EPA /600/R-22/118 i June 2023 iwww.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
oEPA
Approaches to Evaluate
Restoration Effectiveness:
Linking Restored Ecosystem
Condition to Beneficial Uses and
Ecosystem Services
-------
EPA/600/R-22/118
June 2023
Approaches to Evaluate Restoration
Effectiveness:
Linking Restored Ecosystem Condition to
Beneficial Uses and Ecosystem Services
By
Susan Yee1, Leah Sharpe1, Katelyn Barrett2, Amy B. Borde3, Benjamin Branoff1, Justin J.
Bousquin1, Giancarlo Cicchetti4, Bryan Clark4, Heida L. Diefenderfer3, Theodore H. DeWitt5,
Ken J. Forshay6, Richard Fulford1, Matthew C. Harwell5, Connie L. Hernandez7, Joel Hoffman8,
Christina L. Horstmann9, Chloe A. Jackson7, Mark E. Mitchell10, Diane Nacci4, Maliha Nash5,
Tammy Newcomer-Johnson11, Erin M. Reschke1, Ryann Rossi9, Lisa M. Smith1, Dalon White10
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1. Gulf Ecosystems Measurement and Modeling Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and
Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL
2. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Gulf Breeze, FL
3. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA
4. Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and
Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rl
5. Pacific Ecological Systems Division, Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR
6. Groundwater Characterization and Remediation Division, Center for Environmental Solutions and
Emergency Response, US Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK
7. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Newport, OR
8. Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN
9. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Gulf Breeze, FL
10. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Cincinnati, OH
11. Watershed and Ecosystem Characterization Division, Center for Environmental Measurement and
Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH
Page i
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
(ORD) funded and collaborated in the research described herein under the project
identification number J-GEMMD-0033669. The information generated in this report was
performed under the Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) listed below:
• K-GCRD-0031830-QP-1 -4 Using Stakeholder Engagement Techniques to Prioritize and
Assess Ecosystem Services of Managed Agricultural Landscapes of the Upper Midwest,
effective date October 27, 2020.
• J-GEMMD-0032449-QP-1 -0 Conceptual Framework and Approaches for Developing
Ecological Suitability Indices, effective date January 17, 2020.
• J-GEMMD-0032564-QP-1 -0 Identifying and Defining Levels of Meaningful Change in
Ecosystem Services of the Chesapeake Bay, effective date April 7, 2020.
• J-GEMMD-0032570-QP-1 -0 East Mount lion Landfill Cap Ecological Revitalization,
effective date June 17, 2020.
• L-PESD-0032585-QP-1-1 Tidal Wetlands Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS),
effective date December 8, 2021.
• J-WECD-0032656-QP-1 -0 A review of habitat restoration projects in Great Lakes Areas of
Concern, effective date July 23, 2020.
• J-GEMMD-0032706-QP-1 -0 Development of an Ecosystem Services Gradient for estuaries
and related ecosystems, effective date June 24, 2020.
• J-GEMMD-0033353-QP-1 -0 Development of a composite measure of ecological suitability
for multiple species in GOM estuaries, effective date October 20, 2021.
• J-GEMMD-0030992-QP-1 -1 Coordinated Case Study Synthesis Report, effective date March
10, 2020.
• K-GCRD-0018423-QP-1 -6 Floodplain Nutrients and Ecosystem Services, effective date July
07, 2019.
This report has been reviewed by the ORD/CEMM Quality Assurance Manager and it has been
determined to be consistent with EPA Category B quality assurance requirements. Any
deviations from the approved QAPP or limitations of the data contained in this report are
included in the references listed for each section under "For more information."
Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement or
recommendation for use. This is a contribution to the EPA ORD Sustainable and Healthy
Communities (SHC) Research Program under project SHC 9.1 "Methods and Measures for
Characterizing Restoration Effectiveness."
Citation for this Report
Yee, S., L. Sharpe, K. Barrett, A.B. Borde, B. Branoff, J.J. Bousquin, G. Cicchetti, B. Clark,
H.L. Diefenderfer, T.H. DeWitt, K.J. Forshay, R. Fulford, M.C. Harwell, C.L. Hernandez, J.
Hoffman, C.L. Horstmann, C.A. Jackson, M.E. Mitchell, D. Nacci, M. Nash, T. Newcomer-
Johnson, E.M. Reschke, R. Rossi, L.M. Smith, D. White. 2023. Approaches to Evaluate
Restoration Effectiveness: Linking Restored Ecosystem Condition to Beneficial Uses and
Ecosystem Services. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-
22/118.
Page ii
-------
Table of Contents
Notice and Disclaimer ii
Citation for this Report ii
Cover Illustration Credits vi
Acknowledgments vi
Abbreviations and Symbols vii
Executive Summary 1
Chapter 1 Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness 4
The Role of Cumulative Effects in Restoration Assessments 5
Matthew C. Harwell and Heida Diefenderfer
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring and
Assessment 7
Theodore H. DeWitt, Chloe A. Jackson, Connie L. Hernandez, Matthew C. Harwell
Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Informing Socio-Ecological Measures of Restoration
Effectiveness 10
Lisa M. Smith, Erin M. Reschke, Justin J. Bousquin
The Ecosystem Services Gradient as a Framework for Identifying Levels of Effective
Restoration 14
Susan Yee, Leah Sharpe, Giancarlo Cicchetti
Chapter 2 Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How 17
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: A Beneficiary-Centric Approach to Identifying
Benefits Restoration 18
Theodore H. DeWitt, Matthew C. Harwell, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Leah Sharpe, Susan Yee
The FEGS Scoping Tool for Prioritizing Ecosystem Services Relevant to Restoration 22
Leah Sharpe
Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services they Care About: Coral Reefs ...25
Christina L. Horstmann and Leah Sharpe
Beneficiaries of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed 29
Ryann Rossi and Susan Yee
Identifying Priority Ecosystem Services in Tidal Wetland Restoration 33
Chloe A. Jackson, Connie L. Hernandez, Theodore H. DeWitt, Susan Yee, Maliha Nash, Heida
Diefenderfer, and Amy Borde
Document Analysis to Identify Priority Ecosystem Services for Massachusetts Bays Estuary
Communities 36
Susan Yee, Leah Sharpe, Giancarlo Cicchetti
Page iii
-------
Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services They Care About: Remediated Site
Revegetation 41
Leah Sharpe
Chapter 3 Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition 44
Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Categorizing Indicators Across Ecosystem Types ....45
Lisa M. Smith, Erin M. Reschke, Justin J. Bousquin
Characterizing Ecological Condition and Benefits Across Space 50
Justin J. Bousquin
Evaluating Genomic Approaches as Markers of Ecological Condition to Characterize
Restoration Effectiveness 53
Bryan Clark and Diane Nacci
Identifying FEGS Metrics as Measures of Restoration Effectiveness 56
Leah Sharpe, Christina L. Horstmann, Katelyn Barrett, Susan Yee
Setting Restoration Baselines with Ecosystem Services Models 59
Richard S. Fulford
Quantifying Habitat Benefits of Agricultural Wetlands in Iowa 62
Mark E. Mitchell, T. Newcomer-Johnson, K. Forshay
Quantifying Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed 65
Ryann Rossi and Susan Yee
Modeling Ecosystem Services Change over Time in Massachusetts Bays Estuarine Coastal
Habitats 68
Benjamin Branoff, Susan Yee, Leah Sharpe, Giancarlo Cicchetti
Chapter 4 Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits 71
Evaluating Wildlife Habitat Implications of Drainage Improvements and Water Quality
Wetlands 72
Mark E. Mitchell, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Ken Forshay
Benefits of Natural Revegetation of Remediated Sites 75
Leah Sharpe
Linking Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices to Ecosystem Services in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed 77
Ryann Rossi and Susan Yee
Lessons Learned from Habitat Restoration Projects in Great Lakes Areas of Concern 82
Dalon White, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Joel Hoffman
Chapter 5 Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration Effectiveness Case
Studies 85
Lessons to Inform Restoration from Ecosystem Services Case Studies 86
Katelyn Barrett and Leah Sharpe
Page iv
-------
Evaluation of Ecosystem Services for Drainage Improvements and Water Quality Wetlands
in Agricultural Iowa 89
Mark E. Mitchell, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Ken Forshay
Revitalizing a Remediated Landfill in East Mount Zion 92
Leah Sharpe
Tillamook River Wetlands Restoration 96
Connie L. Hernandez, Chloe A. Jackson, Leah Sharpe, Theodore H. DeWitt
Setting Restoration Targets for Massachusetts Bays Estuaries 99
Susan Yee, Giancarlo Cicchetti, Leah Sharpe, Benjamin Branoff
Restoration for Ecosystem Services Change - Mobile Bay Subwatershed Case Study 103
Richard S. Fulford
Communicating Upstream Benefits of Restoration for Chesapeake Bay 106
Ryann Rossi and Susan Yee
Restoration of the Yakima River Floodplain 110
Ken J. Forshay
Appendix 1 Case Study Database 114
Page v
-------
Cover Illustration Credits
Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/media-library)
US EPA Stock Photo Library
Acknowledgments
We greatly appreciate the research teams and partners who contributed to this body of
research, including (but not limited to):
Ted Angradi (EPA, ORD, Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division)
Bill Ainslie (EPA, Region 10)
Walter Berry (EPA, ORD, Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division)
Can'n Bisland (EPA, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office)
Joel Corona (EPA Office of Water)
Pamela DiBona (Massachusetts Bay National Estuary Partnership)
Tamara Enz (Tillamook Estuaries Partnership)
Kn'sti Foster (Tillamook Estuaries Partnership)
Dave Harris (Tillamook Estuaries Partnership)
Susan Jackson (EPA, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division)
Bill Jenkins (EPA, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office)
Manuel Lago (Ecologic Institute, Germany)
Jeffrey Markert (Providence College)
Amy Newbold (EPA, Region 4, Gulf of Mexico Division)
Tim O'Higgins (University College Cork, Ireland)
Marghen'ta Pryor (EPA, Region 1)
Paul Ringold (EPA, ORD, Pacific Ecological Systems Division)
Ken Rocha (EPA, ORD, Atlantic Coastal Environmental Sciences Division)
Debbie Santavy (EPA, ORD, Gulf Ecosystems Measurement and Modeling Division)
Emily Shumchenia (E&C Enviroscape)
Eric Stein (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project)
David Taylor (Roger Williams University)
Emily Trentacoste (EPA, ORD, Immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator)
Vanessa Van Note (EPA, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office)
Prassede Vella (Massachusetts Bay National Estuary Partnership)
Bo Williams (EPA, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office)
Page vi
-------
Abbreviations and Symbols
Throughout this report, the term "ecosystem goods and services" is often abridged to
ecosystem services and may include either intermediate or final ecosystem goods and services
(FEGS). Goods and services are actually quite distinct (e.g., Kotler, P. and K.L. Keller. 2009.
"Designing and Managing Services," Marketing Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall), however, here we follow the common practice of using "ecosystem services"
as a term that includes both goods and services.
Acronyms and abbreviations used in this report include the following:
AOC
Area of Concern
ATTAINS
Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking and Implementation System
BCG
Biological Condition Gradient
BMP
Best Management Practice
BUI
Beneficial Use Impairment
C-CAP
Coastal Change Analysis Program
DDGRID
Discrete Global Grid
DGGS
Discrete Global Grid Systems
DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid
EBF
Ecological Benefit Function
EBM
Ecosystem Based Management
eDNA
Environmental DNA
EEP
Ecological End Product
ESG
Ecosystem Services Gradient
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA H20
EPA's Ecosystem Services Scenario Mapping Tool
EPF
Ecological Production Function
ESII
Ecosystem Services Identification and Inventory (Tool)
ESML
EcoService Models Library
FEGS
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
FEGS-CS
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services - Classification System
FST
FEGS (Final Ecosystem Goods and Services) Scoping Tool
GIS
Geographic Information System
H3
Hexagonal Hierarchical Spatial Index
HSI
Habitat Suitability Indices
InVEST
Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs
i-Tree
Tools for Assessing and Managing Forests and Community Trees
LULC
Land Use Land Cover
MBNEP
Mobile Bay National Estuary Program
NBH
New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
NCLC
North Coast Land Conservancy
NEP
National Estuary Program (or National Estuary Partnership)
NESCS
National Ecosystem Services Classification System
Page vii
-------
NHD
National Hydrography Dataset
NLCD
National Land Cover Database
NOAA
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
ORD
[EPA's] Office of Research and Development
OWEB
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
R2R2R
Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization
RAP
Remedial Action Plan
REAAA
Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring and Assessment
SDM
Structured Decision Making
SHARP
Saltmarsh Habitat and Avian Research Program
SNP
Single Nucleotide Polymorphism
TEP
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
TRW
Tillamook River Wetlands
VELMA
Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments (Model)
WBD
Watershed Boundary Dataset
Page viii
-------
Executive Summary
The Society of Ecological Restoration defines ecological restoration as the process of assisting
recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (Gann et al. 2019).
Restoration activities focus on establishing the composition, structure, and ecological
processes necessary to make ecosystems sustainable, healthy, and resilient (USDA 2020).
Ecosystem restoration is sometimes used interchangeably with ecological restoration, but
whereas ecological restoration has a primary focus on biodiversity conservation and ecological
integrity with the potential for co-occurring benefits to people, ecosystem restoration may
focus solely on delivery of ecosystem services (Gann et al. 2019).
Along the trajectory of restoration implementation from planning to post-restoration
monitoring, resource managers have identified a need for information and approaches to help
inspire the public to act, understand local priorities, evaluate alternatives, gain public
support, monitor progress, and communicate benefits. Restoration goals are often directly or
indirectly tied to the beneficial uses that people get from nature. Yet metrics used to plan,
assess, and monitor restoration are frequently biological or ecological, and often do not
directly address those beneficial use goals.
Needs decision-makers have expressed along a trajectory of restoration implementation.
Restored biological condition can be linked to social and economic benefits through the
production of ecosystem goods and services. Ecosystem goods and services are the key
intermediate step to linking changes in ecological condition, including restored condition, to
the social and economic benefits associated with beneficial uses. To support this, EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD), working with partners through case studies, has
been working to provide tools and approaches to identify and quantify effectiveness of
restoration in terms of both ecological function and provision of ecosystem services. This
research is focused on restoration within the context of R2R2R: Remediation to Restoration to
Revitalization. Within this context, restoration is a step toward community revitalization and
achieving desired beneficial uses for people, which may or may not mean ecological
restoration to pristine natural condition.
This report presents a series of short briefings on recent ORD research to refine, develop, and
provide guidance on map-based, metric, and modeling approaches to assess the potential
benefits of restoration and to monitor effectiveness of restoration outcomes. The approaches
have primarily been developed through case studies to help ensure partner needs are
understood, methods are usable and transferable, methods integrate with existing partner
approaches, and provide demonstrations of how methods were applied. Readers are
encouraged to seek out cited research for additional information.
Page 1
-------
The report first provides a review of existing practices for evaluating restoration
effectiveness to identify frameworks for how ecosystem services can be integrated into
restoration planning and monitoring. The rest of the report follows the generic framework of
first identifying outcomes of restoration that are most relevant to stakeholders and how to
measure them, then applying data and models to quantify the potential benefits of
restoration or to track progress, and finally identifying restoration actions that contribute
desired outcomes. Several case studies are presented to demonstrate how methods,
approaches, or tools were used within a variety of restoration contexts, locations, and
ecosystems.
Chapter 1 examines Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness. This chapter
includes reviews of current practices for understanding impacts of restoration documented in
existing literature, particularly the degree to which ecosystem services are included and how
they are used, and presents frameworks for integrating ecosystem services into restoration
effectiveness monitoring and assessment, characterizing the ecological suitability of
restoration in terms of both ecological and social outcomes, and describing the levels of
condition that are needed to ensure restoration of desired ecosystem services.
Chapter 2 examines tools and approaches for Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and
How. A number of ORD tools, including the National Ecosystem Services Classification System
Plus (NESCS Plus) and the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool are
described, along with examples of how they and other approaches were used to identify
stakeholders who may be impacted by restoration and the ecosystem services they care
about.
Chapter 3 overviews metrics, mapping, modeling, and other tools for Quantifying Benefits of
Restored Ecological Condition. Research includes development of innovative genomic
approaches, measures of ecological suitability that integrate ecological and social outcomes,
and modeling approaches to translate ecological condition into ecosystem services.
Chapter 4 provides approaches to support Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and their
Benefits. Research includes comparisons of ecosystem services benefits of alternative
restoration practices or scenarios and provides examples of restoration practices that can
lead to ecosystem services benefits.
Chapter 5 focuses on Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration Effectiveness
Case Studies. The examples here summarize how the approaches, metrics, and tools
identified in the previous chapters were used to inform ongoing restoration decisions in
several case studies. The case studies cover a variety of restoration contexts, from early
planning stages to post-restoration monitoring, as well as a variety of ecosystems. For each,
methods were tailored to reflect specific partner goals at each site.
Page 2
-------
The ultimate goal of this report is to provide approaches and case study demonstrations that
can be used to:
• Link beneficial use restoration goals to meaningful metrics of ecosystem function and
services;
• Provide environmental managers with approaches they can use to identify and quantify
ecosystem services, identify targets, and monitor outcomes;
• Help identify why restoration is or is not achieving beneficial use goals; and
• Facilitate communication of restoration in terms of goals that are meaningful and
relevant to stakeholders.
References
Gann, G.D., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J.G. Hallett, C.
Eisenberg, M.R. Guan'guata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C. Echeverria, E. Gonzales, N. Shaw, K. Decleer,
and K.W. Dixon. 2019. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological
restoration. Restoration Ecology 27: S1-S46.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2020. Forest Service Ecosystem Restoration Policy.
Forest Service Manual.
Page 3
-------
Chapter 1
Frameworks for Assessing
Restoration Effectiveness
Page 4
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
The Role of Cumulative Effects in Restoration Assessments
Matthew C. Harwell and Heida Diefenderfer
Background
There are many ongoing efforts to restore degraded ecosystems at increasingly large spatial
and temporal scales, including the 2021-2030 United Nations Decade on Ecosystem
Restoration, In general, large-scale restoration practitioners work in multidisciplinary teams
and use an ecosystem approach developed at the scale of the restoration site. Yet at larger
scales, restoration can have combined or synergistic outcomes that are more than the sum of
individual site-scale restoration activities, known as cumulative effects.
Problem Statement
Several studies have described landscape-scale effects of restorative actions across multiple
restoration sites, yet the factors contributing to the cumulative effectiveness of long-term
and large-scale restoration success remain largely unexplored.
Although large-scale restoration is generally
more cost-effective than local, site-scale
efforts, little research on achieving successful
program-level outcomes has been reported.
Therefore, there is a need for a conceptual
framework, which includes consideration of
cumulative effects, to examine restoration
success over multiple spatiotemporal scales.
Approach
This study modified classical definitions of
eight stressor-based modes of cumulative
effects for applications in ecosystem
restoration, environmental management, and
conservation science. These modes include
systemic effects (compounding; triggers and
thresholds; indirect), spatial effects
(landscape pattern; cross-boundary; space
crowding), and temporal effects (time lags;
time crowding).
Evidence was then collected and assessed
from seven large-scale coastal and riverine
restoration projects across the US to examine
the utility of a cumulative effects perspective
to inform restoration success: the greater
Florida Everglades; Gulf of Mexico coast;
lower Columbia River and estuary; Puget
Sound; San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta; Missouri River; and
northeastern coastal states.
TIME LAGS
Restoration action
^ -
Time
TIME CROWDING
I Actions/Effects
Time
Eight stressor-based modes of cumulative effects.
Reprinted from Diefenderfer et at. 2021
Chapter 1
Section: The Role of Cumulative Effects in Restoration Assessments
Page 5
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
These restoration sites spanned multiple restoration and species recovery objectives and
governance models.
Evidence From Existing Restoration Programs
Each restoration program examined had documented one or more modes of cumulative
effects. The modes are briefly described below; see Diefenderfer et al. (2021) for details.
Compounding effects included multiple drivers producing linear or non-linear, antagonistic or
synergistic effects and feedback. Thresholds effects represented functions for which small
changes in drivers or sudden changes in state variables result in abrupt shifts between
ecosystem states. Triggers capture environmental drivers that produce non-linear system-
state responses. Indirect effects occur, for example, when restoration of physical processes
results in biological effects. Landscape pattern effects include reduced fragmentation,
increased patch size, and restored connectivity and configuration. Cross boundary effects
are ecological responses occurring outside of restored site footprints, including ecological
interactions among restoration sites. Space crowding effects occur when multiple projects
are implemented within a geographic domain, where there are overlapping areas of influence
and interaction. Time lag effects highlight ecological responses that appear long after
restoration alters either drivers or parts of the system. Finally, time crowding effects
capture responses driven by the frequency or duration of restoration actions, or how
restoration alters the timing of stressor impacts.
How This Framework Can Be Used
This framework can be useful for answering a suite of important ecosystem restoration
questions such as:
• Given potential cumulative effects, how can the geographic scope of program planning
be defined?
• How can projects be prioritized, and budget requests justified when standard project-
scale analyses on cost-effectiveness fail to capture the full effects of the project?
• How can project benefits and/or unintended consequences be accounted for in the
context of multiple restoration actions co-occurring within a landscape?
• How can information about systemic or spatiotemporal effects be translated into
management triggers and thresholds for adaptive management decisions?
Conclusions
For a cumulative effects approach to become implementable, it must be shown to improve
restoration outcomes. Approaches for identifying and managing cumulative effects enables
interconnected restoration sites to achieve benefits while avoiding negative effects or
unintended consequences at landscape and regional scales.
For More Information
Diefenderfer, H.L., G.D. Steyer, M.C. Harwell, A.J. LoSchiavo, H.A. Neckles, D.M. Burdick,
G.E. Johnson, K.E. Buenau, E. Trujillo, J.C. Callaway, R.M. Thom, N.K. Ganju, 6t R.R.
Twilley. 2021. Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large-scale ecosystem
restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 19(2): 108-117.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2274
Chapter 1
Section: The Role of Cumulative Effects in Restoration Assessments
Page 6
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration
Effectiveness Monitoring and Assessment
Theodore H. DeWitt, Chloe A. Jackson, Connie L. Hernandez, Matthew C. Harwell
Background
Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery, resilience, and adaptive capacity of
ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (Gann et al. 2019). It is
increasingly recognized that the ultimate reason society invests in restoration is to increase
the flow of benefits from nature to people who use, rely on, or care about the attributes of
that natural space. For example, while the proximal goal may be to improve habitats for a
particular species, the ultimate goal may be to increase the abundance of species that people
enjoy (e.g., viewing), materially use (e.g., hunting or harvesting), or appreciate (e.g.,
spiritual reverence or caring). Also, improving an ecological function such as nutrient cycling
or reducing air pollution can be viewed through a "nature's benefits" or ecosystem services
lens as intermediate steps toward providing clean air and water for humans and other
species.
Problem Statement
While benefits to people are often identified as restoration goals, human benefits from
restoration projects are rarely confirmed or even assessed by monitoring. In many cases,
there is more information available about project construction than project outcomes.
However, advancements in ecosystem services
research have resulted in practical tools and
other resources for identifying and quantifying
the attributes of nature that people depend on,
use, enjoy, or revere. The purpose of this
project was to demonstrate that incorporating
ecosystem services in restoration effectiveness
monitoring and assessment (REAAA) is feasible,
practical, and provides strategic value that can
enhance the success of restoration projects.
Approach
A new EPA report provides practical advice (with
examples) on approaches, tools, and guidance
for including ecosystem services in restoration,
with particular attention on REAAA. An eight-
element framework for REAAA, synthesized from
a wide cross-section of restoration handbooks,
serves to guide the identification, prioritization,
measurement, and assessment of ecosystem
services in restoration projects. Thirty-two
ecosystem services online tools, modeling tools,
databases, and handbooks are described from
the perspective of the REAAA framework.
Eight-element Restoration Effectiveness
Monitoring and Assessment (REMA) framework.
Chapter 1
Section: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring and Assessment
Page 7
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
In recognition of the existence of distinct restoration communities of practice, separate
chapters address particular requirements, challenges, and opportunities that affect
incorporating ecosystem services into conservation-based, contaminated site cleanup-based,
and compensatory mitigation-based restoration.
Cross-Cutting Core Messages
Several common messages emerged from the synthesis of efforts to incorporate ecosystem
services into the three restoration communities of practice:
•
• Tools are available to facilitate the
inclusion of ecosystem services into
restoration planning, monitoring, and
assessment.
• Legal bases for considering ecosystem
services are present in the laws governing
restoration activities pursued in each
community of practice.
• Successful restoration of ecosystem services
should be assessed relative to defined
targets and points of reference.
Community of Practice Core Messages
Conservation-based Restoration: Early and continuous inclusion of ecosystem services
throughout the restoration planning and monitoring process, with attention to maintaining
congruence among these stages, would help to ensure the greatest success in producing
stakeholder-driven ecosystem services outcomes from conservation-based restoration.
Contaminated Site Cleanup-based Restoration: Deliberative investments in connecting
ecosystem services to support contaminated cleanups has resulted in the potential for
integrating ecosystem services assessments into various components of a cleanup. Any
remediation site involving ecological considerations, or reuse that creates access to nature,
may be a potential site for inclusion of ecosystem services.
Compensatory Mitigation-based Restoration: Aspects of defining objectives, site selection,
collecting baseline information, determining credits, developing a work plan, performance
standards, long term monitoring, and adaptive management from the 2008 Mitigation Rule
(within §404(b)(1) Guidelines under the Clean Water Act) have many overlaps with the REAAA
framework and therefore are amenable to incorporating ecosystem services.
Incorporating ecosystem services into restoration is doable. Examples are presented for
each of the restoration communities of practice.
Including representatives from all stakeholder groups and nearby communities in
restoration planning can help build trust and public support for the project.
Selecting ecosystem services that are relevant to stakeholders and nearby communities
helps to link the outcome of restoration projects to benefits those groups care about, and
in addition can help build public support for the project.
Restoring sites for the benefit of people is
not incompatible with restoring them for
nature.
Stream restoration project, Lancaster Co., PA. Photo
credit: PA Environment Digest.
Chapter 1
Section: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring and Assessment
Page 8
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
For More Information
Jackson, C.A., C.L. Hernandez, T.H. DeWitt. 2021. The value of final ecosystem goods and
services in restoration monitoring. Presentation at National Conference on Ecosystem
Restoration, Virtual, July 26 - August 5, 2021.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=352669
Jackson, CA, CL Hernandez, MC Harwell, and TH DeWitt (editors). 2022. Incorporating
Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring 6t Assessment: Frameworks,
Tools, and Examples. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-22/080.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=355990
References
Gann, G.D., T. McDonald, B. Walder, J. Aronson, C.R. Nelson, J. Jonson, J.G. Hallett, C.
Eisenberg, M.R. Guariguata, J. Liu, F. Hua, C. Echeverria, E. Gonzales, N. Shaw, K. Decleer,
and K.W. Dixon. 2019. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological
restoration. Restoration Ecology 27: S1-S46.
Chapter 1
Section: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring and Assessment
Page 9
-------
wtrM Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Informing Socio-
Ecological Measures of Restoration Effectiveness
LisaM. Smith, Erin M. Reschke, Justin J. Bousquin
The ecological suitability conceptual framework addresses ecological suitability as a measure
of restoration effectiveness and provides a blueprint for prioritizing restoration to maximize
social and ecological benefits and to monitor effectiveness over time (Smith et al. 2022). The
approach is novel in that habitat characterizations are coupled with ecological and social
weighting as a composite measure of ecological suitability.
The ecological suitability conceptual
approach is
• applicable to multiple
ecosystem types;
• builds upon previous
restoration frameworks; and
• promotes a balance of ecological
and social outcomes for targeted
restoration.
Background
A combination of both ecological indicators and socio-economic indicators is essential for
understanding and assessing the effectiveness of the remediation and restoration of degraded
ecosystems. It is also essential for the revitalization of communities that could benefit from
these ecosystem management activities. The ecological suitability approach incorporates
ecological attributes that support ecosystem structural diversity and function with
stakeholder values and perceptions, and the benefits derived from ecosystem goods and
services. These attributes are related to desired outcomes of restoration and are common
themes in the literature but have rarely been combined to reflect a holistic view and
integrated measure of overall ecological suitability.
Intended Use of the Approach
Effective management and restoration of ecosystems requires consideration of native species
populations, ecological processes, and human use and benefits. The ecological suitability
conceptual framework is based on generalized categories of ecosystem condition and social
outcomes applicable to any ecosystem type. This approach is a novel way to incorporate a
balance of ecological and social indicators to communicate potential restoration outcomes to
both ecosystem managers and stakeholders.
Development of the Ecological Suitability Conceptual Framework
A literature review was used to identify existing restoration frameworks and indicators to
inform the conceptual framework for characterizing ecological suitability. The structure of
the framework primarily builds from ecological and social attributes in the International
Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (Gann et al., 2019).
The ecological suitability framework balances ecological
and social outcomes for targeted restoration.
Page 10
Chapter 1
Section: Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Informing Socio-Ecological Measures of Restoration Effectiveness
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
The framework includes ecological attributes that support structural diversity and
functionality along with stakeholder values and perceptions and the benefits derived from
ecosystem goods and services. Indicator sub-categories within this framework (see Chapter 3
"Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Categorizing Indicators Across Ecosystem Types") allow
for decisionmakers and stakeholders to identify appropriate metrics for application.
General descriptions of the four ecological and three social categories.
Ecological Categories
Description
Stressors
Biophysical
Structural Diversity
Ecosystem Functionality
Direct threats or pressures on the ecosystem that can impact or alter
natural functioning
Habitat conditions or characteristics required to sustain the target
ecosystem and target organisms
The degree of complexity in an ecosystem reflected in community
composition including habitats, biodiversity, and structural resilience
A system's ability to maintain processes and productivity while
supporting ecosystem services provisioning and system resilience
Social Categories
Description
Ecosystem Goods and Services
Benefits
Stakeholder Values and
Perceptions
Outputs of natural systems that are directly enjoyed, consumed, or
used to yield human well-being and benefits
Positive socio-economic impacts on human well-being that may have
monetary or non-monetary value
Interests, goals, contributions, and perceptions derived from
stakeholder engagement
Pairing Ecosystem Management and Habitat Restoration Goals
Categorized indicator information from the literature was used to develop an example
conceptual approach for characterizing ecological suitability based on the restoration of
habitat for multiple species of ecological and societal importance, as depicted in the Figure
on the next page. To restore ecosystems to a desired state that supports ecosystem
management goals, stressors must first be identified and then removed to improve biophysical
conditions. However, additional water quality parameters and in situ contamination need to
be considered as modifying factors in habitat suitability indices (HSIs) to fully characterize
habitat quality and suitability for species of ecological and social importance (HCspx).
Mosaics of suitable habitats support more complex structural diversity and resilience within
an ecosystem (Harwell et al., 2019). Community structure and complexity contribute to
higher functioning ecosystems. Structural diversity is also linked to stakeholder values. For
example, species abundance and community structure have been identified by stakeholders
as valued ecological characteristics to be considered in estuarine restoration (Harwell et al.,
2019; Adams et al., 2020).
Provisioning of ecosystem services is a functional role of ecosystems that is important both
ecologically and socially. A well-functioning ecosystem is an ecological outcome that can
demonstrate restoration effectiveness. The functional role of target species in the food web
structure can be used as ecological weighting factors in the calculation of ecological
suitability. Cycles, processes, and exchanges are critical to regulating services that support
the delivery of ecosystem goods and services.
Page 11
Chapter 1
Section: Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Informing Socio-Ecological Measures of Restoration Effectiveness
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
Ecosystem Management
Maintain ecological processes
Accommodate human use and benefits
Maintain viable native populations
Stressors
Remediation
Restoration
Biophysical Measures
Habitat
modifiers
>1
Habitat Suitability
Indices
Habitat Indicators
HSIs modified by biophysical conditions
within a specified area unit
Stakeholder
Values &
Perceptions
Habitat
Suitability
(HSWX)
Structural
Diversity
2
o
3
3
(Q
Benefits
—ZT
Ecosystem Goods
and Services
C
V
Ecological Suitability (ES)
Social Weighting
Factors (Soc_wt)
Ecological
Weighting Factors
(Eco_wt)
W
ESW= HSspx*(Eco_wt,_,+Soc_wt,c,)
ii
Multiple Species
Sum of
ES*.
I
Restoration Goals (Effectiveness)
Generalized conceptual framework for habitat restoration based on the ecological suitability approach.
Page 12
Chapter 1
Section: Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Informing Socio-Ecological Measures of Restoration Effectiveness
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
Benefits are a direct reflection of stakeholder values, perceptions, and their utilization of
final ecosystem goods and services. In this framework, benefits can be used as a proxy
measure of social outcomes. Benefits resulting from restoration activities can be used as
social weighting factors in the calculation of an ecological suitability measure for restoration
effectiveness. For example, a weighting factor could include measures of economic
dependence on certain species, the number of associated ecosystem services and
beneficiaries, or valuation of species associated with restoration activities.
The proposed ecological suitability measure for a single species (ESspx), for a given spatial unit
(represented by a hexagon) is represented as the habitat characterization value for that
species (HCspx) weighted by the species ecological and social importance. HCspx values for each
species could be weighted using the species' functional role in the food web (Eco_wtspx).
Stakeholder values and benefits associated with the species could be used as societal
weighting factors (Soc_wtspx). The sum of ESspx across species represents the ecological
suitability for multiple species within the spatial unit. Summed ESspx values could be used to
help prioritize restoration efforts and assess restoration effectiveness over time.
For More Information
McCarthy, E., L. Smith, J. Bousquin, L. Harwell, J. Harvey, and Kevin Summers. Utilizing
Existing Monitoring Data to Characterize Estuarine Habitat: A Conceptual Approach to
Inform Restoration Prioritization and Effectiveness Assessments. 2021 NALMS National
Monitoring Conference, Virtual, April 19 - 23, 2021.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=353150
Smith, L.M., Reschke, E.M., Bousquin, J.J., Harvey, J.E., Summers, J.K. 2022. A conceptual
approach to characterizing ecological suitability: Informing socio-ecological measures for
restoration effectiveness. Ecological Indicators 143: 109385.
https: //doi .org/10.1016/j .ecolind .2022.109385
References
Adams, J.B., Whitfield, A.K., Van Niekerk, L. 2020. A socio-ecological systems approach
towards future research for the restoration, conservation and management of southern
African estuaries. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 45, 231-241.
https: / /doi .org /10.2989/16085914.2020.1751980.
Gann, G.D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C.R., Jonson, J., Hallett, J.G.,
Eisenberg, C., Guariguata, M.R., Liu, J., Hua, F. 2019. International principles and
standards for the practice of ecological restoration: Summary. Washington, DC: Society for
Ecological Restoration. 11 p. Online: https://www.ser.org/page/SERStandards.
Harwell, M.A., Gentile, J.H., McKinney, L.D., Tunnell Jr., J.W., Dennison, W.C., Kelsey, R.H.,
Stanzel, K.M., Stunz, G.W., Withers, K., Tunnell, J. 2019. Conceptual framework for
assessing ecosystem health. Integr. Environ. Asses. 15, 544-564.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4152.
Page 13
Chapter 1
Section: Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Informing Socio-Ecological Measures of Restoration Effectiveness
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
The Ecosystem Services Gradient as a Framework for
Identifying Levels of Effective Restoration
Susan Yee, Leah Sharpe, Giancarlo Cicchetti
Challenge
Ecosystem restoration aims to recover the ecological integrity and biodiversity of degraded
ecosystems while providing the ecosystem services that humans want and need. To
effectively achieve this, resource managers need methods to determine levels of restored
biological condition needed to achieve desired beneficial uses; identify ecosystems of high
potential value where restoration might be targeted; and communicate the potential benefits
of restoration to inspire action and gain public support.
