Subsssters
Expenencers I Viewers
Students and Educators
Researchers
People Who Care
Local Farmers and Gardeners
Bird and Butterfly Watchers
Nature Enthusiasts/Hikers
Adjacent Pa rk Users
Community Members,land Owners
Parks Department
Educators and Students
Downgradient Weil Users and Property Owi
Screenshot from tool:
beneficiary results
* Bar chart shows relative priority of
different types of beneficiaries and
which stakeholder groups are receiving
that benefit
64
-------
&ERA
linitua SUul
ErwwwMrftal Ptmactiofi
Aljrtf^r
Key Attribute Identification
Identify, by %, what each
beneficiary group needs
from the site
Screenshot from tool
- user input attribute
step
SERA
Select a Beneficiary Group
.Agricultural
Select Attributes
Atmosphere Soil
Flora Fungi Other Natural Com(X»n«nl» Compestt# (and Extreme Events)
Attribute
Tierl
Beneficiary Result
iVdk'i Quality
MM«r Quantify
Water Movement
fauna Community
frlikiUi Fauna
Me m«ruirt*
-------
Farmers
Residential Properly Owners
Water Subsisters
Experiences / Viewers
Students and Educators
Researchers
People Who Care
I Local Farmers and Gardeners
Bird and Butterfly Watchers
[Nature Enthusiasts/Hirers
| Adjacent Park Users
| Community Members T-and Owners
(Parks Department
Educators and Students
Downgradient Weil Users and Property Ov.i
Air Quality -
Water Quality -
Fauna Community
Pollinating Fauna -
Pest Predator I Depredator Fauna
Rora Community
Charismatic Flora
Viewscapes
Ecological Condition
10 12 14
—i—
16
—i—
18
(Agricultural
[Commercial I Industrial
{Governmental I Municipal I Residential
(Transportation
[Subsistence
(Recreational
Inspirational
Learning
I Non-Use
20
—n
22
Unitsd Sbca.
Ervi'onmnotal Pnowetkw
AgAPcy
Applications
• To identify ways in which stakeholders could benefit from a project
• To find common interests among stakeholder groups
• To identify goals and metrics for restoration or remediation sites
• To identify ecosystem services for consideration in land use
decisions
• To explicitly lay out an understanding of the stakeholder context
and have an opportunity to correct misconceptions
66
-------
SEFA
ERA phases vs. today's featured tools
Lrntuu Su-
Crairom
A6*f*y
ERA Phase
Tool Names
Activity
1 - Planning & Scoping
EnviroAtias
Map ES and biodiversity
FE6S Scoping Tool
identify and prioritize stakeholders and ES
NESCS Plus
Identify potential ES using clearly defined terms and a
comprehensive list
2 - Problem Formulation
EnviroAtias
Map ESand biodiversity
FEGS Scoping Tool
Identify and prioritize stakeholders and ES
NESCS Plus
Identify potential ES using clearly defined terms and a
comprehensive list
3 - Analysis
EnviroAtias
Map ES and biodiversity
ESML
Find models for estimating ES
4 - Risk Characterization
EnviroAtias
Map pollution sources and Impacts
ESML
Find models for estimating stressors and Impacts on ES
5 - Risk Communication
FEGS Scoping Tool
Framework for identifying priority ES for stakeholders
NESCS Plus
Identify potential ES using clearly defined terms and a
comprehensive list
&EPA
Lriituu Stu-tt
Ervi.-onrrraiital Probation
An *rvf
Thank you!
Questions will be answered in
breakout session
• Leah: Sharpe.Leah(5)epa.gov
• Bruce: Pluta.Bruce(a)epa.gov
• Katelyn: Barrett.Katelvn@epa.RQv
* Tool URL: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/final-ecosvstem-goods-
and-services-fegs-scoping-tool
71
67
-------
&ERA
linitua SUul
ErwwwMrrtal Ptmactiofi
Aljrtf^r
Outline
• What is this tool?
• Why bother with it?
• How does it work?
• Examples of how it could be used
piv.rQkyiIhs ...
, i
& X ft
iiMMa; ~~ o © © o
4>EFA
Agency
What is this tool?
EnviroAtlas is an online resource providing geospatial data, easy-to-use tools, and other
resources related to ecosystem services, their chemical and non-chemical stressors, and
connections to human health and equity.
Includes:
• Over 500 map layers
• Interactive Mapping Application
• Eco-Health Relationship Browser
• Analytic and Interpretive Tools
• GIS Toolboxes
• Guides, Use Cases, Tutorials
68
-------
Clean Air
Biodiversity
Conservation
' . S J
National Data
30-meter land cover
400+ unique data layers
Consistent data for the
conterminous U.S.
Community Data
1-meter land cover
1004- unique data layers
30 metropolitan areas
1450 cities & towns (65+ million people)
69
-------
Why bother with EnviroAtlas?
May have just the data you have been searching for
Contains many data sets that are unique to EnviroAtlas
Consistently documented and vetted
Don't need G!5 experience to use
Many data layers summarized to common geographic units
(i.e., watersheds, census block groups)
Refatable to the other EGS tools in this presentation
Provides multiple ways to interact with the data
~ Interactive Map
~ Published web services
~ All data are downloadable
&EFA
Urittca Sbj-^s
Environmental PttKoetian
Ago r<* A
EnviroAtlas
https://epa.gov/enviroatlas
70
-------
&EPA
UnfteD Sta-^i.
JErviroorruHTlBl Pra-xjctior
How does it work?
Envir^Allas innrnef,* m»,-i
c4« Hon IJ.7U Ltawnloar
& & ft 0 *
vrr/roAilv P-!R3 H
B
O©©»©0©
OG
' " ¦ "" 1
bdB
hlulwt 1
Pr«caeaLA^cfc
«ai'ju8idWI
WrturUiT'^
S£*2S£
&EFA
UriHc d Sba-^s
Environmental Ptn:oK'wn
Agorsy
C
a
a
mVj
-
!r
bttaMhiH*ra
•tBUU>
fawyiwr Sv-ticu
NiKM Hi« t <>
ttpank Sou Uai'b
EnviroAtlas Dynamic Data Matrix
Snarch, Sort, & View
Ms.iln l Vol it ¦. .»W'
'II It--— WMlHll, rS'Kv>'rV» qui <1 I
MkU*It» rtrc.' Gi IDttr«Mrl;ilMn.
