WORK PLAN
ON
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southeast New England Program (SNEP) Region
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 (EPA Rl)
Submitted By: Great Lakes Environmental Center, Inc.
September 19, 2019
Revised: January 17, 2020
GleC
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southeast New England Program (SNEP) Region
CONTENTS
List of Tables ii
List of Figures ii
1 Introduction 3
2 Work Plan 4
Technical Approach 4
Task 1: Project Management and Administration 4
Task 2: Development of a Conceptual Model of Ecosystem Function and Service - An
Integrated Ecosystem Services Framework (IESF) 7
Subtask 2.A. Report documenting the pertinent findings of the literature review, review of
analogous organizations, review of geographic programs, and logical/relational
organization of the data in an Excel spreadsheet 7
Subtask 2.B. Report presenting a conceptual IESF including a functional schematic 8
Subtask 2.C. Characterization of SNEP ecological resources and the range of ecosystem
services provided, including the region's commonalities and linkages 11
Task 3: Development of Indicators and Metrics of Ecosystem Function and Health 13
Subtask 3.A. Meetings with SNEP staff, Monitoring Subcommittee, Ecosystem Services
Subcommittee, Policy Committee, and Steering Committee 13
Subtask 3.B. Report summarizing discussions, approach to track status and trends,
management questions, recommended indicators and metrics, and next steps 14
Task 4: Assessment of Data and Gaps 15
Subtask 4.A. Summary of existing monitoring data in the SNEP region 15
Subtask 4.B. Summary of data gaps 16
Subtask 4.C. Summary of recommended data collection to address data gaps 16
Subtask 4.D. Report highlighting environmental and community features most valued by
the public in the SNEP region 16
Subtask 4.E. Support for four webinars 19
Task 5: Ecosystem Service Valuation of SNEP Ecosystem Resources/Functions - A First Step 20
3 References 22
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southeast New England Program (SNEP) Region
List of Tables
Table 1. Task 2 Deliverables 13
Table 2. Task 3 Deliverables 15
Table 3. Some potential search terms for characterizing what the public values 17
Table 4. Task 4 Deliverables 19
Table 5: Task 5 Deliverables 21
List of Figures
Figure 1. A workflow diagram showing the relationships between and among elements of Tasks
in this scope. Arrows roughly indicate the flow of information. Solid lines represent a direct
relationship between elements. Dashed lines indicate more indirect relationships where
elements inform each other 6
Figure 2. An example IESF for MassBays salt marsh habitats that compiles some of the
ecosystem services and beneficiaries of salt marsh habitats and suggests potential ecological
indicators (FEGS-Relevant Ecosystem Attributes) and ecosystem services indicators (Ecosystem-
derived Economic/Social Measures [ESG Benefit]) 9
Figure 3. A conceptual model for one type of IESF under development by partners at ORD Gulf
Ecology Division and Atlantic Ecology Division, and Region 1 staff. This model mirrors the
"Benefit-Relevant Indicators" discussed in Olander et al. 2018 9
Figure 4. A simple IESF developed for the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program State of
Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed report, clearly linking stressor indicators to condition
indicators, and the relationships that both have with ecosystem services and societal uses 10
Figure 5. Example map and legend showing the 25 classes for the 2016 high-resolution
Massachusetts C-CAP land cover dataset (credit: MassGIS
https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-2016-land-coverland-use) 12
Figure 6. A bar chart showing the frequency of terms used in a university twitter account Credit:
https://www.slideshare.net/rdatamining/text-mining-with-r-an-analysis-of-twitter-data 18
Figure 7. A word cloud made from analyzing tweets from the 2012 Ecological Society of America
(ESA) meeting held in Portland, OR. Credit: ESA Blog, https://www.esa.org/esablog/ecology-in-
the-news/esa-and-twitter-sunday/ 19
ii
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
1 INTRODUCTION
The EPA Region 1 Southeast New England Program (SNEP) has spent the last year building on
its strong foundation of stakeholder collaboration to develop a user-focused communications
strategy, to characterize the existing scope and value of monitoring activities in the region, to
expand its understanding of ecosystem services research and potential applications, and to plan
and host a SNEP Symposium. These activities have set the stage for the program's next steps
that include developing a cohesive monitoring strategy for the SNEP region based on an
Integrated Ecosystem Services Framework (IESF).