The Ecosystem Services Gradient
The Ecosystem Services Gradient (ESG) is a science-based descriptive model that describes
ecosystem services production in response to changing environmental condition (Yee et al.
2020). The conceptual foundation for an ESG follows that of the Biological Condition Gradient
(BCG), which leverages expert knowledge and biomonitoring data to narratively and
numerically describe attributes of biological condition from natural (Level 1) to severely
degraded (Level 6; Cicchetti etal. 2017).
The ESG framework mirrors the goals of
BCG: create a common framework,
based on measurable ecologically
important attributes, that can be used
to describe the complete range of
condition from undisturbed reference to
severely altered, and provide a rational
and transparent means for setting
targets, implementing actions to
achieve them, monitoring progress, and
communicating outcomes.
Analogous to a BCG, the ESG describes
the full range of potential ecosystem
services benefits along a gradient of
biological condition or changing
stressors. Along a gradient of restored
biological condition, ecosystem services
may increase at different rates, or even
decline, depending on the biological
attributes providing those services. For
example, seagrass restoration may have
benefits to commercial fishing as fish
habitat, but be less aesthetically
pleasing to coastal property owners than
clear open water.
\ process
\ — X
\
/Fish biomass
/for commercial
\
'fishing
Unimpeded ^ >
viewscapes /
for property owners /
\
Charismatic
V
rare fauna
for
\
wildlife viewers
\
\
Level 1: Natural structure arid function
Level 2: Minimal changes in
structure; function maintained
Level 3: Some changes in structure^
minimal changes in function
rLevel 4: Moderate changes in
structure, minimal changes in
function
Level 5: Major changes in structure,
moderate changes in function
jgn
Level 6: Severe changes in structure and functi
Level of Restored Condition
Habitat gains, improved physical/chemical
conditions, reduced stressors
Example BCG (bottom) and parallel ESG (top) showing change
in ecosystem services with levels of biological condition.
Page 14
Chapter 1
Section: The Ecosystem Services Gradient as a Framework for Identifying Levels of Effective Restoration
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
Building an Ecosystem Services Gradient
A Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) approach can help reduce ambiguity by directly
connecting biophysical indicators to the people that benefit from them (DeWitt et al. 2021).
Diagram illustrating translation of ecological condition into FEGS and into social and economic benefits, through
the application of ecological production or ecological benefit functions.
Implementing the ESG
An ESG can help to integrate ecosystem services assessments into restoration planning and
implementation by identifying meaningful measures of restoration success in terms of
benefits to people, defining reference points of completely degraded to fully restored
condition, identifying levels of restored condition needed to achieve desired levels of
benefits, communicating potential pre-restoration or monitoring post-restoration benefits in
terms of measurable and meaningful attributes that resonate with the public, and evaluating
tradeoffs or 'win-wins' across conflicting stakeholder objectives.
Generic steps in the process to develop an ESC
Ecosystem Services Gradient Steps
Process
What final ecosystem goods &
services (FEGS) are relevant?
Identify and prioritize FEGS with stakeholders.
How will we measure them?
Identify FEGS metrics and indicators, and the biophysical
attributes that provide them.
What FEGS could we have?
Establish potential availability under a range of bio-physical
conditions using historic data, reference sites, or ecological
production function (EPF) models.
What FEGS do we have now?
Establish current availability using monitoring data, spatial
maps, or EPF models.
What FEGS do we want?
Evaluate potential co-occurring benefits and tradeoffs at
varying levels of restored condition or alternative restoration
options
How do we get there?
Identify restoration activities such as habitat creation or
stressor reduction to achieve desired levels of restored
condition.
What are the social and economic
consequences?
Conduct and communicate an optional benefits assessment
using ecological benefit functions (EBFs) to translate ecosystem
services supply into socio-economic, monetary, or human health
and well-being benefits.
Page 15
Chapter 1
Section: The Ecosystem Services Gradient as a Framework for Identifying Levels of Effective Restoration
-------
&EPA Frameworks for Assessing Restoration Effectiveness
For More Information
Cicchetti, G., M.C. Pelletier, K.J. Rocha, P. Bradley, D.L. Santavy, M.E. Pryor, S.K. Jackson,
S.P. Davies, C.F. Deacutis, 6t E.J. Shumchenia. 2017. Implementing the biological condition
gradient framework for management of estuaries and coasts. EPA/600/R-15/287. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology
Division, Narragansett, Rl.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=338154
DeWitt, T. H., Berry, W. J., Canfield, T. J., Fulford, R. S., Harwell, M. C., Hoffman, J. C.,
Johnston, J. M., Newcomer-Johnson, T. A., Ringold, P. L., Russell, M. J., Sharpe, L. M., 6t
Yee, S. H. 2020. The final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) approach: A beneficiary-
centric method to support ecosystem-based management. In T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, 6t T. H.
DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity:
Theory, tools and applications (pp. 127-148). Amsterdam: Springer.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0.
Yee, S., G. Cicchetti, T. H. DeWitt, M. C. Harwell, S. K. Jackson, M. Pryor, K. Rocha, D. L.
Santavy, L. Sharpe, 6t E. Shumchenia. 2020. The ecosystem services gradient: A descriptive
model for identifying thresholds of meaningful change. In T. O'Higgins, et al., Ecosystem-
based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity (pp. 291-308). Amsterdam:
Springer, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0.
Page 16
Chapter 1
Section: The Ecosystem Services Gradient as a Framework for Identifying Levels of Effective Restoration
-------
Chapter 2
Identifying Who Benefits from
Restoration and How
Page 17
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: A Beneficiary-Centric
Approach to Identifying Benefits Restoration
Theodore H. DeWitt, Matthew C. Harwell, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Leah Sharpe, Susan Yee
Linking Restoration to Community Benefits
Inclusion of ecosystem services into ecosystem restoration planning and monitoring has the
potential for motivating action, sustaining interest, and attracting broad support if the
project links those benefits of restoration to stakeholder and community interests. An
essential step is the identification of stakeholders and beneficiaries, which sets the stage for
inclusion of those groups in identifying and prioritizing ecosystem services, setting restoration
goals, implementing projects that reflect what stakeholders care about, and monitoring the
effectiveness of restoration in terms of accruing benefits to those groups. This kind of
"beneficiary-focused" perspective can help ensure that key stakeholders are not overlooked
and that a full suite of potential benefits of restoration are considered in project design and
monitoring.
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
Biological components of nature that are directly used, enjoyed, or appreciated by people are
known as Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). A FEGS is distinguished from an
intermediate supporting service such as habitat or water quality because they are directly
connected to the people, or beneficiaries, who use them or care about them. A FEGS
approach emphasizes the identification of the following:
• The beneficiary - Who is benefitting from the restoration?
• The biophysical attributes of ecosystems - What do beneficiaries use or care about?
• The environmental context - How and where are ecosystems being used?
The answers to these questions can help bring clarity to restoration planning and monitoring
by revealing new stakeholders to target for inclusion in planning or outreach, as well as
indicators for monitoring that will resonate with a broad range of stakeholders.
Examples of connecting FEGS goals of restoration to ecological goals.
Ecological Goals of Restoration
Final Ecosystem Goods 6t Services Goals of Restoration
Increase habitat for fauna
• Improve opportunities for recreational hunters to hunt
game animals when visiting forest areas
• Improve opportunities for recreational birders to see rare
bird species when visiting wetlands
Improve water quality
• Reduce salinity in groundwater for local residents who are
dependent on aquifers
• Reduce contamination of edible fish for recreational
fishermen fishing in lakes
Page 18
Chapter 2
Section: Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: A Beneficiary-Centric Approach to Identifying Benefits Restoration
-------
&EPA
Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus
Ecosystem services classification systems have been used in restoration planning to identify
and select relevant ecosystem services for setting project goals or metrics for monitoring. In
particular, the National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus) defines a
classification system for Final Ecosystem Goods and Services based on five components: 1) the
environment; 2) the ecological end-product; and either 3) the beneficiary, or a combination
of the 4) direct user and 5) way the ecological end product is used.
Final Ecosystem Good or Service
Components of a FEGS in NESCS Plus.
Each component in the system is composed of classes and subclasses to describe the
environment providing the good or service, the ecological end products used or cared about,
and who is benefitting.
Environment
Rivers and Streams
Shrubland/Scrubland
Lakes and Ponds
Lichens
Near-coastal/Estuarine
Moss
Open Ocean and Seas
Sedge
Woody Wetlands
Dwarf Scrub
Herbaceous Wetlands
Perennial Ice/Snow
Deciduous Forest
Developed Open Space
Evergreen Forest
Developed Low/Med/High
Pasture/Hay
Intensity
Cultivated Crops
Barren Land
Grassland
Ecological End Product
Atmosphere
Soil
Water
Fauna
Flora
Fungi
Other Natural
Components
Composite
Beneficiary
Agricultural
Commercial/Industrial
Government/Residential
Transportation
Subsistence
Recreational
Inspirational
Learning
Non-use
Humanity
Example categories to classify FEGS in NESCS Plus.
Classification systems like NESCS Plus provide structure for identifying and comprehensively
listing ecosystem services of direct relevance to ecosystem restoration planning. They can
help to organize identification of metrics and indicators for monitoring, particularly those
based on biophysical features of most direct relevance to the people who stand to benefit
from restoration.
Page 19
Chapter 2
Section: Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: A Beneficiary-Centric Approach to Identifying Benefits Restoration
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Examples of FEGS classified using NESCS Plus categories, and metrics to quantify them.
Environment
Ecological End Product
Beneficiary
Example Metric
Stream
Water quality
Recreational waders &
swimmers
Water clarity; Contaminant
or pathogen levels
Grassland
Pollinating fauna
Farmers
Abundance of pollinating
bees/butterflies
Salt marsh
Composite ability of
ecosystem to provide storm
surge protection
Residential property
owners
Wave attenuation during
storm events based on cover,
density, elevation of marsh
Integrating Ecosystem Services in Restoration Planning & Monitoring
The NESCS Plus provides a common language, structure, and framework that integrates with a
number of related EPA tools, including the FEGS Scoping Tool (described in the next section,
"The FEGS Scoping Tool for Prioritizing Ecosystem Services Relevant to Restoration"),
EcoService Models Library, EnviroAtlas, ongoing efforts to develop metrics and indicators for
final ecosystem goods and services, and demonstrations of these tools for ecosystem-based
management (EBM).
FEGS Scoping Tool
• Project Scoping
• Stakeholder Engagement
EnviroAtlas
» Spatial datasets
• Visualizations
NESCS Plus
• Classification System
• Library for Coding & Searching FEGS
• Webtool
EBM Textbook
MantyMMflt
hovwrnSenritR
aid*q«tc
Bodvrjirf
• International
textbook
• Multiple case
studies
demonstrating
ORD tools
FEGS Metric Report
• What to measure?
• FEGS Units
EcoService Models Library
• Published models for estimating ES
Illustration of other EPA tools that connect to NESCS Plus (Figure from Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020).
The FEGS approach advances the ability to identify, articulate, measure, and assess the
potential role of relevant ecosystem goods and services in restoration planning and
monitoring. A FEGS approach can help bring to light new restoration goals or refine existing
ones, compare and choose restoration project options that optimize return on investment,
and identify measurable and meaningful metrics for monitoring restoration success.
Page 20
Chapter 2
Section: Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: A Beneficiary-Centric Approach to Identifying Benefits Restoration
-------
wcrM Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
EPA Integrated Tools
EcoService Models Library: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoservice-models-library.
Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) Textbook: T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, 6t T. H. DeWitt (Eds.),
Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: Theory, tools
and applications. Amsterdam: Springer, https://link.springer.eom/book/10.1007/978-3-030-
45843-0.
Envi roAtlas: https: / /www. epa. gov/envi roatlas.
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Metrics Report: https://www.epa.gov/eco-
research/final-ecosystem-goods-and-services-fegs-metrics-report.
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool: https://www.epa.gov/eco-
research/final-ecosystem-goods-and-services-fegs-scoping-tool.
The National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus)
https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/national-ecosystem-services-classification-system-
nescs-plus.
For More Information
DeWitt, T. H., Berry, W. J., Canfield, T. J., Fulford, R. S., Harwell, M. C., Hoffman, J. C.,
Johnston, J. M., Newcomer-Johnson, T. A., Ringold, P. L., Russell, M. J., Sharpe, L. M., 6t
Yee, S. H. 2020. The final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) approach: A beneficiary-
centric method to support ecosystem-based management. In T. O'Higgins, M. Lago, 6t T. H.
DeWitt (Eds.), Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity:
Theory, tools and applications (pp. 127-148). Amsterdam: Springer.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0.
Harwell, M.C. and C.A. Jackson. 2021. Synthesis of two decades of US EPA's ecosystem
services research to inform environmental, community, and sustainability decision making.
Sustainability 13: 8249. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158249.
Jackson, CA, CL Hernandez, MC Harwell, and TH DeWitt (editors). 2022. Incorporating
Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring 6t Assessment: Frameworks,
Tools, and Examples. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-22/080.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=355990
Newcomer-Johnson, T., F. Andrews, J. Corona, Ted DeWitt, M. Harwell, C. Rhodes, P.
Ringold, M. Russell, P. Sinha, AND G. Van Houtven. 2020. National Ecosystem Services
Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/R-20/267.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryld=350613
Page 21
Chapter 2
Section: Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: A Beneficiary-Centric Approach to Identifying Benefits Restoration
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
The FEGS Scoping Tool for Prioritizing Ecosystem Services
Relevant to Restoration
Leah Sharpe
Identifying Relevant Ecosystem Services
The National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus; described in the
previous section, "Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: A Beneficiary-Centric Approach to
Identifying Benefits Restoration") lays out a structured approach for identifying and listing
ecosystem services and is invaluable for capturing the full set of potentially impacted services
for a given project. Simply listing all potential ecosystem services associated with a project,
however, can lead to long lists with no indication as to which services to focus on. To ensure
restoration projects focus on those benefits that people care about, it is important to
determine which ecosystem services are most relevant and meaningful to stakeholders.
Identifying Beneficiaries and What They Need
The NESCS Plus classification system contains a categorized and defined list of beneficiary
roles that define 'how' people use ecosystems, but individuals and stakeholder groups often
benefit from the environment in multiple ways, and it can be easy to overlook benefits that
are taken for granted or are simply less prominent. NESCS Plus also contains a list of
environmental attributes (ecological end products), but it is up the user to determine which
attributes are relevant for each beneficiary. Since these can vary widely among projects,
project managers can benefit from a structured approach to identifying beneficiaries and
ecosystem attributes for specific decisions as well as a method for determining which are
most relevant to the decision.
The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Scoping Tool
The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Scoping Tool (FST), like NESCS Plus, takes a human-
centered approach. The FST starts, not with beneficiary roles (e.g., a recreational user), but
with stakeholder groups (e.g., a sporting club). Project managers are often experienced in
thinking about and working with stakeholder groups because many projects already
incorporate some degree of outreach or communication.
The FST provides decision makers with
a structured method for prioritizing
stakeholder groups, identifying how
they are benefiting from the
environment as beneficiaries, and the
environmental attributes necessary for
realizing those benefits. The tool helps
users develop a comprehensive list of
all potential ecosystem services, while
also prioritizing those most relevant to
restoration decisions and meaningful
to stakeholders.
Chapter 2
Section: The FEGS Scoping Tool for Prioritizing Ecosystem Services Relevant to Restoration
Page 22
-------
&EPA
Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
The FST begins by helping users prioritize stakeholder groups in the first step. That
prioritization is used to give priority to beneficiary roles which are identified for each
stakeholder group in the second step, and then to give priority to environmental attributes
needed by each beneficiary in the third step. The resulting outputs give decision makers a
holistic, as well as prioritized, perspective of ecosystem services for their decision. The
combination of stakeholder, beneficiary, and attribute also helps with identification of
metrics that will resonate with stakeholders.
Example Results
Below is an example output for an application of the FST considering development of a small
lake management plan.
A) Stakeholder
Prioritization
B) Beneficiary
Prioritization
£) Environmental
Attribute Prioritization
Town Government-I
State Natural
Resource Agency
Lake Homeowners
- Full Time
Lake Homeowners
- Seasonal
Beach Visitors
Boating Visitors
Municipal Drinking
Water Plant Operators
Residential Property Owners
PuWIc Sector Property Owners
Water Subsisters
Experiences I viewers
Anglers
Waders I Swimmers / Divers
Boaters
Students and Educators
Researchers
People Who Care
Water Quality
Water Ctoantlty
Watef Movement
Fauna Community
Edible Fauna
Flora Community
Sounds
Scents
Viewscapes
Phenomena
Ecological Condition
Flooding
:
< t
t; 12 h f is
| Impact
[influence
|Interest
Urgency
| Proximity
|Economlc
| Rights
| Fairness
H Town Government
Estate Natural Resource Agency
^ Beach visitors
| Boating visitors
take Homeowners • Full time
¦ Lake Homeowners - Seasonal
:
B Underrepresented
Example output from each step in the FEGS Scoping Tool.
ID I! 1i 4 18 a 22 14 a a
Agricultural
Commercial / Industrial
Governmental / Municipal /Residential
Transportation
| Subsistence
Recreational
Inspirational
Learning
Non-Use
In panel A, the results of the stakeholder group prioritization show the relative priority of the
stakeholder groups and the impact of each criterion, such as degree of influence or
underrepresentation. Based on that prioritization, lake homeowners have the highest overall
priority. In panel B, the beneficiary profile shows the distribution of each stakeholder group
into roles as beneficiaries, weighted by the priority of the different stakeholder groups in
panel A, with waders/swimmers/divers having the highest diversity of stakeholders using
lakes in that role as a beneficiary. Panel C shows the results of the attribute identification, in
which environmental attributes are assigned relative importance to each beneficiary group,
again weighted by the priority of the different beneficiaries in panel B, with water quality
having the highest overall priority, based on its relevance to multiple beneficiaries.
Chapter 2
Section: The FEGS Scoping Tool for Prioritizing Ecosystem Services Relevant to Restoration
Page 23
-------
wcrM Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
These outputs can then be used to identify metrics in the following manner.
Examples of how FEGS Scoping Tool output can be interpreted to support decisions.
Tool Output
Result
Decision
Prioritized attribute list
(Panel C)
The highest priority
attribute is water quality.
Water quality is of concern to several
key user groups, monitoring it should be
a priority.
Prioritized attribute list
(Panel C)
Water quality is a concern
for residential/municipal,
subsistence, and
recreational beneficiaries.
Multiple water quality metrics may be
necessary to monitor how water quality
benefits different groups.
Beneficiary profile (Panels B)
Recreational beneficiaries
include viewers, anglers,
swimmers, and boaters.
Recreational water quality metrics
should be relevant to these groups.
Beneficiary profile (Panel B)
All six stakeholder groups
benefit as swimmers.
Water quality metrics related to
swimming will be of broad interest
across stakeholder groups.
The FEGS Scoping Tool as an Entry Point to FEGS Assessment
The Scoping Tool offers an accessible entry point into incorporating a FEGS approach in
restoration planning and monitoring. The FST allows restoration practitioners to easily
translate the stakeholder groups they work with and their concerns into the FEGS framework.
It also assists in comprehensive and transparent documentation of potential impacted
ecosystem services, identification of priority ecosystem services, and explicit connection
between services and stakeholders.
The use of the FEGS framework also allows users of the tool to move easily to other EPA tools
that also use the framework. For example, using EnviroAtlas
(https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas) to map priority attributes in the management area or
using the EcoService Models Library (https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoservice-models-
library) to model changes to a priority attribute under different management scenarios. The
first step of incorporating FEGS into restoration efforts will always be to identify relevant
services, the FST provides support for all users looking to take that step.
For More Information
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool: https://www.epa.gov/eco-
research/final-ecosystem-goods-and-services-fegs-scoping-tool.
Sharpe, LM, Hernandez, CL, Jackson, CA. 2020. Prioritizing stakeholders, beneficiaries, and
environmental attributes: a tool for ecosystem-based management. In: O'Higgins, TG, Lago,
M, DeWitt, TH (eds.), Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic
biodiversity: theory, tools and applications. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp.
189-211. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0.
Sharpe, L.M.; Harwell, M.C.; Jackson, C.A. 2021. Integrated stakeholder prioritization criteria
for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 282:111719.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111719.
Sharpe, L.M., K. Barrett, T.H. DeWitt, C.L. Hernandez, C.L. Horstmann, C.A. Jackson, T.
Newcomer-Johnson, R. Rossi, and S. Yee. Applications of the Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services Community Scoping Tool for Environmental Decision Making. (In Review)
Chapter 2
Section: The FEGS Scoping Tool for Prioritizing Ecosystem Services Relevant to Restoration
Page 24
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services they
Care About: Coral Reefs
Christina L. Horstmann and Leah Sharpe
FEGS for Coral Reefs
Saving and restoring the world's coral reefs requires a multi-pronged approach that ranges
from a local to global effort. Despite notable restoration successes at local scales, there is
still a long way to go to make significant impacts at regional or global scales. Linking
ecosystem features to a broad range of human needs can help to communicate benefits of
ecosystem restoration and conservation in terms that resonate with and motivate the public.
To this end, we demonstrate a method to identify and measure environmental attributes of
coral reefs that directly benefit human well-being. This approach views ecosystems, such as
coral reefs, through the lens of a specific set of beneficiaries and the biophysical features
directly relevant to each. This combination of beneficiaries and relevant biophysical features
are called Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). The FEGS framework 1) identifies a
range of beneficiaries of coral reefs, 2) identifies the biophysical features necessary for
realizing those benefits, 3) identifies metrics of FEGS for those beneficiaries, and 4) describes
how to apply these metrics for helping to inform decision-making.
Coral Reef Beneficiaries
There is a diversity of ways in which people benefit from coral reefs. Among other benefits,
coral reefs provide recreation, resource extraction, inspiration, and educational
opportunities, as well as being valued just for their existence. As the condition of coral reef
ecosystems declines so will their ability to provide these benefits, unless interventions are
taken to manage or restore coral reefs. FEGS metrics specify the tangible biophysical features
or qualities that are needed to inform management, to communicate benefits, and potentially
motivate or build public support for restoration (see Chapter 3, "Identifying FEGS Metrics" for
more details on quantifying restoration benefits with FEGS metrics).
FEGS Metrics for Coral Reefs
With a growing awareness of the complexity and diversity of connections between natural and
human systems, greater emphasis is being placed on integrating a full set of benefits when
considering decisions that can impact ecosystem goods and services. To establish a
standardized and comprehensive list of beneficiaries and attributes, the National Ecosystem
Service Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus) was used (see this chapter, "Final Ecosystem
Goods and Services: A Beneficiary-Centric Approach to Identifying Benefits Restoration"). The
classification system contains a categorized and well-defined list of beneficiary roles and
biophysical attributes they care about, defined by classes and subclasses. To describe
beneficial uses with the necessary level of detail to be able to identify meaningful metrics,
some beneficiary subclasses were further specified in finer detail than NESCS Plus categories.
For example, the beneficiary subclass "Recreational Anglers" was split into "Catch and
Release" and "Catch and Keep" Anglers.
Once the full set of beneficiaries was defined, the specific biophysical features (attributes)
relevant for each beneficiary were identified, and metrics were developed for each combination
of beneficiary and biophysical attribute class (e.g., "Flora", "Fauna", "Water"). For example,
Chapter 2
Section: Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services they Care About: Coral Reefs
Page 25
-------
wcrM Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
the "Composite" attributes class in NESCS Plus includes biophysical features that comprise
multiple natural components, such as viewscapes, site appeal, or ecological condition. There
were 112 potentially relevant measurable metrics identified for twelve coral reef beneficiaries
and their associated FEGS attributes, a subset of which can be seen in the following table.
Example ecosystem services metrics most relevant to different beneficiaries in each NESCS Plus class (in italics).
Example Ecosystem Services Metrics
Extreme Events:
Mitigate Risk of Flooding
Composite: Viewscapes/Site Appeal
Composite: Ecological Condition
Health Grade
Water: Clarity/ Visibility
Water: Quality: Health Risk
Water: Movement, currents, waves
Fauna: Charismatic Fauna Abundance
Fauna: Culturally Important Abund.
Fauna: Edible Fauna Abundance
Fauna: Fish and Coral Diversity
Fauna: Rare Fauna Abundance
Flora: Algae % Cover
Flora: Nuisance Species Abundance
Soil & Substrate: Reef type & rugosity
Soil & Substrate:
% Cover of open substrate
Beneficiary Categories
Non-Use
Learning
Inspirational
Recreation: SCUBA Divers and Snorkelers
Recreation: Anglers- Catch and Keep
Recreation: Anglers- Catch and Release
Recreation: Boaters
Subsistence: Anglers
Government / Municipal/Residential:
Coastal Property Owners
Commercial: Pharmaceutical Extractors
Commercial: Ornamental Extractors
Agriculture: Aquaculture (coral nurseries)
The complete number of metrics binned into each FEGS attribute class for each beneficiary
class is shown in the following figure.
0 10 20 30 40
Number of Metrics
Number of metrics identified for each beneficiary category and attribute group.
Chapter 2
Section: Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services they Care About: Coral Reefs
Page 26
-------
svEPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
This set of 112 metrics, however, is not the complete story. First, the specifics of these
metrics are likely to shift from reef to reef (e.g., fauna related metrics will look at different
species in Caribbean and Australian reefs). Second, although this set of metrics covers all the
expected beneficiaries, it is entirely possible that a given reef could have a beneficiary not
covered here (e.g., commercial anglers). Finally, it is not reasonable to think all metrics
could be monitored for reefs. A structured approach to prioritizing and selecting metrics can
help ensure managers focus on the most relevant FEGS for their reef.
Example Metric Selection for a Coral Reef
Environmental managers struggle with how best to protect and manage natural habitats and
resources while balancing conflicting interests among a diverse group of human users and
large lists of important environmental features. It is not realistic to think that every
biophysical metric will be useful in every situation so managers must determine how to
choose which metrics to focus on. One way to do this would be by using the FEGS Scoping
Tool (FST, described in Chapter 2, "The FEGS Scoping Tool for Prioritizing Ecosystem Services
Relevant to Restoration").
To test the utility of the identified metrics for decision making and the FST for selecting
metrics, a retrospective analysis was conducted for an abandoned development project near
a coral reef that had been proposed but had not moved forward, allowing the example to be
realistic as possible without moving beyond the hypothetical. This use case demonstrated that
metrics developed can be easily prioritized using FST results and that the generic metrics
developed can indeed by relevant to specific local decisions.
Using the FST, the relative importance of FEGS is determined by first linking beneficiaries and
the attributes they care about to the stakeholders likely to be impacted. In the following
graph, the bars represent the relative importance of different ecosystem services attributes
to each stakeholder group identified for the development project in the use case.
Q.
D
O
O
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
In the following graph, stakeholder groups have been assigned one or more roles as
beneficiaries, with the corresponding ecosystem attributes relevant to each beneficiary. This
kind of prioritization using the FST allows a manager to focus on ecosystem services attributes
of highest relevance to beneficial uses of highest relevance to stakeholders, instead of being
overwhelmed with the entire set of 112 coral reef metrics. Metrics related to composite
attributes and extreme events dominate and may therefore be of high priority for assessment
and monitoring in the use case example. Additionally, the specific example indicates that
there is interest in having at least one metric related to atmosphere and other natural
components that are not part of living flora or fauna (e.g., shells) for this decision context,
which were not initially identified as attributes in need of a generic metric.
Non-Use
g, Learning
-------
wcrM Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Beneficiaries of Restoration and Conservation Best
Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Ryann Rossi and Susan Yee
Restoration Context
Chesapeake Bay has been the focus of restoration efforts since the 1980s. In response to
Chesapeake Bay's Total Maximum Daily Load, six states in the Bay's watershed and
Washington, D.C., created Watershed Implementation Plans that outlined Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to address sediment and nutrient impairments in the Bay. At the watershed
scale, however, many vital conservation and restoration habitat BMPs are lagging behind
annual goals, especially in upstream areas of the watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Program
has identified a need to incorporate ecosystem services into decision-making to enhance
stakeholder buy-in by clearly communicating the potential benefits of BMP implementation,
particularly in upstream and inland communities far removed from the Bay.
Framework for Scoping Relevant Ecosystem Services
The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) concept, and related tools, can help reduce
ambiguity and enhance relevance to stakeholders by applying a "beneficiary-focused"
approach that identifies ecological attributes of most direct relevance to the people who use
them. To identify ecosystem services associated with BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
and connect them with the priorities of the stakeholders they benefit, a four-step approach
was followed to: 1) define the bounds of the decision context including which actions to focus
on; 2) identify a comprehensive list of ecosystem services and beneficiaries relevant to that
decision context; 3) engage stakeholders to understand priorities and develop a tractable
subset of ecosystem services; and 4) identify potential metrics, indicators, and models for
those priority ecosystem services.
Steps followed to identify focal BMPs for Chesapeake Bay and connect them to ecosystem services.
Step 1: Clarify Decision Context
First, researchers reviewed existing management documents and worked with Chesapeake Bay
Program partners to generate a target list of BMPs for ecosystem services assessment based
on the following criteria: 1) related to Watershed Agreement goals that are lagging in
implementation; 2) related to habitat restoration and/or creation; and 3) likely relevant to
Page 29
Chapter 2
Section: Beneficiaries of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
upstream/headwater communities. Target BMPs included forest 6t grass buffers, tree
planting, forest conservation, cover crops, impervious surface reduction, and wetland
creation and restoration.
Step 2: Identify Potential Beneficiaries and FEGS
Second, a review of existing management documents was conducted in combination with the
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) and the National
Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus) to identify the ecosystems that the
scoped BMPs would target, the potential final ecosystem services those ecosystems supply,
and the potential beneficiaries who use or care about those ecosystem services (shaded cells
in the following table).
Ecosystem services attributes (columns) most relevant to different beneficiary categories (rows) for restoration
and conservation related BMPs in Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Ecosystem Services Attributes Relevant to Different Beneficiary Types
Beneficiary Category
Aquaculturists
Farmers
Foresters
Irrigators
Livestock Grazers
Fiber/Ornamental Extractors
Food Extractors
Industrial Dischargers
Pharmaceutical Suppliers
D"
tuo
i_
(D
c
(D
~o
c
CU
ro
(D
3
O"
c
(D
Q.
O
3
D"
>
CU
3
O"
o
00
Ctf)
o
I—
¦a
ro
3
O"
i_
(D
4->
cu
C
ro
3
O"
cu
Resource-dependent Business
Drinking Water Plants
Energy Generators
Low-income Residents
Military / Coast Guard
People Who Care
Public Property Owners
Residential Property Owners
Artists
Ceremonial Participants
Educators and Students
Researchers
Anglers
Boaters/Kayakers
Experiencers and Viewers
Food Pickers and Gatherers
Hunters & Trappers
Swimmers/Divers
Subsistence Users
Page 30
Chapter 2
Section: Beneficiaries of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Step 3: Prioritize Beneficiaries arid FEGS
Third, the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool was used to prioritize
ecosystem services by assigning importance weights to certain stakeholder groups (e.g., low-
income residents) and their corresponding roles as beneficiaries (e.g., recreational users,
learning), based on discussions with partners and review of management documents.
Beneficiaries were then assigned scores of equal weight for each FEGS attribute, identified in
Step 2, they were most likely to use or care about (e.g., water quality, protection from
extreme events). We then summed the relative importance of different FEGS across all
beneficiaries, such that FEGS of broad importance to multiple beneficiaries were given
highest weighted priority, to generate a list of the top ecosystem services for further analysis.
Relative Beneficiary Importance Relative Ecosystem Service Importance
Govt/Municipal/Resideritial
Commercial/Industrial
Recreational
Agricultural
Learning
Subsistence
Inspirational
People Who Care
£
i
o
\
Q_
0)
>
JO
Q)
cc.
Govt/Residential
I Commercial/Industrial
I Recreational
| Agricultural
| Learning
Subsistence
Inspirational
People Who Care
I
sz >.
0) CO
a) cr
Ys
n
¦&C
§ E
cr ®
CD g
2
en a)
CD
S s
C/l Q>
3 9-
,® E
B) W C 03 ro nj
= c O n c c
5 3 g ro ^ ro E
g o,°
o
w
_ ra c
Ecc-B ®
o ^
O ==
= £
<1) O
O V)
(TJ
CL C
w TO
Sa
Q. ra
OZ
ro
§ jj>
II
8 ®
g£
>>njro cu nj nj ru >>
co|o§o||
o .15 ni ¦—
o 2 E g<
c a> b
! I'£•"
o E j=
°(S°b
pi}®'
O LLJ "D
03 ULI
C
D
CO
OJ
Example output from FEGS Scoping Tool analysis to prioritize beneficiary groups (left) and the ecosystem services
attributes (right) those beneficiaries use or care about.
Step 4: Identify FEGS Metrics and Models
Fourth, the peer-reviewed literature and existing tools, such as
lnVEST(https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest), i-Tree (itreetools.org),
and the EcoService Models Library (https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoservice-models-
library), were searched to identify potential metrics for each of the priority FEGS. Metrics
were considered for their relevance to each beneficiary type, with alternate metrics
considered as needed for different beneficiaries, as well as data and model availability.
Proposed metrics for each of the selected priority FEGS.
Final Prioritized FEGS
Proposed metrics
Air quality
concentration of various air pollutants
Edible flora
habitat suitability for edible species
Habitat quality
habitat suitability for species of interest
Heat risk
daytime and nighttime temperature reduction
High quality soil
soil C content, N fixation, pH, salinity, type, percent sand, bulk
density, organic matter
Open space
open space access index; distance to open space
Page 31
Chapter 2
Section: Beneficiaries of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
-------
wcrM Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Pest predator/depredator
fauna
density of certain pest predators (e.g., ladybugs)
Pollinator fauna
area of wild pollinator habitat; ratio of pollinator habitat to
pollinator dependent crops
Risk of extreme event
proportion of land impacted by fire, drought
Risk of flooding
flood depth, duration, extent, and frequency; maximum retained
rainwater; soil precipitation retention; surface water runoff; wave
attenuation
Water clarity
mean sediment retention; turbidity
Water quality- nutrients
concentration of nitrates in groundwater
Water quality- pathogen
reduction
concentration of harmful bacteria (e.g., fecal coliform)
Water quantity
water availability
Data and models are being used to quantify and communicate how ecosystem services
benefits may increase as BMPs are implemented (described in Chapter 3, "Quantifying
Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed").
Linking Priority Ecosystem Services to BMP Implementation
The results demonstrate a method by which to connect large-scale regional restoration
efforts, and the managers overseeing such efforts, with the priorities of local communities
where programs will be implemented. This work is helping Chesapeake Bay restoration
partners identify and promote management actions that will provide the most value for
communities throughout the watershed, while also benefiting restoration of Chesapeake Bay.
For more details on potential benefits of BMP implementation, see Chapter 4, "Linking
Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices to Ecosystem Services in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed."
For More Information
Rossi, R., C. Bisland, L. Sharpe, E. Trentacoste, B. Williams, S. Yee. 2022. Identifying and
Aligning Ecosystem Services and Beneficiaries Associated with Best Management Practices in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Environmental Management 69:384-409.
https: //doi .org/10.1007/s00267-021 -01561 -z
Page 32
Chapter 2
Section: Beneficiaries of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Identifying Priority Ecosystem Services in Tidal Wetland
Restoration
Chloe A. Jackson, Connie L. Hernandez, Theodore H. DeWitt, Susan Yee, Mali ha Nash, Heida
Diefenderfer, and Amy Borde
Background
In many cases, restoration aims to ultimately improve benefits to people interacting with the
site (i.e., ecosystem services). Given that ecosystem services can inform decision making at
national to local scales, ecosystem services should be integral to the ongoing discussion in
ecosystem protection and restoration.