••****»
How does it work?
/
/
* /
, — y
4 ¦ v.?i- ..ittj; c.wr.
1 Env1r®ATlas -<
Q 5K ft O B
E
OQQOQOQ CA">Di
S*l*n »t««! n»rl tutfSnr m r+n-. up n- -fl
A!"*. Mnmfe.- rn»?Mi9 MMlthyCe...
Tvi :i« 'in: -- .Tis- ' -s-i S-rlij ¦
i.:> tlf* is«ii
¦ Carmirif/ltmUrem
Wit»»w«acs*«c*aii
,ly U l*l**»r«fc>5«Mn
ui]
ifc-
Hut iilmc* iri
"yir:
^Vo
i\& ¦„ from
¦ ¦; :'l ¦¦
ms
Featured Collections of Data Layers
¦¦i), <* : . " '"
/ /
/
Could consider building one for ERA
\ "
V
o©
c. r«j u;;: nvi
71
-------
&EPA
UnfteD Sta-^i.
JErvirwirruHTlBl Pra-xjctior
How does it work?
Sneak peak at new functionality coming soon
Srtkfed loci
- M«n in irmt
- aura "pur
1OvjfT T|»»
*m> 1 A-«< Vw 2 finm
OawZf
¦ (Spin s'/ax-
£•8 ft.13
-31. ti.
L>*iil:p»e - 'Jsar.
id a*!
itiX%
H . v i-iwiot,' 1,-« ii - 'flve*
^ Tim ii-fw . vifcj .w lv»Ttr. ro- 4"«
C.''t 053 3"
0£2 OiM
::.Wri
l«—™
4M 1-1?
1'
A '» 1 M
*si?*
' I OrA ro»f
\3. .-sjuii
1*1 Z I?
C.35 0.2?
0.4" 0.3'
•n.n.
p«t.™ cjt an
H'J.-rrWMGrMi ftM UKI 's,Wl
YKoftj v.yr»r,- <
Brteijjsrc WWioa
Examples of how it could be used
Visualizing and understanding the ecological and socio-economic conditions of a site and of the
surrounding area
• Land cover and land cover change
• Proximity of sites reporting to EPA (e.g., Superfund, RCRA, Brownfields, water dischargers, etc)
• Riparian area land cover
• Proximity to water bodies and flowing water
• Hydrological connectivity
• Habitat connectivity
• Access to green space
• Habitat suitability for suites of species (e.g., T & E, climate vulnerable birds, etc)
• Soil retained on landscape by existing land cover
• Presence of floodplains
• Proximity of wetlands
• People and demographics
81
72
-------
&EPA
UnfteD Sta-^i.
Ervironrnwrtal Pro'-OKion
AgorcY
Examples of
how it could
be used
WebApp*
interactive Map
£ra-M*aith Browser
How to Use
Tutorials
Example Uses
fer Brcwrfirtdn
Hrath Impart Asspsstnrnf
Uat3
AbiXir the Oata
Dynamic Data Matfi*
Download
Resources & PubLc3i>Uf, 2013]
Managing Clean Air with Roadway Tree Buffers
This CTitrnple snows, how EnviroAtlas m.sy be uswt to identify rrydi n- ;tl
cci-lutlon E53 l^ory Map.20151
Integrating Local Green Assets into Brown fields
Redevelopment
itn hnr*nfialris rrefrvwlnnmpn; rn hpnpfit nuljli
&EPA
UnituQ Su.iL
Ervi.-orirrrarrtsl ftoioetion
An*r*y
Thank you!
Questions will be discussed in
breakout session
• Annie: Neale.anne@epa.gov
• EnviroAtlas: enviroatlas(a)epa.gov
• Website: epa.gov/enviroatlas
73
-------
ERAF EGS STLR Workshop:
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
Tool Leader: Tammy Newcomer-Johnson
Facilitator: Brandon Chambers
Recorder: Kaitlyn Nines
February 28, 2022
https://www.epa.gov/eca-
research/ecoservice-models-library
vvEPA
Urtttsa SUr.iL
Ervi'immnotal Pwwetitw
AQ*p«y
What is the EcoService Models Library
(ESML)?
Outline
Why bother with it?
How does it work?
Examples of how it could be used
https://www.eDa.eov/eco-research/6coservice-models-librarv
74
-------
What is the EcoService Models Library
(ESML)? https://ESML.epa.gov/
A searchable database of ecological models for estimating
the production of ecosystem goods and services.
• Detailed descriptions of >255 ecological models {>50 individual
descriptors-covering purpose, approach, and environmental use
such as ecosystem services using NESCS Plus and CICES)
• Detailed descriptions of ecological model variables (40 additional
descriptors)
• Variable Relationship Diagrams, conceptual diagrams for each
model
S6
&EFA
United iU:-3
Ervironmontsl ProooKkir
Agur/cy
What is the EcoService
Models Library (ESML)?
Some things ESML is not:
• not a modeling system
• not an ecological valuation database
• not a decision support system
• not a compendium of model software
• not a substitute for original documentation
• not an endorsement
http5://www.epa.eQv/ecQ-research/ecoservice-models- library
75
-------
&EFA
UnttED SU:cs
ErvironttMHTtal Pro"xw:ior
Why bother with the EcoService Models Library (ESML)?
A searchable database of ecological models for estimating
the production of ecosystem goods and services.
• Help planners, analysts, risk assessors, and scientists to understand
and select useful ecological models
• Help researchers interested in improving ecological modeling
methods
https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoservice-models-librarv
How does it work?