Complex coastal and transitional ecosystems, like the SNEP region, are faced with numerous
pressures including climate change, coastal erosion, overfishing, land use/land cover changes,
and pollution. To build public support for the investment in restoration, or other interventions
and management actions meant to address these pressures, it is important to communicate the
tradeoffs associated with all options. An IESF will help SNEP quantify and communicate the
numerous benefits that the ecosystem provides to communities. An IESF that links ecological
conditions and/or functions to ecosystem services in the form of benefit-relevant indicators will
provide insight into the potential impacts (positive AND negative) associated with changes to the
ecological conditions/functions (Olander et al. 2018). Since the IESF will highlight focal
ecological conditions and functions, it can also be used to prioritize monitoring efforts for those
focal conditions/functions.
Great Lakes Environmental Center, Inc. (GLEC), in partnership with E&C Enviroscape, LLC
(E&C) and Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), brings the strong subject matter expertise and
facilitation proficiency needed to fully support this effort.
Throughout this project, the Team will work closely with EPA to establish an Integrated
Ecosystem Services Framework (IESF) that:
Identifies the most appropriate metrics and indicators for tracking and assessing
environmental condition
Creates linkages between and among environmental conditions, ecosystem functions,
ecosystem services, and human activities
Will inform the format and content of periodic "State of the SNEP Region" reports
3
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
2 WORK PLAN
Technical Approach
Task 1: Project Management and Administration
Our management approach prioritizes frequent and proactive communication, adaptability and
responsiveness to challenges, strict quality control procedures, and timely budget and schedule
tracking. Our management system will consist of the following elements:
Program Management. Dr. Mick DeGraeve (GLEC) will manage the GLEC Team at the
contract level and assure that EPA's needs and expectations are met for this procurement. He is
the founder of GLEC and for the past 45 years has interacted regularly with professionals in a
wide range of disciplines and with representatives of industry, government and academia. Mick's
technical aquatic biology/toxicology professional experience has included managing EPA Office
of Water level of effort contracts for GLEC for 20+ years. Over that period, he has been
responsible for the technical and financial oversight of 11 EPA Office of Water contracts; five
for the Health and Ecological Criteria Division (HECD), three for the Standards and Health
Protection Division (SHPD), one for the Permits Division of the Office of Wastewater
Management (OWM), and two for the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water's
(OGWDW) Technical Support Center.
Expert Project Manager and Enthusiastic Facilitator (Project Lead). Dr. Emily Shumchenia
(E&C Enviroscape) will lead the GLEC Team. She will regularly coordinate with and take
direction from EPA, oversee all project staff, and ensure that all tasks are completed on time and
on budget. Emily will also serve as lead facilitator for SNEP Committee and Subcommittee
meetings in this scope and offer strategic advice to EPA staff to ensure fruitful engagement of
committee members. Emily brings over 10 years of experience in project management, research,
and science communication to the project team. She has designed and led numerous workshops
and meetings at the interface of science and management for the Northeast Regional Ocean
Council, the Long Island Sound Blue Plan Development Team, the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Council on the Ocean, the MassBays Estuary Program, and SNEP. In addition, Emily has
expertise in designing monitoring programs, evaluating marine environmental and biological
indicators and metrics, and developing effective visualizations of monitoring results. Emily has a
PhD in oceanography and has been studying the benthic habitats of the SNEP region since 2004.