The first step of any effort to
examine how a site's condition
affects the production of
ecosystem services is to
identify those services that
could be (or are) produced at
the site. The second part of
that effort is to prioritize which
ecosystem services are of
greatest interest to people who
are managing or using, or who
could use, the site. This project
used a literature content-
analysis approach to identify
and prioritize those ecosystem
services that are described in a
range of tidal wetland
management documents.
Problem Statement
Typically, monitoring and assessment focus on the condition of ecological structures or
functions as opposed to site uses or benefits to people. Often, ecosystem services are not
explicitly measured in restoration monitoring programs, in part because of perceptions that
they require special expertise and multi-disciplinary assessment methods. Therefore, there is
a need to help fill this gap by providing approaches for the explicit incorporation of
ecosystem services into restoration monitoring and assessment.
Approach
We used an automated document analysis approach (based on Yee et al. 2016) to produce a
list of ecosystem services prioritized by their frequency of occurrence within the tidal
wetland restoration literature. A list of organizations performing tidal wetland restoration
was created through expert knowledge of team members and colleagues located in three
selected geographic regions (Pacific Northwest; Mid-Atlantic; and northern Gulf of Mexico).
Organizations were classified as either federal agencies, state and local agencies, land
stewards, or wetland conservation organizations.
Boating Angling
Examples of tidal wetland ecosystem services.
Chapter 2
Section: Identifying Priority Ecosystem Services in Tidal Wetland Restoration
Page 33
-------
wcrM Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Organization websites were searched to find relevant documents by first using a search for
terms such as ("tidal" or "coastal") and/or "wetland" and/or ("management" or "conservation"
or "restoration"), and second, reviewing the website content for programs or departments
related to environmental work. From there, one document from each organization was
selected based on first maximizing consistency where comparable types of plans were
available (e.g., comprehensive conservation and management plans) and second, selecting
the most recent publication date, producing a set of 149 total documents to be used in the
literature analysis.
The data collected from each document was the co-occurrence within a sentence (or set of
adjacent sentences) of the three components defining an ecosystem service: 1) tidal wetland
class/subclass, 2) beneficiary class/subclass, and 3) ecological end product (EEP)
class/subclass). These 'triplets' that were mentioned in the most documents were then
interpreted as being of greatest general interest within the population represented by the
documents analyzed and were identified as priority ecosystem services.
Examples of Benefits
The number of documents mentioning a particular beneficiary in combination with a
particular ecological end product for any class of tidal wetland is summarized below.
Number of documents mentioning an ecological end product class (rows) as relevant to the category of
beneficiary class (columns) associated with any class of tidal wetland.
Beneficiary Class
Agricultural
Commercial & Industrial
Commercial/Military
Transportation
Government, Municipal,
Residential
Humanity
Inspirational
Learning
Non-use Value
Recreational
Subsistence
Ecological End Product
Flora
70
67
41
87
16
38
89
100
82
14
Fungi
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Fauna
85
101
55
107
31
52
102
112
102
26
Soil
35
25
20
47
2
4
32
60
35
3
Water
83
82
76
115
28
38
101
110
97
15
Atmosphere/Weather
11
14
6
17
3
5
21
28
24
1
Natural Materials
31
47
17
37
3
7
37
54
29
7
Multiple Ecosystem
Components
104
115
82
130
49
75
124
131
122
34
Regulating Services
80
85
54
112
28
42
102
119
94
12
Risk of Extreme Events
41
47
32
83
24
18
65
95
60
5
Chapter 2
Section: Identifying Priority Ecosystem Services in Tidal Wetland Restoration
Page 34
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Conclusions
This analysis provided prioritized lists of ecosystem services, which are regionally and
organizationally relevant, and can be used to inform restoration goal setting and development
of monitoring metrics in terms of benefits that are relevant to the public or as designated
beneficial uses. The power of this approach is that ecosystem services were prioritized based
on the interests of organizations that are charged with stewarding and restoring wetlands and
their stakeholders. Results also illustrate how ecosystem services information can be
synthesized from existing documents where available.
Although tidal wetlands were used in this project as a "test" ecosystem, the methods
developed in this research will be transferable to other types of ecosystems and
environmental management problems where there is a need to link ecological condition to
the production of ecosystem services and the beneficiaries that care about them.
For More Information
DeWitt, Ted, J. Bousquin, H. Diefenderfer, C. Folger, M. Harwell, C. Hernandez, C. Jackson,
T. Newcomer-Johnson, L. Sharpe, and S. Yee. 2021. Atop-down approach for identifying
and prioritizing the final ecosystem goods and services produced by ecological restoration.
National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration, August 02 - 05, 2021.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=352672.
Jackson, C.A., C.L. Hernandez, S. Yee, M. Nash, H. Diefenderfer, A. Borde, T.H. DeWitt.
Identifying priority ecosystem services in tidal wetland restoration. (In Review).
Jackson, C.A., T.H. DeWitt, C.L. Hernandez, S.H. Yee, M.S. Nash, H.L. Diefenderfer, and A.B.
Borde. (2022). Identifying Priority Ecosystem Services in Tidal Wetland Restoration.
Presentation at the Tillamook Estuaries Partnership Coordination Meeting, Sept. 8, 2022.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=355662
Yee, S.H., A. Sullivan, K.C. Williams, and K. Winters. 2019. Who benefits from national
estuaries? Applying the FEGS classification system to identify ecosystem services and their
beneficiaries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16:2351.
https: //www. mdpi. com/1660-4601 /16/13/2351
Chapter 2
Section: Identifying Priority Ecosystem Services in Tidal Wetland Restoration
Page 35
-------
wcrM Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Document Analysis to Identify Priority Ecosystem Services for
Massachusetts Bays Estuary Communities
Susan Yee, Leah Sharpe, Giancarlo Cicchetti
Restoration Target Setting for Massachusetts Bays Estuaries
The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Partnership (MassBays NEP) planning area
encompasses 1100 miles of Massachusetts coastline and includes 43 separate estuarine
embayment assessment areas that intersect more than 55 coastal cities and towns. The
MassBays NEP has recently worked to update their comprehensive management plan to include
restoration targets for salt marsh, seagrass, and tidal flats, based in part on examining
historical trends in acres of lost habitat. A key question in target setting is asking not only
"What kind of ecological future do we want?" but "What kind of socio-economic future do we
want?". An understanding of potential natural resource benefits (or ecosystem services) of
ecosystem restoration can help in comparing restoration project options to optimize and
communicate potential benefits of restoration in ways that motivate local implementation.
Identifying and Prioritizing Final Ecosystem Services
Before potential ecosystem goods and services benefits of restoration are quantified,
however, an important first step is to identify how people in local communities are using
coastal ecosystems, and what ecosystem goods and services are priorities for consideration.
The Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Scoping Tool (FST) provides a step-by-step approach
for identifying and prioritizing ecosystem services. First, key stakeholders are identified along
with criteria to prioritize them. Second, a beneficiary profile for each stakeholder group is
developed based on how they use ecosystems. Third, the relevant ecosystem service
attributes are identified for each beneficiary type. Lastly, a final score for each ecosystem
service attribute is calculated based on their total importance across beneficiary roles,
weighted by the relative importance of different beneficiary roles to stakeholders.
r ^
Step 1
r ^
Step 2
Step 3
T~
Step 4
Stakeholder
Beneficiary
Ecosystem Services
Combined Ecosystem
Identification &
Profile for Each
Profile for Each
Services Prioritization
Prioritization
Stakeholder
Beneficiary
Across All Stakeholders
Overview of FECS Scoping Tool steps used to review documents.
As an alternative to using the FST in workshops, an analysis of existing community planning
documents was used to represent stakeholders (Step 1). The FST steps were then used to tally
the relative frequency of mentions of beneficiary types and ecosystem services attributes
across documents to develop profiles in Steps 2 and 3 that represent the relative importance
of beneficiaries across documents, and the relative importance of types of ecosystem services
to each beneficiary. The combined score for each ecosystem service, weighted by the relative
importance of different beneficiary types, is then used to generate a final ecosystem services
prioritization (Step 4) for each combination of embayment and habitat type. The National
Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus) was used to categorize both types
of beneficiaries and ecosystem services attributes in documents, based on a set of keywords
assigned to each category (Yee et al. 2016).
Page 36
Chapter 2
Section: Document Analysis to Identify Priority Ecosystem Services for Massachusetts Bays Estuary Communities
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Step 1: Community Planning Documents
For each embayment and each intersecting coastal city or town, an internet search was
conducted for planning documents, such as climate adaptation plans, open space and
recreation plans, environmental impact statements, stormwater plans, restoration plans,
revitalization plans, and vulnerability assessments. Following the FST framework, each
document was treated as a 'stakeholder' with all documents weighted of equal importance.
Step 2: Beneficiary Profiles
For each document, a keyword search of terms linked to NESCS Plus Beneficiary subclasses
was used to identify the mean relative frequency of different beneficiary types (i.e.,
different groups of natural resource users for each embayment and habitat type). People who
care, the public in general, and users for recreational or scenic enjoyment were the most
common user groups mentioned across all embayments and habitat types.
D
Q_
Relative frequency of beneficiary types mentioned in MassBays documents for each estuarine ecosystem type.
Step 3: Ecosystem Services Attributes Each Beneficiary Cares About
For each beneficiary type, documents were reviewed for the frequency of mentions of
ecosystem services attributes associated with that beneficiary, creating a profile of the
relative importance (shown in the following table) of different ecosystem services attributes
(rows) to each beneficiary (columns), which sum to 100% for any single beneficiary. Across all
habitats, site appeal or aesthetics, fauna biodiversity, and water quality were broadly
important across many different types of user groups. Other attributes were of particular
importance to certain user groups, such as edible fish and shellfish being of particular
importance to commercial and recreational fishermen, water navigability being of particular
importance to boaters, and water quantity being of particular importance to energy and
water utilities.
Page 37
Chapter 2
Section: Document Analysis to Identify Priority Ecosystem Services for Massachusetts Bays Estuary Communities
-------
Relative importances of different ecosystem services attributes (rows) to each beneficiary (columns), which sum to 100% for any single beneficiary.
Beneficiary Category
Ecosystem Service Attribute Category
Aquaculturists
Artists & Inspirational
Commercial & Industrial
Commercial Harvesters & Fisheries
Farmers & Other Agriculture
Food Pickers & Shellfishers
Future Generations (Bequest)
Government & The Public
Learners & Education
Military & Coast Guard
People Who Care (Existence)
Public & Residential Property Owners
Recreation & Scenic Enjoyment
Recreational Boaters
Recreational Fishermen
Recreational Hunters
Recreational Swimmers & Waders
Researchers
Subsistence Users
Transportation & Shipping
Water & Energy Utilities
Charismatic Birds & Other Fauna
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Charismatic Fish & Shellfish
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Charismatic Flora
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Climate Regulation
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
Commercial Fish & Shellfish
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
Ecosystem Condition & Function
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Edible Fish & Shellfish
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Fauna Biodiversity
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fauna for Commercial & Other Use
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Flora Biodiversity
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
Flora for Commercial & Other Uses
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Fungal Biodiversity & Other Uses
0.0
0.0
0.0
<0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
<0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mitigating Flooding & Extreme Events
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Natural Materials (Sand, Shells, Fiber)
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Open Land for Development
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
Pests & Invasives
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
Site Appeal & Aesthetic Views
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
Soil & Substrate
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Water Movement & Navigability
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
Water Quality
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
Water Quantity
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Wind, Weather & Air Quality
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Chapter 2
Section: Document Analysis to Identify Priority Ecosystem Services for Massachusetts Bays Estuary Communities
Page 38
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Step 4: Priority Ecosystem Services
The total importance score of each ecosystem services attribute j was then calculated as the
sum of relative ecosystem service importance scores (Step 3) weighted by the relative
importance of each beneficiary type / (Step 2), such that ecosystem services attributes of
importance to multiple beneficiaries or of importance to a frequently mentioned beneficiary
would receive higher scores.
Total Importance Score of Ecosytem Services Attribute j
= y Beneficiary i Relative Importance x ESj Relative Importance to Beneficiary i
This generated a list of the top scoring ecosystem services attributes, calculated as the mean
importance score across all documents for each embayment and habitat type. For all habitat
types, site appeal or aesthetics and fauna biodiversity were among the highest prioritized
ecosystem services. Edible fish and shellfish were of particular importance for seagrass and
tidal flats. Flora biodiversity was of particular importance for salt marsh and seagrass.
01
i—
o
u
~o
o
CD
-
>
>-
>-
C
¦M
¦4—1
o
C
§
¦—
15
ro
.5P
>
£
"D
c
OS
8
ts
c
D
LL
a;
g
OS
f0
c
o
Q
c
O
g
i£
i—
O
<3J
u_
"O
H-
E
c
O
~o
C
u
.3
o
E
-
o
un
03
O
g
(J
LU
ro
C
c
D
to
to
QJ
ro
c
D
O
w
Z)
ro
Li_
a>
"a3
LL.
5
ro
U_
_ro
<_
a>
JZ
_sz
¦k
cf
,
D
a3
on
01
s_
_Q
E
o
ro
E
OS
a;
~d
KJ
E
o
c
i—
ro
u
U
ro
2
g
O
H-
ro
_c
ro
!_
D
+-1
ro
2
c
U
D
ro
LL
-
~o
o
TO
Relative importance of ecosystem services attributes, weighted by the relative frequency of beneficiaries that
use or care about them, for each estuarine habitat.
Using Priority Ecosystem Services in Restoration Planning
Priority ecosystem services identified from community planning documents were presented to
the MassBays NEP to provide a starting point for discussion of essential ecosystem services to
consider when setting restoration targets and identifying metrics for monitoring. Because the
document analysis is linked to individual embayment communities, unique differences among
communities can be extracted to help support implementation of local restoration projects or
communicate potential benefits of restoration in ways that resonate with local communities.
Page 39
Chapter 2
Section: Document Analysis to Identify Priority Ecosystem Services for Massachusetts Bays Estuary Communities
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
For more details on how ecosystem services are being used to help support restoration target
setting, see Chapter 5, "Setting Restoration Targets for Massachusetts Bays Estuaries".
For More Information
Yee, S.H., A. Sullivan, K. Williams, K. Winters. 2016. Who benefits from national estuaries?
Applying the FEGS Classification system to identify ecosystem services and their
beneficiaries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16:2351.
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2351.
Yee, S., K. Williams, G. Cicchetti, Ted DeWitt, R. Fulford, M. Harwell, L. Sharpe, B. Branoff,
and R. Rossi. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services for Use by National Estuary Program
Stakeholders to Inform Management and Restoration Planning Decisions. NCER2021: National
Conference on Ecosystem Restoration, Virtual, July 26 - August 05, 2021.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=353151.
Yee., S., B. Branoff, G. Cicchetti, S.K. Jackson, M. Pryor, L. Sharpe, E. Shumchenia. 2022.
The Ecosystem Services Gradient: An Integrated Approach for Identifying Benefits of
Restoration. A Community on Ecosystem Services (ACES) Conference, Washington, D.C.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=356730
Yee, S.H., L.M. Sharpe, B.L. Branoff, C.A. Jackson, G. Cicchetti, S. Jackson, M. Pryor, E.
Shumchenia. 2023. Ecosystem Services Profiles for Communities Benefitting from Estuarine
Habitats along the Massachusetts Coast, USA. Ecological Informatics.
Page 40
Chapter 2
Section: Document Analysis to Identify Priority Ecosystem Services for Massachusetts Bays Estuary Communities
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services They
Care About: Remediated Site Revegetation
Leah Sharpe
Restoration of Contaminated and Remediated Sites
Contaminated sites, both brownfields and Superfund, are typically considered from a stance
of harm prevention. The first management priority is to ensure that contamination does not
result in harm to human health or the environment. With harm prevention as the driving force
within regulatory boundaries for contaminated site cleanups, it is understandable that
consideration of ecosystem services can be left aside. Considering ecosystem services,
however, can allow for ecological revitalization of contaminated sites to provide added value
and benefit to the community in which they are situated, but must be done within the
context of regulatory and managerial hurdles associated with contaminated sites.
Ecosystem Services for Contaminated and Remediated Sites
Typically, when considering ecosystem services for a site, managers begin by asking who is
using the site. When managing a contaminated or remediated site, the starting point is moved
back a few steps. In these cases, managers should begin by asking what uses of the site are
permitted, what access to the site is possible, and what restrictions for actions on the site
exist. Before considering who benefits, as managers do at other sites, managers must consider
what benefits are possible without compromising human health or the environment. For
example, if a remedy for a site requires limiting access to authorized personnel, beneficial
uses that require being on site are not options, regardless of interest from stakeholders.
Identifying beneficial uses for contaminated sites requires a specialized approach.
Identifying Beneficial Uses for Contaminated and Remediated Sites
Consideration of ecosystem services at contaminated sites must begin with a thorough
understanding of the limitations associated with the site and its remedy. This includes:
• Legal and regulatory limitations associated with the various statutes and other legal
instruments covering the site;
• Biophysical limitations associated with either the contaminant or the remedy (i.e., deep
rooted vegetation cannot be placed on a landfill cap; groundwater cannot be used as
drinking water if it contains contaminants); and
• Owner limitations associated with their plans for the site (i.e., the responsible party for
the site may not be willing or able to remediate the site to a point that would allow for
certain uses or take on liability associated with allowing those uses).
There are other types of limitations that may impact site use or production of ecosystem
services. It is important to clearly delineate what is possible before embarking on what
benefits are of interest to the community. This creates a foundation for asking the question
of who benefits and how. Although this restricts the range of potential beneficial uses, it also
makes sure the uses being considered are realistic.
Page 41
Chapter 2
Section: Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services They Care About: Remediated Site Revegetation
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
Beneficial Uses at the East Mount Zion Superfund Site
Typically, when considering benefits from the environment, benefits that require interactions
or extractions from the environment come to mind (e.g., hiking across a field or picking
berries from a bush in the field). The East Mount Zion site was unusual in that the remedy for
the site prevented access by anyone other than authorized personnel. This meant that the
beneficial uses up for consideration focused on benefits that could be experienced without
access to the site.
Farmers
Residential Property Owners
Water Subsisters
Experiencers / Viewers
Food Pickers / Gatherers -
Students and Educators
Researchers
People Who Care
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
| EPA Region3
| PA Department of Environmental Conserval
York County Conservation District
|EPAORD
York County Farms and Natural Land Trust
| York County Parks
County Master Gardeners Program
USFWS
| Local Farmers and Gardeners
| Bird and Butterfly Watchers
Nature Enthusiasts/Hikers
| Adjacent Park Users
Community Members/Land Owners
| Educators and Students
Downgradient Well Users and Property Owr
I Commonwealth of PA
Prioritization of beneficiary rotes based on relevance to different stakeholder groups.
While respecting the limitations on the site, particularly those related to access and potential
changes to the site, a wide array of beneficial uses associated with the site for a wide range
of stakeholders were identified. The previous chart shows the relative priority of some of the
top beneficiary roles to different stakeholder groups. The following chart shows the specific
environmental attributes of concern prioritized by their relevance to beneficiaries (here
aggregated to classes; e.g., 'experiencers', 'food pickers' combined to 'recreational').
| Agricultural
|Commercial / Industrial
| Governmental / Municipal / Residential
(Transportation
Subsistence
| Recreational
| inspirational
Learning
I Non-Use
Air Quality
Soil Quality
Water Quality
Water Quantity
Fauna Community
Pollinating Fauna
Pest Predator / Depredator Fauna
Flora Community
Edible Flora
Keystone Flora
Charismatic Flora
Commercially Important Flora
Viewscapes
Ecological Condition
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Prioritization of ecosystem services attributes based on relevance to different beneficiaries.
These charts were produced through use of the FEGS Scoping Tool, and the inputs used in the
analysis arose from engagement with the project team and site stakeholder groups. Together,
the identified beneficial uses and the attributes of concern allowed the project team to
identify modeling endpoints of interest to the community when conducting scenario analyses
and potential options for the site most in line with community interests (for details see
Chapter 5, "Revitalizing a Remediated Landfill in East Mount Zion").
Page 42
Chapter 2
Section: Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services They Care About: Remediated Site Revegetation
-------
&EPA Identifying Who Benefits from Restoration and How
For More Information
East Mount Zion, Springettsbury Township, PA, Cleanup Activities:
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=
0301426
Sharpe, L.M. and Newcomer-Johnson, T. Cleaning Up: Involving Community and Ecology in
Remediation Projects. East Mount Zion Landfill Site Community Workshop, Virtual,
November 18, 2020.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=350287
Sharpe, L., K. Barrett, M. Cron, J. Essoka, J. Harvey, G. Ferreira, A. Mandell, C. Maurice, T.
Newcomer-Johnson, K. Patnode, and B. Pluta. 2022. East Mount Zion Superfund Site:
Revitalization to Benefit the Community. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600-R-21/317.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=546308
Page 43
Chapter 2
Section: Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services They Care About: Remediated Site Revegetation
-------
Chapter 3
Quantifying Benefits of Restored
Ecological Condition
Page 44
-------
wtrM Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Categorizing Indicators
Across Ecosystem Types
Lisa M. Smith, Erin M. Reschke, Justin J. Bousquin
Background
The ecological suitability approach
(described in Chapter 1, "Characterizing
Ecological Suitability: Informing Socio-
Ecological Measures of Restoration
Effectiveness") encompasses four
ecosystem and three social categories.
In combination, these categorical
measurements give an indication of the
status of areas targeted for restoration
efforts or those at some point along a
restoration continuum (i.e., an
indication of restoration effectiveness).
While the conceptual application of the approach (Smith et. al 2022) is focused on estuarine
habitat restoration, the indicators used to inform the ecological suitability approach were
gleaned from a structured literature review based on existing restoration frameworks,
concepts, and indicators spanning multiple ecosystem types.
Addressing Ecological and Social Outcomes
Environmental managers and community stakeholders need approaches and metrics to
measure the effectiveness of ecological restoration for both ecological and social outcomes.
The ecological suitability approach incorporates ecological attributes that support structural
diversity and ecosystem functionality along with stakeholder values and perceptions, as well
as the benefits derived from ecosystem goods and services.
Identifying and
Categorizing Indicators
A structured literature review
of existing restoration
frameworks and indicators
was used to identify potential
metrics to characterize
ecological suitability in terms
of benefits to the ecosystem
(habitat suitability and
increased ecological
structure/function) and
people (ecosystem goods and
services, values, and
benefits).
Page 45
Chapter 3
Section: Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Categorizing Indicators Across Ecosystem Types
-a
c
O 75
0)
_Q
§*>
z
I General/Multiple Ecoystem Types
I Forest
I Wetland
I River/Lake/Stream
I Estuary/Coast/Great Lake
S 9 S
Stressors Biophysical Structural Ecosystem Ecosystem Benefits Stakeholder
Diversity Functionality an<* Values and
Services _
Perceptions
Distribution of indicators across five ecosystem groups.
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Five hundred sixty-eight indicators were identified from 26 publications. These indicators
characterized five ecosystem types (General, Forest, Wetland, River/Lake/Stream,
Estuary/Coast/Great Lake) and were grouped into 32 sub-categories based on commonalities
across indicator descriptions and intended uses cited in the publication. Indicator sub-
categories are not mutually exclusive, as noted in the descriptions in the following table. For
example, water quality can be categorized as a stressor or a biophysical measure.
Descriptions of all 32 sub-categories and the number of indicators assigned to each.
Indicator Sub-category
(# of Indicators Identified)
Description
Contaminant/Pollution (n=22)
Any substances in water, soil, or air that degrade the natural quality of the
environment or cause a health hazard
Human Use (n=25)
Activities that have direct or indirect impacts on ecosystems
Hydrological Alterations/Habitat
Alterations and Loss/Sediment Loss (n=24)
Human alterations of habitat, hydrological alterations, changes to naturally
occurring environmental factors, and sediment loss
Natural Disturbances (n=3)
Pattern, frequency, timing, or occurrence of naturally occurring disturbance events
Nutrient/Sediment/Organic Loading (n=12)
Quantity of nutrients, sediments, or organic content entering a system that can
affect the natural processes
Water Quality (n=75)
Abiotic conditions (biophysical) and changes in water quality outside the normal
threshold values (stressor)
Organism Condition/Health/Behavior (n=4)
Condition, health, or behavior at the individual level that may impact the overall
community
Invasive/Non-native Species Interactions
(n=3)
Invasion by non-native species offsetting natural native species habitat and
behaviors
Habitat Condition/Suitability (n=21)
Condition of the habitat based on physiochemical conditions and species' tolerances
Sediment Quality/Soil Quality/Bottom
Type (n=26)
Status of the soil/sediment and substrate properties
Topography (n=14)
Physical features of a surface area including relative elevations and the position of
natural and man-made features
Vegetation/SAV Characteristics and
Condition (n= 11)
Measures of vegetation health and restoration status (biophysical), and diversity
and areal extent (structural diversity)
Biodiversity (n=19)
Diversity within species, between species and within ecosystems
Community Composition/Structure (n=46)
Number of species in a community, their relative abundance, population structure,
age distribution £t life history distribution
Habitat Diversity/Complexity/Patch
Size/Connectivity (n=35)
The availability of habitats, their connections, £t the complexity of habitat
interactions
Species Abundance/Richness (n=18)
Number of individuals within a species and the number species in an area
Processes/Cycles/Exchanges (n=19)
Biogeochemical processes, cycling, and external exchanges
Food web/Trophic Structure/Trophic
Dynamics (n=38)
Predator-prey relationships and interactions among individuals and populations
Growth and
Survival/Reproduction/Fecundity (n=23)
The ability for individuals to survive, grow, and reproduce
Productivity/Biomass (n=8)
Rate of generation of biomass and the total mass of organisms
Resilience (n=7)
The ability of ecological and social systems to recover from disturbance (functional,
structural, values and perceptions)
Aesthetics (n=2)
Environmental characteristics that are appreciated due to their beauty, balance,
form, etc.
Cultural/Spiritual/Heritage (n=9)
Values or final ecosystem goods and services based on cultural or spiritual
practices, histories or heritage of an area
Educational/Scientific Opportunities (n=4)
Opportunities to further knowledge of the ecosystem
General Ecosystem Goods £t Services (n=2)
Goods and services lacking a specific endpoint to be measured
Harvestable Biomass/Food
Products/Fuel/Raw Materials (n=15)
Volume of raw materials/goods, food products, and fuel available for consumption
or use
Recreation/Tourism/Ecotourism (n=12)
Number and variety of tools and activities available to the public for recreation and
tourism
Ecological Values/Biodiversity/Desired
Species (n=13)
Importance of ecosystem-based values to user groups, e.g. biodiversity, desired
species for viewing or consumption
Existence and Bequest (n=3)
Value placed on knowing that something exists and the value of passing on the
resource to future generations
Monetary Valuation (n=14)
Estimation of ecosystem services value in monetary units
Non-monetary Valuation (n=6)
Quantitative and qualitative measures of ecosystem services or benefits that are
difficult to monetize.
Social/Economic Preferences (n=10)
General partiality toward monetary benefits and contributions to overall well-being
Page 46
Chapter 3
Section: Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Categorizing Indicators Across Ecosystem Types
-------
wtrM Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
The indicator sub-categories were further binned into seven ecological suitability framework
categories, with examples in the following table.
Example indicators from different ecosystem groupings (Forest (F), Wetland (W), River/Lake/Stream (R/L/S),
Estuary/Coast/Great Lake (E/C/G)) categorized into subcategories.
Framework
Category
Indicator Sub-Category
Example Indicator Description
(Ecosystem Type)
Reference
Contaminant/Pollution
heavy metals (R/L/S)
Pander and Geist 2013
Human Use
land degradation (F)
Pandit et al. 2020
to
O
Hydrological Alterations/Habitat Alterations
and Loss/Sediment Loss
erosion rates (W)
Thorn et al. 2004
to
Habitat Diversity/Complexity/Patch
size/Connectivity
habitat homogenization (R/L/S)
Violin 2011
E
Resilience
structural resilience (E/C/G)
Mayer et al. 2013
Species Abundance/Richness
macrophyte abundance (R/L/S)
Poikane et al. 2014
Vegetation/SAV Characteristics and Condition
vegetation structure(F)
Pandit et al. 2020
Ecosystem Services Provisioning
water yield (F)
Pandit et al. 2020
E £
o
oo Q-
Harvestable Biomass/Food Products/Fuel/Raw
Materials
land productivity (F)
Budiharta et al. 2016
Resilience
risk (W)
Tazik 2012
Social/Economic Preferences
community stability (E/C/G)
Mayer et al. 2013
Informing Restoration Prioritization and Effectiveness Approaches
Information from the structured literature review can serve as a valuable resource of
information for selecting indicators to measure restoration effectiveness across various
ecosystem types. The indicator sub-categories help guide discussions for selecting appropriate
indicators to characterize ecological suitability (described in Chapter 1, "Characterizing
Ecological Suitability: Informing Socio-Ecological Measures of Restoration Effectiveness") and
to address the ecological and social attributes most important in consideration of restoration
prioritization and effectiveness.
Page 47
Chapter 3
Section: Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Categorizing Indicators Across Ecosystem Types
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
For More Information
McCarthy, E., L. Smith, J. Bousquin, L. Harwell, J. Harvey, AND Kevin Summers. Utilizing
Existing Monitoring Data to Characterize Estuarine Habitat: A Conceptual Approach to
Inform Restoration Prioritization and Effectiveness Assessments. 2021 NALMS National
Monitoring Conference, Virtual, April 19 - 23, 2021.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=353150
Smith, L.M., Reschke, E.M., Bousquin, J.J., Harvey, J.E., Summers, J.K. 2022. A conceptual
approach to characterizing ecological suitability: Informing socio-ecological measures for
restoration effectiveness. Ecological Indicators 143: 109385.
https: //doi .org/10.1016/j .ecolind .2022.109385
References
Allan, D., Burton, G.A., Boyer, G., Haffner, G.D., Hook, T., Johnson, L., Karatayev, A.,
Burlakova, L., Val Klump, J., Lodge ,D., Miller, C.J., Pitts, D., Read, J., Scavia, D.,
Shuchman, R., Steinman, A., Stevenson, R.J., Stepien, C., Taylor, W., Twiss, M., Uzarski,
D., 2012. Science Strategy for Improving the Great Lakes Restoration.
http://graham.umich.edu/media/files/GLScienceStrategy_Final.pdf.
Adams, J.B., Whitfield, A.K., Van Niekerk, L., 2020. A socio-ecological systems approach
towards future research for the restoration, conservation and management of southern
African estuaries. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 45, 231-241.
Budiharta, S., Meijaard, E., Wells, J.A., Abram, N.K., Wilson, K.A., 2016. Enhancing
feasibility: Incorporating a socio-ecological systems framework into restoration planning.
Environ. Sci. Pol. 64, 83-92.
Crossman, N.D., Rustomji, P., Brown, A., Pollino, C., Colloff, M., Lester, R., Arthur, A.,
Doody, T., Jolly, I., Bark, R., Kandulu, J., 2011. Status of the aquatic ecosystems of the
Murray-Darling Basin and a framework for assessing the ecosystem services they provide. An
interim report to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority from the CSIRO Multiple Benefits of the
Basin Plan Project.
Harwell, M.A., Gentile, J.H., McKinney, L.D., Tunnell Jr., J.W., Dennison, W.C., Kelsey, R.H.,
Stanzel, K.M., Stunz, G.W., Withers, K., Tunnell, J., 2019. Conceptual framework for
assessing ecosystem health. Integr. Environ. Asses. 15, 544-564.
Hein, M.Y., Willis, B.L., Beeden, R., Birtles, A., 2017. The need for broader ecological and
socioeconomic tools to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration programs. Restor.
Ecol. 25, 873-883.
James, W.R., Lesser, J.S., Litvin, S.Y., Nelson, J.A., 2020. Assessment of food web recovery
following restoration using resource niche metrics. Sci. Total Environ. 711, 134801.
Johnson, G., Thom, R., Whiting, A., 2003. An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Habitat
Restoration Projects with Emphasis on Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary, 2003
Technical Report (No. DOE/BP-00000652-14). Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
Portland, OR, United States.
Krueger, K.L., Bottom, D.L., Hood, W.G., Johnson, G.E., Jones, K.K., Thom, R.M., 2017. An
expert panel process to evaluate habitat restoration actions in the Columbia River estuary.
J. Environ. Manage. 188, 337-350.
Page 48
Chapter 3
Section: Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Categorizing Indicators Across Ecosystem Types
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Mayer, L.A., Boufadel, M.C., Brenner, J., Carne, R.S., Cooper, C.K., Deming, J.W., 2013. An
Ecosystem Services Approach to Assessing the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in
the Gulf of Mexico. Report Brief. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Nelitz, M., Wieckowski, K., Porter, M., 2007. Refining habitat indicators for Strategy 2 of the
Wild Salmon Policy: Identifying metrics and benchmarks.
https://data.skeenasalmon.info/dataset/9c955b58-585f-42c3-aa79-
7a4cf3adf48c/resource/486e4631 -9302-46f3-a1 bc-46149895ddd3/download/ nelitz-m.-
refi ni ng -habi tat-i ndi cators. pdf. pdf.
Pander, J., Geist, J., 2013. Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecol. Indie.
30, 106-118.
Pandit, R., Parrotta, J.A., Chaudhary, A.K., Karlen, D.L., Vieira, D.L.M., Anker, Y., Chen, R.,
Morris, J., Harris, J., Ntshotsho, P., 2020. A framework to evaluate land degradation and
restoration responses for improved planning and decision-making. Ecosyst. People 16, 1-18.
Pinto, R., Patricio, J., Neto, J.M., Salas, F., Marques, J.C., 2010. Assessing estuarine quality
under the ecosystem services scope: ecological and socioeconomic aspects. Ecol. Complex.
7, 389-402.
Rheinhardt, R.D., Bn'nson, M.M., 2007. Framework for developing a reference-based
assessment approach for evaluating the ecological condition of coastal watersheds. East
Carolina University. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-
Rheinhardt/publication/267568245_Framework_for_Developing_a_Reference-
based_Assessment_Approach_for_Evaluating_the_Ecological_Condition_of_Coastal_Watersh
eds/links/54528f4f0cf2cf51647a4649/Framework-for-Developing-a-Reference-based-
Assessment-Approach-for-Evaluating-the-Ecological-Condition-of-Coastal-Watersheds.pdf.
Tazik, D.J., 2012. Evaluating protocols to quantify the significance of aquatic ecosystems at
regional and national scales: proceedings of a workshop. Cambridge, AAA.
Thom, R.M., Diefenderfer, H.L., Hofseth, K.D., 2004. A framework for risk analysis in
ecological restoration projects. US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources.
Violin, C.R., 2011. Macroinvertebrate responses to watershed land use and local-scale stream
restoration. PhD Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Page 49
Chapter 3
Section: Characterizing Ecological Suitability: Categorizing Indicators Across Ecosystem Types
-------
wtrM Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Characterizing Ecological Condition and Benefits Across Space
Justin J. Bousquin
Background
Interactions between features of social-ecological systems are highly influenced by where they
occur, making landscape context and spatial relations an important restoration consideration.
For example, for a
restoration site (Site A, in
the figure) to provide
nutrient removal services it
must be downstream of the
nutrient source (agricultural)
and upstream of an
ecological feature (shellfish
grounds) that would benefit
from a nutrient reduction.
Similarly, a beneficiary in a
residential area must be in
proximity of an ecological
site, such as a wetland, to
experience scenic view
benefits.
Ecological and Social Data in Different Spatial Frameworks
One common problem encountered when trying to integrate spatial data from different
domains is that the spatial framework of units used to locate and aggregate the data differ.
For example, within ecological data it is common for stressors and condition to be
characterized by areas that are hydrologically connected, i.e., within watersheds. Using
watersheds as the spatial units gets complicated when working in coastal areas, as watershed
units may not extend into estuaries, even though similar ecological data exists there.