Unltca
Environmental Pro-action
Agorsv
Search for
Ecological
Models
(EMs)
EcoService Mo
Search Ecologicayvlod
StstK'iiJyetf fWOirs
fr.w; fil
i CM Cft-«|mnm*rrt«l tuh-Clw IT
• EvnyaAera Smkc CD
MiHpRM J
~ Vwfcbl; Cl Tl«i» CttrirultY
» Spulinl EMiiiI tewu iU
~ SwBal Dlstrftufiin CD
• CanpulaiioBrfl ApenuiJi 00
• SMuliuiblunaCKBi Lu
t NotfeKslhraHon Pertwrned E
> Mn-.irI Gaoskieu uf Prt HesorltJ L1J
Filter bas«d o*»: Q -**
~ Source/Collection 1X1
~ CM Environmental Sub Class ED
~ Ecosystem Service G[j
~ Hazardous Wa$t»Site £RA ffl
~ Location 13
~ Variable Class!He
~ Time Dependence
~ Time Continuity
~ Spatial Extent Are
~ Spatial Distrltwjti
~ Computational Af
~ Determinism li]
~ Statistical Estima
~ Model Calibration
~ Model Goodness c
Hazardous Waste Site ERA
Hazardous Waste Site ERA
Hazardous waste sites are regulated under two separate
legislative ads: the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Liability, and Compensation Act (CERCLA) or Superlund and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act i,RCRA>. In general, the
former sites are usually no longer active whereas the latter are
operating facilities. The likelihood for hazardous waste sites to
cause harm to humans and/or the environment is largely
evaluated via human health and ecological risk assessments,
rAcn.°rHvr»lv
~ Model Validation Performed LI
~ Uncertainty Analysts Performed 0
~ Sensitivity Analysis Performed LU
~ Ecological Scale 12
~ Organismal Scale T
76
-------
&EPA
UnfteD Sta-^i.
Ervironrnwrtal Pro'-OKion
AgorcY
How does it work?
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
| Learn abo-i CSM.
Hazardous Waste Site ERA
Hazardous waste sites are regulated u nder two sepa rate legislative acts: the Comprehensive Envi ronmental
Liability, and Corn^nsalKin Act ICERCIA) orSuptrfurxJ and the R^ujict Cmi^iv^ti jn d-d Rici
IHCfcA. tn genera i, the former sites are usually no Jon ger active whereas the latter 3 re ope rati n g facilities. T
likea'hood foi hazardous waste sites to causa harm to humans and,'a- the environment fetergely evaluated
human health and ecological nsk assessments, respectively.
Hazardous waste sue ecological nsk assessments ivAs' have three main compone-ts: prob' em formulaticl
analysis, and risk characterisation. The main pui pose of ERAS is to evaluate the actua I or potenff z\ impacts
related cofltarrii nants on non-cuIwated plants, wildlife, and biotic communities 2nd ecosystems. Such real
potential impacts are referred to as ecological effects and one of tne primary outpu ts ol their assessment ii
estahlish the likelihood that ecodogscaf effects are or could be caused by one or more site-related contamm.
stressors.
EPA Skills Marketplace Detail Leaders
Charles Maurice,
Associate National
Program Director for
Sustainable Healthy
Communities, ORD
Gina Ferreira,
Eco Risk Assessor
R02-LCRD-LRPB-BPMS
The ERA assessment endpcints focus the evaluation 011 explicit expressions of environmental values to be [
attribute, generally within a specified geoR'aohic context illSEPA 1998|. An example assessment endpoint istne
A crucial part ol the ERA is deciding whi ch ©iements. of Ihe ecosystem well be selected for evaluation and potential protection. Environmental values are selected using three
cuteris: 1 • ecological relevance, •'?] susrepnbality to site associated known or potf ntial contaminants, anfl 13) relevance to management goals.
in 2CC3. the Risk Assessment forum published --ener .cologicai Assessment trdcomts .GLALsj rV Lcclogca: H -sk-Assessment: second L i Tron 1?r cener c L-rosystem
Services Enapui' is-Added-This document suggested guidelines fot developing robust assessment endposnto and presented an example setofGEASs applicable toa wide
vanetv of assessment scenarios.
https://esm I. epa.gov/secondary/read PGESAE
SE PA
UriHco Sta-.cs
Ervironmflntal PrrKJOceion
Agarey
How does it work?
clear all saeaana
hlng results)
nr»»nare Selected EMs I iave Selected EMs to My EMs
Compare
Selected
Ecological
Models
(EMs)
FiLtar based on: Q
» EM Sourro^Crtioftlcnv UJ
* CM CmrinMiimnUt Sub-CbM C
" Ecosystem Service Jj
Clear Selemini
~ ciccs >y,«.3i far
B MESCS r.PnJiniin4rv'ii*niD»A(n
JOIS IPO»l> 114 ao, 2.4 MB.MititPCfl
mm
NESCS
VWnjrorfWw y«r-f rH-TV- I?? T<
Clear Selcctic-fls
Environmental Sub Class:
Near Coastal Marine and
rsliiariea
End Product C1a«:
Type a value or select from In
Compare F.Ms
r»tx«l DiM.i l» Spreadsheet ivs^h
2 3 4 Naxt Last
jcosystem
EM Variables by Variable Role
} EM Variables by Category
J) All EM descriptor*
' CM Descriptors by Modeling Corxefiti
Which comparison is best for me?
LM Variables by Variable Role
One quick way to compare ecological models (EMs) is by comparing their variables. Predictor variables show
what kinds of influences a model is able to account for, and what kinds of data it requires. Response variables
show whal information a model is capable of estimating.
This first comparison shows the names l and units) of each EMs variables, side-by-side, sorted by vaiiable
role. Variable roles in ESML are as follows:
o Predictor Variables
o Time- orSpace-VaryingVariables
77
-------
How does ESML work?