Core staff. We propose a small but highly qualified "Core staff for this project. Emily
Shumchenia (E&C) will be the Project Lead and Charles Goodhue (ERG) will serve as an
ecosystem services and economic valuation expert. Charles and Emily will be present for all
meetings associated with this project to maintain continuity with Subcommittee work that they
led throughout 2019 and strengthen ties across SNEP entities for this body of work. E&C and
ERG will also each provide an additional team member to the Core staff. Dr. Clifford "Chip"
Heil (E&C) will support data analysis, synthesis, and communication throughout the project, and
bring expertise in characterizing ecosystem responses to climate change in coastal, terrestrial,
and lake ecosystems. Alexandra Phillips (ERG) brings expertise in outreach/engagement and
project planning and will conduct the majority of the background research and also provide
4
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
meeting logistics support. Aside from the Core staff, Chris Lamie (ERG), will serve as a senior
advisor and reviewer to the Core staff and work with the GLEC team and SNEP staff on project
strategy and approach for Task 2the team will leverage his extensive experience and lessons
learned from leading EPA's Report on the Environment and Climate Change Indicators in the
U.S. Dr. Julianne Heinlein (GLEC) will serve as a senior advisor and reviewer to the Core staff
and SNEP on strategy and approach for Task 4 - the team will leverage her extensive experience
in metrics development (specifically algal data/metrics) and integrating ecosystem services into
state and federal monitoring frameworks.
Robust program support. GLEC and ERG have each supported EPA programs for decades.
Their familiarity with EPA policies and procedures regarding information sharing,
communication, and dissemination strengthens our Technical Approach. Specifically, ERG will
provide secure access to a project SharePoint site for information sharing among EPA and team
members, as well as the capability to generate web-based content that meets EPA requirements.
Frequent communication. The team will hold routine conference calls to discuss project
progress and next steps. The Project Lead will be responsive and available via email and phone
as needed between scheduled calls.
5
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
Understanding the relationships among Tasks
Tasks 2 and 3 are presented separately in the RFQfor logistical and budgetary purposes.
However, our team recognizes that work on these tasks will likely be conducted in a
coordinated fashion. For example, meetings with the Subcommittees, Committees, and staff
(Task 3) will be used to obtain vital feedback on preliminary and draft products related to Task 2
that will help shape the final deliverables and overall conceptual Integrated Ecosystem Services
Framework (IESF). In addition, elements of Task 4 will likely inform the IESF. Figure 1 shows
relationships among Tasks and assigns specific subtasks to "Data Gathering", "Synthesis", and
"Outputs" categories for further organization.
DATAGATHERING
SYNTHESIS
OUTPUTS
Catalog of ecosystem
functions and services;
(perhaps specific valuations):
in the literature
in use/tracked by entities in
the SNEP region
in use/tracked by other
geographic and/or regional
monitoring programs
Ecological resource
characterization of the
SNEP region including
the range of ecosys-
tem services provided
SNEP input on:
priority ecosystem
services
key management
questions
key data and metrics
how to use the data
that the public values
Commonalities and
linkages among SNEP
areas based on
ecological resources
and ecosystem
Report of ecosystem
functions and services;
(perhaps specific valuations)
plus organizational spreadsheet
i
A conceptual Integrated
Ecosystem Services
Framework
Report presenting a
conceptual Integrated
Ecosysetm Services
Framework
Summary of existing Environmental and
monitoring data in the community features
SNEP region
what data are being
collected?
who is collecting it?
how can it be
accessed?
Assessment of data
and monitoring gaps
Report summarizing
SNEP Committees &
Subcommittees
discussions, approach
to track status and
trends, management
questions, recom-
mended indicators
and metrics, and next
steps
Summary of
recommended
data collection
to address
gaps
Report highlighting
environmental and
community features
most valued by the
public in the SNEP
region
Figure 1. A workflow diagram showing the relationships between and among elements of Tasks in this
scope. Arrows roughly indicate the flow of information. Solid lines represent a direct relationship between
elements. Dashed lines indicate more indirect relationships where elements inform each other.