Likewise for social data, population and demographics is commonly characterized by
jurisdictional boundaries, such as townships, counties, or other census boundaries. These
differences in spatial units can make it difficult to relate data from different types of
ecological systems and across domains.
Standardized Units and Discrete Global Grid Systems
One solution for integrating data from units of different spatial frameworks is to disaggregate
back to the smallest standard unit. For example, the National Hydrography Data set (NHDPlus)
medium resolution framework divides the landscape into hydrological catchments, but those
catchments are delineated based on Digital Elevations Maps that share a uniform 30m
resolution grid. StreamCat successfully aggregates many datasets, such as land use from the
National Land Cover Database (NLCD), to catchments based on use of the same consistent
30m resolution grid (Hill et al. 2016). When a common standard unit can't be achieved,
statistical methods may need to be used to estimate disaggregated values, or downscale, at
smaller standard units (Yee et al. 2020). For example, Mennis and Hultgren (2006) used
Page 50
Chapter 3
Section: Characterizing Ecological Condition and Benefits Across Space
VJIDUFE
CCRFJECR
////
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
dasymetric mapping to disaggregate census blocks to a 30m resolution grid that Bousquin and
Hychka (2019) then aggregated to NHDPlus medium resolution catchments.
Hexagons are a popular alternative for square units like those
used in the 30m resolution grids described. Hexagons offer
several statistical benefits when representing point data
spatially, due to their high perimeter to area ratio, and when
defining relationships between units, due to their equidistant
neighboring (Birch et al. 2007). Although hexagons are not fully
congruent, meaning smaller units cannot be used to fill a larger
unit like squares, there are approximations that are close,
allowing data to be represented at different scales. Hexagon scaling using 1:7 ratio.
Hexagons have been used to characterize ecological condition and benefits in the past (e.g.,
Myers et al. 2022), but hexagons typically do not align with one another across disparate
studies, meaning there is a lack of consistently defined hexagon units. Both squares and
hexagons have been used in Discrete Global Grid Systems (DGGS), hierarchical data structures
for representing the surface of the earth with a consistent grid of regular shaped equal area
units. This project explored two open-source implementations of hexagon-based DGGS, H3
(Uber 2020) and DDGRID (Sahr 2019).
We compared the appropriateness of these two implementations for coastal data aggregation
based on two main considerations. The first consideration was the ability of the DGGS
implementation to provide hexagon units at scales that approximate existing units at
different decision scales.
Illustrated in the
figure, these
included NHDPlus
medium resolution
catchments
representative of
local decisions (C),
EPA's ATTAINS units
representative of
sub-estuary
decisions (B), and
WBD HUC-08
representative of
estuary scale
decisions (A). The
second
consideration was
the built-in
functionality of the
implementation.
(A) Estuary
Scale 4 Hexagons
HUC-08
(C) Local
Catchment
Scale 8 fl t
Hexagons
Ocean Catchment
NED Elevation (cm)
166
(D) Elevation Data
Catchment
Scale 12 Hexagons
H3 hexagons at different decision scales (A) Estuary (B) Sub-estuary (C) Local, and (D)
Raw Elevation data.
(B) Sub-Estuary
I 1 Scale 7
I I Hexagons
Units
Chapter 3
Section: Characterizing Ecological Condition and Benefits Across Space
Page 51
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
This included being able to aggregate attributes from diverse datatypes (raster, point, line,
and polygon), being able to network relationships between units and/or to/from other
hydrologic units, and being able to move data between scales without re-sampling. There may
be other important tradeoffs to consider depending on the specific context of the decision.
Performance of Discrete Global Grid Systems
Both implementations were able to approximate the decision scales with hexagons of
appropriate sizes. DGGRID has more flexibility in the specific ratio of smaller hexagons to
larger hexagons it can use and other attributes like the projection and orientation, whereas
H3 is much more rigid in this regard. Both implementations were able to aggregate data from
diverse datatypes. While it is possible to network relationships between units or to other
frameworks using either implementation, H3 has this functionality built-in whereas
cumbersome relational tables would have to be created for DGGRID. Similarly, H3 has built-in
scaling functionality that DGGRID does not.
Based on this analysis, if matching a specific size is the most important feature of an
implementation, DGGRID may be a better fit, whereas H3 is a better fit where full
functionality is most important. As these DGGS implementations and others gain more
popularity their utility for these types of analysis will become more accessible and
mainstream.
For More Information
Bousquin, J.J., 2021. Discrete Global Grid Systems as scalable geospatial frameworks for
characterizing coastal environments. Environmental Modelling 6t Software, 146, 105210.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105210
References
Birch, C.P.D., Oom, S.P., Beecham, J.A., 2007. Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for
observation, experiment, and simulation in ecology. Ecol. Model., 206 (3-4), 347-359.
10.1016/j .ecolmodel.2007.03.041.
Bousquin, J. and Hychka, K., 2019. A geospatial assessment of flood vulnerability reduction by
freshwater wetlands-a benefit indicators approach. Frontiers in environmental science, 7,
54. 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00054.
Hill, R.A., Weber, M.H., Leibowitz, S.G., Olsen, A.R. and Thornbrugh, D.J., 2016. The Stream-
Catchment (StreamCat) Dataset: A database of watershed metrics for the conterminous
United States. JAWRA, 52(1), 120-128.
Mennis, J. and Hultgren, T., 2006. Intelligent dasymetric mapping and its application to areal
interpolation. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 33(3), 179-194.
10.1559/152304006779077309.
Wainger, L.A., King, D., Salzman, J. and Boyd, J., 2001. Wetland value indicators for scoring
mitigation trades. Stan. Envtl. LJ, 20, 413.
Yee, S.H., Paulukonis, E. and Buck, K.D., 2020. Downscaling a human well-being index for
environmental management and environmental justice applications in Puerto Rico. Applied
Geography, 123, 102231.
Chapter 3
Section: Characterizing Ecological Condition and Benefits Across Space
Page 52
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Evaluating Genomic Approaches as Markers of Ecological
Condition to Characterize Restoration Effectiveness
Bryan Clark and Diane Nacci
The objective of this project is to identify patterns of
pollution-specific changes in population genetic and
community diversity in field sampling along spatial and
temporal contamination gradients at remediation and
restoration sites of interest.
Genomic Tools
The non-migratory estuarine minnow (mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus) is abundant in
estuaries of the North American Atlantic coast, including in Superfund and other highly
contaminated marine sites. In several highly contaminated estuaries, mummichog populations
have rapidly and independently evolved tolerance to some of the most common legacy
pollutants. Genetic changes found to be associated with tolerance have potential for use in
mapping pollution (Nacci et al. 2010; Reid etal. 2016).
Environmental DNA (eDNA) is an emerging tool for assessing biodiversity with great promise.
Thought they are not yet widely used in marine systems, eDNA methods are cost- and time-
effective, sensitive and accurate, and non-invasive due to the use of water/sediment
collection (in comparison to common practices like morphological surveying).
Approach
The project approach includes
three main components:
1. Sampling mummichog
populations for a suite of
genomic markers (both
neutral markers and those
associated with pollution
tolerance),
Collecting mummichogs at an
estuarine site undergoing
remediation and restoration.
Pilot
collection
sites along a
contamination
gradient
centered on
New Bedford
Harbor, MA,
USA (NBH)
Superfund
site (red
marker) that
has undergone
some
remediation.
Can Genomic Tools be Incorporated as Measures of Restoration Success?
Genetic and biological diversity are important contributors
to ecosystem function but are often not measured after
restoration, as monitoring can be resource- and time-
intensive. Employing genomic tools may enable use of these
metrics to characterize remediation and restoration in an
accessible and cost-effective manner. Researchers are
developing a framework using two complementary genomic
approaches, tested for resident species of estuaries, to
evaluate their incorporation as measures of restoration
success.
Page 53
Chapter 3
Section: Evaluating Genomic Approaches as Markers of Ecological Condition to Characterize Restoration Effectiveness
-------
&EPA
Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
2. Collecting ambient water for measurement of fish community diversity with eDNA, and
3. Comparing results to traditional measures of community quality (i.e., seine survey of fish
diversity and abundance).
Application
A suite of nearly 900 candidate mummichog genetic markers were developed, validated, and
refined using a cost-effective Fluidigm SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) Gertotyping
platform. Of these, 192 were field-tested in a pilot study of about 500 fish from 11 field sites
based around the New Bedford Harbor, AAA Superfund Site (NBH).
Following field testing, analysis of a further refined set of 55 markers revealed strong genetic
patterns across 11 pilot sites, shown in the following figure.
1.00
0.80 -1
0 60 -¦
¦ -ll.lUI.iLht
y
•'J
lliLJf1: JV
ii
!
11 ffiiil
tiktf 1
1 ^
''Ii
1 V
Jer
Wan
Mid
Hor Slo
Apo
Hak Bch
NBH
Win
Mat
Structure analysis suggests there are 6 or 7 genetic clusters spread across 11 pilot collection sites, demonstrating
potential influence of both distance and contamination level (Rock et ai 2021).
Furthermore, for markers that were chosen specifically for their association with pollution
tolerance, patterns of allele frequency variation were observed to be strongly correlated with
measured or expected site contamination, shown in the following figure.
iPCB Concentration
-CYP1A_2140
xTC15749_698
AHR1_1530
0.7
0.6
>.
u
c
0.5
at
3
0.4
O"
a>
u.
0.3
aj
_a>
<
0.2
0.1
0
Jer Wan Mid Hor Slo Apo Hak Bch NBH Win Mat
Collection Sites
Genetic changes at four gene loci associated with pollution-tolerance in mummichog populations collected from
sites along a contamination gradient. Left axis: Minor allele frequences at loci expected to be associated with
pollution tolerance (lines). Right axis: Poly-chlorinated biphenyl (PCB) sediment concentration on log scale (red
bars). (Rock et ai 2021)
Page 54
Chapter 3
Section: Evaluating Genomic Approaches as Markers of Ecological Condition to Characterize Restoration Effectiveness
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Next steps
Building on this pilot, mummichog population genetic surveys will be coupled with collection
of water samples for fish community diversity eDNA analyses and comparison to traditional
sampling efforts with local partners (Providence College, Roger Williams University, Rhode
Island Department of Environmental Management). These data could then be used to map and
predict the co-occurrence of pollution and pollution-tolerant fish. The restoration of
pollution-sensitive fish genotypes, which may serve as proxy for restored bio- and genetic-
diversity potential, could be used to guide and track restoration.
For More Information
Nacci, D., D. Champlin and S. Jayaraman. 2010. Adaptation of the estuarine fish Fundulus
heteroclitus (Atlantic killifish) to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Estuaries and Coasts
33(4): 853-864. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12237-009-9257-6
Reid, N., D. Proestou, B. Clark, W. Warren, J. Colbourne, J. Shaw, S. Karchner, M. Hahn, D.
Nacci, M. Oleksiak, D. Crawford and A. Whitehead. 2016. The genomic landscape of rapid
repeated evolutionary adaptation to toxic pollution in wild fish. Science 354(6317): 1305-
1308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4993
Rock, M., K. Guerra, B. Clark, D. Nacci, 6t J. Markert. 2021. Population Genetics of the
Evolution of Pollution Resistance in the Atlantic Killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus). Poster, Rl
SURF Conference, https://web.uri.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/1497/SURF_2021_abstract_book.pdf
Page 55
Chapter 3
Section: Evaluating Genomic Approaches as Markers of Ecological Condition to Characterize Restoration Effectiveness
-------
wtrM Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Identifying FEGS Metrics as Measures of Restoration
Effectiveness
Leah Sharpe, Christina L. Horstmann, Katelyn Barrett, Susan Yee
The FEGS Framework
The ecosystem services paradigm is built on the premise that ecosystem services are the
result of interactions between humans and their environment: for an ecosystem service to
exist, both the environment producing it and the humans experiencing it are necessary. The
Final Ecosystem Good and Services (FEGS) framework adds parsimony to that paradigm by
focusing attention on the final step in the ecosystem production that is then directly used,
enjoyed or appreciated by people. The specific combination of beneficial use and
environment is how the final ecosystem service is defined. This method of approaching
ecosystem services nicely sets up identification of relevant metrics for assessing, monitoring,
and communicating restoration outcomes, particularly when associated with defined lists of
potential uses and aspects of the environment as are found in the National Ecosystem Services
Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus; see Chapter 2, "Final Ecosystem Goods and Services: A
Beneficiary-Centric Approach to Identifying Benefits Restoration").
FEGS Metrics Development
The NESCS Plus contains lists of environment classes, ecological end-product classes, and
beneficiary classes. The webtool can be used to identify specific combinations of these
classes, the starting point for identification of services and development of metrics. Below,
for example, are core services identified for the combination of the "Lakes and Ponds"
environmental class, the "Water" ecological end-product class, and the "Recreational"
beneficiary class.
Table from NESCS Plus of services identified for lakes and ponds.
NESCS Plus ID
WWW.X.YYYY.
ZZZZ
Environ- ment
Class (W)
Environ- ment
Subclass I (WW)
Environ- ment
Subclass II
(WWW)
Ecolog-ical End-
Product Class (X)
Direct Use/ Non-
Use Class (Y)
Direct Use/ Non-
Use Subclass I
(YY)
Direct Use/ Non-
Use Subclass II
(YYYY)
Direct User Class
(Z)
Direct User
Subclass I (ZZ)
Direct User
Subclass II (ZZZ)
Beneficiary Class
(BB)
Bene- ficiary
Subclass (BBB)
Bene-ficiary ID
(BBB)
112.3.
111Y.
2111
Aquatic
Open
Water
Lakes
and
Ponds
Water
Direct
Use
Recreation
/ tourism
All Direct
Use
Subclass
lis
House-
holds
House-
holds
House-
holds
Recreational
Anglers
064
112.3.
111Y.
2111
Aquatic
Open
Water
Lakes
and
Ponds
Water
Direct
Use
Recreation
/ tourism
All Direct
Use
Subclass
lis
House-
holds
House-
holds
House-
holds
Recreational
Waders,
Swimmers,
and Divers
065
112.3.
111Y.
2111
Aquatic
Open
Water
Lakes
and
Ponds
Water
Direct
Use
Recreation
/ tourism
All Direct
Use
Subclass
lis
House-
holds
House-
holds
House-
holds
Recreational
Boaters
066
Although this is a useful starting point, it is undeniable that these beneficiary groups directly
experience specific ecosystem qualities and that those likely vary from use to use. To allow
for the needed level of specificity, the NESCS Plus report contains a list of attributes for each
ecological end-product. Due to the lack of mutual exclusivity in this list, it is not part of the
Page 56
Chapter 3
Section: Identifying FEGS Metrics as Measures of Restoration Effectiveness
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
formal classification system. It has, however, been vetted and formally used in other EPA
tools and in development of FEGS metrics. The additional specificity in the attribute list
means that its inclusion in the environment/human combination can significantly narrow the
scope of the potentially relevant metrics. The combination of swimmers and water could
relate to an innumerable number of metrics ranging from temperature to clarity to pathogen
levels. The combination of swimmers and water movement, however, points towards metrics
related to waves and currents, for example.
The FEGS Metrics Report
The FEGS Metrics Report describes a structured process for identifying metrics and lays out
example metrics for 45 beneficiaries across seven ecosystems (coral reefs, estuaries, lakes,
rivers and streams, wetlands, agricultural lands, and forests). This report, and the process for
identifying metrics, provides users with a method for linking humans to changes in the
environment via beneficiary- and ecosystem-specific metrics. These metrics are designed to
measure specific tangible biophysical features or qualities relevant for management. FEGS
metrics are unlike many other metrics in that they are provided in units that require little to
no technical explanation to make their value or meaning apparent to beneficiaries.
An interdisciplinary team worked to develop the five-step process for identifying FEGS
metrics. These steps are:
1. Clearly defining the ecosystem under consideration using the NESCS Plus
environmental classes;
2. Describing the relevant beneficiaries using the NESCS Plus beneficiary classes and
subclasses;
3. Identifying the biophysical components of nature that link the ecosystem service
and beneficial use employing the NESCS Plus environmental end-point classes and
attribute list;
4. Identifying units of the attribute, changes to which are meaningful to those making
management decisions and those belonging to the beneficiary groups; and
5. Hypothesizing the FEGS metric(s) and assessing data availability for that metric.
This process was used to develop over 200 metrics contained in the report. The process for
developing and validating the identified metrics is laid out for each of the seven ecosystems.
Approaching metric identification and selection using this process means that the
specification of benefits begins with a qualitative analysis. It is only after the question "who
is benefiting and how?" has been answered that metrics can be identified to measure those
benefits. This also means that as beneficiary groups change, their associated metrics may
change as well.
FEGS Metrics for Lakes
To continue the lakes and ponds example, the following figure shows that when considering
lake restoration (Step 1) and swimmers who benefit (Step 2), water is easily the most,
although definitely not the only, relevant biophysical component of nature (Step 3). Parsing
water into the appropriate attributes, and sub-attributes if necessary, is where specific
knowledge of a particular decision context can be helpful. In the FEGS Metrics report, for a
generic lake, the expert team identified four attributes of water important for swimming
Chapter 3
Section: Identifying FEGS Metrics as Measures of Restoration Effectiveness
Page 57
-------
wtrM Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
beneficiaries (Step 4) and five metrics needed to assess those attributes (Step 5). When
considering specific lakes, it is likely that other attributes will matter and thus other metrics
will be needed. For example, if swimming activity is inhibited due to the presence of
nuisance species such as zebra mussels or Eurasian watermilfoil, metrics related to Fauna and
Flora could be needed.
Example metrics identified for waders, swimmers, and divers in lakes (from U.S. EPA 2020).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Beneficiary
Subclass
Specific
Beneficiary
Attribute
Category
Attribute
Subcategory
Available FEGS
Metric
Suggested Source
Remotely
sensed?
Model
available?
Waders,
Swimmers
Water
Water
Water currents -
State and local
Yes
No
Swimmers,
movement
Beach hazard
websites
and Divers
(waves and
currents)
warnings (red,
yellow, green)
Waders,
Swimmers,
Swimmers
Water
Water quality
(composite)
Swimmability
(good, fair, not
EPA National
Lakes Assessment
Yes
No
and Divers
swimmable)
Waders,
Swimmers
Water
Water quality
Secchi depth (m)
EPA National
Yes
No
Swimmers,
(clarity)
Lakes Assessment
and Divers
Waders,
Swimmers
Water
Water quality
Cyanobacteria
EPA National
Yes
Yes
Swimmers,
(pathogens)
concentrations
Coastal Condition
and Divers
(cells/mL)
Assessment
Waders,
Swimmers
Water
Water quality
Microcystin
EPA National
Yes
Yes
Swimmers,
(pathogens)
concentrations
Coastal Condition
and Divers
(Mg/L)
Assessment
Using metrics developed via a beneficiary-centered approach allows them to be meaningful to
multiple parties involved in and impacted by restoration decisions. It also allows them to be
tailored to the ways in which the area is being used and experienced. Finally, use of the
NESCS Plus framework enables consistency across sites and decisions.
For More Information
Newcomer-Johnson, T., F. Andrews, J. Corona, Ted DeWitt, M. Harwell, C. Rhodes, P.
Ringold, M. Russell, P. Sinha, AND G. Van Houtven. 2020. National Ecosystem Services
Classification System (NESCS Plus). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-20/267.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryld=350613
Santavy, DS, CL Horstmann, LM Sharpe, SH Yee, and P Ringold. 2021. What is it about coral
reefs? - Translation of ecosystem goods and services relevant to people and their well-
being Ecosphere https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3639.
The National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus)
https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/national-ecosystem-services-classification-system-
nescs-plus.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Metrics for national and regional assessment of
aquatic, marine, and terrestrial final ecosystem goods and services. EPA645/R-20-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/final-ecosystem-
goods-and-services-fegs-metrics-report.
Chapter 3
Section: Identifying FEGS Metrics as Measures of Restoration Effectiveness
Page 58
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Setting Restoration Baselines with Ecosystem Services Models
Richard S. Fulford
Background and Restoration Context
Suburban watersheds are an area of rapid
change in land use, with commensurate
change in production of ecosystem
services, making suburban coastal
watersheds a high-priority target for
restoration efforts. A good example is the
D'Olive watershed which, after many years
of development, was selected for
restoration investment by the Mobile Bay
National Estuary Program.
Significant effort has been invested in
quantifying the value of ecosystem services
in coastal ecosystems but there remains a
need to fully operationalize ecosystem Map showing target sub-watershed of Mobile Bay, AL USA
service assessments, particularly for local used for th's study ~ D'ol've watershed.
decision making.
Investments in coastal watershed restoration are most frequently valued based on a
comparison of restoration cost to the economic value of the restoration outcome, often for
communicating value to stakeholders after restoration is complete. Assessment tools can also
inform local decision planning by providing a projection of ecosystem services change to
compare restoration alternatives. Valuation based on ecosystem services requires a baseline
for comparison of alternatives against the current status. An integrated measure of benefits
based on ecosystem services production can inform when restoration actions are predicted to
have a desired effect. Here, a suite of modeling tools for estimating ecosystem service
production were applied to consider targets for restoration priority in this Mobile Bay
adjacent watershed.
Approach to Quantify Benefits using Models
While restoration benefits in the D'Olive watershed were initially valued based on monitored
improvements in water quality, models allowed for the expansion of restoration assessment
to include ecosystem services. Two modelling tools, EPA H2O and VELMA, were used to
estimate production rates and value for each of the four ecosystem services described below:
• Air quality (trees) - Trees play a primary role in reducing the air concentration of major
pollutants such as N0X, S0X, and PM10. The EPA H2O model applies reduction rates from
the i-Tree model (itreetools.org) to location-specific tree species and coverage to
estimate service value for air quality.
• Water quality (wetlands) - Submerged rooted plants (primarily wetlands) are effective at
removing pollutants from inflow to natural water bodies, particularly nitrogen. The EPA
H20 model applies local published removal rates to rooted features of nearshore land
cover types to estimate the service value of maintaining natural water quality.
^5
'/T
k)nO~Vl
Chapter 3
Section: Setting Restoration Baselines with Ecosystem Services Models
Page 59
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
• Carbon sequestration (lawns, trees, wetlands) - Carbon storage and sequestration by
natural features such as lawns, trees, and wetlands are an important regional contributor
to the service of climate change. The H20 model applies local published values for carbon
sequestration to natural features of land cover as an estimate of the service value of
climate change.
• Flood protection (sediment flood storage/water drainage) - Natural feature flood
protection has two components: water storage capacity and water distribution efficiency.
The H2O model estimates how extreme rainfall events can be retained in the soil and
slowly released as opposed to going straight to surface flow and the VELMA model
estimates the efficiency of water movement downstream and out of the watershed as
opposed to lateral surface flow. Both processes impact flood severity and are impacted
by soil type, watershed topography, vegetation density, and amount and placement of
impervious surface cover.
Models were used to hindcast change in ecosystem service value related to land use change
between 2001 and 2011 and this change became our baseline for estimating influence of
restoration on ecosystem service value.
Restoration investments ($$)-> ecosystem services (ES) -> human well-being benefits
Restoration is best assessed by its human benefits, but such assessments are often limited by a lack of reference points.
Ecosystem goods and services offer measurable indices for those reference points IF a standard can be established, and a
baseline can be identified for measuring change.
SO.
r
Projected change to the
ecosystem
Identified beneficiaries
Ecosystem services assessment
J
BUT... How much has changed? What is the valuegained relative to prior ES loss?
Model-based ES assessments
H2®
"\
Watershed ES
Assessment
ES baselines
THEREFORE...
Human benefit
assessment
P| 4 $24,980 yr1
^ $7,398 yr1
C?2 $8,109 yr1
$178,218
Conceptual diagram of process to estimate change in ecosystem services production from 2001 to 2011 in
suburban watersheds of Mobile Bay.
Page 60
Chapter 3
Section: Setting Restoration Baselines with Ecosystem Services Models
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Conclusions
Setting a baseline provides a broader standard for improvement in service value and connects
restoration directly to beneficiaries (for more details see Chapter 5, "Restoration for
Ecosystem Services Change - Mobile Bay Subwatershed Case Study"). What is regained through
restoration can be compared to what has been lost to suburban development. This approach
places gains in context and re-orients the discussion to progress towards an accepted goal.
The models employed here provide estimates of service production as well as valuation and
allow for scenario development to consider future change. These tools operationalize
ecosystem services estimates for decision making.
For More Information:
Fulford, RS, M. Russell, M. Myers, M. Malish, and A. Delmaine. 2022. Models help set
ecosystem services baselines for restoration assessment. Journal of Environmental
Management 317:115411. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115411
EPA H20 Software Tool: https://www.epa.gov/water-research/ecosystem-services-scenario-
assessment-using-epa-h2o
VELMA (Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments) Model:
https://www.epa.gov/water-research/visualizing-ecosystem-land-management-
assessments-velma-model
Chapter 3
Section: Setting Restoration Baselines with Ecosystem Services Models
Page 61
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Quantifying Habitat Benefits of Agricultural Wetlands in Iowa
Mark E. Mitchell, T. Newcomer-Johnson, K. Forshay
Background
Iowa is one of the top producers for corn and soy in the country, but has also lost nearly all its
historical wetland habitat and a large portion of its grassland habitat. Iowa also contributes to
nutrient pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. The restoration and/or construction of wetland
systems in Iowa may reduce nutrient export to streams, rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico while
providing additional benefits such as wildlife habitat and recreational and educational
opportunities.
Problem Statement
There is a need for management
solutions that address nutrient
losses due to agricultural systems
while also contributing other
benefits.
A collaborative group, including
Iowa stakeholders and EPA Region
7, identified several potential
benefits/services provided by
these agricultural wetlands that
are of interest to the region and
require quantification.
Potential benefits of interest included habitat for amphibians, grassland birds, and
pollinators; water quality; greenhouse gas exchange; and educational opportunities (Mitchell
et al. 2022a). While the water quality benefits of agricultural water quality wetlands are
well-established (reviewed by Mitchell et al. 2022a), information on the potential habitat
benefits of these systems is lacking (Mitchell et al. 2022a).
Approach to Quantify Benefits using Measures or Models
The EPA's EcoService Models Library was used to identify the Integrated Valuation of
Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST; Natural Capital Project;
https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest) Habitat Quality and Crop
Pollination models (Sharp et al. 2016) to model habitat and wild bee abundance.
The InVEST Habitat Quality model quantifies a habitat quality score for a geographic location
based on suitability of that location for a specific organism and the presence of nearby
threats. Potential habitat suitability is identified based on previous studies or expert opinion
for specific land use types. Nearby threats, such as short hydroperiods, nearby agricultural
production, or other features, have the potential to disrupt habitat quality at a specific
location and therefore degrade the habitat quality metric based on their proximity to a
specific location (Sharp et al. 2016).
Aerial image of agricultural water quality wetland in Iowa. Image
credit: EPA Region 7
Chapter 3
Section: Quantifying Habitat Benefits of Agricultural Wetlands in Iowa
Page 62
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Table of modeled ecosystem services
Ecosystem
Service
Metric or Data Source
Model Description
or Equation
Amphibian
Habitat
Geospatial Land Use Land Cover (LULC) data;
Amphibian land use and threat relationships
InVEST Habitat
Quality model
Grassland Bird
Habitat
LULC data; Grassland bird land use and threat
relationships
InVEST Habitat
Quality model
Wild Bee
Abundance
LULC data; Wild bee land use, nesting habitat,
and flight ranges
InVEST Crop
Pollination Model
Potential locations for water quality wetlands were identified in 38 catchments distributed
throughout the glaciated portion of Iowa that would historically have been wetlands and
grasslands but are now dominated by row crop agriculture. Water quality wetlands were
simulated in our models in these catchments by categorizing the land use in these locations as
semipermanent wetlands prior to modeling habitat quality or wild bee abundance in InVEST.
The InVEST Crop Pollination model was used to identify areas with nearby nesting sites and
sufficient floral resources to support wild bee pollinators based on land cover layers and wild
bee species recorded in the region.
Amphibian Habitat
¦ Model Catchments
¦ Oes Mo.neslofce
¦ iow*Ced*f lowland
lowan Surface
loess Hills
M>ssve< AJ luv«J Pta«
M»s$ou'i R«v«f Alluvial Pia
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
For More Information
EcoService Models Library: https://esml.epa.gov.
Mitchell ME, SD Shifflett, T Newcomer-Johnson, A Hodaj, W Crumpton, J Christensen, B
Dyson, T Canfield, S Richmond, M Helmers, D Lemke, M Lechtenberg, Chris Taylor, KJ
Forshay. 2022a. Ecosystem services in Iowa: hypotheses for scenarios with water quality
wetlands and improved tile drainage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 77:426-440.
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2022.00127
Mitchell ME, T Newcomer-Johnson, W Crumpton, J Christensen, B Dyson, T Canfield, S
Richmond, M Helmers, D Lemke, M Lechtenberg, D Green, KJ Forshay. 2022b. Potential of
water quality wetlands to mitigate habitat losses from agricultural drainage improvements.
Science of The Total Environment 838: 156358.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156358.
Chapter 3
Section: Quantifying Habitat Benefits of Agricultural Wetlands in Iowa
Page 64
-------
wtrM Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Quantifying Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best
Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Ryann Rossi and Susan Yee
Restoration Context
The Chesapeake Bay has been undergoing restoration efforts since the 1980s. In 2010 a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was established to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment
loads into the Bay. In response, jurisdictions in six states and Washington D.C. created
Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) that outlined best management practices (BMPs) to
address sediment and nutrient impairments. However, implementation of BMPs related to
habitat restoration and conservation are well below stated goals of the multi-state
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. One potential way to improve implementation of
lagging BMPs is to demonstrate how these actions may align with the priorities of local
communities upstream and inland from the bay, where they would be implemented, who
might otherwise feel disconnected from the bay.
Quantifying ecosystem services for lagging implementation
actions and connecting them with stakeholder interests
can help communities understand benefits and tradeoffs of
different BMPs, thus empowering communities to
participate in restoration efforts in ways that resonate
with them and address their own local priorities.
Quantifying Ecosystem Services Benefits
A short list of lagging BMPs related to habitat restoration
and relevant to upstream/headwater communities was
created, including forest and grass buffers, tree planting,
forest conservation, cover crops, impervious surface
reduction, and wetland creation and restoration. We used
the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping
Tool, in combination with a review of existing management
documents and Chesapeake Bay Program partner feedback,
to identify a prioritized list of ecosystem services to
quantify that were comparable across BMPs and had broad
relevance across many different stakeholders (described in
Chapter 2, "Beneficiaries of Restoration and Conservation
Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed"). For each priority ecosystem service,
candidate metrics were identified based on the availability
of data and models to be able to translate information on
biological condition (i.e., acres of BMP implementation)
into potential supply of ecosystem services. These models,
known as ecological or ecosystem service production
functions, can range from simple lookup tables, to
statistical models, to complex biophysical models.
Page 65
Chapter 3
Section: Quantifying Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
Best Management Practices
Forest & Grass Buffers
Tree Canopy
Forest Conservation
Impervious Surface Reduction
Wetland Creation & Restoration
Cover Crops
Landcover
Tree Canopy
Impervious Surface
Wetland
Shrubland
Low Vegetation
Ecosystem Services
Air quality
Bird species diversity
Carbon sequestration
Flood control
Open space
Fleat risk mitigation
Pathogen reduction
Pollinators
Soil quality
V Water quantity
Diagram illustrating link between BMPs
and ecosystem services.
-------
svEPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Ecosystem Service Production Function Models
In general, each of the target BMPs was assumed to result in new acres of landcover based on
the 2013-2014 landcover types assigned in the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST)
(e.g., natural tree canopy, low vegetation, wetland), and reviewed literature to assemble
values of FEGS supply by landcover type, reviewed existing models to translate landcover into
FEGS supply, or used available data to generate statistical relationships between known acres
of landcover and observed measures of ecosystem services.
Metrics and models identified to quantify priority ecosystem services benefits of restoration and conservation
related BMPs.
Service
Metric
Quantification Method
Air quality
Removal rates of CO,
NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5, SO2
Air pollutant removal rates in urban and rural areas
obtained from i-Tree and multiplied by acres of tree cover
Bird species
diversity
Bird species richness
(numbers per acre)
Statistical regressions used to generate species area curves
that relate increasing acres of land cover type to potential
bird species richness, obtained from USGS GAP
Carbon
sequestration
Rates of carbon
sequestration into soil
Average reported rates of carbon into soil by land cover
type, obtained from COMET-Planner and literature review,
multiplied by acres of landcover
Flood control
Maximum rainwater
retention
Curve number method based on landcover and soil type
(USDA and NRCS 1986)
Open space
Acres of greenspace per
capita
Acres of landcover identified as wetland, tree canopy,
shrubland, and low vegetation per capita
Heat risk
mitigation
Reduction in air
temperature due to
presence of tree canopy
Statistical regressions to relate acres of tree canopy to
summer air temperatures
Pathogen
reduction
Removal efficiency of
fecal indicator bacteria
Fecal indicator bacteria removal efficiencies obtained from
literature review, multiplied by acres of landcover type
Pollinators
Index of pollinator
habitat suitability
Uses the InVEST pollinator model to assign index of habitat
suitability based on land cover, and characteristics of
pollinators such as nesting and foraging distance
Soil quality
Carbon stock in soil
Carbon stock estimates by land cover type obtained from
literature review and multiplied by acres of land cover
Water
quantity
Annual surface water
flow
Obtained for each land cover type from the Chesapeake
Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST) hydrological model
Communicating Benefits of BMP Implementation
This information will be used to help communicate the co-benefits (other than nutrient
reduction) associated with BMPs in the watershed (described in Chapter 4, "Linking
Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices to Ecosystem Services in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed"). The models and data are designed to work with existing tools,
including CAST, a modeling tool that lets users estimate nutrient reductions from BMPs, and
the Watershed data dashboard, which lets users see information for each county in the
watershed, to potentially target areas where ecosystem services could be improved.
Page 66
Chapter 3
Section: Quantifying Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Air Quality
Bird Species
Open Space
Heat Risk Mitigation
Pollinators
Pathogen Reduction
Soil Quality
Water Quantity
Mops of baseline ecosystem services supply based on 2013/2014 landcover maps.
For More Information
Rossi, R., C. Bisland, L. Sharpe, E. Trentacoste, B. Williams, S. Yee. 2022. Identifying and
Aligning Ecosystem Services and Beneficiaries Associated with Best Management Practices in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Environmental Management 69:384-409.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01561-z.
Rossi, R.E., C. Bisland, B. Jenkins, V. Van Note, B. Williams, E. Trentacoste, Susan Yee. 2023.
Quantifying Ecosystem Services Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management
Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-22/170.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=3 57757.
Page 67
Chapter 3
Section: Quantifying Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
Carbon Sequestration
Low
¦ Med
"High
Flood Control
Low
iMed
¦High
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Modeling Ecosystem Services Change over Time in
Massachusetts Bays Estuarine Coastal Habitats
Benjamin Branoff, Susan Yee, Leah Sharpe, Giancarlo Cicchetti
Restoration Target Setting for Massachusetts Bays Estuaries
The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Partnership (MassBays NEP) planning area
encompasses 1100 miles of Massachusetts coastline and includes 44 separate estuarine
embayment assessment areas. The MassBays NEP has recently worked to update their
comprehensive management plan to include restoration targets for salt marsh, seagrass, and
tidal flats, based in part on examining historical trends in acres of habitat loss or gain. A key
question in target setting is asking to what degree we want to restore historic habitat
conditions, and moreover, the associated natural resource benefits (or ecosystem services) of
those habitats. An understanding of the potential ecosystem services lost or gained
historically can help to communicate potential benefits of restoration and to identify targets
or projects that help achieve desired levels of benefits.