Variable Relationship Diagram for: |EM-142/Emnro Atlas - Annual water recharge by tree cower
PD Predictor vinaWes - Time- or
Space-Varying
PC: Predictor variables -
Constant or Parameter
I E Intermediate varta&es - j
ItnESML I
jjftC^Respa
Response Variables -
Variable unrts, r available, are given in brackets foUowng variable name. Arrows denote that one variable tor vanatwes if gathered wither a box] ts requred for
computation of the other.
trouble denotes a >a^aole y>faj;e vai je is constant ATth respgct to a dnviqg class vanab i (g_>ch as when der. us cover
combination) [m'/year]
PC Land area -watershed I [n»*]
PD Census b'ock group
PC* Tret cover [%]
PC* impervious cover [%J
J t deduction in anruai
j'unoff
| E Percent annua! reduction |
|n stream Row j* /ml
PC* Land area I census block
https://www.epa.EQv/eco-research/ecoservice-models-library
&EPA
(JrWtad Su„
Ervi.-onrrT«rHBl ftowetkw
An*r*y
ERA phases vs. today's featured tools
bc Reduction m annua'
njrvoff (census Mock
tC Percent annua' reduction
n stream flow (census block
ERA Phase
Tool Names
Activity
1 - Planning & Scoping
EnviroAtias
Map ES and biodiversity
PEGS Scoping Tool
identify and prioritize stakeholders and ES
NESCS Plus
identify potential ES using clearly defined terms and a
comprehensive list
2 - Problem Formulation
EnviroAtias
Map ES and biodiversity
PEGS Scoping Tool
Identify and prioritize stakeholders and ES
NESCS Plus
Identify potential ES using clearly defined terms and a
comprehensive list
3 - Analysis
ESML
Find models for estimating ES
EnviroAtias
Map ES and biodiversity
4 - Risk Characterization
ESML
Find models for estimating stressors and impacts on ES
EnviroAtias
Map pollution sources and impacts
5 - Risk Communication
PEGS Scoping Tool
Framework for identifying priority ES for stakeholders
NESCS Plus
Identify potential ES using clearly defined terms and a
comprehensive list
78
-------
SEFA
LriittU SU -j_
E run Domanial (^DTOttkm
Afi*r«ey
Example of how ESML could be used
East Mount Zion Landfill Revegetation
Estimated Difference's between Scenarios
Scenarios
1. Status quo - mowed grass
2. Native grassland scenario
Models
• ESII (Ecosystem Services Identification
and Inventory) Tool
• Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem
Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Carbon
• InVEST Pollination
• Grassland Bird Models
https://www.epa.Eov/eco-research/ecoservice-models-librarv
1. Status quo - mowed grass 2, Native grassland scenario
Sr ¦Aesthetics" ¦ Birds A ¦ Wate* Interception
| s frosrtjncontfol ¦Pollinator-. * ¦ Carbon storage o To
¦ P«.l reduction ¦ Coat wv»ng% ¦ Noiv reductlor if
Thank you!
Questions will be discussed
in breakout session
* Tool Lead: Tammy Newcomer-Johnson
Newcomer-Johnson.Tammv(g>epa.gov
* Facilitator: Brandon Chambers
bchambers(5>cbi.org
* Recorder: Kaitlyn Hines
Hines.Kaitlyn@epa.gov
URL: https://www.epa.gov/eco-
research/ecoservice-models-librarv
79
-------
Appendix 2 - Theoretical Case Study Presentation
v>EPA
Operationalizing Ecosystem Services Endpoints and
Assessment Tools for Supporting Risk
Assessments and Contaminated Site Cleanups
Facilitated Case Study Discussion
Superfund Technology Liaison Research {STLR)- Funded Workshop
by Ecological Risk Assessment Forum (ERAF) Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) Workgroup
Co-chairs: Gina Ferreira and Steph Kim
CBI Facilitators: Pat Field and Brandon Chambers
2/28/2022
Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the auttior(s) and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. EPA
U.-S. Environmental Protection Agency
Site Map & Background
Figure 1. Site map
Figure 2. Modified sample of exposure pathway* evaluated in ecological risk assessment
Examples of ecological receptors for measuses of effects at this site:
* Aquatic macroinvertebrate (Lumbriculus vanegatus, blackworm)
~ Terrestrial invertebrate community (Eisenia fetida, earthworm}
* Estuarine fisli population in the Raritan River
• Bird and mammal population abundance In the marsh and the river
»Ift'stotpilt»fnYuoMA' 1: i - 7 "i l| 'Ip."''fT:V.'*v,v iyftvac«tft'w»:-tr*1Kb
80
-------
Overview of Site
This site is an abandoned hazardous waste site located in central New Jersey along the
Raritan River.
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and metals (arsenic and mercury) are found at elevated
concentrations in shallow surface sediments of the stream channel and at lower
concentrations within the marsh itself and at depth.
From the four EGS tools discussed today, which ones do you think can be
applied and utilized during the planning and scoping phase of the site?
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
A tewtotte d*ahu* of ttdttjuJ medfh fur Mlinmi'q Mil
tte {raJurtiwi of Hosyftm qowh strvk«i j
Tfce EcoSbivkg Models Lmty inttc-s iVesmleoa qovl tste lws and compare ecologta!
¦•node's Jo Mq ir,tie bett# oeDa ws on (Mtecbon, (tstortfw and use o/ecosystems.
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA)
A SLERA was conducted for the site to
determine which contaminants and
exposure pathways presented ecological
risks based on conservative assumptions.
Three primary contaminants of potential
concern (COPCs) identified in the marsh
and associated drainage ways were PCBs,
arsenic, and mercury.
U.5. Environmental Protection Agency
Uptake ffi
LtfrtnH J
W inhalation af
CoiiUniiiirtetlAjr
Con'.umpban
of (nil
tp\Ac by Ptanti and
Soil InwrtetuslM
Iwnvfnr ug
Ion olriil food Wr
Aiforpfon 1
and Settling
Tr4»*lei up
Aquatic Food Woh
BenthkOigjiiiwii*.
figure 2. Modified example of exposure pathways evaluated in ecological risk assessment
Examples of ecological receptors for measures of effects at this site:
* Aquatic maeroinvertebraie (Lumbriculus variegatus, blackworm)
* Terrestrial invertebrate community (Eisenia fetida, earthworm)
* Estuarine fish population in the Raritan River
* Bird and mammal population abundance in the marsh and the river
Ccui»>:Ftaw] (Mtptj'/vnipic-fa
81
-------
SLERA Assessment Endpoints
Examples of ecological receptors for measures of effects at this site:
Aquatic macroinvertebrate (Lumbriculus variegatus, blackworm)
• Terrestrial invertebrate community (Eisenia fetida, earthworm)
Estuarine fish population In the Rarltan River
* Bird and marnrnaE papulation abundance in the marsh and the river
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA)
Ecological receptors: aquatic invertebrates, forage fish, short-tailed shrew, marsh
wren, red-tailed hawk, spotted sandpiper, green frog, and fiddler crab
Habitats: river, march, and stream
What generic ecosystem service endpoints can be created for the SLERA?