6
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
Task 2: Development of a Conceptual Model of Ecosystem Function
and Service - An Integrated Ecosystem Services Framework (IESF)
E. Shumchenia will coordinate the GLEC Team's work on Task 2. C. Lamie will provide overall
Task guidance and leverage his existing knowledge of various indicator/monitoring programs
and connections to those program developers/managers/staff. Work on Task 2 will directly
follow and be informed by the work our team completed under the 2018 Solicitation. This
project's Task 2 involves data gathering, synthesis, and generating outputs toward a conceptual
IESF. Below we suggest further partitioning of this Task into Subtasks beyond what is outlined
in the RFQ.
Subtask 2. A. Report documenting the pertinent findings of the literature review, review of
analogous organizations, review of geographic programs, and logical/relational organization
of the data in an Excel spreadsheet
ERG staff will lead the literature and program reviews. The purpose of the reviews in this
Subtask is to compile existing information on the types of ecosystem services provided in
complex coastal regions, and how these have been measured and tracked by other entities. Our
team will leverage the existing work compiled by SNEP on this topic, provided in Appendix A
and Appendix B in the RFQ, as well as the body of information compiled by both the Monitoring
and Ecosystem Services Subcommittees under the 2018 Solicitation. We will implement the
following major steps to perform this literature and program review.
1) Perform an initial literature review. We will dedicate some portion of our literature
review resources to assemble Ecosystem Functions (EF) and Ecosystem Services (ES)
info and data that could be used to develop an IESF for SNEP. We will parse information
into a sortable and filterable database, and we will develop a two-page summary to
present our initial findings and our plan for outreach to related organizations and
geographic and regional monitoring programs (steps 3 and 4 below).
2) Present our initial summary to both subcommittees. We will present our findings
from the initial literature review and our outreach plan on a subcommittee meeting call.
One option for this step is to hold a joint subcommittee call or meeting. The goal is to
determine if there are other organizations to connect with and identify key questions
needing to be answered based on the initial findings. Additionally, many of the
organizations we connect with will be part of one or both SNEP subcommittees, so this
will provide background information to facilitate discussion.
3) Perform an assessment of related organizations. We will hold phone calls with related
organizations, including EPA Office of Research and Development, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, the Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard
Commissions, Chambers of Commerce, NOAA, NERRS Science Collaborative, and
Municipal Town Offices in addition to other key organizations recommended during step
2 or identified during step 1. As part of this outreach, we will also mine data from each
organization's website.
7
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
4) Perform an assessment of other geographic and regional monitoring programs. We
will reach out to monitoring programs within and outside the SNEP region. This will
provide perspective about activities in the region as well as help us characterize outside
programs so we can consider their metrics and approaches for the SNEP region. We will
develop an Excel sheet that pulls these various performance metrics and approaches for
measuring progress.
5) Perform a supplemental literature review to address any gaps. We will save some
resources to target any gaps identified from steps 2, 3, and 4 with a supplementary
literature review. We will then develop a short report documenting key findings of the
literature review (steps 2 and 5), related organizations (step 3), and geographic programs
(step 4) (Deliverable 2A-1). We will additionally submit a sortable, filterable Excel
database with information parsed into columns (e.g., ecosystem type, ecosystem service
type, geography, literature type, date of publication, size of ecosystem, beneficiaries,
data/metrics to measure ecosystem service) (Deliverable 2A-2).
6) Extract spatial information from entities within the SNEP region. Using the
information gathered in the literature review and from subcommittees, we will develop
draft maps that show gaps and/or overlaps in indicators/metrics being measured in the
region.