Quantifying Ecosystem Services
The Ecosystem Services Gradient (ESG) framework parallels the Biological Condition Gradient
(BCG) as a way of visualizing current conditions within the context of the full range of potential
condition, from highest quality to highly degraded. Examining historical trends is one way to
understand the degree of loss or gain and the potential for restoration when setting targets.
When ecosystem services data are
scarce, models can be used to
translate commonly measured data,
such as acres of habitat, into
measures of ecosystem services
provisioning. A common approach is
the use of a lookup table, or values
matrix, to assign relative values of
ecosystem services to different
landcover types, thus allowing a
comparison across different types of
habitats on a comparable scale.
When paired with maps of changing
landcover, this matrix approach can
be used to evaluate ecosystem
services over both space and time. A
matrix of ecosystem services values
was generated by aggregating several
matrices from a literature review,
with values scaled from 0 to 10, and
averaged to generate a single mean
value for each ecosystem service
category and landcover type.
Relative capacity values of the five focal ecosystem services
(columns) for each landcover type (rows).
Climate Change
Mitigation
Edible or
Commercial Fauna
Fauna Community
Protection from
Extreme Events and
Flooding
Water Quality
Water Quantity
Developed, High Intensity
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
Developed, Medium Intensity
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.3
Developed, Low Intensity
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
Developed, Open Space
1.7
0.3
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
Cultivated Crops
3.2
1.5
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.2
Pasture/Hay
4.1
3.0
1.5
2.6
2.9
3.1
Grassland/Herbaceous
4.0
3.0
3.7
2.6
3.9
2.7
Deciduous Forest
6.9
3.3
4.5
5.0
4.5
3.8
Evergreen Forest
6.5
2.5
3.2
5.5
4.2
3.4
Mixed Forest
6.8
2.4
6.7
5.2
5.4
4.5
Scrub/Shrub
4.8
2.3
4.5
3.7
4.0
2.9
Palustrine Forested Wetland
6.1
1.9
6.5
4.4
5.8
5.1
Palustrine Emergent Wetland
4.0
1.2
3.0
3.8
2.8
3
Estuarine Forested Wetland
6.1
4.8
5.7
4.3
3.7
3.7
Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland
6.9
4.8
6.8
6.7
8.5
7.7
Barren Land
1.1
0.4
1.9
2.6
1.0
1.0
Open Water
3.5
2.9
4.3
3.4
3.6
4.2
Seagrass (Estuarine Aquatic Beds)
6.9
7.4
7.6
3.3
5.2
1.8
Tidal Flats (Unconsolidated Shore)
4.6
7.2
5.9
4.3
3.8
3.5
High Elevation Salt Marsh
(Estuarine Emergent Wetlands)
8.7
4.6
6.5
8.1
7.1
1.5
Low Elevation Salt Marsh
(Estuarine Emergent Wetlands)
6.7
6.8
6.7
7.0
5.7
1.7
Page 68
Chapter 3
Section: Modeling Ecosystem Services Change over Time in Massachusetts Bays Estuarine Coastal Habitats
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
Literature values were supplemented with expert opinion on local values in Ipswich Bay,
Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay for salt marsh, tidal flats, and seagrass for a number of
ecosystem services identified as most relevant: mitigation of climate change impacts, edible
or commercially important fauna, fauna community for recreational or existence value,
protection from extreme weather and flooding, water quality, and water quantity.
Landscape connectivity can bolster ecosystem services production by facilitating critical
transfer of organisms and materials between patches of habitat (Mitchell et al. 2013). A
multiplicative factor based on the connectivity of a patch of habitat to neighboring habitat
was used to weight highly connected patches as having higher ecosystem services capacity
than isolated patches. The values matrix, weighted by patch connectivity, was used to
calculate changes in ecosystem services with changing landcover from the Coastal Change
Analysis Program (NOAA C-CAP) from 1996-2016, supplemented by seagrass maps from the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and salt marsh maps from the
Saltmarsh Habitat and Avian Research Program (SHARP).
Salt Marsh
6000
; 4000
-= 2000
Water Quantity
I Water Quality
Protection from
Flooding
Fauna Community
I Edible/Commercial
Fauna
I Climate Change
Mitigation
1996 2001 2006 2010 2016
6000
4000
-2 2000
Seagrass
I Water Quantity
l Water Quality
Protection from
Flooding
I Fauna Community
l Edible/Commercial
Fauna
I Climate Change
Mitigation
1996 2001 2006 2010 2016
6000
: 4000
2000
Tidal Flats
Water Quantity
I Water Quality
Protection from
Flooding
l Fauna Community
l Edible/Commercial
Fau na
I Climate Change
Mitigation
1996 2001 2006 2010 2016
Ecosystem Services Change Over Time
Across MassBays, salt marsh habitats were the
largest contributor to ecosystem services.
Acres of salt marsh declined about 0.1% since
1996, seagrass declined by about 50%, and
tidal flats had a gain of around 20%. The
biggest losses in ecosystem services were
edible and commercial fauna, the fauna
community, and water quality, driven by loss
of seagrass habitat. Although salt marsh
ecosystem services were relatively stable over
the past 20 years, the high ecosystem services
value of salt marsh is at risk if current area of
salt marsh is not maintained.
Ecosystem Services in Restoration
Planning
Ecosystem services values were presented to
MassBays NEP to provide a starting point for
discussion of ecosystem services loss or gain
to consider when setting restoration targets
and identifying metrics for monitoring
success. Because the ecosystem services
assessment is spatial, loss or gain in
ecosystem services in individual embayments
can be evaluated to help support
implementation of local restoration projects
to restore past losses or protect recent gains,
or the values matrix can be used to predict
potential benefits under alternative
restoration scenarios.
Ecosystem services capacity over time across all
MassBays embayments for the three focal ecosystems.
Page 69
Chapter 3
Section: Modeling Ecosystem Services Change over Time in Massachusetts Bays Estuarine Coastal Habitats
-------
&EPA Quantifying Benefits of Restored Ecological Condition
For more details on how the ESG is being used in concert with BCG to support restoration
target setting see Chapter 5, "Setting Restoration Targets for Massachusetts Bays Estuaries."
For More Information
Branoff, B., S. Yee, G. Cicchetti, M. Pryor, and S. Jackson. From biological condition to
ecosystem services: Assessing the value of habitat presence to MassBays communities.
Center for Watershed Protection's Coastal and Island Conference (Virtual), November 16 -
17, 2020. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=350836
Branoff, B., G. Cicchetti, S. Jackson, M. Pryor, L.M. Sharpe, E. Shumchenia, S.H. Yee. 2023.
Capturing twenty years of change in ecosystem services provided by coastal Massachusetts
habitats. Ecosystem Services 61:101530. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101530
Yee, S., B. Branoff, G. Cicchetti, S.K. Jackson, M. Pryor, L. Sharpe, E. Shumchenia. 2022. The
Ecosystem Services Gradient: An Integrated Approach for Identifying Benefits of
Restoration. A Community on Ecosystem Services (ACES) Conference, Washington, D.C.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=356730
References
Mitchell, M., Bennett, E.M. 6t Gonzalez, A. 2013. Linking landscape connectivity and
ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems, 16, 1- 17
Page 70
Chapter 3
Section: Modeling Ecosystem Services Change over Time in Massachusetts Bays Estuarine Coastal Habitats
-------
Chapter 4
Taking Action to Restore
Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Page 71
-------
&EPA Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Evaluating Wildlife Habitat Implications of Drainage
Improvements and Water Quality Wetlands
Mark E. Mitchell, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Ken Forshay
Background
Farmers and land managers in Iowa are interested in improving
agricultural drainage systems to reduce crop yield losses from
flooding. In addition to anticipated improvements in the
agricultural drainage infrastructure, a group of Iowa
stakeholders representing agricultural producers, land
managers, and researchers identified the potential for a suite
of additional environmental benefits associated with wetlands
installed to intercept and treat water leaving the agricultural
watershed. However, the effects of drainage improvements on
water quality, wildlife habitat, and other ecosystem services
have not been adequately assessed. Further, water quality
wetlands located near areas with drainage infrastructure
improvements may be able to mitigate negative impacts of that
infrastructure, but the interplay of these scenarios has also not
been sufficiently addressed.
Approach to Quantify Benefits using Measures or Models
Models for habitat quality and pollinator abundance were performed in the InVEST model
(https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest) suite to quantify the potential
implications of drainage improvements and water quality wetlands on amphibian habitat,
grassland bird habitat, and wild bee pollinators. For more information about modeling
methods see Chapter 3, "Quantifying Habitat Benefits of Agricultural Wetlands in Iowa."
In scenarios with drainage improvements, a worst-case scenario approach was used that
assumed that any potential habitat existing within lower-lying depressional areas in modeled
catchments would be lost when drainage was improved. In scenarios with water quality
wetlands, water quality wetlands were designated as potential amphibian habitat, while the
grassland buffers that typically surround these wetland restorations in the region were
designated as potential grassland bird habitat. Suitable habitat was then quantified based on
the presence and proximity of threats, such as nearby cropland or a short hydroperiod, to
potential habitat locations. For the example catchment in the following figure, blue or yellow
areas designate suitable amphibian or bird habitat, respectively, under the no change
scenario (or baseline for all scenarios). Green areas indicate additional suitable habitat
created with addition of water quality wetlands. Red areas indicate habitat lost due to
drainage infrastructure for amphibians (panel A), or due to wetland installation for grassland
birds (panel B). Purple areas indicated grassland bird habitat that could be gained with
drainage improvements.
Scenarios examined different
combinations of drainage
infrastructure updates and water
quality wetlands.
Four Scenarios
No
Change
Update
Drainage
Infrastructure
Introduce
Water
Quality
Wetlands
Update
Drainage
Infrastructure
and Introduce
Water Quality
Wetlands
Page 72
Chapter 4
Section: Evaluating Wildlife Habitat Implications of Drainage Improvements and Water Quality Wetlands
-------
&EPA Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
InVEST Habitat Quality model results for suitable amphibian habitat (A) and grassland bird suitable habitat (B)
under no change (baseline for all scenarios), and in response to modeled drainage improvements and water
quality wetland additions for an example catchment (outlined in white).
I Suitable Amphibian
' Habitat in All Scenarios
Additional Suitable Hab>tat|
I W»thWQ Wetland
¦ Suitable Habitat Lost With |
I Drainage improvement
Suitable Grassland Bird
Ha b i tat i n Al I Scena r i os
I Additional Suitable Habitat]
'withWQ Wetland
I Suitable Habitat lost With |
' WQ Wetland installation
I Suitable Habitat Gamed
' With Drainage Impr.
Benefits of Alternative Restoration Options
Our modeling effort suggests that water quality wetlands are likely to provide amphibian
habitat and that drainage improvements will likely lead to moderate losses of amphibian
habitat in the region. However, in scenarios where water quality wetlands were added in
addition to drainage improvements, our findings suggest that wetland
restoration/construction may mitigate amphibian habitat losses resulting from drainage
improvements while also supplying much needed wild bee and grassland bird habitat, detailed
in the following table. These results are helping to support EPA Region 7 and stakeholders in
Iowa to identify benefits and tradeoffs associated with agricultural land management
decisions for improving water quality (see Chapter 5, "Evaluation of Ecosystem Services for
Drainage Improvements and Water Quality Wetlands").
InVEST modeling results for impacts of drainage improvements and/or water quality wetland additions on habitat
metrics. Adapted from Mitchell et al 2022b
Habitat Metric
Baseline
Scenario
Improved
Drainage
(Change
from
Baseline)
Water
Quality
Wetland
(Change
from
Baseline)
Improved
Drainage and
Water
Quality
Wetland
(Change from
Baseline)
Amphibian Habitat (ha) Within 1 km
981
955
(-3%)
1,222
(+25%)
1,197
(+22%)
Amphibian Habitat Total Quality Score Within 1 km
32,002
25,205
(-21%)
35,762
(+12%)
28,894
(-10%)
Bee Total Pollinator Abundance Score Within Watershed
5,382
5,362
(-0.4%)
5,918
(+10%)
5,897
(+10%)
Grassland Bird Habitat (ha) Within 1.6 km
7,029
7,031
(+0.04%)
7,400
(+5%)
7,403
(+5%)
Grassland Bird Total Quality Score Within 1.6 km
79,036
79,063
(+0.04%)
83,137
(+5%)
83,165
(+5%)
Page 73
Chapter 4
Section: Evaluating Wildlife Habitat Implications of Drainage Improvements and Water Quality Wetlands
-------
&EPA Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
For More Information
Mitchell ME, SD Shifflett, T Newcomer-Johnson, A Hodaj, W Crumpton, J Christensen, B
Dyson, T Canfield, S Richmond, M Helmers, D Lemke, M Lechtenberg, Chris Taylor, KJ
Forshay. 2022a. Ecosystem services in Iowa: hypotheses for scenarios with water quality
wetlands and improved tile drainage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 77:426-440.
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2022.00127
Mitchell ME, T Newcomer-Johnson, W Crumpton, J Christensen, B Dyson, T Canfield, S
Richmond, M Helmers, D Lemke, M Lechtenberg, D Green, KJ Forshay. 2022b. Potential of
water quality wetlands to mitigate habitat losses from agricultural drainage improvements.
Science of The Total Environment 838: 156358.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156358.
Page 74
Chapter 4
Section: Evaluating Wildlife Habitat Implications of Drainage Improvements and Water Quality Wetlands
-------
Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Benefits of Natural Revegetation of Remediated Sites
Leah Sharpe
Contaminated Site Remediation
Contaminated sites are unlike other restoration projects in that the primary concern is
preventing the contamination from negatively impacting human health and the environment.
All other considerations, including potential benefits to the community from the future site,
trail behind that. This means all potential future uses of the site are limited by the specific
remedies implemented to complete the site remediation. This may mean that access to the
site will be limited to authorized personnel or otherwise restricted, that development
including buildings and other construction will not be permitted, or that certain types of
vegetation or natural elements will not be permitted.
Site Options
The limitations associated with restoration and revitalization of contaminated sites could lead
some to assume that consideration of benefits to humans might not be relevant for
remediation projects. However, taking a holistic view of potential benefits can identify
unexpected ways in which the surrounding community could be impacted by the site, as does
thoroughly exploring all options for actions on the site, even if they do not seem at first that
they could have an impact.
Revegetation of a Contaminated Site
The East Mont Zion Superfund site in Springettsbury Township, York County, Pennsylvania has
significant management controls. It is fenced, accessible only by authorized personnel, it
cannot be built upon, and deep-rooted vegetation is not permitted. Over the two decades
since the remedy was completed, the site was covered in weedy grasses and mown regularly.
Site managers were interested in exploring revegetating the site with native species and
exploring potential ecosystem services.
East Mount Zion remediated landfill site.
Scenarios and Tradeoffs
Shifting the vegetation on the site from weedy grasses to a native meadow mix may not seem
like it would offer tangible benefits to community members, particularly if they are not
allowed to access the site, To determine what benefits revegetation would have, an
&EPA
Chapter 4
Section: Benefits of Natural Revegetation of Remediated Sites
Page 75
-------
&EPA Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
interdisciplinary team worked with the community to identify potential benefits of interest
(detailed in Chapter 2, "Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services They Care
About: Remediated Site Revegetation") and a team of modelers and ecosystem restoration
specialists worked to estimate the impacts of native vegetation on those benefits. The
differences between scenarios are captured in the following chart (all results are on a
normalized scale so they can be viewed together). Despite the limitations inherent in the
site, the potential benefits from the native grassland scenario were significant and clear.
1. Status Quo - mowed grass 2. Native grassland scenario
10
ill J I
¦ Aesthetics ¦ Birds ¦ Water interception
¦ Erosion control ¦ Pollinators ¦ Carbon storage
¦ Pest reduction ¦ Cost savings ¦ Noise reduction
Modeled ecosystem services benefits for status quo scenario (left) versus planting native grasses (right).
The potential benefits found for a site with substantial restrictions suggests that questions of
ecosystem services and benefits are worth considering in all decisions, no matter how they
may be constrained. Remediated sites have the potential for valuable contributions, even if
few people will ever actually see or access the sites.
For More Information
East Mount Zion, Springettsbury Township, PA, Cleanup Activities:
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=
0301426
Sharpe, L.M. and Newcomer-Johnson, T. Cleaning Up: Involving Community and Ecology in
Remediation Projects. East Mount Zion Landfill Site Community Workshop, Virtual,
November 18, 2020.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=350287
Sharpe, L., K. Barrett, M. Cron, J. Essoka, J. Harvey, G. Ferreira, A. Mandell, C. Maurice, T.
Newcomer-Johnson, K. Patnode, and B. Pluta. 2022. East Mount Zion Superfund Site:
Revitalization to Benefit the Community. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600-R-21/317.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=546308
Chapter 4
Section: Benefits of Natural Revegetation of Remediated Sites
Page 76
-------
svEPA Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Linking Restoration and Conservation Best Management
Practices to Ecosystem Services in Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Ryann Rossi and Susan Yee
Restoration Context
Hundreds of Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been vetted and approved for
implementation in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to help meet the federally mandated Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Bay. In 2014, a Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement
was adopted that included headwater states for the first time. Restoration and conservation
based BMPs could be implemented to meet the TMDL and watershed agreement goals.
However, implementation of such BMPs is behind schedule and not achieving original planning
goals. One potential way to improve implementation of lagging BMPs is to demonstrate how
restoration and conservation actions may benefit local communities upstream of the Bay in
inland areas where the actions often need to be implemented.
The goal of this project was to quantify the potential supply of ecosystem services for a
variety of restoration and conservation BMPs of relevance to headwater and inland
communities. Currently the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST) allows users to
model water quality (i.e., sediment and nutrient) outcomes of alternative BMPs to aid in
environmental planning. This project supplements those water quality outcomes by modeling
ecosystem services benefits that may also result from those BMPs, such that users could
identify BMPs that not only improve bay water quality, but also provide additional benefits
and give them the most "bang for their buck."
Best Management Practices
Researchers reviewed existing management documents and worked with Chesapeake Bay
Program partners to generate a target list of eleven BMPs for which to quantify ecosystem
services based on the following criteria: 1) related to Watershed Agreement goals that are
lagging in implementation, 2) related to habitat restoration and/or creation, and 3) likely
relevant to upstream/headwater communities. A total of eleven BMPs were selected:
• Agricultural Forest Buffer • Urban Forest Buffers
• Agricultural Grass Buffer • Urban Forest Planting
• Agriculture Tree Planting • Urban Tree Planting
• Cover Crops • Wetland Creation
• Forest Conservation • Wetland Restoration
• Impervious Surface Reduction
The National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus), a review of
Chesapeake Bay planning documents, and feedback from partners was used to identify a
comprehensive list of ecosystem services provided by each BMP and the potential user groups
(or beneficiaries) most likely to benefit from those ecosystem services, shown in the following
table.
Page 77
Chapter 4
Section: Linking Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices to Ecosystem Services in Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
-------
svEPA Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Ecosystem services identified to be potentially generated by each BMP, and the potential beneficiary groups who
use or care about the ecosystem services and could benefit from BMP implementation.
Best Management Practices
Ecosystem
Service
Who Benefits from that Ecosystem Service?
Ability to dilute
and receive
discharge
Industrial Dischargers
Air pollutant
removal
Public Sector Property Owners; Residential Property Owners;
Residents in Low Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource
Dependent Business
Blue crab
presence
Anglers; Aquaculturists; Experiencers & Viewers; Subsistence
Users of Food/Medicine; Food Extractors; Food Pickers &
Gatherers
Brook trout
presence
Anglers; Experiencers & Viewers; Subsistence Users of
Food/Medicine
Carbon
sequestration
Charismatic
species
richness
All Humans; Residential Property Owners; Residents in Low
Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource Dependent Business
Artists; Experiencers & Viewers
Clean water
(nutrients)
Aquaculturists; Boaters, Kayakers; Irrigators; Waders,
Swimmers, Divers; Anglers; Drinking Water Plants; Residential
Property Owners; Residents in Low Income/Disadvantaged
Areas; Resource Dependent Business
Commercially
valuable trees
Farmers; Foresters; Subsistence Users of Fiber/Fur;
Timber/Fiber/Ornamental Extractors
Contaminant
reduction
Aquaculturists; Drinking Water Plants
Deer
population
Experiencers & Viewers; Subsistence Users of Food/Medicine;
Food Extractors; Hunters
Edible plants
Food Extractors; Subsistence Users of Food/Medicine; Food
Pickers & Gatherers
Energy
efficiency
Energy Generators (Public & Private); Public Sector Property
Owners; Residential Property Owners; Residents in Low
Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource Dependent Business
Erosion control
Public Sector Property Owners; Residential Property Owners;
Residents in Low Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource
Dependent Business
Fauna used in
medicine/sold
for medicinal
purposes
Subsistence Users of Food/Medicine; Hunters;
Pharmaceutical & Food Supplement Suppliers
Fire risk
Energy Generators (Public & Private); Farmers; Foresters;
Public Sector Property Owners; Residential Property Owners;
Residents in Low Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource
Dependent Business
Flood control
Energy Generators (Public & Private); Farmers; Military/Coast
Guard; Drinking Water Plants; Public Sector Property Owners;
Residential Property Owners; Residents in Low
Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource Dependent Business
Flora used in
medicine/sold
for medicinal
purposes
Subsistence Users of Food/Medicine; Pharmaceutical & Food
Supplement Suppliers
Fungi presence
Food Extractors; Subsistence Users of Food/Medicine; Food
Pickers & Gatherers
Page 78
Chapter 4
Section: Linking Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices to Ecosystem Services in Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
-------
svEPA Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Ecosystem
Service
Grasses/plants
for grazing
Green space
Heat risk
High quality soil
Natural
materials
Open space for
infrastructure
Oyster
presence
Pathogen
reduction in
water
(human/animal
health)
Pest regulation
Presence of
environment
Quantity of
water
Resources for
research
Small mammal
presence
Striped bass
presence
Supply of pest
predators
Supply of
pollinators
Viewscapes
Water clarity
Waterfowl
presence
Wood and
paper products
Who Benefits from that Ecosystem Service?
Livestock Grazers
Farmers; Livestock Grazers; Anglers; Military/Coast Guard;
Subsistence Users of Fiber/Fur; Subsistence Users of
Food/Medicine; Food Pickers & Gatherers; Hunters; Public
Sector Property Owners; Residential Property Owners;
Residents in Low Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource
Dependent Business; Artists; Educators & Students;
Experiencers & Viewers; Researchers; Celebration Participants
Energy Generators (Public & Private); Public Sector Property
Owners; Residential Property Owners; Residents in Low
Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource Dependent Business
Foresters; Farmers
Subsistence Users of Fiber/Fur; Timber/Fiber/Ornamental
Extractors; Artists
Military/Coast Guard; Public Sector Property Owners;
Residential Property Owners; Residents in Low
Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource Dependent Business;
Researchers
Anglers; Aquaculturists; Experiencers & Viewers; Subsistence
Users of Food/Medicine; Food Extractors; Food Pickers &
Gatherers; Pharmaceutical & Food Supplement Suppliers
Aquaculturists; Boaters, Kayakers; Waders, Swimmers, Divers;
Drinking Water Plants; Anglers; Residential Property Owners;
Residents in Low Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource
Dependent Business; Farmers; Livestock Grazers
Foresters; Farmers; Residential Property Owners; Residents in
Low Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource Dependent
Business
People Who Care (Existence, Option, Or Bequest)
Energy Generators (Public & Private); Industrial Dischargers;
Irrigators; Drinking Water Plants
Researchers
Aquaculturists; Anglers; Subsistence Users of Food/Medicine;
Food Extractors; Food Pickers & Gatherers; Fur/Hide Trappers
& Hunters; Subsistence Users of Fiber/Fur; Experiencers &
Viewers; Hunters; Timber/Fiber/Ornamental Extractors
Anglers; Subsistence Users of Food/Medicine; Food Extractors
Farmers
Experiencers & Viewers; Farmers
Resource Dependent Business; Artists; Experiencers &
Viewers
Aquaculturists; Boaters, Kayakers; Waders, Swimmers, Divers;
Anglers; Experiencers & Viewers; Public Sector Property
Owners; Residential Property Owners; Residents in Low
Income/Disadvantaged Areas; Resource Dependent Business
Experiencers & Viewers; Subsistence Users of Food/Medicine;
Food Extractors; Fur/Hide Trappers & Hunters; Hunters;
Subsistence Users of Fiber/Fur;
Foresters; Subsistence Users of Fiber/Fur;
Timber/Fiber/Ornamental Extractors
Page 79
Chapter 4
Section: Linking Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices to Ecosystem Services in Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
-------
wtrM Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Comparing Ecosystem Services Across Best Management Practices
The Final Ecosystem Goods and Scoping Tool was used to narrow the comprehensive list of
ecosystem services to a subset of highest priority ecosystem services for quantitative analysis
based on feedback from partners, relevance to the broadest suite of stakeholders, and
relevance for comparison across multiple BMPs (described in Chapter 2, "Beneficiaries of
Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed").
For each priority ecosystem service, candidate metrics were identified based on the
availability of data and models to be able to translate acres of BMP implementation into
potential supply of ecosystem services. These models, known as ecological production
functions, can range from simple lookup tables to statistical models to complex biophysical
models. In general, each of the target BMPs was assumed to result in new acres of landcover
(e.g., forest, cropland, wetland), and then models were applied to translate landcover into
ecosystem services supply (described in Chapter 3, "Quantifying Benefits of Restoration and
Conservation Best Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed"). The relative
values, scaled from 0 to 1, of each ecosystem service provided by each BMP are presented in
the following figure.
ai
± a!
ro u
u c
6 1
5 -
4 -
3 -
2
l H
cc
ts
O)
S_
o
—
1!
III
CUD
c
'¦*->
c
ro
CL
a>
Q.
o
a>
>
o
u
15 2
= 5
I s
c
VI
C
V)
GjO
c
c
o
o;
o
Q)
St
c
C
o
o
CD
Sfc
E
rp
c
'P
c
p
fO
¦p
CD
>
CD
3
.5
.5
QJ
s_
"O
CO
s_
O
8i
c
VI
V)
CD
o>
en
V)
VI
Q_
O)
a;
<_>
"O
4-1
VI
oj
o
s_
a>
s_
QJ
C
on
4—'
V)
O)
o
u_
o
u
s_
3
CO
VI
3
O
u_
C
CD
-Q
s_
Z>
s_
O
LL.
c
ra
-Q
s_
—i
£
c
CD
_Q
s—
Z>
_fU
4—1
0)
5
"O
c
_T0
—1
a>
5
o
>
_
<11
a
E
~ Air quality
~ Bird richness
~ Carbon sequestration
S Flood control
~ Open space
~ Pathogen reduction
~ Pollinator
~ Soil quality
~ Heat risk reduction
Water quantity
Model-estimated ecosystem services value (scaled) of ten ecosystem services for each focal BMP.
Integrating Ecosystem Services Information into BMP Implementation
Quantifying ecosystem services for lagging implementation actions and connecting them with
stakeholder interests can help communities understand benefits and tradeoffs of different
BMPs, thus empowering communities to participate in restoration efforts in ways that
resonate with them and address their own local priorities. Ecosystem services information can
be used to help planners develop watershed implementation plans in order to meet
associated watershed outcome goals.
Page 80
Chapter 4
Section: Linking Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices to Ecosystem Services in Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
-------
wtrM Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Information on ecosystem services is being integrated into existing web-based tools used by
Chesapeake Bay Program so that planners can have a better understanding of potential
benefits of BMP implementation beyond nutrient load reduction. For more information, see
Chapter 5 "Communicating Upstream Benefits of Restoration for Chesapeake Bay."
For More Information
Rossi, R., C. Bisland, L. Sharpe, E. Trentacoste, B. Williams, S. Yee. 2022. Identifying and
Aligning Ecosystem Services and Beneficiaries Associated with Best Management Practices in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Environmental Management 69:384-409.
https: //doi .org/10.1007/s00267-021 -01561 -z.
Rossi, R.E., C. Bisland, B. Jenkins, V. Van Note, B. Williams, E. Trentacoste, Susan Yee. 2023.
Quantifying Ecosystem Services Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management
Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-22/170.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=357757.
Rossi, R.E., C. Bisland, B. Jenkins, V. Van Note, B. Williams, E. Trentacoste, S. Yee. 2023.
Quantifying Ecosystem Services Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management
Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) Workshop: Using Ecosystem Services to Increase
Progress Toward, and Quantify the Benefits of, Multiple CBP Outcomes (March 2023).
https://www.chesapeake.org/stac/events/day-1-using-ecosystem-services-to-increase-
progress-toward-and-quantify-the-benefits-of-multiple-cbp-outcomes
Page 81
Chapter 4
Section: Linking Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices to Ecosystem Services in Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
-------
&EPA Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Lessons Learned from Habitat Restoration Projects in Great
Lakes Areas of Concern
Dalon White, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Joel Hoffman
Restoration Context
Great Lakes areas support a range of ecosystem services such as recreational opportunities
and clean water, but growing populations and industry also create high stressors on those
ecosystem services, including issues of contaminant pollution, habitat loss, and harmful algal
blooms. Many stressed areas in the Great Lakes have been identified as Areas of Concern
(AOC), geographic areas whose failure to meet objectives of the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement have caused impairment of beneficial use of the area's ability to
support aquatic life. The Great Lakes AOC Program recognizes 14 distinct Beneficial Use
Impairments (BUIs), including restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption and degradation of
aesthetics. Environmental remediation and restoration projects are being planned and
implemented, focusing on addressing stressors and restoring beneficial uses.
This study evaluated the degree to which restoration and remediation projects to remove
BUIs in selected AOCs are considering ecosystem services in planning, implementing, and
monitoring. This example can help those planning and implementing projects begin to think
about who will benefit from projects early on, which for contaminated sites in particular
facilitates identification, prioritization, inclusion, and engagement of relevant current and
future stakeholders in the cleanup process. Such steps will allow stakeholders to
cooperatively develop project goals and metrics of success that are relevant to all involved
(Williams and Hoffman 2020).
Beneficial Use Impairments
Management agencies and public advisory groups associated with an AOC develop Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs), including information on BUI, a description of current conditions for
assessing BUI status, potential management actions, descriptions of who is responsible for
undertaking actions, and associated timelines. If management agencies, advisory groups, and
the public concur that removal of a given impairment has occurred, the BUI can be removed,
and eventually once all BUIs are removed the AOC can be considered for delisting.
Approach for Selecting Metrics
A suite of documents covering the Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC from 1988 - 2015 were
collected and analyzed to identify existing information pertinent to understanding the process
of remediating contaminated sediments and restoring aquatic habitat. For each document,
metrics of interest were identified as the type of management actions identified within the
document, the suite of ecosystem services documented, and the beneficiaries receiving those
services. As metrics, these allow examination of how ecosystem services have been
considered through time and consideration within the AOC context.
Chapter 4
Section: Lessons Learned from Habitat Restoration Projects in Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Page 82
-------
&EPA Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Connecting Management Action Types to Ecosystem Services and Beneficiaries
A Sankey network diagram helps visualize the relative proportions of management action
types documented across the different Remedial Action Plan stages (left), as well as the
progression of ecosystem services considerations documented between RAP stages (middle)
and the beneficiaries of those services (far right). Boxes (nodes) are connected by lines
(edges); the size of the edges reflect the contribution from one node to the next.
Management
action type
Remedial Action
Plan Stage
Eco-system
end-product subclass
Beneficiary
category
] Remediation
mm
3 Restoration*"^
Prtlirv <12*
-------
wtrM Taking Action to Restore Ecosystems and Their Benefits
Beneficial Use
Impairment
Clean Water Act Designated
Use
NESCS Plus
5. Bird or Animal
Deformities or
Reproductive Problems
Protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife
Wildlife for Recreational, Subsistence,
Inspirational, Learning, and Non-Use. E.g.,
Double-crested Cormorant, Phalacrocorax auritus
(Code: 4174717)
6. Degradation of
Benthos
Protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife
Fauna for Learning. E.g., Order Odonata which
contains damselflies and dragonflies (Code:
4101593)
7. Restrictions on
Dredging Activities -
Navigation
Protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife
Soil and Water for Government and Commercial
Transportation and Boating
8. Eutrophication or
Undesirable Algae -
Recreation, Public water
supplies
Protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife
Water, Flora, and Composite for Drinking Water
Plant Operators, Food Extractors, Recreational,
and Subsistence
9. Restrictions on
Drinking Water
Consumption or Taste
and Odor Problems
Public water supplies
Water for Drinking Water Plant Operators and
Water Subsisters
10. Beach Closings
Recreation
Beaches for Recreation
11. Degradation of
Aesthetics
Recreation
Viewscapes for Recreational, Subsistence,
Inspirational, Learning, and Non-Use.
12. Added Costs to
Agriculture or Industry
Agriculture
Water for Livestock Grazers and Farmers
13. Degradation of
Phytoplankton and
Zooplankton Populations
Protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife
Fauna and Flora for Learning. E.g., Copepods,
Subclass Copepoda (Code: 485257)
14. Loss of Fish and
Wildlife Habitat
Protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife
Integrated Ecosystems for Recreational,
Subsistence, Inspirational, Learning, and Non-
Use.
For More Information
Jackson, CA, CL Hernandez, MC Harwell, and TH DeWitt (editors). 2022. Incorporating
Ecosystem Services into Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring 6t Assessment: Frameworks,
Tools, and Examples. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-22/080.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=355990
Newcomer-Johnson, T., D. White, M. Kern, J. Hoffman, M. Mills, G. Beaubien, T. Angradi, Jim
Lazorchak, M. Struckhoff, A. Trebitz, D. Walters, K. Williams, and S. Green. 2022. A review
of habitat restoration projects in Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Restoration targets, goals,
and monitoring paradigms. 2022 Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting (JASM), Grand Rapids, Ml.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=357139
Williams, K. and J. Hoffman. 2020. Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization: Engaging
Communities to Support Ecosystem-Based Management and Improve Human Wellbeing at
Clean-up Sites. In T. O'Higgins, etal., Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services
and aquatic biodiversity (pp. 543-560). Amsterdam: Springer.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0
Chapter 4
Section: Lessons Learned from Habitat Restoration Projects in Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Page 84
-------
Chapter 5
Demonstrations and Lessons
Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Page 85
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Lessons to Inform Restoration from Ecosystem Services Case
Studies
Katelyn Barrett and Leah Sharpe
Ecosystem Services Place-Based Research
Over the last 20 years, research on ecosystem services thinking and approaches has increased
in EPA. This has resulted in dozens of case studies highlighting ecosystem services
considerations and methodologies in place-based research applications. These place-based
applications have addressed diverse decision contexts, including restoration, revitalization,
and greenspace projects. Moreover, researchers have incorporated ecosystem services
thinking in different ways: using terminology inconsistently, partnering with diverse federal,
state, and local programs, addressing a wide range of research priorities based on partner
needs or underlying scientific research questions, and with varying degrees of centrality to
the case study decision. Despite these differences, environmental managers and ecosystem
services practitioners can learn relevant lessons from the studies, and the quantity of case
studies increases the likelihood of finding one relevant to their specific management
questions.
Place-based ecosystem services research conducted by EPA has been identified and compiled
into a database (Appendix 1). The goal of the database is to preserve the research in a single,
accessible location and to highlight innovative ways in which ecosystem services thinking can
be applied to environmental decision-making.
35
£ 30
o
% 25
o
^ 20
o.
H-
o
-------
SEPA
Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Database Boundaries and Content
The identified case studies highlight the research EPA has done with ecosystem services,
providing numerous examples from across the country. For inclusion in the database, each
case study must meet four criteria: 1) it is research led by EPA, 2) it is a place-based
application, 3) it contains ecosystem services considerations, methodologies, or approaches,
and 4) it is associated with a publicly available report or journal article.