Generic
Ecosystem
Service
Conventional
Assessment
Endpoint
Measurement
Endpoint
Benefit
Food
production
Fish population
vitality
Fish abundance
Size structure
Species number
Nutrition
Recreation
Income
Enjoyment
Recreational
opportunity
Bird species
diversity
Bird abundance
Species number
Recreation
Enjoyment
Nutrition
Income
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
82
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment {SLERA)
Ecological receptors: aquatic invertebrates, forage fish, red-tailed hawk, short-tailed
shrew, marsh wren, spotted sandpiper, green frog, and fiddler crab
Habitats: river, march, and stream
How can the EGS tools discussed today be applied and utilized for the SLERA?
FEG5 Sloping Tool
o
©
BCTI0flCJar"y
Profile
|
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
The EaoSerwce Mttfcf! Utomy I'tittDs^rantcoa oovt lets users Jta and cwrpare
motto to iSftip faate fieflflf dtasm or? protector, nstortkm am usa of eccs/stems
]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA)
Further develop the conceptual site model
Consider contaminant fate and transport
Identify ecosystems potentially at risk
Identify complete exposure pathways
Select assessment endpoints, candidate measurement endpoints
83
-------
BERA Assessment Endpoints in the
Marsh and River Ecosystems
o Aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrate community abundance and population
production in marsh sediment/soil
o Estuarine fish population abundance and community structure in the Raritan River
o Wildlife population abundance in the marsh and the river (representative species for the
marsh were the short-tailed shrew, muskrat, marsh wren and red-tailed hawk, and the
species selected for the river were the osprey and the herring gull)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Questions Related to BERA Assessment Endpoints
What site-specific ecosystem service assessment endpoints can
you think of that
* correspond to the conventional ones presented here?
* can assist with risk management decisions and remedy
selection?
a can facilitate risk communication with the public and
partners?
U.5. Environmental Protection Agency
84
-------
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) Summary
* Benthic organisms in river sediment => showed RISK
* Terrestrial invertebrates in marsh sediment -> showed RISK
* Estuarine fish => showed NO RISK
* Birds (marsh wren, osprey, herring gull) exposed to marsh sediment => showed RISK
* Mammals (muskrat, short-tailed shrew) exposed to marsh sediment=> showed RISK
FEG5 S:oping Tool
i
©
BOnofldar-y
Profile
|
The EaoSerwce Modeis Library ihttna^esni eaapovt els users Jta and cwrpare ecological
.mooais to iSftip dtaswni an pid&cdoc, rssto&m m use of ecosystems
EcoService Models Library (ESML)
How can the EGS tools discussed today be applied and utilized for the BERA?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.5. Environmental Protection Agency
85
-------
Appendix 3 - EGS Tool Outputs Based on Workshop's Hazardous Site
Case Study
NESCS Plus
During the Workshop's Case Study session, the NESCS Plus was run real-time to identing potential FEGS
that might be relevant to the ERA (Figure A3-1).
K! ® wo * «»»«««» mm. 0 kdooum « «at* (i« ( wri v a—. Q MaM O"- I m»~»» ¦ cwmdm Q
NESCS Plus ID
[WWW.X.YYrY.ZZZZ)
Environment
Class (Ml)
Environment
Subclass 1
(WW)
Environment
Subclass 1]
(WWW)
Ecological
End-
Product
Class (X)
Direct
Use/ Non-
Use
Class (Y)
Direct Use/Non-
Use Subclass 1
[YY)
Direct
Use/Non-
Use
Subclass
II (YYYYJ
Direct
User
Class (Z)
Direct
User
Subclass
M22)
Dir
Use
Sul
11(1
1IL3.110Y.1531
Aquatic
Open water
River* and
Streams
Water
Dsrect Use
Protection of
human property
•Ml Direct
use
Subclass lis
industry
Real Estate
Rental and
leasing
Real
111.3110V.1532
Aquatic
Open Water
Rivers and
Streams
Water
Direct Use
Protection of
human property
All Direct
Use
Subclass Us
industry
Real Estate
Rental and
Leasing
Rent
1 Leas
Serv
111.3 .HOY Jill
Aquatic
Open wattf
Rivera and
Stream?
Water
Direct Use
Protection of
human property
All Direct
Use
Subclass lis
Households
Households
HQU!
111.3.111Y-2111
Aquatic
open Water
Rivers and
Streams
Water
Direct Use
Recreation /tourism
Alt Direct
use
Subclass lis
Households
Households
Horn
111.3.111Y.2111
Aquatic
Open Water
Rivers and
Streams
Water
Direct Use
Recreation to unsm
Alt Direct
use
Subclass lis
Households
Households
Heus
1114 109Y2U1
AauMht
OcMfH Walef
Rivers and
Fauna
Direct Uw
Support of human
health and Ufa or
±11 Direct
Use
Households
Households
Houi
Figure A3-1. Screenshot of some of the NESCS Plus results for the workshop's Case Study exercise.
The NESCS Plus allows for export of results into an .XLS format, allowing the user to examine results
separately.
As an example, Figure A3-2 shows two rows in yellow highlight that the workshop participants discussed
further. Row 4 shows: (1) Environment: Aquatic -> Rivers and Streams; (2) Ecological End-Product:
Water; (3) Use: Recreation/Tourism; (4) User: Households; (5) Beneficiary: Recreational -> Waders,
Swimmers, and Divers. Workshop participants discussed this row and concluded that this FEGS was
likely relevant to the case study.