The database contains records for each cited report or journal article associated with an EPA
case study. Each record contains an overview of the case study, information such as the
ecosystem under investigation, goal of the project, and methods, tools, or models used. Most
of the database information comes directly from each case study's publicly available
materials. These fields can be used to facilitate identification of relevant examples for
different interests. Because usage of different ecosystem services terminology in case studies
could create difficulties in locating or comparing records, beneficiaries and environmental
end-products have been identified for each case study using the National Ecosystem Services
Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus). NESCS Plus provides a consistent way to define
ecosystem services as a combination of ecosystem, beneficiary, and environmental end-
product.
Scope of Work
Database case studies capture a wide range of
ecosystems, U.S. regions, and purposes for applying
ecosystem services thinking. The database contains
case studies from every region of the country, as well
as one international. The greatest number of studies
took place in the southeast and northeast, likely
because this is where a plurality of EPA offices are also
located.
U.S. Territory
Nationwide
West
d eJL
4
\
n
11%
r
Northeast
Southwest
Southeast
Midwest
Relative percentages of studies located in
Studies in the database were predominantly in aquatic
ecosystems (estuarine, coastal aquatic ecosystems,
rivers, wetlands, freshwater lakes, and coral reefs). each reS'on °fthe u s-
This may reflect the specific management questions being explored, such as research
partnered with National Estuary Programs, or may indicate a gap that needs to be addressed.
Valuation studies were the most common purpose, potentially reflecting increasing interest in
natural capital accounting.
River/Wetland
£ Esturine/Coastal
¦2 Urban
Terrestrial
Freshwater
Coral Reef
o
u
Study Purpose
¦ ES Valuation
Rem ed i a ti o n / Re stora ti o n / Re vi t a lizati on
¦ Resilience
¦ Method demonstration
¦ Greenspaces
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Studies
Number of database studies focusing on different ecosystems for each category of study purpose.
Chapter 5
Section: Lessons to Inform Restoration from Ecosystem Services Case Studies
Page 87
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
EPA ecosystem services tools, such as NESCS Plus, recommend a beneficiary-centered
approach to ecosystem services, which identifies how people use ecosystems and the
ecological attributes they use or care about. EPA case studies considered a variety of
beneficiaries across projects and a range of ecological end-products for these beneficiaries.
Non-use values, such as existence value to people who care, were among the most common
benefits explored in case studies, particularly in valuation studies or demonstrations of
methods. Studies on inspirational or subsistence users were among the least common.
Non-Use
Learning
Inspirational
Recreational
Subsisten ce
£ Transportation
c Govermental/Muninipal/Residential
co Commercial/Industrial
Agricultural
o
on
d)
•M
ro
U
&¦
Study Purpose
iES Valuation
Remediation/Restoration/Revitalization
i Resilience
i Method demonstration
iGreenspaces
10 20 30
Number of Studies
40
50
Number of database studies focusing on different beneficiaries for each category of study purpose.
Composite attributes, which comprise multiple ecosystem components and include ecological
condition, site appeal, and buffering of extreme events, were among the most frequently
studied for all types of beneficiaries. Water attributes, such as water quality and availability,
were also a commonly studied attribute of relevance to multiple kinds of users. Studies
examining soil and substrate benefits to people were among the least common.
^ Non-Use
o Learning
OA
® Inspirational
(j Recreational
>• Subsistence
2 Transportation
•jj Govemmental/Municipal/Residential
il/lndustrial
Agricultural
^ Commercial/Industrial
Ecological Attributes
i Atmosphere
¦ Soil and Substrate
¦ Water
¦ Flora
¦ Fauna
¦ Composite and Extreme Weather Events
z
0 30 60 90
Number of Studies
120
Number of database studies focusing on ecological endpoints for different categories of beneficiaries.
The long history and wide breadth of ecosystem service research done in place-based case
studies provides a rich collection of examples for identifying, assessing, and valuing
ecosystem services. By organizing case studies in a database, it is the hope that
environmental managers and practitioners looking to incorporate ecosystem services thinking
into their own decisions or research will be able to find relevant methods that can be
transferred and applied to their own studies.
For More Information
Full list of citations from case studies in the database are in Appendix 1.
Page 88
Chapter 5
Section: Lessons to Inform Restoration from Ecosystem Services Case Studies
-------
Evaluation of Ecosystem Services for Drainage Improvements
and Water Quality Wetlands in Agricultural Iowa
Mark E. Mitchell, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Ken Forshay
Background
Iowa produces a large portion of the corn and soy grown in the U.S. but has lost at least 90%
of its historic wetland habitat, resulting in export of nutrients to the Gulf Coast where they
contribute to harmful algal blooms. Iowa agricultural producers, land managers, and
researchers recognized the need for a catchment-scale watershed analysis to understand the
collection of environmental benefits that could be gained if wetlands are installed to
intercept and treat water leaving the agricultural watershed, in combination with anticipated
drainage infrastructure improvements to reduce crop losses from flooding. This stakeholder
group also identified relevant ecosystem services to evaluate, tiered by their relative priority,
shown in the following figure.
Relevant ecosystem services identified by the Iowa stakeholder group and included in this study.
Why an Assessment was Needed
There is a need to address nutrient runoff from agricultural areas that contribute to Gulf
Coast algal blooms and hypoxia, which in turn result in threats to fish and human health.
Wetland restoration/construction in Iowa represents one of the most promising management
strategies for reducing nutrient export from agricultural systems, while also potentially
providing co-benefits. While the water quality benefits of these agricultural wetland systems
are established, these systems need to be evaluated holistic ally, including the additional
benefits they provide, and tradeoffs associated with their installation. Further, the
stakeholder group identified the need to explore these wetland benefits and tradeoffs in
combination with widespread drainage improvements anticipated in the state in the coming
years to reduce crop losses from flooding.
Page 89
Chapter 5
Section: Evaluation of Ecosystem Services for Drainage Improvements and Water Quality Wetlands in Agricultural Iowa
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Overview of Approach
Stakeholders in Iowa identified four relevant management scenarios - with and without
improved drainage and with and without water quality wetlands - to estimate the net
potential effects of these management strategies on the relevant ecosystem services
identified in the previous figure.
Three methods were used to evaluate the potential impacts of drainage improvements and
water quality wetlands on the chosen ecosystem services: 1) stakeholders' hypotheses based
on knowledge and experience in their fields (Mitchell et al. 2022a), 2) a literature review and
synthesis of scientific work evaluating previous findings (Mitchell et al. 2022a), and 3)
modeling (Mitchell et al. 2022b).
Quantifying Restoration Effectiveness
Stakeholder hypotheses and the literature review suggest that drainage improvements (A, B in
figure below) would reduce atmospheric emissions and reduce surface flooding, leading to
increased crop yields, but have little effect toward decreasing nitrogen export. The combined
scenario featuring both drainage improvements and water quality wetlands (C in figure below)
may help to decrease nitrate exports leaving the catchment, while resulting habitat,
pollination, and educational and cultural services (Mitchell et al. 2022a). Habitat and wild bee
pollinator modeling in InVEST (https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest)
supports the finding that the combined scenario will likely result in habitat and pollinator
gains (Mitchell et al. 2022b). For more details on modeling methods and scenario outcomes see
Chapter 3, "Quantifying Habitat Benefits of Agricultural Wetlands in Iowa" and Chapter 4,
"Evaluating Wildlife Habitat Implications of Drainage Improvements and Water Quality
Wetlands."
A) Upland - Current Drainage
J
B) L
r&S
>T
pland
- Imp
w
T i
rove
Citrous
k
i
d Drainage
Oxide
3k>bal Warming Potential (GWP)
L
Surface Flow >-
PPPW*
•1 tj.! f • 4 '¦1 »
Hypotheses for the effect of drainage improvements
(A, B) and water quality wetlands (C) on ecosystem
service metrics identified by the Iowa Stakeholder
Croup included in this study. Hypotheses are based
on stakeholder experience and a literature review.
Adapted from Mitchell et al. 2022a.
C) Wetlands
~
C
NO, -N Removal
To Outlet
±
Nitrous Oxide
Methane
GWP
Page 90
Chapter 5
Section: Evaluation of Ecosystem Services for Drainage Improvements and Water Quality Wetlands in Agricultural Iowa
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Taking Action and Conclusions
This project supported EPA Region 7 research on agricultural wetland systems and ecosystem
services. As a result of this work, stakeholders in Iowa have additional tools to identify the
benefits and tradeoffs associated with land management decisions for improving water quality
and providing additional benefits.
For More Information
EcoService Models Library: https://esml.epa.gov/
Mitchell ME, SD Shifflett, T Newcomer-Johnson, A Hodaj, W Crumpton, J Christensen, B
Dyson, T Canfield, S Richmond, M Helmers, D Lemke, M Lechtenberg, Chris Taylor, KJ
Forshay. 2022a. Ecosystem services in Iowa: hypotheses for scenarios with water quality
wetlands and improved tile drainage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 77:426-440.
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2022.00127
Mitchell ME, T Newcomer-Johnson, W Crumpton, J Christensen, B Dyson, T Canfield, S
Richmond, M Helmers, D Lemke, M Lechtenberg, D Green, KJ Forshay. 2022b. Potential of
water quality wetlands to mitigate habitat losses from agricultural drainage improvements.
Science of The Total Environment 838: 156358.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156358.
Page 91
Chapter 5
Section: Evaluation of Ecosystem Services for Drainage Improvements and Water Quality Wetlands in Agricultural Iowa
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Revitalizing a Remediated Landfill in East Mount Zion
Leah Sharpe
East Mount Zion Superfund Site
The East Mount Zion (EMZ) landfill is a 10-acre Superfund site located in Springettsbury
Township, York County, Pennsylvania. The site functioned as a landfill for household and
industrial waste from 1955 to 1972 and was forced to close after repeated violations. Waste
at the site was a human health hazard both through direct contact and ground water
contamination.
A multi-layer cap was put in
place in 1999 to isolate and
prevent spread of the
contamination. The cap has
proved effective, both in
eliminating direct contact with
the waste and protecting
groundwater from continued
contamination. The site,
however, is currently overgrown
with nuisance vegetation and the
frequent mowing required in the
operations and management plan
creates an attractive habitat for
groundhogs, whose burrowing
behavior can damage the cap.
Revitalization Project
Although the site was no longer a risk to the community, there was interest in whether it
could be transformed into a community asset. This project asked what potential ecosystem
services the site could produce, worked with stakeholders to explore interest in those
services, estimated how changes to the site would impact those services, and made
recommendations for site revegetation based on stakeholder priorities. The approach
consisted of four major components:
1. A technical workshop to identify the potential options for site revitalization and the
ecosystem services to be analyzed,
2. Ecosystem modeling and expert consultation to analyze the potential impacts of
revitalization on ecosystem services of interest,
3. A stakeholder workshop to get community input on ecosystem services of interest,
revitalization options, and potential impacts on services, and
4. Plan implementation and monitoring to move forward on an option selected based on
community input and monitor the results.
Chapter 5
Section: Revitalizing a Remediated Landfill in East Mount Zion
Page 92
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Identifying Revitalization and Ecosystem Service Options
Identifying ecosystem services for a contaminated site can differ from non-contaminated
sites, since keeping the community protected from contamination often limits how
beneficiaries can interact with the site and what changes can be made to the ecosystem on
the site (for more details see Chapter 4, "Benefits of Natural Revegetation of Remediated
Sites"). For East Mount Zion, access to the site is restricted to authorized personnel and
changes to the site couldn't interfere with the effectiveness of the cap. Despite this,
revitalization options were identified that would allow space for education, recreation,
wildlife habitat, and enhanced biodiversity.
Quantifying Impacts of Revitalization
Once potential options for the site and ecosystem services of interest had been identified (for
more details see Chapter 2, "Beneficiaries of Restoration and the Ecosystem Services They
Care About: Remediated Site Revegetation"), the EcoService Models Library was searched to
find models that had endpoints of interest to stakeholders, were applicable to the site, and
could be run with available data. For endpoints with no available models, the team relied on
expert opinion to estimate the impact of changes to the site. The endpoints of interest and
the methods for estimating changes to them are in the following table.
Methods used to quantify ecosystem services of interest
Endpoint of Interest
Quantification Method
Aesthetics
Expert opinion
Bird populations
Bobolink population density model; Grasshopper sparrow
population density model; eBird
Water interception
Ecosystem Services Identification and Inventory (ESII) tool
Erosion control
ESII tool
Pollinator populations
Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs
(InVEST) pollination model; InVEST rare species model
Carbon storage
InVEST carbon storage model
Pest reduction
Expert opinion
Cost savings
Historical site management data
Noise reduction
Expert opinion
Examining Tradeoffs
The technical workshop set the boundaries for what could be done on the site so that the
stakeholders at the community workshop could discuss all logistically and legally possible
options. Since stakeholders would be examining the impacts to endpoints when making their
recommendations, the workshop facilitators were strategic about how the model results were
shared. High-level specifics for each method of estimation were shared, but the results across
the endpoints were summarized in a single chart showing results on a normalized 0-10 scale,
as shown in the following figure. This was done to make it easier to look at impacts to all
endpoints simultaneously and was valuable in informing stakeholders' opinions on site
revitalization options.
Chapter 5
Section: Revitalizing a Remediated Landfill in East Mount Zion
Page 93
-------
1. Status Quo - mowed grass
2. Native grassland scenario
10
0
4
8
6
2
¦ Aesthetics
Birds
¦ Water interception
¦ Carbon storage
¦ Noise reduction
¦ Erosion control ¦ Pollinators
¦ Pest reduction ¦ Cost savings
Modeled ecosystem services benefits for status quo scenario vs planting native grasses.
Outcomes and Lessons Learned
The recommendations arising from the community workshop were used in selecting the
revitalization plan for the site and work on the site is scheduled to be completed in 2022. The
process has given participants a greater sense of connection to the site and the future site
will be more attractive and require less maintenance, as well as offering potential
educational opportunities. The overall approach taken demonstrates how to work effectively
within the constraints of contaminated sites and share complex information with lay
audiences.
For More Information
East Mount Zion, Springettsbury Township, PA, Cleanup Activities:
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=
Sharpe, L.M. and Newcomer-Johnson, T. Cleaning Up: Involving Community and Ecology in
Remediation Projects. East Mount Zion Landfill Site Community Workshop, Virtual,
November 18, 2020.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=350287.
Sharpe, L., K. Barrett, M. Cron, J. Essoka, J. Harvey, G. Ferreira, A. Mandell, C. Maurice, T.
Newcomer-Johnson, K. Patnode, and B. Pluta. 2022. East Mount Zion Superfund Site:
Revitalization to Benefit the Community. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600-R-21/317.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=546308
0301426.
Page 94
Chapter 5
Section: Revitalizing a Remediated Landfill in East Mount Zion
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
References
The EcoService Models Library (ESML). https://esml.epa.gov/
The EcoService Models Library: Bobolink population density, CREP (Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program) wetlands, Iowa, USA (EM-648). https://esml.epa.gov/detail/em/648
The EcoService Models Library: ESII (Ecosystem Services Identification 6t Inventory) Tool
method (EM-712). https://esml.epa.gov/detail/em/712
The EcoService Models Library: Grasshopper Sparrow population density, CREP (Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program) wetlands, Iowa, USA (EM-649).
https://esml.epa.gov/detail/em/649
Sullivan, B.L., C.L. Wood, M.J. Iliff, R.E. Bonney, D. Fink, and S. Kelling. (2009) eBird: a
citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation
142: 2282-2292. https://ebird.org/home
Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Sharp, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D.,
Wolny, S., Olwero, N., Vigerstol, K., Pennington, D., Mendoza, G., Aukema, J., Foster, J.,
Forrest, J., Cameron, D., Arkema, K., Lonsdorf, E., Kennedy, C., Verutes, G., Kim, C.K.,
Guannel, G., Papenfus, M., Toft, J., Marsik, M., Bernhardt, J., Griffin, R., Glowinski, K.,
Chaumont, N., Perelman, A., Lacayo, M., Mandle, L., Hamel, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Vogl,
A.L. (2014) Integrated valuation of environmental services and tradeoffs (InVEST) 3.1.0
user's guide. Natural Capital Project, Stanford.
https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest
Chapter 5
Section: Revitalizing a Remediated Landfill in East Mount Zion
Page 95
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Tillamook River Wetlands Restoration
Connie L. Hernandez, Chloe A. Jackson, Leah Sharpe, Theodore H. DeWitt
Introduction and Restoration Context
Tillamook Bay is located on the northwest coast of Oregon and is known for both nature-based
recreation and economies, which include dairy, agriculture, forestry, fishing, aquaculture,
hunting, and coastal and forested public spaces. A National Estuary Program was established
in 1994 (TEP 2019) shortly after being designated as an estuary of "National Significance" to
conserve water quality and habitats that are used by federally or state-recognized species of
concern (including endangered Coho Salmon). Five rivers drain into Tillamook Bay, and
restoration projects led by or partnered with the Tillamook Estuaries Partnership (TEP) have
spanned all five watersheds. One recent restoration project is focused on tidal wetlands on a
73-acre site along Tillamook River. The Tillamook River Wetlands (TRW) restoration project is
led by a partnership of TEP, the North Coast Land Conservancy (NCLC), and the Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). The TRW partners recently have been developing
alternatives for restoration actions to propose to stakeholders and regulators. Historically,
the TRW site included Sitka spruce tidal wetland habitat, which has been greatly diminished
in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Restoration of tidal wetlands to increase salmon populations
and improve water quality is a priority of the partners.
Proposed Tillamook River Wetlands project area, located south of Tillamook Bay. Maps adapted from OWEB (2017)
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program Proposal: Tillamook River Wetlands Project.
Tillamook River Wetlands Rroject
Proposed Project Area;, /
Tillamook'River
Spruce Swamp
Spruce'Swamp
Farmland
Farmland
'¦
Chapter 5
Section: Tillamook River Wetlands Restoration
Page 96
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Assessment Needs
TEP restoration managers and EPA researchers collaborated to identify the ecosystem services
that might be gained or lost as a result of the TRW restoration project using the Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool (FST; Sharpe et al. 2020). The FST provides
decision makers with a structured method for prioritizing stakeholder groups based on a set of
decision criteria, identifying how they are benefiting from the environment as beneficiaries,
and the environmental attributes necessary for realizing those benefits (for more details see
Chapter 2, "The FEGS Scoping Tool for Prioritizing Ecosystem Services Relevant to
Restoration"). The tool helps users develop a comprehensive list of all potential ecosystem
services, while also prioritizing those most relevant to restoration decisions and meaningful to
stakeholders.
For TEP, the goals of the FST analysis were to better understand who within the community
might be affected by this tidal wetland restoration project, and to better understand what
ecological resources might be used by people interacting with the site. For the EPA scientists,
the goals were to test the utility of the FST, and to identify priority ecosystem services for
tidal wetlands for which monitoring metrics might be developed.
Approach
EPA researchers facilitated the use of the FST with TEP managers though a series of in-person
and virtual meetings with in-depth discussions of the project background and decision
context. The managers provided insight into the ecology of the site, current impacts to
infrastructure within the site, and the stakeholders and their interests for the TRW
restoration project. The discussions included walking through each of the FST steps: 1)
scoring the decision criteria, 2) identifying stakeholders, 3) identifying the roles stakeholders
play as beneficiaries, and 4) scoring environmental attributes based on their relevance to
beneficiaries. The EPA researchers explored how priority environmental attributes translate
to common interests among stakeholders and analyzed how the priority environmental
attributes relate back to stakeholders.
Summary of Results of the FST analysis
Discussions with managers produced the following results for each FST step:
1. Decision Criteria: Level of Influence, Magnitude of Impact, Legal Rights, and Proximity
were revealed as the most important criteria useful to decision-makers to distinguish
among groups.
2. Stakeholders: 15 stakeholders were identified as having interest in the TRW restoration
project. Based on decision criteria scoring, the most influential stakeholders were
revealed to be Tillamook County Agencies, Tillamook Shooters Association, Rural
Residential Neighbors, the NCLC Site Landowner, and TEP 6t Partners. The least influential
stakeholders were Utilities, the Commercial Community, and the General Public.
3. Beneficiaries of ecosystem services: 21 beneficiary groups were identified across the
stakeholder groups. The top beneficiaries were People Who Care, Transporters of People,
Students 6t Educators, Transporters of Goods, and Researchers. These top beneficiaries
were shared by multiple stakeholders. However, other beneficiaries have shared interests,
such as Hunters and Anglers who primarily (though not solely) care about edible fauna.
Chapter 5
Section: Tillamook River Wetlands Restoration
Page 97
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
4. Environmental Attributes: 43 environmental attributes were identified as necessary for
providing the benefits from the TRW site valued by the beneficiaries. The attributes that
were of shared interest among the influential beneficiaries were Edible Fauna, composite
factors that mitigate Flooding, composite factors that define Ecological Condition, Water
Quality, and composite factors determining Viewscapes.
Conclusion
The restored TRW site could provide the most benefit to stakeholders if the restoration plan
focused on concerns regarding flooding, which benefit multiple beneficiaries, including
Residential/Municipal/Government property owners and Transporters of People and Goods.
Other environmental attributes of high interest include Ecological Condition and Edible
Fauna, which were interests shared by most stakeholders.
For More Information
Hernandez, C.L., L. Sharpe, C.A. Jackson, and T.H. DeWitt. 2022. Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services Scoping Tool analysis of beneficiaries and environmental attributes for the
Tillamook River wetlands restoration project. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Newport, OR. EPA/600/R-22/045.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=355778
Chapter 5
Section: Tillamook River Wetlands Restoration
Page 98
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Setting Restoration Targets for Massachusetts Bays Estuaries
Susan Yee, Giancarlo Cicchetti, Leah Sharpe, Benjamin Branoff
Restoration Context
The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary
Partnership (MassBays NEP) planning area
encompasses 1,100 miles of
Massachusetts coastline and includes 44
separate estuarine embayment
assessment areas that intersect more
than 50 coastal cities and towns. The
MassBays NEP has recently worked to
update their comprehensive conservation
and management plan to include
restoration targets for salt marsh,
seagrass, and tidal flats.
A key question in target setting is asking
not only "What kind of ecological future
do we want?" but "What kind of socio-
economic future do we want?"
Estuarine
embayment
assessment
areas, classified
by ecotype.
Ecotypes were
based on
physical
conditions of
wave energy
(protected:
yellow, orange;
exposed: green,
blue) and
sediment
(abundant:
yellow, green;
little: orange,
blue).
An understanding of historical changes in biological condition, as well as associated loss or
gain in ecosystem services, can help to identify targets that are reasonable within the context
of what might be possible, and that achieve desired levels of benefit.
Assessment Framework
The Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) was developed to address a need for science-based
approaches to more precisely and effectively communicate the existing and potential
condition of aquatic resources.
The BCG defines the potential range
of biological condition from natural
or undisturbed, to highly degraded,
and can help to identify low- and
high-quality water or evaluate the
potential for improvement of
degraded water. An additional step
of assessing how ecosystem services
change with corresponding levels of
BCG can further help to
communicate the likely social and
economic benefits of protecting or
restoring a site, or to evaluate
potential tradeoffs between
different restoration scenarios.
What did
we have?
What future
do we want?
Increased conservation,
protection, & restoration
Some conservation,
protection, & restoration
Business as usual
Illustration of BCG and ESC framework. Icons: ian.umces.edu/symbols.
Chapter 5
Section: Setting Restoration Targets for Massachusetts Bays Estuaries
Page 99
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
A BCG and an analogous Ecosystem Services Gradient (ESG) were developed for MassBays to
help support setting restoration targets and form a foundation for future local
implementation of restoration projects toward achieving those targets. Historical trends in
habitat acres and associated ecosystem services provisioning were used to understand the
range of potential condition and benefits.
Biological Condition Gradient
Historic and modern data were used
to describe the change in acres of
salt marsh, seagrass, and tidal flat
habitat. Embayments were
classified into ecotypes based on
physical conditions of wave energy
(protected: yellow, orange;
exposed: green, blue) and relative
sediment availability (abundant:
yellow, green; little: orange, blue).
Ecotypes set the expectations for
restoration because they determine
which habitats an embayment is
physically capable of supporting.
A BCG was developed for each ecotype, as well as individual embayments. The orange
ecotype BCG, for example, indicates these protected low sediment areas have lost greater
percentages of all habitat types than other ecotypes.
Identifying and Prioritizing Ecosystem Services
Before potential ecosystem goods and services benefits of restoration are quantified, an
important first step is to identify how people in local communities are using coastal
ecosystems, and what ecosystem goods and services are priorities for consideration.
Wind, Air Quality
Natural Materials
Mitigating Flooding
Land, Soil, Substrate
Flora
Community
/^Climate Regulation
Water
Quantity
Fauna
Community
Water
Quality
Edible/
Commercial Fauna
Relative importance of different ecosystem services as
identified from community documents.
An analysis of community planning
documents was conducted to understand:
1) who is using these coastal habitats; 2)
what ecosystem services they care about;
and 3) what are the top ecosystem
services that resonate with people in
each embayment community (for more
details see Chapter 2, "Document
Analysis to Identify Priority Ecosystem
Services for Massachusetts Bays Estuary
Communities"). Broadly, communities
cared about ecosystem condition and
aesthetics, fauna and flora biodiversity,
edible and commercially important fauna,
water quality, and water quantity.
Biological condition gradient for 3 focal ecosystems across all
MassBays embayments.
100
90
80
x 70
£ 60
0
? 50
1 40
ro
£ 30
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Ecosystem Services Gradient
When ecosystem services data are
scarce, models can be used to translate
more commonly measured data, such as
acres of habitat, into measures of
ecosystem services provisioning. A
values matrix, derived from literature
reviews and expert opinion, was used to
assign relative values of ecosystem
services to different habitat types, thus
allowing a comparison across different
types of habitats on a comparable scale
across space and time when paired with
maps of changing landcover (for more
details see Chapter 3, "Modeling
Ecosystem Services Change over Time in
Massachusetts Bays Estuan'ne Coastal
Habitats").
Salt marsh was the largest contributor
to ecosystem services throughout
MassBays, particularly for climate
change mitigation and fauna
biodiversity. The greatest declines in
ecosystem services were for seagrass,
particular for edible fauna and fauna
biodiversity. Although salt marsh
ecosystem services were relatively
stable over the past 20 years, the high
ecosystem services value of salt marsh ... „ „ „
. . Ecosystem services capacity over time across all MassBays
IS at risk if current levels of salt marsh embayments for the three focal ecosystems.
are not maintained.
Setting Targets for Restoration
Discussions about historic losses of coastal habitats and their benefits, described by the BCG
and ESG, are helping to support restoration target setting for MassBays to restore seagrass,
prevent further losses of salt marsh and tidal flats, and maintain and restore valuable
ecosystem services. MassBays is also working to identify metrics for measuring restoration
progress. To achieve targets, local-scale restoration projects are being and will be
implemented. Scaling BCG and ESG assessments to local scales will help support an
understanding of local loss or gain in habitats, prioritize and compare alternative restoration
projects, and to communicate and track the potential benefits of restoration.
1500 n
Salt Marsh
b 1000
<
X
0)
-S 500
5
o
-Climate Change
Mitigation
-Edible/
Commercial Fauna
-Fauna Community
Protection from
Flooding
Water Quality
Water Quantity
1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
1500
1000 -
Seagrass
1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
-Climate Change
Mitigation
-Edible/
Commercial Fauna
-Fauna Community
Protection from
Flooding
-Water Quality
-Water Quantity
1500 -|
1000 -
<
x
(l)
500 -
0
Tidal Flats
-Climate Change
Mitigation
-Edible/
Commercial Fauna
-Fauna Community
Protection from
Flooding
Water Quality
Water Quantity
1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
Chapter 5
Section: Setting Restoration Targets for Massachusetts Bays Estuaries
Page 101
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
For More Information
Branoff, B., S. Yee, G. Cicchetti, M. Pryor, and S. Jackson. From biological condition to
ecosystem services: Assessing the value of habitat presence to MassBays communities.
Center for Watershed Protection's Coastal and Island Conference (Virtual), November 16 -
17, 2020. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=350836
Branoff, B., G. Cicchetti, S. Jackson, M. Pryor, L.M. Sharpe, E. Shumchenia, S.H. Yee. 2023.
Capturing twenty years of change in ecosystem services provided by coastal Massachusetts
habitats. Ecosystem Services 61:101530. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101530
Cicchetti, G., M.C. Pelletier, K.J. Rocha, P. Bradley, D.L. Santavy, M.E. Pryor, S.K. Jackson,
S.P. Davies, C.F. Deacutis, 6t E.J. Shumchenia. 2017. Implementing the biological condition
gradient framework for management of estuaries and coasts. EPA/600/R-15/287. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology
Division, Narragansett, Rl.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=338154
Yee, S., G. Cicchetti, T. H. DeWitt, M. C. Harwell, S. K. Jackson, M. Pryor, K. Rocha, D. L.
Santavy, L. Sharpe, 6t E. Shumchenia. 2020. The ecosystem services gradient: A descriptive
model for identifying thresholds of meaningful change. In T. O'Higgins, et al., Ecosystem-
based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity (pp. 291-308). Amsterdam:
Springer, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0
Yee, S., K. Williams, G. Cicchetti, T. DeWitt, R. Fulford, M. Harwell, L. Sharpe, B. Branoff,
and R. Rossi. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services for Use by National Estuary Program
Stakeholders to Inform Management and Restoration Planning Decisions. NCER2021: National
Conference on Ecosystem Restoration, Virtual, July 26 - August 05, 2021.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=353151
Yee., S., B. Branoff, G. Cicchetti, S.K. Jackson, M. Pryor, L. Sharpe, E. Shumchenia. 2022.
The Ecosystem Services Gradient: An Integrated Approach for Identifying Benefits of
Restoration. A Community on Ecosystem Services (ACES) Conference, Washington, D.C.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=356730
Yee, S.H., L.M. Sharpe, B.L. Branoff, C.A. Jackson, G. Cicchetti, S. Jackson, M. Pryor, E.
Shumchenia. 2023. Ecosystem Services Profiles for Communities Benefitting from Estuarine
Habitats along the Massachusetts Coast, USA. Ecological Informatics.
Chapter 5
Section: Setting Restoration Targets for Massachusetts Bays Estuaries
Page 102
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Restoration for Ecosystem Services Change - Mobile Bay
Subwatershed Case Study
Richard S, Fulford
Background
Suburban watersheds are an area of rapid change in land use, with commensurate change in
production of ecosystem services, making suburban coastal watersheds a high-priority target
for restoration efforts. Significant effort has been invested in quantifying the value of
ecosystem services in coastal ecosystems and linking ecosystem valuation to decision making,
yet there remains a need to fully operationalize ecosystem service assessments, particularly
for local decision making.
Investments in coastal watershed restoration are most frequently valued based on a
comparison of restoration cost to the economic value of the restoration outcome, often for
communicating value to stakeholders after restoration is complete. Ecosystem services
assessment tools can inform local decision planning by providing a projection of potential
ecosystem services change associated with restoration options. Ecosystem services valuation
is a strong extension of a purely economic approach, accounting for social and environmental
benefits as well. Valuation based on ecosystem services requires a baseline for comparison of
restoration options and an integrated measure of benefits based on ecosystem services
production that can inform when restoration is predicted to have the desired effect.
A suite of modeling tools for
estimating ecosystem services
production were applied to
consider priority targets for
restoration in a watershed
adjacent to Mobile Bay,
Alabama. The Mobile Bay
National Estuary Program
(MBNEP) is committed to
quantifying ecosystem services
as a part of restoration
planning and implementation.
Why an Ecosystem Services Assessment was Needed
Ecosystem services are natural attributes of ecosystems that benefit people. They are
quantifiable and trackable in terms of gain or loss in response to restoration. Analysis of
ecosystem services provides both a critical assessment tool for restoration, as well as a
planning tool by which areas of ecosystem services loss can be prioritized for restoration effort.
Overview of Approach
At the subwatershed level, the two modeling tools EPA H2O and VELMA were used to estimate
four ecosystem services for an index sub-watershed that has been the target of restoration
investments in Mobile Bay, AL (for details on modeling methodology see Chapter 3, "Setting
Restoration Baselines with Ecosystem Services Models"). Restoration was initially valued
based solely on improvements in water clarity.
Example restoration site in D'Olive watershed. Stream bank erosion
caused by extreme flow events demonstrates need to stream calming
effort. Photo credit: Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP).
Chapter 5
Section: Restoration for Ecosystem Services Change - Mobile Bay Subwatershed Case Study
Page 103
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Use of models allowed for expansion of assessment to include ecosystem service change over
time, including in air and water quality, carbon sequestration, and flood protection/water
storage capacity shown in the following figure.
Tiawassee Creek Ecosystem Service Assessment
$24,980 yr1
$7,398 yr
^ $8,109 yr'
2001
2011
$178,218
Example ecosystem services value comparison in a Mobile Bay, AL subwatershed. Scenario for conversion of open
field to developed land. Maps illustrate landuse change in the Tiawassee creek area of the D'OUve watershed
from 2001-2011 (green: forest, red: developed, yellow: field). Dollar values indicate the net change in ecosystem
services value from 2001 to 2011. Services top to bottom are: Clean water, Clean air, Carbon sequestration, and
Flood water storage.
Measuring change requires that a baseline
be established for estimating meaningful
improvements in ecosystem services value.
The models were used to hindcast change
in ecosystem services value related to land
use change between 2001 and 2011 and
this change became our baseline for
estimating influence of restoration on
ecosystem services value.
For comparison of all Mobile Bay adjacent
sub-watersheds, a comprehensive
assessment was also conducted of
ecosystem services value based on the
ecosystem services relative capacity matrix
approach also used in Massachusetts Bays
(Branoff et al. 2023; see Chapter 3,
"Modeling Ecosystem Services Change over
Time in Massachusetts Bays Estuarine
Coastal Habitats"), which uses an
ecosystem services index based on
cumulative value of ecosystem services by Nummary of ecosystem services value (scaled index 0-350)
' ' based on capacity matrix approach. Darker colors are
land cover type (figure at right). The two higher value.
approaches are complementary.
Average Value
I ! 0.0 - 50.0
I 50.0-100.0
[ J 100.0 - 150.0
E3 i5o.o - 200.0
¦¦ 200.0 - 250.0
¦¦ 250.0-300.0
300.0 - 350.0
0 5 10 20 miles
1 t I l I l l i I
Chapter 5
Section: Restoration for Ecosystem Services Change - Mobile Bay Subwatershed Case Study
Page 104
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
r-|
*
• '*~ ' a; , i
1 p-fto
*
Cgijto'
Image of water flow calming project in
Joes Branch of D'Olive watershed (Photo:
MBNEP)
Quantifying Restoration Effectiveness
In the D'Olive watershed, we compared restoration cost
to value of lost ecosystem services based on landcover
change since 2001 and found that if services were
reestablished as a part of restoration, then the
recovered value would justify the costs. However, the
recovery period would need to be long (> 20 years). This
finding emphasizes the need to think long-term in
planning for restoration. Mapped comparisons of all
Mobile Bay sub-watersheds is a useful planning tool for
prioritization of restoration effort. Restoration efforts in
the southern sub-watersheds, particularly the urbanized
western side, could compensate for lost services due to
development.
Taking Action on Ecosystem Services Restoration
These tools provide both assessment baselines for
planned restoration effects, as well as planning tools for
prioritizing ecosystem services recovery as a goal for
restoration.
Lessons Learned
Ecosystem services link natural assets to people but stakeholder understanding of ecosystem
services as a measurable, actionable component of restoration requires up-front efforts in
education and information exchange. Stakeholder engagement and communication tools such
as the ecosystem services capacity matrix approach and EPA H2O model output are critical
steps prior to identifying preferred restoration options.
For More Information
Fulford, R.S., T.J. Canfield, T.H. DeWitt, M. Harwell, J. Hoffman, R.B. McKane, L. Sharpe, K.
Williams, and S. Yee. 2023. Transferability and Utility of Practical Strategies for Community
Decision Making: Results from a Coordinated Case Study Assessment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R-23/068.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=357317
Fulford, RS, M. Russell, M. Myers, M. Malish, and A. Delmaine. 2022. Models help set
ecosystem services baselines for restoration assessment. Journal of Environmental
Management 317:115411. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115411
References
Branoff, B., G. Cicchetti, S. Jackson, M. Pryor, L.M. Sharpe, E. Shumchenia, S.H. Yee. 2023.
Capturing twenty years of change in ecosystem services provided by coastal Massachusetts
habitats. Ecosystem Services 61:101530. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101530.
EPA H20 Software Tool: https://www.epa.gov/water-research/ecosystem-services-scenario-
assessment-using-epa-h2o
VELMA (Visualizing Ecosystem Land Management Assessments) Model:
https://www.epa.gov/water-research/visualizing-ecosystern-land-management-
assessments-velma-model
Chapter 5
Section: Restoration for Ecosystem Services Change - Mobile Bay Subwatershed Case Study
Page 105
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Communicating Upstream Benefits of Restoration for
Chesapeake Bay
Ryann Rossi and Susan Yee
Restoration Context
The Chesapeake Bay has been the focus of
restoration efforts since the 1980s when
the first watershed agreement was signed.
In 2010 a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
was established to reduce nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment loads into the
Bay, prompting Watershed Implementation
Plans that outlined Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to improve water quality
in the Bay. In 2014 a new Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement was adopted that
included headwater states for the first
time, and outlined numeric goals for
implementation of several BMPs focused on
restoration and conservation of vital
habitats. At the watershed scale, however,
implementation goals associated with vital
habitats are lagging, especially in upstream
areas of the watershed.
One potential way to improve progress toward Watershed Agreement goals is to demonstrate
how these actions may align with the priorities of local communities upstream in the
watersheds where they would be implemented. This project extends assessment beyond
water quality outcomes by identifying and quantifying additional ecosystem services benefits
that may result from habitat restoration- and conservation-related BMPs.
Clarify the Scope of the Problem
Researchers reviewed existing management documents and worked with Chesapeake Bay
Program partners to generate a target list of BMPs based on the following criteria: 1) related
to Watershed Agreement goals that are lagging in implementation; 2) related to habitat
restoration, creation, or conservation; and 3) likely relevant to upstream or headwater
communities. A total of eleven BMPs were selected: Agricultural Forest Buffer; Agricultural
Grass Buffer; Agriculture Tree Planting; Cover Crops; Forest Conservation; Impervious Surface
Reduction; Urban Forest Buffers; Urban Forest Planting; Urban Tree Planting; Wetland
Creation; and Wetland Restoration.
Identify Ecosystem Services that are Most Relevant
Next, the National Ecosystem Services Classification System Plus (NESCS Plus), a review of
Chesapeake Bay planning documents, and feedback from partners were used to identify a
comprehensive list of ecosystem services provided by each BMP, and the potential users
groups (or beneficiaries) most likely to benefit from those ecosystem services.
New York
Pennsylvania
West /\Washingto
Virgin!
Virginia
De aware
Chesapeake Bay watershed encompasses multiple
states and District of Columbia.
Chapter 5
Section: Communicating Upstream Benefits of Restoration for Chesapeake Bay
Page 106
-------
Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
The Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool was
used to prioritize ecosystem
services based on assigning
importance weights to certain
stakeholder groups (e.g., low
income residents) and their
corresponding roles as
beneficiaries, as well as to
beneficiaries and FEGS identified by
partners or management
documents, and summing the
relative importance of different
FEGS across all beneficiaries, such
that FEGS of broad importance to
multiple beneficiaries were given
highest weighted priority.
o «
o $
gS
C °
O <1)
ao-
® c
= 2
wo
oE
Govt/Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Recreational
Agricultural
Learning
Subsistence
Inspirational
Non-use
I
o>
ffl CO
w cr
•= .U3CCI3CO(D(fl®y3
Q_ c
T3 ^ O £ c c
i®
•;= cu
CD
O -
CD •
C ^
s &
o
CD +3 ¦ —
O
~_
a.
CD
C
D
CD
LLJ
_ E
a? to
E -c
5°
CD <
00
*c
cn
.c
O
FEGS scoping tool prioritization of ecosystem services attributes,
and relevance to different beneficiary groups.
For more details, see Chapter 2, "Beneficiaries of Restoration and Conservation Best
Management Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed."
Identify Measures arid Models to Quantify Ecosystem Services
For each priority ecosystem service, candidate metrics were identified based on the
availability of data and models that translate biological condition into potential supply of
ecosystem services.
Air Quality
Open Space
Bird Species
Carbon Sequestration
Low
Med
High
Flood Control
Maps of baseline ecosystem services supply based on 2013/2014 landcover maps.
Page 107
Chapter 5
Section: Communicating Upstream Benefits of Restoration for Chesapeake Bay
Pollinators
Pathogen Reduction
Soil Quality
Low
gMed
¦High
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Each of the target BMPs was assumed to result in new acres of landcover based on the 2013-
2014 landcover types assigned in the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST) (e.g.,
natural tree canopy, low vegetation, wetland). Literature was reviewed to assemble data and
models to translate landcover into FEGS supply. For more details on modeling methods, see
Chapter 3, "Quantifying Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed."
Integrate Ecosystem Services Information into BMP Planning
Models were used to quantify potential supply of ecosystem services with acres of BMP
implementation. This information will be used to help communicate the co-benefits (other
than nutrient reduction) associated with BMPs in the watershed. For details on the full suite
of ecosystem services potentially associated with BMP implementation see Chapter 4,
"Linking Restoration and Conservation Best Management Practices to Ecosystem Services in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed."
~ Air quality
~ Bird richness
~ Carbon sequestration
^ Flood control
~ Open space
~ Pathogen reduction
~ Pollinator
ES3 Soil quality
~ Heat risk reduction
^ Water quantity
Model-estimated ecosystem services value (scaled) of ten ecosystem services for each focal BMP.
The models and maps were designed to integrate with existing tools like the Chesapeake
Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST), a modeling tool that lets users estimate nutrient reductions
from different choices or acres of BMP implementation, and the Watershed Data Dashboard,
which lets users see information for each county in the watershed, to potentially target areas
where ecosystem services could be improved. Quantifying ecosystem services for lagging
implementation actions and connecting them with stakeholder interests can help communities
understand benefits and tradeoffs of different BMPs, thus empowering communities to
participate in restoration efforts in ways that resonate with them and address their own local
priorities.
Chapter 5
Section: Communicating Upstream Benefits of Restoration for Chesapeake Bay
Page 108
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
For More Information
Rossi, R., C. Bisland, L. Sharpe, E. Trentacoste, B. Williams, S. Yee. 2022. Identifying and
Aligning Ecosystem Services and Beneficiaries Associated with Best Management Practices in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Environmental Management 69:384-409.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01561-z
Rossi, R.E., C. Bisland, B. Jenkins, V. Van Note, B. Williams, E. Trentacoste, Susan Yee. 2023.
Quantifying Ecosystem Services Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management
Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-22/170.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=357757.
Rossi, R.E., C. Bisland, B. Jenkins, V. Van Note, B. Williams, E. Trentacoste, S. Yee. 2023.
Quantifying Ecosystem Services Benefits of Restoration and Conservation Best Management
Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) Workshop: Using Ecosystem Services to Increase
Progress Toward, and Quantify the Benefits of, Multiple CBP Outcomes (March 2023).
https://www.chesapeake.org/stac/events/day-1-using-ecosystem-services-to-increase-
progress-toward-and-quantify-the-benefits-of-multiple-cbp-outcomes
Chapter 5
Section: Communicating Upstream Benefits of Restoration for Chesapeake Bay
Page 109
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Restoration of the Yakima River Floodplain
Ken J. Forshay
Restoring Large River Floodplains with Setback Levees
Large river floodplains are highly beneficial ecosystems that can absorb damaging floods,
create habitat for diverse species, and support the natural processes that decrease pollution.
Active, connected, and functional floodplains dampen the impact of extreme floods, process
nutrients and other pollutants, and interact with groundwater. However, nearly 90% of
floodplain areas in North America and Europe are non-functional because of channelization,
revetments, and other hydrologic and land use alterations that disconnect the ecological
processes (Tockner 6t Stanford 2002). Primarily due to increased requirements for flood
protection, river revetments undergo evaluation to determine whether to repair failing
hardened infrastructure or in cases where feasible use comprehensive or holistic approaches,
like levee setback and restoration, for river-floodplain management to protect life and
property with the added benefit of environmental and ecosystem benefits of restoration. To
restore these large river floodplains, decision makers need integrated scientific knowledge
that considers the impact of restored and re-connected river floodplains and environmental
outcomes.
In the Yakima Valley in central
Washington State, extreme flood events
were a natural occurrence that led to
the early installation of levees along the
Yakima River. These levees provided
protection from floods and supported
development within the Yakima basin.
However, under the most extreme flood
events and a changing climate the
conventional levee infrastructure failed,
resulting in extreme flood damage and
need for levee improvement. This need
for greater flood protection along with
aging levees scheduled for extensive
repair, and the growing awareness of
the benefits of ecosystem services
associated with connected river
floodplain systems (Stanford et al.
2002), in part, led to the development
of a comprehensive flood management
plan that promoted reconnection and
levee setback basin wide.
As part of enacting this plan extensive floodplain restoration and adaptation of existing
infrastructure was expected but research and information on the ecosystem service benefits
and consequences of such a dramatic re-imagining of flood management and floodplain
reconnection was needed to support decision making. In 2011 EPA's Office of Research and
Kachessihkit
KetchehA^* \
Lake \|
Cletium
Ellensburg
Tieton,
»Yakima
Abfctnum Creek
WapatooSi
Toppenishi
Yakima River Basin (image credit: Wikimedia Commons)
WASHINGTON
OREGON
About 120 miles (193 km) across
-Sunnyside
O '¦
Grandview
O .
Richland
S.O
Chapter 5
Section: Restoration of the Yakima River Floodplain
Page 110
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
Development (ORD) began a collaborative effort with EPA Region 10, the City of Yakima, the
County of Yakima, and engaged local stakeholders to support evaluation of ecosystem services
that were relevant to expansion of levee setback and floodplain restoration in the Yakima
Basin.
Consequences of Floodplain Restoration and Infrastructure Change
Levee setbacks are new or realigned embankments to prevent river overflow that are located
some distance from the river channel to allow more natural water movement within the
floodplain. Levee setback can require changes to local infrastructure and extensive
restoration of previously disconnected systems. Although the broad ecosystem service
benefits of levee setback are often clear, there are consequences to these changes that can
place existing infrastructure and sites previously protected from floodwaters within a
hydrologically dynamic flooded system which presents risk to ecosystem services. In
collaboration with our partners, a floodplain workshop was held in 2014 by EPA, Washington
Department of Ecology, city, and county stakeholders to discuss options and opportunities
that would advance and promote levee setback restoration within the basin. Several agencies
and local stakeholders identified a variety of scientific research needs. The workshop
highlighted that infrastructure and contaminated sites were located within the boundaries of
proposed levee setbacks and that better understanding of subsurface hydrology and potential
effects on pollution around levee setbacks, particularly the effects of alternative
infrastructure, such as bridge relocation and alternative methods of wastewater treatment
plant effluent discharge were important areas in which EPA ORD could provide support for
better decision making.
Shallow Groundwater Movement Changes with Levee Setback
With the dramatic alterations to flood hydrology and potential changes to groundwater
movement that were likely to occur with levee setback and bridge expansion to accommodate
wider flow regimes. Researchers worked with county and local officials to determine the
changes of subsurface (hyporheic) flow that would occur with wider floodplains. A higher
resolution river hyporheic flow model was developed using a rigorous groundwater flow
software (MODFLOW; see Singh et al. 2018), typically used in more upland sites, that showed
how sub-subsurface flow also expands with surface water levee setback. Two critical lessons
were learned with this work: 1) that shallow groundwater movement around rivers will
change beyond the river extent, and 2) that these changes are predictable with existing tools.
Insight from this work helped support justifications for expanded cleanup of sites that were
contaminated because of the potential mobilization of previously immobile contaminants and
can support other large river levee setback decisions. From an ecological perspective, this
work demonstrates that geomorphological changes in large rivers influence the hyporheic
zone and likely supports the broad ecosystem services associated with expanded hyporheic
processes (Singh et al. 2018).
Novel Solutions for Existing Infrastructure in Floodplains
Existing infrastructure is often located within proposed expanded floodplains. In some cases,
the infrastructure can be modified to accommodate the larger river flows. For example,
bridges can be lengthened or modified with levees as was done on State Route 40 by
Washington Department of Transportation and Bureau of Reclamation in Yakima, but some
infrastructure can be too expensive or logistically unfeasible to relocate, like large
Chapter 5
Section: Restoration of the Yakima River Floodplain
Page 111
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
wastewater treatment facilities. One of the requirements of most wastewater treatment
plants is to discharge treated effluent into receiving waters at a known location and dilution
factor to meet permitting and regulatory requirements. With expanded floodplains, rivers
have the potential to migrate leaving discharge locations out of compliance. The city of
Yakima, in cooperation with other agencies, worked to modify their discharge to travel
indirectly over a restored floodplain area to ensure continuous means of discharge with
migrating rivers. However, the effect of treated effluent passing through a restored
floodplain may pose risk to subsurface and surface water receiving waters.
Yakima River (image credit: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International)
EPA researchers worked with the City of Yakima, to install an array of water monitoring wells
and collaborated in a surface water monitoring project to show how water quality changes
are expected to influence groundwater. The changes to shallow groundwater quality were
found to be negligible and a suite of nutrient reducing ecosystem services are now present as
a result of the novel discharge approach (Narr et al. 2019). Furthermore, a dataset was
produced that was further used to determine the effects of this novel restoration and effluent
conveyance approach on a wide spectrum of contaminants (Beak et al. 2020). The results
indicated that there is some exchange of water quality constituents between surface water
and groundwater. Locally, the effect on groundwater quality was minimal, suggesting this was
an effective approach that is protective of groundwater in Yakima. However, the results do
suggest that in other locales across the nation, a careful understanding of water chemistry,
especially biogeochemical changes may be very important to evaluate when similar practices
are applied.
Pressing Research Underway
Working in collaboration with the Department of Ecology and City of Yakima, researchers
identified that current recommendations for permitting of novel indirect discharge, like that
in Yakima, can provide insight to future permitting decisions across the country. One gap in
the current understanding is the role of expanded mixing zones in large river floodplains.
These are the zones that permit writers, for example, must understand to allow dischargers
to designate a point of compliance and monitoring. In large river floodplains with discharge
across the surface, the mixing zone is potentially dynamic in nature and thus a downstream
Chapter 5
Section: Restoration of the Yakima River Floodplain
Page 112
-------
&EPA Demonstrations and Lessons Learned from Restoration
Effectiveness Case Studies
point of compliance may depend on hydrologic conditions, both in surface water, but also
shallow groundwater. Researchers continue to work with our stakeholders and collaborators
to address this research gap and expect to carry out this investigation in the near future.
Expanding Floodplains
Working with regional, state, and local stakeholders led to better insight to current research
needs and afforded the opportunity to address ongoing research questions that have real-
world application. The research questions identified were found to have important policy and
decision-making implications that would typically be ignored when research decisions are
made at the national level without stakeholder collaboration. Even though these findings can
be applied well beyond the physical location they were made, local insight and stakeholder
engagement is a critical component to ensure that EPA Office of Research and Development
supports useful and applicable research across the nation.
For More Information
Beak, D., M. Borst, Steve Acree, R. Ross, K. Forshay, R. Ford, J. Huang, C. Su, J. Brumley, A.
Chau, C. Richardson. 2020. The Influence of Stormwater Management Practices and
Wastewater Infiltration on Groundwater Quality: Case Studies. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/143.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=350152
Forshay, Ken, S. Donohue, D. Beak, C. Narr. 2018. Floodplain Waste Water Re-Use and
Indirect Discharge. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/F-18/236.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=343848
Narr, C. F., H. Singh, P. Mayer, A. Keeley, B. Faulkner, D. Beak, K. J. Forshay. 2019.
Quantifying the effects of surface conveyance of treated wastewater effluent on
groundwater, surface water, and nutrient dynamics in a large river floodplain. Ecological
Engineering 129:123-133. https://doi.org/10.10167o2Fj.ecoleng.2018.12.030
Singh, H. V., B. R. Faulkner, A. A. Keeley, J. Freudenthal, K. J. Forshay. 2018. Floodplain
restoration increases hyporheic flow in the Yakima River Watershed, Washington. Ecological
Engineering 116:110-120. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.02.001
References
Tockner, K., 6t Stanford, J. A. 2002. Riverine Flood Plains: Present State and Future Trends.
Environmental Conservation 29:308-330.
Chapter 5
Section: Restoration of the Yakima River Floodplain
Page 113
-------
Appendix 1
Case Study Database
Page 114
-------
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Abbreviation and acronyms are explained following the table.
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
Deeper look at the
Ouachita River: how
investment in
Ouachita River
infrastructure sustain
human well-being in
Ouachita Parish,
Louisiana
River-
wetland
Resilience
Structured Decision Making
approach to engage stakeholders
and increase public understanding
of flood control effects on
important ecosystem services.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Recreational,
Agricultural,
Subsistence
Water, Flora,
Fauna,
Composite
Community workshops,
Structured Decision Making
Framework, Human Weil-
Being Index, FEGS
Classification System,
conceptual maps, action
categories
Fulford, R. M., William;
Stubblefield, Joyce; Sharpe, Leah;
Harvey, James. (2020). Deeper
Look at the Ouachita River: How
investment in Ouachita River
infrastructure sustains human well-
being in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600/R-20/146.
Predicting/modeling
improvements in
public health and
ecosystem goods and
services associated
with major urban
redevelopment and
infrastructure projects
at Sun Valley Denver
Urban
Greenspace
Restoration of a low-income
neighborhood to become an "Eco-
District". This study will help
researchers better document and
understand those expectations by
quantifying and modeling the
impact of local environmental
restoration on human health. It
will also help document which
ecosystem services improvements
are likely to have the biggest
demonstratable impact on public
health.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Recreational,
Learning
Atmosphere,
Flora, Water,
Composite
Human Weil-Being Index,
Medicare data, EPA H2O
tool, i-Tree model, Natural
Capital tool, ENVISION
Analysis
Eriksen, S. N., M. Vesper, S. de
Jesus Crespo, R. Fulford, R. Rehder,
T. Picard, L. Bednarek, J. Coelho, D.
Woods, K. Davis, S. Bertels, K.
Predicting/Modeling
Improvements in Public Health and
Ecosystems Goods and Services
Associated with Major Urban
Redevelopment and Infrastructure
Projects at Sun Valley in Denver.
Habitat and
recreational fishing
opportunity in Tampa
Bay: linking ecological
and ecosystem
services to human
beneficiaries
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Focus on a single ecosystem
service, recreational fishing.
Project goes through valuation of
that service in an estuarine habitat
and highlights the dual-role habitat
plays (human and ecosystem), and
provides a framework for
anticipating and responding to
habitat alteration.
Recreational,
Learning
Fauna
Fishery valuations and stock
assessments, Rubec habitat
quality model, behavior of
recreational anglers,
equilibrium model, hedonic
pricing model
Fulford, R., Yoskowitz, D., Russell,
M., Dantin, D., & Rogers, J. (2016).
Habitat and recreational fishing
opportunity in Tampa Bay: Linking
ecological and ecosystem services
to human beneficiaries. Ecosystem
Services, 17, 64-74.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.009
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 115
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
Linking wetland
ecosystem services to
vector-borne disease:
dengue fever in San
Juan Bay Estuary,
Puerto Rico
Estuarine-
coastal
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
Studies wetland ecosystem
services and how they could buffer
vector proliferation and lower the
occurrence of dengue occurrence.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Non-Use,
Learning
Atmosphere,
Water,
Fauna
ArcGIS, Centers for Disease
Control data, Puerto Rico
Department of Health data,
Census data, Ecosystem
Service-Dengue model,
Environmental Controls sub-
model, global beta-binomial
model, Dengue Prevalence
Models, Predictive models
of the role of wetland
ecosystem services on
dengue occurrence
de Jesus Crespo, R., Mendez
Lazaro, P., & Yee, S. H. (2018).
Linking Wetland Ecosystem
Services to Vector-borne Disease:
Dengue Fever in the San Juan Bay
Estuary, Puerto Rico. Wetlands,
39(6), 1281-1293.
doi: 10.1007/s 13157-017-0990-5
Ecological and
economic impacts and
invasion management
strategies for the
European green crab
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Determining economic impacts of
a wildly distributed aquatic
invasive species is difficult so this
study focused on ecosystem
impacts estimating current and
potential future impacts on
ecosystem services. Developed a
methodology for linking ecological
models with economic models for
future analyses of aquatic invasive
species impacts.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Non-Use,
Recreational,
Learning
Composite
WaterEDA, Mzone,
Eutrophication data, EMAP,
Pol_Flow, Shellfish
abundance, Average annual
abundance, DisNear,
Con_Num
Abt Associates Inc. (2008).
Ecological and Economic Impacts
and Invasion Management
Strategies for the European Green
Crab. National Center of
Environmental Economics, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
An optimization
approach to evaluate
the role of ecosystem
services in
Chesapeake Bay
restoration strategies
Estuarine-
coastal
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
The purpose of this project is to
develop an analytic framework to
assist policymakers in evaluating
total maximum daily load (TMDL)
related trade-offs. The framework
was designed to incorporate
measures of both the cost
effectiveness and ecosystem
service impacts associated with
individual pollution-control
projects.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Recreational,
Learning
Composite,
Atmosphere,
Fauna,
Water
Chesapeake Bay Program's
Phase 5.3 Watershed
model, General Algebraic
Modeling System (GAMS)
Model, models transferred
from other areas and
adapted to the Chesapeake
Bay context
Messer, J. W., Lisa; Wolcott,
Robert; Almeter, Andrew;
Deerhake, Marion; Van Houtven,
George; Loomis, Ross; Beach,
Robert; Wood, Dallas; Morin,
Isabelle; Praesel, Lauren; Zoltay,
Viktoria; Mitchell, David. (2012).
An Optimization Approach to
Evaluate the Role of Ecosystem
Services in Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Strategies. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
600/R-11/001.
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 116
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
How the community
value of ecosystem
goods and services
empowers
communities to
impact the outcome
of remediation,
restoration, and
revitalization projects
River-
wetland
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
Main goal of this research was to
determine how stakeholders
perceive and value ecosystem
services and how it could be
implemented in planning and
outreach.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Recreational,
Commercial/
Industrial,
Inspirational,
Subsistence,
Agricultural
Composite,
Atmosphere,
Fauna,
Water, Other
Natural
Components
R2R2R, predictive modeling,
neighborhood model, Area
of Concern model,
Distinctions, Systems,
Relationships, and
Perspectives model
Williams, K. B., David; Hoffman,
Joel; Angradi, Ted; Carlson, Jessica;
Clarke, Rosita; Fulton, Adam;
Timm-Bijold, Heidi; MacGregor,
Molly; Trebitz, Anett;
Witherspoon, Salaam. (2018). How
the community value of ecosystem
goods and services empowers
communities to impact the
outcomes of remediation,
restoration, and revitalization
projects. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-
17/292.
quantifying
recreational use of an
estuary: a case study
of three bays, Cape
Cod, USA
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Developed a theoretical model of
visitation and used two types of
onsite counts to estimate visitation
of multiple access points in a single
day. The goal was to quantify and
value recreation at three Cape Cod
bays to determine how the value
may change with variations in
water quality and other
management decisions.
Recreational,
Learning
Composite
2000 National Survey on
Recreation and the
Environment, theoretical
model using counts and
distribution of use curves,
Banzhaf s theoretical model
Mulvaney, K. K., Atkinson, S. F.,
Merrill, N. H., Twichell, J. H., &
Mazzotta, M. J. (2020). Quantifying
Recreational Use of an Estuary: A
Case Study of Three Bays, Cape
Cod, USA. Estuaries Coast, 43(1), 7-
22. doi: 10.1007/sl2237-019-
00645-8
Designing solutions
for clean water on
Cape Cod: engaging
communities to
improve decision
making
Estuarine-
coastal
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
This paper discusses the regional
planning process used to update
Cape Cod's 208 Plan to address
nitrogen impacts on coastal
waterbodies, documenting the
stakeholder engagement process
and its lessons learned for
improving the implementation of
water quality management at both
local and regional scales.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Learning
Composite,
Water
Commission coordination of
stakeholder involvement
Perry, E. S., Smith, S. N., &
Mulvaney, K. K. (2020). Designing
Solutions for Clean Water on Cape
Cod: Engaging Communities to
Improve Decision Making. Ocean
Coast Manag, 183.
doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman. 2019.10
4998
An ecological
perspective on living
with fire in Ponderosa
Pine forests of Oregon
and Washington:
resistance, gone but
not forgotten
Terrestrial
Resilience
This paper addresses the need to
develop a new wildfire
management plan that takes
climate change and the growing
wildland urban interface
population into account. Goal to
create a management plan that
aims to protect ecosystem function
as it changes with the climate.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Learning,
Agricultural
Atmosphere,
Composite
Gradient Nearest Neighbor
(GNN) Maps, Fire activity
data from 1985-2017
Merschel, A. G., Beedlow, P. A.,
Shaw, D. G, Woodruff, D. R., Lee,
E. H., Cline, S. P.,. . . Reilly, M. J.
(2021). An Ecological Perspective
on Living with Fire in Ponderosa
Pine Forests of Oregon and
Washington: Resistance, Gone but
not Forgotten. Trees For People, 4.
doi: 10.1016/j .tf p .2021.100074
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 117
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
Developing a
framework for
stormwater
management:
leveraging ancillary
benefits from urban
greenspace
Urban
Greenspace
This paper discusses the need for
green infrastructure in urban areas
to manage stormwater more safely
as well as to provide more
ecosystem services to the area.
They present a conceptual
framework that uses greenspace to
help communities maximize
ecosystem services received by
determining where to place
greenspace based on their
identified needs and concerns.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Transportation,
Recreational
Atmosphere,
Soil, Water,
Flora,
Composite
Conceptual framework
Hoover, F. A., & Hopton, M. E.
(2019). Developing a framework
for stormwater management:
leveraging ancillary benefits from
urban greenspace. Urban Ecosyst,
22(6), 1139-1148.
doi: 10.1007/s 11252-019-00890-6
Valuing instream-
related services of
wastewater
River-
wetland
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
This study values the ecosystem
services provided or that could be
provided by revitalization of the
Santa Cruz river, which after
decades of dewatered flow, was
reborn due to continuous releases
of treated wastewater but still
requires a lot more remediation
and revitalization to make it an
asset to the community.
Recreational
Water, Flora,
Composite
Decision support tool (tree
acreage, hydrologic,
vegetation, soil), biophysical
models, SWAT, MNL, MXL,
GMX
Weber, M. A., Meixner, T., &
Stromberg, J. C. (2016). Valuing
instream-related services of
wastewater. Ecosystem Services,
21, 59-71.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.016
Water clarity
measures as
indicators of
recreational benefits
provided by U.S.
lakes: swimming and
aesthetics
Freshwater
Method
demonstration
Used national-scale water clarity
and lake benefit perception data to
derive thresholds for assessing the
quality of recreational benefits
provided by US lakes. This paper
discusses how perceptions of a
lake's suitability for recreation, or
its aesthetic appeal can be related
to biophysical indicators of water
quality.
Recreational
Water,
Composite
2007 and 2012 United
States National Lake
assessments (NLA), FEGS-
CS, secchi depth, turbidity,
water column chlorophyll-a
concentration, visual
assessment rating, ANOVA,
chi-squared test of
independence, R
Angradi, T. R., Ringold, P. L., & Hall,
K. (2018). Water clarity measures
as indicators of recreational
benefits provided by U.S. lakes:
swimming and aesthetics. Ecol
Indie, 93, 1005-1019.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind. 2018.06.001
Vacant urban lot soils
and their potential to
support ecosystem
services
Urban
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
This study compares ecosystem
service potential of soil in vacant
urban lots in Cleveland, Ohio and
Detroit, Michigan. Focus on three
ecosystem services and measure
by analyzing deep soil cores.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Learning
Soil, Water,
Flora,
Composite
R, PC A, MANOVA, ANOVA,
Pearson correlations,
elemental analyzer, soil
cores, models for
stormwater retention,
carbon storage, and support
for plant growth
Herrmann, D. L., Shuster, W. D., &
Garmestani, A. S. (2016). Vacant
urban lot soils and their potential
to support ecosystem services.
Plant and Soil, 413(1-2), 45-57.
doi: 10.1007/s 11104-016-2874-5
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 118
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
Comparison of
methods for
quantifying reef
ecosystem services: a
case study mapping
services for St. Croix,
USVI
Coral reef
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
This study evaluates methods for
translating reef ecosystem
condition into potential production
of ecosystem goods and services.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Recreational,
Non-Use
Composite,
Fauna, Flora
Suite of models (statistical,
bio-physical (SIRHI, State of
reef function relative wave
energy dissipation, CRPI,
wave decay, wave set-up,
moving wave energy, coral
rugosity, coral height, etc.)
Yee, S. H., Dittmar, J. A., & Oliver,
L. M. (2014). Comparison of
methods for quantifying reef
ecosystem services: A case study
mapping services for St. Croix,
USVI. Ecosystem Services, 8, 1-15.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.01.001
A methodology for
the preliminary
scoping of future
changes in ecosystem
services
Terrestrial
Method
demonstration
Description of new ecosystem
service scoping methodology with
a short description and proof of
concept using the Future
Midwestern Landscapes (FML)
Study.
Agricultural,
Commercial/
Industrial, Non-
Use,
Recreational,
Government/
Municipal/
Residential
Composite,
Water,
Atmosphere,
Flora, Fauna,
Soil, Other
Natural
Components
FML, concept maps and
models, environmental
Decision Toolkit, risk
hypotheses
Bruins, R. F., Susan; Foster, Walter;
Daniel, F. Bernard; Woodbury,
Peter. (2009). A Methodology for
the Preliminary Scoping of Future
Changes in Ecosystem Services.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600/R-09/134
A national approach
for mapping and
quantifying habitat-
based biodiversity
metrics across
multiple spatial scales
River-
wetland
Method
demonstration
Demonstrate the importance of
monitoring the status and trends
of ecosystem services and
biodiversity by combining habitat
models into groups of taxa based
on stakeholder concern.
Learning, Non-
Use
Fauna,
Composite
SWReGAP, National
Hydrography Dataset,
ArcGIS, habitat models,
digital land cover datasets
Boykin, K. G., Kepner, W. G.,
Bradford, D. F., Guy, R. K., Kopp, D.
A., Leimer, A. K.,. . . Gergely, K. J.
(2013). A national approach for
mapping and quantifying habitat-
based biodiversity metrics across
multiple spatial scales. Ecological
Indicators, 33, 139-147.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.11.005
A needs-driven, multi-
objective approach to
allocate urban
ecosystem services
from 10,000 trees
Urban
Greenspace
Develop a methodology for
prioritization of tree placement
along neighborhood rights of way
to maximize potential societal
benefits. The case study focuses on
placing 10,000 trees in Durham
County, NC. Special focus was
placed on the types of trees to
include to try to avoid the issues
associated with the aging tree
stock in the area while still
providing the benefits.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Agricultural,
Learning, Non-
Use
Composite,
Atmosphere,
Water
CBGs, EnviroAtlas,
Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, Durham Urban
Forestry Department,
ArcGIS, NAVTEQ, 2010
Census, SWMM, ArcGIS,
NAVTEQ, MOBILE6 and
MOVES
Almeter, A., Tashie, A., Procter, A.,
McAlexander, T., Browning, D.,
Rudder, C.,.. . Araujo, R. (2018). A
Needs-Driven, Multi-Objective
Approach to Allocate Urban
Ecosystem Services from 10,000
Trees. Sustainability, 10(12), 4488.
doi: 10.3390/sul0124488
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 119
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
A resilience
framework for chronic
exposures: water
quality and ecosystem
services in coastal
social-ecological
systems
Estuarine-
coastal
This paper discusses the
application of the framework in
Resilience Cape Cod's coastal waters and
communities and the impacts of
nitrogen over-enrichment.
A review of selected
ecosystem services
provided by coastal
wetlands of the
Laurentian Great
Lakes
River-
wetland
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
Describes how approaching a
project as wide-scale as the
restoration of great lakes coastal
wetlands with an ecosystem
services perspective would more
comprehensively communicate
progress to stakeholders and keep
water quality at the forefront of
the decision making.
An integrated
modeling framework
for performing
environmental
assessments:
application to
ecosystem services in
the Albemarle-
Pamlico basins
Freshwater
Baseline assessment of two
freshwater ecosystem services,
water quality and fisheries
resources, in headwater streams
throughout the Albemarle-
Method Pamlico. A random sample of 50
demonstration headwater streams is used to draw
inferences and make predictions
based on current land use and
climate conditions to assess
freshwater ecosystem services at
the regional scale.
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Beneficiary
Class
Learning, Non-
Use
Ecosystem
Attribute
Water
Tools/ Methods/Models
Literature review, FEGS,
temporal dynamics, TMDL,
conceptual framework
Merrill, N. H., Mulvaney, K. K.,
Martin, D. M., Chintala, M. M.,
Berry, W., Gleason, T.,. . .
Humphries, A. (2018). A resilience
framework for chronic exposures:
water quality and ecosystem
services in coastal social-ecological
systems. Coast Manage, 46(4),
242-258.
doi: 10.1080/08920753.2018.14740
66
Agricultural,
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Learning, Non-
Use
Flora, Fauna,
Water,
Composite,
Atmosphere
Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, Great Lakes
water quality agreement,
literature search, Index of
Biological Integrity, various
models from the literature
Sierszen, M. E., Morrice, J. A.,
Trebitz, A. S., & Hoffman, J. C.
(2012). A review of selected
ecosystem services provided by
coastal wetlands of the Laurentian
Great Lakes. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health & Management, 15(1), 92-
106.
doi: 10.1080/14634988.2011.62497
0
Non-Use,
Learning
Water,
Fauna
Data for Environmental
Modeling, Framework for
Risk Assessment of
Multimedia Environmental
Systems (Soil Water
Assessment Tool,
Watershed Mercury Model,
Water Quality Analysis and
Simulation Program, Habitat
Suitability Index,
Bioaccumulation and
Aquatic System Simulator),
Supercomputer for Model
Uncertainty and Sensitivity
Evaluation
Johnston, J. M., McGarvey, D. J.,
Barber, M. C., Laniak, G.,
Babendreier, J., Parmar, R.,.. .
Ambrose, R. (2011). An integrated
modeling framework for
performing environmental
assessments: Application to
ecosystem services in the
Albemarle-Pamlico basins (NCand
VA, USA). Ecological Modelling,
222(14), 2471-2484.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel. 2011.03.0
36
Page 120
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
Application of a
structured decision
process for informing
watershed
management options
in Guanica Bay,
Puerto Rico
Coral reef
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
The application of Structured
Decision Making in Guanica Bay
included archival research on social
and economic history of the region
and three workshops with
stakeholders, experts and decision
makers to explore past decisions,
characterize the decision
landscape for the WMP, and better
understand what stakeholders
value in the watershed.
Non-Use,
Agricultural,
Recreational,
Inspirational
Water,
Fauna, Flora,
Composite,
Soil, Other
Natural
Components
Structured Decision Making
framework, workshops,
archival research (scientific,
geographical, historic),
Bayesian networks,
Envision, Decision Analysis
for a Sustainable
Environment, Economy and
Society (DASEES)
Bradley, P. F., William; Dyson,
Brian; Yee, Susan; Carriger, John;
Gambirazzio, Gerardo; Bousquin,
Justin; Huertas, Evelyn. (2016).