In contrast, Row 17 shows: (1) Environment: Aquatic -> Rivers and Streams; (2) Ecological End-Product:
Composite; (3) Use: Cultural/spiritual activities; (4) User: Motion Picture and Sound Recording
86
-------
Industries; (5) Beneficiary: Inspirational -> Artists. Workshop participants discussed this row and
concluded that this type of user was not likely relevant to the case study for the purpose of an ERA.
file Homo Insert Draw P»9« Layout formulas D*ta Revww View Dewtaper Help Acrobat
c5 Shaw P Comments
WW I i'Vlf RrfMk I
IO
o, a m o s is T"
ZOom Zoom to New AnanQ*
& m
A B
D
E
G
K
M
O
1
NESCS Plu Environment Class (W) Environment Subclass 1 Ecological End-Product
Direct Use/Mon-Use Su(Direct User Subdass II (Beneftetary Category (BBenefldary Subcategory (BBB)
2
111.3,lit ••
Rivers and Streams
Water
Protection of human pr
Real Estate
Government, Municipa Residential Property Owners
3
111-3.111 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Water
Recreation/tourism
Households
Recreational
Anglers
4
111.3.111 Aquatic
Riven and Streams
Water
Recreation/toorrsm
Households
Recreational
Wadcfs, Swimmers, an
RELEVANT
5
111.4.109 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Fauna
Support of human heal
Households
Subsistence
Food and Medicinal Subsisters
6
111-4.1H 'Agnatic
Rivers and Streams
Fauna
Recreation/tourism
Households
Recreational
Food Ptdcers and Oathe-cr,
7
111.4.111 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Fauna
Recreation/tourism
Households
Recreational
Anglers
8
111.4.111 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Fauna
Recreation/tourism
Households
Recreational
Experience** and Viewe
9
111.8.110 Aquatic
Rivers and 5treams
Composite
Protection of human pr Real Estate
Government, Municipa
Residential Property Owners
10
111.8.110 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Protection of human pi
Rental and Leasing ServGovernment, Municipa Residential Property Owners
11
111.8.11C Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Protection of human pr
Households
Government, Municipa Residential Property Owners
12
111.8.111 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Recreation/tourtsm
Households
Recreational
Experieneers and Viewer-,
13
111.8.111 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Recreation/tourism
Households
Recreational
Anglers
14
111.8.112 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Cultural/spiritual activil
Miscellaneous ManufaeInspirational
Artists
IS
111.8.112 Aquatic
111.8.112 Aquatic
River* and Streams
Composite
Cultural/spiritual activil
Merchant Wholesalers, Inspirational
Artists
16
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Cultural/spiritual activil
Merchant Wholesalers, Inspirational
Artists
17
111.8.112 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Cultural/spiritual activil Motion Picture and Sou Inspirational
Artists
NOT RELEVANT
IS
111.8.112 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Cultural/spiritual act/vr
Performing Arts, Specta Inspirational
Artists
19
111.8.11? Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Cultural/spiritual activM Households
Inspirational
Artists
20
111.8.113 Aquatic
Rivers and 5treams
Composite
Information, science, e<
Professional, Scientific, Learning
Researchers
a
111.8.113 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams
Composite
Information, science, e«
Educational Services
Learning
1 Educators and Students
22
111.8.113 Aquatic
Rivers and Streams 1 Composite
Information, science, et
Educational Services
Learning
Researchers
23
113.3.110 Aquatic
Wear Coastal! Marine/€« Water
Protection of human pr Real Estate
Government, Municipa Residential Property Owners
24
113.3.111 Aquatic
Near Coastal1 Marine/Et Water
Recreation/tourism
Households
Recreational
Anglers
25
113.3.111 Aquatic
Near Coastal Marine/E: Water
Recreation/tourism
Households
Recreational
Waders, Swimmers, and Divers
Figure A3-2, Example ofNESCS Plus export. Two example FEGS rows (#4 and #17) were highlighted in yellow and
discussed for their potential relevance to the workshop's Case Study Exercise.
FST
As mentioned above, a quick NESCS Plus run led to the identification of 69 potential services. The FST
can be used to bring specificity to that list and to identify the most relevant services. This example case
study is a particularly interesting one for considering EGS because the site is not accessible by the
general public. With many of the beneficial uses requiring direct access off the table, it could be easy to
overlook the services that are provided by the site.
The case study example does not specify any stakeholder, but since the FST begins with stakeholder
groups, a situation was hypothesized in which key stakeholder groups include downstream
homeowners, the municipal government in the area, a local environmental non-profit, a fishing club, an
outdoor activities club, and the general public. For this example, the criteria of "Magnitude and
Probability of Impact," "Proximity," "Economic Interest," and "Underrepresented and Underserved
Groups" were used. Those four criteria were given equal weights and no other criteria were used (Figure
A3-3). Each of these groups were then scored using generalizations of how each group might function
(Figure A3-4). The result is a relative prioritization of the stakeholder groups (Figure A3-5).
87
-------
Prioritization Criteria Relative Weights ±
Magnitude & Probability of Impact (25%)
Underrepresented & Underserved Groups (25%)
Proximity (25%)
Economic Interest (25%)
Figure A3-3. Screenshot of the FST criteria weights for workshop's Case Study Exercise.
Stakeholder
Group
Magnitude &
Probability of impact
Levetof
Influence
Level of Urgency & Temporal
interest immediacy
Proximity
Economic
mterest
Underrepresented
Rights Fairness & Underserved
Groups
Sj
i
Downstream
Ho-meowners
70
100
100
100
GS'
s
Municipal
Government
50
10
100
50
&
i
Environmental
Non-Profit
30
50
0
50
& ffi
Fishing Club
60
50
0
0
Ef
I
General Public
20
50
0
100
Figure A3-4. Screenshot of the FST criteria scores for workshop's Case Study Exercise (unweighted criteria were not
scored).
Stakeholder Prioritization A
Downstream Homeowners
Municipal Government
Environmental Non-Profit
Fishing Club
General Public
|lmpact
Influence
|Interest
Urgency
(Proximity
| Economic
j Rights
| Fairness
| Underrepresented
i 1 1 i i i i 1—i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure A3-5. Screenshot of FST stakeholder prioritization for workshop's Case Study Exercise.
88
-------
Continuing with a hypothetical generalization of how each of these groups might be interacting with the
river, the beneficiary groups making up each stakeholder group were identified (Figure A3-6) and the
environmental attributes of interest for each beneficial use (Figure A3-7).
Municipal Drinking Water Plant Operators
Residential Property Owners
Public Sector Property Owners
Experiences / Viewers
Hunters
Anglers
Waders! Swimmers I Divers
Boaters
Students and Educators
People Who Care
Beneficiary Prioritization £
[| Environmental Non-Profit
| General Public
| Downstream Homeowners
| Fishing Club
Municipal Government
10
12
14
16
IS
Figure A3-6. Screenshot FSTbeneficiary prioritization for workshop's Case Study Exercise.
Environmental Attribute Prioritization £
Water Quality-j
Water Quantity
Water Movement
Fauna Community
Edible Fauna
Flora Community
Sounds
Scents
Viewscapes
Ecological Condition
Open Space
Flooding
| Agricultural
| Commercial I Industrial
III Governmental / Municipal / Residential
[Transportation
| Subsistence
| Recreational
| Inspirational
Learning
I Non-Use
10 12 14 16 10 20 22 24 26 2S
—n
30
Figure A3-7. Screenshot of FST attribute prioritization for workshop's Case Study Exercise.
The results of the FST provide a far smaller set of ecosystem services of concern and clear guidance on
the attributes and uses that will be of greatest concern to the community.
89
-------
EnviroAtlas
After the workshop, a few data layers and tools in the EnviroAtlas Interactive Map were examined to see
if they could be useful to the case study. The following maps provide an example of some of the maps
available through the EnviroAtlas. A hydrological unit code (HUC) is a way of identifying a watershed or
part of a watershed as part of a hierarchical classification system of drainage basins within the US The
HUC-2s, for example, define major river basins, each HUC-2 contains thousands of HUC-12s. The
hierarchical system also includes HUC-4s, HUC-6s, HUC-8s, HUC-lOs, and HUC-14s with the number after
the acronym 'HUC' indicating the number of digits in the identifying code. Many of the maps have values
summarized by 12~digit HUCs, which are a medium sized watershed. Other maps have values available
for every 30 by 30-meter pixel. The legends in the maps indicate what the colors mean.
First, the case study area was located and displayed the Superfund Site and its boundary in the
Interactive Map (Figure A3-8). Other NPL Superfund sites, permitted water dischargers, and active RCRA
sites were also included to get an idea of what else was in the vicinity.
EmirQAtias
a i « 3 i
©O
* i
Superfund - National Priorities ~ B
LuMNPUO of 3)
Superfund NPL ATLANTIC RESOURCES
REGISTRY JD 110CC93G07' 9
PRIMARY NAME- ATLANTIC RESOURCES
LOCATION ADDRESS 120 H08SSS*06
ROAD
CITY.NAME SAYREV1 J.E
COUNTY NAME MDOLESEX
FIPS CODE 3*023
Zoom to
Figure A3-8. EnviroAtlas Interactive Map showing Case Study Superfund Site, other NPL Superfund sites, water
dischargers, and RCRA sites.
90
-------
The land cover in the Case Study area was then examined as many EGS flow from, or are impacted by,
land cover and land use. The National Land Cover Dataset was added to the map which indicates a land
cover class for every 30 by 30~meter pixel (Figure A3-9).
Figure A3-9. Land Cover in vicinity of Horseshoe Road Superfund facility.
Because of potential impacts to species and to fisherpersons who may eat locally caught fish, it is
important to understand impaired waterways in the area and how many streams were impaired for
metals other than mercury (Figure A3-10).
91
-------
Ljiv ll ©Alias In'.ct active Map j
Q 1 ^ 9 (I
EtmroAdtw Data 11
0
ooo ©
©eo
I fishing
1 Elected Corrmunrty:
1 Combined Communities
~ ^ \
Figure A3-10. Impaired waters in the vicinity, red lines and areas indicate impaired waters reported by states.
Colored polygons indicate kilometers of stream in the watershed impaired for metals other than mercury.
Although the watershed did not have any observed endangered species according to natural heritage
data in the EnviroAtlas, modeled USGS GAP analysis data indicated that the area was suitable habitat for
endangered and rare birds (Figure A3-11). The natural heritage data indicate when a species has been
observed but that does not mean a species is not there, only that no-one has reported seeing it there.
92
-------
LxpandH t tide Icon: ¦
isarrh All I ayftri
• Si-rl ^ i nwhk1
Nli a^ bl-d -iecciti i-jl'is«bt» :e li tat kvidi-c (|)
~ iVftur.'ur. I Miwi C -W
FAC - :rrf.p*r4-*-H Shu &uv4flrfii
|FPA Kiilrl • r. ~jnwfil*>H Siifi
ftainriwrw*
Numfear ::• vul
or |UCN -anjj:
* a B * » » # » 11
nMliv* aquNli:
M.V<1 C VU.I
few i : '.1,1
ftare rc
-------
With so many wetlands in the area, there may be a local demand for bird hunting, so the map showing
migratory bird hunting demand in the local area was investigated. This map (Figure A3-13) indicated
there may be significant demand for bird hunting in the local area.
HtlVir©Alias Interactive Map
& & & 0 A
EnvwoAtlas Data II
+
m [Sj ill [ 71!:» i F
liaanrft All I ayers
1 Sdeoed Cosnmunity:
1 Combined Connnunitics ¦¦
Crop Productivity
Ecosystem Markets
Energy Potential
Engagement with Qjtdacrs
I Sin I.c .litiu i. d
:«yMt
©
ui a m «
#
N 12
5pBrw
*gw>n ipnc* m
©
» ft J A • t
#
C 80
vxlking dinner it o 'park c-^ircncc Iml
©
M B
#
c ¥
iar Jvi
ft..d(SftyV.pit«
©
Alt
#
N »
»»"
©
* * i m »
#
C «
9 Misrat»y Ki-H nnnhrrj
(H«y Hp*
©
* ft 1 A ft »
#
N 12
©
+ e ¦ 6 m »
<#'
N 12
- Notnbcf o#hi:or: p-sc;
|«ns<
olcckqroupi
©
* ft 1 A 9 «
#
C M
I A l IB
j'JUiv of .jjyi.:
©
~ W O/Wn™
Figure A3-13. Migratory bird hunting recreation demand.
Humans are the beneficiaries of EGS and as such, to see where people lived in proximity to the
Superfund site with a finer granularity than that of the U.S. Census data, a map of the allocation of
people to 30 by 30-meter grid cells was examined (Figure A3-14).
94
-------
Figure A3-14. Estimated population living in every 30 by 30-meter pixel.
Once the full suite of maps has been added to the Interactive Map for the Case Study, the EnviroAtlas
session can be easily saved and shared with colleagues. This allows those colleagues to open the
EnviroAtlas Interactive Map, load the file and immediately see the same suite of Case Study Maps.