Application of a structured
decision process for informing
watershed management options in
Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and
Development.
Assessing hydrologic
impacts of future land
cover change
scenarios in the San
Pedro River
River-
wetland
Method
demonstration
This report describes a
methodology to integrate a widely
used watershed modeling tool and
a consistent national database
with alternative future scenarios
which can then be scaled to
regional applications.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Recreational,
Non-Use,
Learning
Water, Soil,
Composite
ICLUS database, AGWA-
SWAT tool, housing density
map, IPCCSRES, HUI,
KINernatic Runoff, EROSion,
GIS, STATSGO, NLDC/NALC
Burns, 1. S. K., W.G.; Sidman, G.S.;
Goodrich, D.C.; Guertin, D.P.;
Levick, L.R.; Yee, W.W.S.; Scianni,
M.M.A.; Meek, C.S.; Vollmer, J.B.
(2013). Assessing Hydrologic
Impacts of Future Land Cover
Change Scenarios in the San Pedro
River. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development,
EPA/600/R-13/074.
Benefit indicators for
flood regulation
services of wetlands -
modeling approach
River-
wetland
Method
demonstration
Creation and application of a 3-
tiered approach identifying
indicators of ecosystem services.
Use of indicators is a viable way to
assess ecosystem services and
their benefits while potentially
decreasing the necessary time and
expertise required for
implementation. Modelling
allowed for the development of 12
scenarios to investigate the
influence of different levels of
wetland restoration in the
Woonasquatucket watershed.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Learning, Non-
Use
Water,
Composite
USGS flow gage, flooding
models, CN method, HEC-
HMS, HSPF, ArcGIS, HEC-
RAS, FIRMs, DEM, LiDAR,
watershed-specific, peak
flows, flood maps
Bousquin, J. H., K.; Mazzotta, M.
(2015). Benefit Indicators for Flood
Regulation Services of Wetlands: A
Modeling Approach U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600/R-15/191.
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 121
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
Combining ecosystem
services assessment
with structured
decision making to
support ecological
restoration planning
River-
wetland
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
Combine ecosystem services
assessment with structured
decision making to estimate and
evaluate measures of the potential
benefits of ecological restoration
with a case study in the
Woonasquatucket River, Rhode
Island. Developed 22 benefit
indicators for five ecosystem
services across dozens of
candidate wetland restoration
sites.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Learning,
Recreational
Water,
Fauna,
Composite
Rapid Benefits Indicators,
WRWC data, ArcGIS, USGS
NHD, e911, social
vulnerability index,
Ecosystem response,
ecological production
function, valuation,
conceptual modeling
Martin, D. M., Mazzotta, M., &
Bousquin, J. (2018). Combining
ecosystem services assessment
with structured decision making to
support ecological restoration
planning. Environ Manage, 62(3),
608-618. doi:10.1007/s00267-018-
1038-1
Evaluating
biodiversity metric
response to
forecasted land use
change in the
Northern Rio Grande
Basin
Urban
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Determine the effects of urban
development and growth on
biodiversity and to select
ecosystem services within the
Northern Rio Grande Basin based
on five alternative future
scenarios. ICLUS datasets were
used to measure future urban
growth on four biodiversity metrics
derived from SWReGAP.
Learning, Non-
Use
Fauna
EPA-ICLUS, ICLUS national-
scale housing-density
scenarios, IPCCSRES, US
Census Baseline, GIS, ESRI
ArcMap, deductive habitat
models, spatial models,
species-level habitat model,
terrestrial habitat models
Samson, E. A., Boykin, K. G.,
Kepner, W. G., Andersen, M. C., &
Fernald, A. (2018). Evaluating
Biodiversity Metric Response to
Forecasted Land Use Change in the
Northern Rio Grande Basin.
Environments, 5(8), 91.
doi: 10.3390/environments 508009
1
Evaluating the
ecosystem services
and benefits of
wetland restoration
by use of the rapid
benefit indicators
approach
River-
wetland
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
Illustrate the Rapid Benefits
Indicator (RBI) approach with a
comparison of two sites in the
Woonasquatucket watershed
Rhode Island to show how
decisions may differ when based
primarily on evaluations of
ecological functioning versus those
that incorporate benefits to
people.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Recreational,
Learning, Non-
Use
Water,
Composite,
Fauna
RBI, ecosystem services
cascade model, manager
interviews, spatial models
Mazzotta, M., Bousquin, J., Berry,
W., Ojo, C., McKinney, R., Hyckha,
K., & Druschke, C. G. (2019).
Evaluating the ecosystem services
and benefits of wetland
restoration by use of the rapid
benefit indicators approach. Integr
Environ Assess Manag, 15(1), 148-
159. doi:10.1002/ieam.4101
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 122
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
NASA Daymet surface
weather and climatological
summary dataset, daymetr
Flood Protection
ecosystem services in
the coast of Puerto
Rico: associations
between extreme
weather, flood hazard
mitigation and
Explains the buffering role of
ecosystem services that promote
Government/
Water,
Composite
R-package, rollapllyr
function of the package zoo
in R, FIUC-10 watershed
levels, EPA H20 tool,
SSURGO, C-CAP, ArcGIS,
PRASA data, American
Community Survey 5-year
estimates, FEMA National
Flood Insurance Program,
De Jesus Crespo, R., Wu, J., Myer,
M., Yee, S., & Fulford, R. (2019).
Flood protection ecosystem
services in the coast of Puerto
Rico: Associations between
Urban
Resilience
rainfall infiltration to avoid flood
damage and gastrointestinal illness
brought on by flooding events.
Municipal/
Residential
extreme weather, flood hazard
mitigation and gastrointestinal
illness. Sci Total Environ, 676, 343-
355.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.28
7
gastrointestinal illness
CMS data, ICD, WAIC, flood
impact/ extreme rainfall/Gl
disease conceptual model,
flood claim response, digital
elevation, Gl illness
presence/absence
Uses a combination of field and lab
studies to measure
Green Island and the
hyporheic zone: why
restoration matters
River-
wetland
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
biogeochemistry, to evaluate
effects of floodplain restoration on
nitrogen retention, hydraulic
connectivity, and water quality,
and to quantify the benefits of
ecosystem services created by
BMPs.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Non-Use
Water,
Composite
Channel connectivity
models, nitrogen processing
models
Hockenbury, L. F., Barton; Forshay,
Kenneth; Brooks, J. Renee. (2014).
Green Island and the Hyporheic
Zone: Why Restoration Matters.
EPA/600/F-13/340.
Habitat restoration
from an ecosystem
goods and services
perspective:
Estuarine-
Remediation to
Restoration to
Describes a spatially explicit
individual-based behavioral model
used to explore the functional role
of habitat restoration on
ecosystem services delivery in
Tampa Bay and for recreational
fishing.
Recreational,
Fauna,
Habitat quality data, sea
trout movement model,
observed fish distribution,
angler return data, SEIBBM
re-parameterized for
spotted seatrout in Tampa
Bay
Fulford, R. S., Russell, M., &
Rogers, J. E. (2016). Habitat
Restoration from an Ecosystem
Goods and Services Perspective:
application of a
spatially explicit
individual-based
coastal
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
Non-Use
Composite
Application of a Spatially Explicit
Individual-Based Model. Estuaries
and Coasts, 39(6), 1801-1815.
model
doi: 10.1007/s 12237-016-0100-6
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 123
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
Linking ecosystem
service supply to
stakeholder concerns
on both land and sea:
an example from
Guanica Bay
watershed, Puerto
Rico
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Ecosystem service production
functions were applied to quantify
and map ecosystem service supply
in the Guanica Bay watershed and
a highly engineered upper multi-
watershed area connected to the
lower watershed. These two
watersheds were compared to 22
other watersheds in PR to compare
the relative supply of services in
the Guanica bay area to the range
of potential services provided
across PR.
Agricultural,
Recreational,
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Non-Use
Atmosphere,
Water, Soil,
Flora, Fauna,
Composite
InVEST, Public values forum,
coral reef decision support
workshop, ecological
production functions,
ArcMap
Smith, A., Yee, S. H., Russell, M.,
Awkerman, J., & Fisher, W. S.
(2017). Linking ecosystem service
supply to stakeholder concerns on
both land and sea: An example
from Guanica Bay watershed,
Puerto Rico. Ecological Indicators,
74, 371-383.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind. 2016.11.036
Mapping ecosystem
service indicators in a
Great Lakes estuarine
area of concern
River-
wetland
Method
demonstration
Applies mapping criteria derived
from locally validated predictive
models, published relationships,
local experts, and other sources to
spatially explicit biophysical data to
map indicators of ecosystem
services at high resolution across
aquatic and riparian habitats.
Agricultural,
Commercial/
Industrial,
Transportation,
Inspirational,
Subsistence,
Recreational,
Non-Use
Fauna, Other
Natural
Components
, Composite,
Water
Conceptual framework,
ArcGIS, SPA maps, R2R,
predictive model, fuzzy-
logic model for bald eagle
habitat model, spatial
model
Angradi, T. R., Launspach, J. J.,
Bolgrien, D. W., Bellinger, B. J.,
Starry, M. A., Hoffman, J. C.,. . .
Hollenhorst, T. P. (2016). Mapping
ecosystem service indicators in a
Great Lakes estuarine Area of
Concern. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 42(3), 717-727.
doi: 10.1016/j.jglr.2016.03.012
Prioritization of
ecosystem services
research: Tampa Bay
demonstration
project
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Produces quantified spatial
inventories of ecosystem services
production in the Tampa Bay
estuary region.
Recreational,
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Non-Use
Atmosphere,
Flora, Other
Natural
Components
, Water,
Composite
Ecosystem Services
Research Program, Tampa
Bay Estuary Program, RESVI,
Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, workshops,
bibliometric analysis,
conceptual mapping
Russell, M., Rogers, J., Jordan, S.,
Dantin, D., Harvey, J., Nestlerode,
J., & Alvarez, F. (2011).
Prioritization of Ecosystem Services
Research: Tampa Bay
Demonstration Project. Journal of
Coastal Conservation, 15(4), 647-
658. doi:10.1007/sll852-011-
0158-z
Terrestrial
acidification and
ecosystem services:
effects of acid rain on
bunnies, baseball, and
Christmas trees
Terrestrial
Remediation to
Restoration to
Revitalization
(R2R2R)
Utilizes the STEPS framework and
evidence from the natural science
literature to describe specific
causal chains associated with two
economically, ecologically, and
socially important acid-sensitive
tree species, balsam fir and white
ash.
Commercial/
Industrial,
Agricultural,
Non-Use
Fauna, Flora,
Other
Natural
Components
Stressor-Ecological
Production function-final
ecosystem Services (STEPS),
FEGS-CS, workshop, USDA
Forest Service fire effects
database, National Critical
load database, SOS,
Ecological Production
Functions
Irvine, 1. G., Tara; Phelan, Jennifer;
Sabo, Robert; Van Houtven,
George. (2017). Terrestrial
acidification and ecosystem
services: effects of acid rain
bunnies, baseball, and Christmas
trees. Ecosphere, 8(6).
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 124
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
The use of scenario
analysis to assess
water ecosystem
services in response
to future land use
change in the
Willamette River
Basin, Oregon
River-
wetlarid
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Use of a modelling approach
integrated with scenario analysis
to identify areas with potential
water quality problems. The goal is
to identify sub-watersheds within
the river basin that would be most
affected in the year 2050 relative
to three possible future scenarios.
Mapping socio-
environmentally
vulnerable
populations access
and exposure to
ecosystem services at
the U.S. - Mexico
borderlands
River-
wetland
Method
demonstration
This study describes the
development of a modified socio-
environmental vulnerability index
(M-SEVI) for the Santa Cruz
Watershed, using determinants
from binational census and
neighborhood data that depict
levels of education, access to
resources, migratory status, and
number of dependents. The SWAT
(Soil and Water Assessment Tool)
is also applied to derive estimates
of historical ecosystem services
provision of both flood and
erosion-control.
Contributions of
ecosystem services to
human well-being in
Puerto Rico
Urban
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
This study utilizes the U.S. Human
Weil-Being Index framework to
model the relationships between
economic, social, and ecosystem
services and human well-being for
Puerto Rico.
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Beneficiary
Class
Non-Use
Ecosystem
Attribute
Water,
Fauna, Soil,
Composite
Tools/ Methods/Models
Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, AGWA-SWAT,
alternative future scenario
model, stakeholder input,
USGS stream flow gauge,
Oregon Climate Service
Database, hydrological
process model
Hernandez, M., Kepner, W. G.,
Goodrich, D. C., & Semmens, D. J.
(2010). The Use of Scenario
Analysis to Assess Water
Ecosystem Services in Response to
Future Land Use Change in the
Willamette River Basin, Oregon.
Achieving Environmental Security:
Ecosystem Services and Human
Welfare, 69, 97-111.
doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-579-2-97
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Learning, Non-
Use
Composite,
Water, Soil
Census data, AGEBs,
EDRatio, HUD data, GIS,
SWAT, M-SEVI, social and
demographic models,
erosion and flood potential
models
Norman, L. M., Villarreal, M. L.,
Lara-Valencia, F., Yuan, Y., Nie, W.,
Wilson, S.,. . . Sleeter, R. (2012).
Mapping socio-environmentally
vulnerable populations access and
exposure to ecosystem services at
the U.S.-Mexico borderlands.
Applied Geography, 34, 413-424.
doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.01.006
Non-Use,
Agricultural,
Government/
Municipal/
Residential
Atmosphere,
Other
Natural
Components
, Flora,
Composite,
Water
Human Weil-Being Index
framework, MERLIN
approach, AIC, R
Yee, S. H. (2020). Contributions of
Ecosystem Services to Human
Weil-Being in Puerto Rico.
Sustainability, 12(22).
doi: 10.3390/sul2229625
Page 125
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
A spatially explicit
technique for
evaluation of
alternative scenarios
in the context of
ecosystem goods and
services
Estuarine-
coastal
Method
demonstration
Seven community generated
scenarios were compared to the
historical baseline assessment of
ecosystem services to examine
various outcomes of land use
decisions.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Non-Use
Atmosphere,
Water,
Composite
Participatory scenario
generation exercise, 1000
Friends of Florida, coarse
resolution maps and
scenario modeling, LUCIS,
FLU CCS, NLCD, ArcGIS,
Lawn Rate, UrbanTreeRate,
Den Lawn, FluxRate, SCS
Curve Number, TR-55,
SSURGO, County Parcel
Datasets, zonal statistics
function, i-Tree
Teague, A., Russell, M., Harvey, J.,
Dantin, D., Nestlerode, J., &
Alvarez, F. (2016). A spatially-
explicit technique for evaluation of
alternative scenarios in the context
of ecosystem goods and services.
Ecosystem Services, 20,15-29.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.001
Estimating benefits in
a recovering estuary:
Tampa Bay, FL
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
The changes caused by previous
restoration work in the Tampa Bay
area were examined to determine
if there were gains in critical
ecosystem services like
denitrification, carbon
sequestration, and usable water.
Non-Use
Water
Monitoring data, meta-
analysis
Russell, M., & Greening, H. (2013).
Estimating Benefits in a Recovering
Estuary: Tampa Bay, Florida.
Estuaries and Coasts, 38(S1), 9-18.
doi: 10.1007/s 12237-013-9662-8
The ecosystem service
of property protection
and exposure to
environmental
stressors in the Gulf
of Mexico
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Calculates exposure index value for
every 250m2 segment along the
coastline using InVEST's coastal
vulnerability model. Nineteen sea
level-by-habitat management
scenarios were evaluated for a
suite of shoreline segments across
multiple exposures that can be
used to inform local decision
making as part of larger strategies
for coastal management.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Non-Use
Composite
InVEST, CCVATCH, CVM,
design scenarios, GIS, El,
DIVA
Jackson, C. A., Schmutz, P.,
Harwell, M. C., & Littles, C. J.
(2020). The ecosystem service of
property protection and exposure
to environmental stressors in the
Gulf of Mexico. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 184.
doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman. 2019.10
5017
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 126
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Habitat benefits of
restored oyster reefs
and aquaculture to
fish and invertebrates
in a coastal pond in
Rhode Island, United
States
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Restored oyster, aquaculture sites
and bare sediment sites were
compared through collection of
metric data and isotopic
composition offish and
invertebrates collected seasonally
from the sites. This information
was used to determine whether
the restored oyster habitat
performed better than the other
sites at providing ecosystem
services to the area, through
abundance, biomass, species
richness, and diversity metrics.
Managing local
stressors for coral reef
condition and
ecosystem services
delivery under climate
scenarios
Coral reef
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
This study used a spatially explicit
biophysical ecosystem model and
increased relevance for the public
and decision makers by using four
ecological production functions to
translate the model outputs into
ecosystem services.
Visual censuses were used to
quantify abundance of bird groups
Intertidal habitat
utilization patterns of
birds in a Northeast
Pacific Estuary
samples over a year at five tidal
ranges were also assessed.
Estuarine- Method
coastal demonstration
and general species richness in low
marsh estuarine habitats. Spatial
variation within a habitat along
estuary gradient and temporal
variation based on bimonthly
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Non-Use,
Learning
Fauna
Tools/ Methods/Models
Hach probe, Malvern Hydro
222S/Mastersizer 2000
system, Digital Fluorometer
with Optical kit,
Thermofinnigan Flash EA
112, box trap, seine net,
minnow trap, shrimp trap,
monofilament gill net, SPEX
sample prep shatterbox,
elemental analyzer, isotope
ratio mass spectrometer,
Simpson's diversity index,
general linear models for
bare sediment sites,
performance metric models
Ayvazian, S., Gerber-Williams, A.,
Grabbert, S., Miller, K., Hancock,
B., He It, W.,. . . Strobel, C. (2020).
Habitat benefits of restored oyster
reefs and aquaculture to fish and
invertebrates in a coastal pond in
Rhode Island, US. J Shellfish Res,
39(3), 563-587.
doi: 10.2983/035.039.0306
Non-Use,
Commercial/
Industrial
Fauna,
Composite
CORSET, HIReefSim, two-
fold model validation, EPFs,
Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, biophysical
ecosystem models,
spatially-explicit ecosystem
models, ecosystem service
modeling, stressors, coral
and turf algae, fish biomass,
fish cumulative catch,
annual catch, benthic cover
Weijerman, M., Veazey, L., Yee, S.,
Vache, K., Delevaux, J. M. S.,
Donovan, M. K.,. . . Oleson, K. L. L.
(2018). Managing Local Stressors
for Coral Reef Condition and
Ecosystem Services Delivery Under
Climate Scenarios. Front Mar Sci, 5.
doi: 10.3389/fmars. 2018.00425
Non-Use,
Learning
ArcGIS, online tide data,
NOAA's water level
observation network,
weather condition EPA
report and online database,
over-dispersed Poisson
Fauna distribution, ANOVA,
Shannon diversity index, R,
EPFs, tides, bird activity,
food items, weather
conditions, mixed effects
regression, bird abundance,
diversity, richness, density
Frazier, M. R., Lamberson, J. O., &
Nelson, W. G. (2014). Intertidal
habitat utilization patterns of birds
in a Northeast Pacific estuary.
Wetlands Ecology and
Management, 22(4), 451-466.
doi: 10.1007/s 11273-014-9346-6
Page 127
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
Street-level
neighborhood
greenery linked to
active transportation:
a case study in
Milwaukee and Green
Bay, Wl, USA
Urban
Greenspace
This study assessed the importance
of both tree cover and aggregate
greenery in the micro-level
pedestrian environment versus the
overall local environment.
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Non-Use
Composite,
Flora
2010 US Census,
EnviroAtlas, NOAA Climate
Data, Walkscore, SHOW
survey, MET, Survey, NAIP,
LiDAR, FGDC, AT, EHI, SLD,
Statistical Analysis,
Sensitivity Analysis
Tsai, W.-L., Yngve, L., Zhou, Y.,
Beyer, K. M. M., Bersch, A.,
Malecki, K. M., & Jackson, L. E.
(2019). Street-level neighborhood
greenery linked to active
transportation: A case study in
Milwaukee and Green Bay, Wl,
USA. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 191.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.10
3619
Basin-wide impacts of
climate change on
ecosystem services in
the Lower Mekong
Basin
River-
wetland
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
This study aimed to quantify the
baseline distribution of water yield
in the LMB, to assess potential
changes in spatial distribution of
rainfall under climate change
scenarios in near-term and long-
term, and to evaluate potential
impacts to paddy field suitability
for rice production.
Agricultural,
Non-Use
Water, Flora
5 step system, InVEST,
GCMs, CMIP3, CMIP5, MRC,
NSE, SimCLIM, NASA, LULC,
Reservoir Hydropower
Production
Trisurat, Y., Aekakkararungroj, A.,
Ma, H. 0., & Johnston, J. M. (2018).
Basin-wide Impacts of Climate
Change on Ecosystem Services in
the Lower Mekong Basin. Ecol Res,
33(1), 73-86. doi: 10.1007/s 11284-
017-1510-z
Linking terrigenous
sediment delivery to
declines in coral reef
ecosystem services
Coral reef
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Using ecosystem production
functions to map and translate
metrics of ecological reef condition
into ecosystem services production
under a gradient of increasing
sediment delivery.
Non-Use,
Recreational,
Commercial/
Industrial
Water,
Fauna,
Composite
EPFs, field monitoring data,
bathymetry maps, R, SWAN,
PCA. MAN OVA, AN OVA,
recreational opportunities,
shoreline protection,
fisheries models, human
disturbance gradient
Orlando, J. L., & Yee, S. H. (2017).
Linking terrigenous sediment
delivery to declines in coral reef
ecosystem services. Estuaries
Coast, 40(2), 359-375.
doi: 10.1007/s 12237-016-0167-0
Bioextractive removal
of nitrogen by oysters
in Great Bay
Piscataqua River
Estuary, New
Hampshire, USA
River-
wetland
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Field data and local monitoring
data were used as inputs to run
the FARM model to provide a more
comprehensive picture of the
potential impact of all GBP oysters
on nitrogen removal. A cost
economic analysis was used to
estimate the economic value of
this ecosystem service.
Non-Use
Atmosphere,
Water
State of the estuary reports,
field data, local monitoring
programs, local industry
knowledge, FARM model,
previous research examples,
GBNERR system wide
monitoring program, UNH
tidal water quality
monitoring program,
AquaShell
Bricker, S. B., Grizzle, R. E.,
Trowbridge, P., Rose, J. M.,
Ferreira, J. G., Wellman, K.,. . .
Tedesco, M.A. (2020).
Bioextractive Removal of Nitrogen
by Oysters in Great Bay Piscataqua
River Estuary, New Hampshire,
USA. Estuaries Coast, 43, 23-38.
doi: 10.1007/s 12237-019-00661-8
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 128
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Beneficiary
Class
Ecosystem
Attribute
Tools/ Methods/Models
Citation
Neighborhood-scale
quantification of
ecosystem goods and
services
Urban
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
This study demonstrates, at the
neighborhood scale, an approach
for quantifying differences in the
value of ecosystem services. This
study looked at both generation
and delivery of benefits at the
neighborhood scale.
Non-Use,
Recreational,
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Transportation
Atmosphere,
Flora,
Composite
FishHawk ranch
development, literature
search, FEGS valuation in
different scenarios, ArcGIS,
land use, air pollution,
shade, carbon
sequestration,
denitrification rates,
walkability, green space,
aesthetic value of
residential trees, water
features, scenario modeling
Russell, M. T., A. Alvarez, F. Dantin,
D. Osland, M. Harvey, J.
Nestlerode, J. Rogers, J. Jackson, L.
Pilant, D. Genthner, F. Lewis, M.
Spivak, A. Harwell, M. Neale, A.
(2013). Neighborhood scale
quantification of ecosystem goods
and services. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development.
Alternative futures
analysis of
Farmington Bay
Wetlands in the Great
Salt Lake ecosystem
River-
wetland
Method
demonstration
This study evaluated and
compared landscape design
scenarios by conducting an
Alternative Futures Analysis (AFA).
Four ecological modelling
approaches were used in the
evaluation to assess the effect
each scenario would have on
certain ecosystem services
including avian habitat and
nutrient retention.
Non-Use,
Learning
Atmosphere,
Composite
AFA, ArcGIS, AW HA,
AVGWLF, future scenarios,
MEA, nutrient and sediment
transport model, species
distribution model
Sumner, R. S.-B., J.; Mulcahy, T.;
Minter, J.; Dyson, B.; Godfrey, C.;
Blue, J. (2010). Alternative Futures
Analysis of Farmington Bay
Wetlands in the Great Salt Lake
Ecosystem. EPA/600/R-10/032.
Models and mapping
tools to inform
resilience planning
after disasters: a case
study of Hurricane
Sandy and Long Island
ecosystem services
Urban
Resilience
Examine a method of fast
ecosystem services mapping that
relies on publicly available data,
includes stakeholder input, and
uses ArcGIS software that is
ubiquitous in municipal planning.
Recreational,
Non-Use
Fauna,
Water, Flora
ArcGIS, Modelbuilder
workflow, stakeholder
input, benefits indicators,
Coastal National Elevation
Database Project, Topo-
bathymetric Digital
Elevation Model, NWI
Myer, M., & Johnston, J. M. (2020).
Models and Mapping Tools to
Inform Resilience Planning After
Disasters: A Case Study of
Hurricane Sandy and Long Island
Ecosystem Services. In Ecosystem-
Based Management, Ecosystem
Services and Aquatic Biodiversity
(pp. 417-430).
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 129
-------
Case Study
Ecosystem
Class
Purpose
Category
Summary
Nitrogen deposition
and climate change
effects on tree species
composition and
ecosystem services
for a forest cohort
Terrestrial
This study applies species-specific
estimates of nitrogen and climate
Method sensitivity to model future changes
demonstration in forest composition and to assess
the effect of these changes on
forest ecosystem services.
Estimating the
provision of
ecosystem services by
Gulf of Mexico coastal
wetlands
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
A FEGS based meta-analysis to gain
appreciation of the impact of GOM
coastal wetland loss on ecosystem
services to derive quantitative
estimates of ecosystem services
provided by GOM coastal
wetlands.
Projecting effects of
land use change on
human well-being
through changes in
ecosystem services
Estuarine-
coastal
Ecosystem
Services
Valuation
Using a suite of ecological
production functions (EPFs) to
quantify likely changes in
ecosystem services indicators
resulting from changes in
ecological condition they assess
which components of changing
ecological condition have the
strongest influence on a suite of
well-being indicators, and explore
how uncertainty in model
relationships translates to
uncertainty in well-being
outcomes.
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Beneficiary
Class
Commercial/
Industrial, Non-
Use, Learning
Ecosystem
Attribute
Atmosphere,
Fauna, Flora
Tools/ Methods/Models
USFS FIA, allometric
biomass equations, plot-
specific expansion factors
and equations, 12 future
scenarios (based on
historical trends, U.S. policy,
and IPCC scenarios), CAA,
NADP, CAST-Net, CMAa
TDEP, RCPs, PRISM,
NASANEX-DCP30, N
deposition, future scenario
modeling, forest stand
composition (24 species)
models, CMAQ,
precipitation, temperature,
tree regeneration/
recruitment, annual growth
and survival, biomass,
carbon sequestration
Van Houtven, G. P., Jennifer; Clark,
Christopher; Sabo, Robert D.;
Buckley, J; Thomas, R. Quinn; Horn,
Kevin; LeDuc, Stephen. (2019).
.
Ecological Monographs, 89(2).
Commercial/
Industrial,
Recreational,
Non-Use
Fauna,
Water,
Composite,
Atmosphere
storm surge attenuation
estimates, simulation
models by FEMA, SLOSH,
ADCIRC
Engle, V. D. (2011). Estimating the
Provision of Ecosystem Services by
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Wetlands.
Wetlands, 31(1), 179-193.
doi: 10.1007/s 13157-010-0132-9
Agricultural,
Non-Use,
Recreational
Atmosphere,
Water, Flora,
Other
Natural
Components
EPFs, Human Weil-Being
Index modeling framework,
FORE-SCE, Envision, GIS,
land use change scenarios
Yee, S.H.; Paulukonis, E.; Simmons,
C.; Russell, M.; Fulford, R.; Harwell,
L.; Smith, L.M. (2021) Projecting
effects of land use change on
human well-being through changes
in ecosystem services. Ecological
Modeling 440
Page 130
-------
Case Study
Identifying and
aligning ecosystem
services and
beneficiaries
associated with best
management
practices in
Chesapeake Bay
watershed
Ecosystem
Class
Estuarine-
coastal
Purpose
Category
Method
demonstration
Summary
Uses a four-step approach to
define bounds of decision context,
identify ecosystem services and
beneficiaries relevant to that
decision context, engage
stakeholders to understand
priorities, and identify potential
metrics and indicators. Highlighting
the utility of different ecosystem
services tools.
Community resilience
planning: a decision- Estuarine-
making framework for coastal
coastal communities
Decision Analysis for a Sustainable
Environment, Economy and Society
(DASEES) was used to facilitate two
workshops among residents of the
coastal community of Dania Beach,
FL, environmental planners in
Resilience Broward County, FL, and the
Southeast Florida Regional Climate
Change Compact with the aim to
identify common shared objectives
and provide guidance for the
development of action plans
promoting resilience.
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Beneficiary
Class
Non-use,
Government/
Municipal/
Residential,
Commercial/
Industrial
Ecosystem
Attribute
Atmosphere,
Soil, Water,
Fauna,
Composite
Tools/ Methods/Models
FST, Chesapeake
Assessment Scenario Tool,
BMP, stakeholder input,
EPFs, InVEST, i-Tree,
EcoService
Rossi, R., Bisland, C., Sharpe, L.,
Trentacoste, E., Williams, B., Yee,
S. (2022) Identifying and Aligning
Ecosystem Services and
Beneficiaries Associated and Best
Management Practices in
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Environmental Management, 69:
384-409
DASEES, Structured Decision
Making, workshops,
objectives hierarchy,
Bayesian networks, FEMA
CRS models, COAST damage
model, ICPR model,
SLAMM, MIKE SHE,
MPO/FWHA Climate Study,
Government/ FEMA maps, hydrodynamic
Municipal/ Water, model, inundation model,
Residential, Composite sand/erosion model,
Non-use variable density model,
integrated water model,
surface water models,
SLAMM, COAST model, ICPR
model, MIKE SHE model,
storm surge model,
downscaled global climate
model, consequence
models
Dyson, B., Carriger, J., Newcomer-
Johnson, T., Moura, R., Richardson,
T., Canfield, T.J. (2019) Community
Resilience Planning: A Decision-
Making Framework for Coastal
Communities. EPA/600/R-19/066
Page 131
-------
Abbreviations and acronyms used in the case study database include the following:
ADCIRC ADvanced CIRCulation model
AFA Alternative Futures Analysis
AGEB Basic Geo-Statistical Areas
AGWA Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment
AIC Akaike Information Criteria
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
AOC Area of Concern
AVGWLF ArcView Generalized Watershed Loading Function
AWHA Avian Wetland Habitat Assessment
BMP Best Management Practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CAST Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool
CAST-Net Clean Air Status and Trends Network
CBG Census Block Group
C-CAP Coastal Change Analysis Program
CCVATCH Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Tool for Coastal Habitats
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CAAAQ Community Multiscale Air Quality
CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
CN Method Curve Number Method
COAST COastal Adaption to Sea level rise Tool
Con_Num Number of adjoining estuaries with green crab presence
CORSET COral Reef Scenario Evaluation Tool
CRPI Coral Reef Protection Index
CVM Coastal Vulnerability Model
DASEES Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DisNear Distance of estuary to nearest estuary with green crab (miles)
DIVA Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment
DSRP Distinctions - Systems - Relationships - Perspectives
EDA Estuarine Drainage Area
EDRatio Economic Dependency Ratio
EHI Economic Hardship Index
El Exposure Index
EAAAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPF Ecological Production Functions
EROSion Watershed-scale hydrologic model
ESRP Ecosystem Service Research Program
FARM Farm Aquaculture Resource Management model
FEGS Final Ecosystem Goods and Services
FEGS-CS Final Ecosystem Goods and Services - Classification System
FEAAA CRS Federal Emergency Management Agency Community Rating System
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 132
-------
FEAAA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FGDC Federal Geospatial Data Committee
FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FLUCCS Florida Land Use, Land Cover Classification System
FML Future Midwestern Landscapes
FORE-SCE FOREcasting SCEnarios of land-use change model
FST FEGS Scoping Tool
GAMS General Algebraic Modeling System
GBNERR Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
GCM Global Climate Models
GIS Geographic Information System
GAAX Generalized Mixed logit modeling analysis
GNN Map Gradient Nearest Neighbor Map
HEC-HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center's Hydrologic Modeling System
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System
HIReefSIM Hawai'i Reef dynamics Simulator
HSPF Hydrological Simulation Model-Fortran
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HUI Human Use Index
HWBI Human Well-Being Index
ICD International Classification of Disease
ICLUS Integrated Climate and Land-Use Scenarios
ICPR Interconnected Pond Routing
NASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
InVEST Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs
IPCC SRES Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -Special Report Emissions Scenarios
IPCR Interconnected Pond Routing
i-Tree Tools for Assessing and Managing Forests and Community Trees
KINematic Runoff Watershed-scale hydrologic model
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LUCIS Land-Use Conflict Identification Strategy
LULC Land Use Land Cover
AAANOVA Multivariate Analysis of Variance
MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MERLIN Model for External Reliance of Localities IN coastal management zones
MET Metabolic Equivalent
MIKE SHE Integrated Hydrological Modeling from the Systeme Hydrologique Europeen
MNL Multinomial logit modeling analysis
M0BILE6 Mobile source emission factor model
MOVES MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator
MPO/FWHA Metropolitan Planning Organization/Federal Highway Administration
MRC Mekong River Commission
M-SEVI Modified Socio-Environmental Vulnerability Index
AAXL Mixed logit modeling analysis
AAzone Mixing Zone
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 133
-------
NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program
NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program
NALC North American Landscape Characterization
NEX-DCP30 NASA Earth Exchange Downscaled Climate Projections
NLCD National Land Cover Dataset
NSE Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
PCA Principal Components Analysis
Pol_Flow Total watershed estimated flow of pollution (mg/year)
PRASA Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority
PRDH Puerto Rico Department of Health
PRISM Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model
R R Statistical Computing Tool
R2R2R Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization
RBI Rapid Benefits Indicator
RCPs Representative Concentration Pathways
RESVI Relative Valuation of Ecosystem Services Index
SCS CN Soil Conservation Service Curve Number
SDM Structured Decision Making
SEIBBM Spatially Explicit Individual- Based Behavioral Model
SHOW Survey of the Health of Wisconsin
SimCLIM Software tool designed to facilitate assessment of risks from climate change
SIRHI Simplified Integrated Reef Health Index
SLAAAM Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model
SLD Smart Location Database
SLOSH Sea, Land, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes model
SOS Strength Of Science
SPA Maps Service Providing Area Maps
SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database
STATSGO State Soil Geographic Data Base
STEPS Stressor-Ecological Production function- final ecosystem Services
SWAN Simulating Waves Nearshore
SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool
SWAAM Storm Water Management Model
SWReGAP Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
TBEP Tampa Bay Estuary Program
TDEP Total Deposition
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TR-55 Technical Release 55
UNH University of New Hampshire
USFS FIA U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis
USGS NHD U.S. Geographical Survey National Hydrography Dataset
WAIC Watanabe-Akaike Information Criterion
WRWC Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council
Appendix 1: Database of EPA ORD Case Studies
Page 134
-------
&EPA
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of
50% postconsumer fiber content processed chlorine free
------- |