ESML
Using the case study, the ESML was searched using the "Hazardous Waste Site ERA" filter. Three filtering
criteria were chosen to be most relevant to the case study: (1) water purification for drinking, domestic,
industrial, and agricultural use; (2) food production (e.g., catchable, edible fish for recreational,
commercial, and subsistence uses); and (3) air purification (for breathing and visibility). A total of 91
potential models (Figure A3-15).
95
-------
Filter based on: q m» rw
k SouiceiCoUeclwii HI
^ t-IWi hnvirnnimml.is Sub-Class Q]
> Ecosystem Service iH
» Hazardous Wai-ie Site ERA [TJ
Generic Eedooical Assersnrein
Enduumli
EulLReusjil
Tubte.3 isteatjiti ,'Exrr
Cieaf S^teclfens
IE}
~ Location S
f Vanablo Classification U]
¦» Time Dependence f s I
Type » value or sele | GtOfS C3RW1
sas^stratlon rale
(utban'cwnmurity foress) l
Nel annual cai ban
5CGue:tralKjri rale 'Urban
rcrBftls; | Net annual carbon
seiiuasrration rate (trees) i Net
annual rater sequesTatlor
rale iur&ai'cofnmunUy rorescsj
I Nsl annual .aitiun
sequestration rale value
(urban (drafts) I Not annual
carbon sequestration r«se
value (UTtwn'&ynmunlty tree;)
Rcductnn in pallutanl mean
load Icansur- n»>:>; grniip i |
Reduction n poiMam meoan
load (census ft&ck groupi
Pollutant removal
fireon Nomas* (nvideted; |
Fofesls I Ci-ealsd
Geccrcpacn
Rivers and Streams |
CrnalRC Cronnsjiarn
Created Greensjiace |
ntmospfere
Agnvuvsv^omft I
~ 'E-.-oivslem'
Kcquiahnn A
Mamnnance
Forests !21l
Almosphere
I irtiant'Subu'fcar Q't\
^nrji.lalim* A
Maintenance
Rivers and St-carre
UitianfSUxifbae (2?)
• JEcosysiemr
Regulation 4
Maintenance
Aimosphera
UrtaniSubu'bar (27)
r.rfl-3RfcW\ft=: :?Tl
NtMuk. 0. J.,
(jiecTtdo fc J
Hoenn. R £ and
Lapcrt E
Carbon slmaoe and
soqunstnttoc Or trees n
urban and awwwjnty
2'tt ^ I"? vlrilS;-
USEPAOffioe of
Hasearch and
Ceveicpfent-
Nafsrai Expaeura
R«ea*cfi
Latwatay
Env3oAtbB Featuie-d
Cwrmunfr
1*5 EPA Office of
Reseercn ano
D«^elcpirem -
Naeonffl Expwuie
Research
Laboratory
Fnv»rnAtis= - F«tatnr»d
Corrrvijnr.
n run." tlrinsl
Figure A3-15. Screenshot of some of the ESML results for the workshop's Case Study. Three criteria from the
"Hazardous Waste Site ERA" filter were chosen to be most relevant to the case study.
The ESML allows for export of results into an .XLS format allowing the user to examine results
separately. For this case study, looking at the predictor and response variable data fields, there were
three potential models that might have relevance to a risk assessment: one on reduction in pollutant
load; one on metal removal (albeit different metals); and one on biotic integrity indices (Figure A3-16).
96
-------
A
B
I
J
M
EM ID
EM-51
Model Short Name
EnviroAtlas-Nat.
filtration-water
Predictor Variable [Predictor Variable Position]
Census block group | Pollutant | Pollutant pooled mean event-mean
concentration | Pollutant pooled median event-mean concentration |
Reduction in annual runoff (census block group)
Response Variable [Response Variable Position]
Reduction in pollutant mean load (census block group) | Reduction in pollutant
median load (census block group)
Bibliographic Title
EnviroAtlas - Featured
Communitv
EM-656
P8 UCM
Accumulation rate (impervious surface) | Area | Copper | Daily air
temperature | Decay rate - second order (particle) | Decay rate -
first order (particle) | Device class | Direct impervious fraction |
Directly connected impervious coefficient (0-1) | Directly connected
impervious fraction I Elevation I Filtration efficiency (particle
Copper removal | Copper removal efficiency | Lead removal | Lead removal
efficiency | Total kjeldahl nitrogen removal efficiency | Total kjelhahl nitrogen
removal | Total phosphorus removal | Zinc removal | Zinc removal efficiency
P8 Urban Catchment Model
Version 3.5
EM-821
Aquatic vertebrate
IBI for Western
streams, USA
Anthropogenic reference criteria (disturbance) | Composition |
Conductivity | Ecoregions | Environmental variables |
Evenness/diversity | Functional feeding group | Habitat | Richness |
Riparian disturbance | Riparian vegetation complexity | Tolerance to
pollution | Total nitrogen | Total phosphorus | Vertebrate
assemblage (fish & amphibian) metrics
Assemblaqe tolerance index I Index of biotic inteqritv (IBI ) Mountain reqion | A Predictive Index of Biotic
Index of biotic inteqrity (IBI) Mountain reqion (least disturbed) I Index of biotic Inteqritv Model for A
inteqritv (IBI) Mountain reqion (most disturbed) I Index of biotic inteqritv (IBI) predictive index of biotic
Plains reqion | Index of biotic inteqritv (IBI) Plains reqion (least disturbed) | inteqritv model foraquatic-
Index of biotic inteqritv (IBI) Plains reqion (most disturbed) I Index of biotic vertebrate assemblaqes of
inteqritv (IBI) Xeric reqion I Index of biotic inteqritv (IBI) Xeric reqion (least Western U.S. Streams
disturbed) | Index of biotic integrity (IBI) Xeric region (most disturbed) |
Native benthic species richness | Proportion of invertivore-piscivore species |
Proportion of lithophilic reproducing species | Vertebrate species richness
Figure A3-16. Example ofESML export (showing only a few data fields). Three potentially relevant EGS models were
identified for this case study based on predictor and response variables captured by ESML.
97
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of
50% postoonsumer fiber content processed chlorine free
------- |