Subtask 2.B. Report presenting a conceptual IESF including a functional schematic
E&C will lead the development of a conceptual IESF. We have recent experience developing
and communicating ecosystem services frameworks to support coastal assessment and
communication. Team member E. Shumchenia is currently working with the EPA Office of
Water, Office of Research and Development staff at the Atlantic Ecology Division and Gulf
Ecology Division, and the MassBays Estuary Program to develop an Ecosystem Services
Gradient tied to a Biological Condition Gradient (Figure 2). This work is described as a case
study in a book chapter, "The Ecosystem Services Gradient: A Descriptive Model for Identifying
Thresholds of Meaningful Change" by Susan Yee, and others, including Margherita Pry or from
Region 1 and GLEC team member E. Shumchenia. While this chapter applies EPA-
terminologies such as "FEGS" (Final Ecosystem Goods and Services) that may be too jargon-y
for this work, there are several conceptual models and processes similar to those of Grizzetti et
al. 2016 and Olander et al. 2018 (see Figure 3 below, which corresponds to Figure 2 in Yee et al.
in review) which suggest that many of the chapter's recommendations can be helpful in
structuring a SNEP IESF.
For their 2017 State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed report, team member E. Shumchenia
developed a series of functional schematics showing the relationships between stressor indicators
and resource/condition indicators. A summary schematic developed for the report introduction
shows the relationships among all indicators discussed in the report and the ecosystem services
affected (Figure 4). While this diagram is somewhat simpler than the framework being
developed for MassBays, they represent concepts already in use in the SNEP region and can
therefore inform the work under this Subtask.
8
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
ECOSYSTEM GOOD
for
People and communities in
areas vulnerable to flooding
and storm surge; protection of
life and property
Govt: coastal property tax
revenue
Community: services
supported by revenue
for
All: enjoyment
Anglers: food, fish catch
Sheilfishermen: food, shellfish harvest
Salt Hay/Plant Collectors: flora
Hunters; food, duck
Experiencers/viewers (bird watchers,
kayakers, canoers): habitat views,
observations of nature and charismatic
species
for
Commercial Fishermen/shellfishermen,
sea food processors & sellers: livelihood
Recreation and service Industry (supplies,
equipment, lodging, food, tours,
education): livelihood
State and Local Govts: fax revenue
Community: services supported by revenue
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE
for
BENEFICIARIES
| Who benefits and how the
ecosystem (salt marsh)
specifically benefits them
FEGS: Presence of the
environment
FEGS: Flora, fauna, presence of the
environment
FEGS: Flora, fauna, presence
of the environment
Final Ecosystem Good
and Service
Habitat extent
Biophysical structure
Wave attenuation
Vegetation-structure
Structural and
component rebound
Erosion rates
Avoided Costs
Coastal property values
and tax revenue
Govt services attributed
to tax revenue
Plant, fish, bird
populations:
Abundance, richness
diversity, health
W ^
Community composition
Charismatic or commercial species
Growth rate
Age distribution
Presence of tumors, lesions, disease
Marsh acreage
Recreational shellfish harvest
Recreational fish catch &
fishing reports
Recreational Angler licenses
User and tourist surveys
W ^
Nursery and food supply to
replenish recreational and/or
commercial fish and shellfish
populations
Salt marsh connection to
fishing and shellfishing
grounds
Fish catch
Shell fish harvest
Business Profits
Employment and job reports
Business Tax Revenue
Govt services attributed to tax
FEGS-Relevant Ecosystem
Attributes (BCG Y-Axis)
Salt marsh ecological
structure, process or function
that provides the benefit
FEGS-Relevant Ecosystem
Measures (BCG Y-Axis)
Ecosystem-derived
Economic/Social
Measures (ESG Benefit)
Figure 2. An example IESF for MassBays salt marsh habitats that compiles some of the ecosystem services
and beneficiaries of salt marsh habitats and suggests potential ecological indicators (FEGS-Relevant
Ecosystem Attributes) and ecosystem services indicators (Ecosystem-derived Economic/Social Measures
[ESG Benefit]).
Figure 3. A conceptual model for one type of IESF under development by partners at ORD Gulf Ecology
Division and Atlantic Ecology Division, and Region 1 staff. This model mirrors the "Benefit-Relevant
Indicators" discussed in Olanderetal. 2018.
9
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
f
*
Stressor Indicators
CLIMATE CHANGE
Temperature
Precipitation
Sea Level
LANDSCAPE
Population
Land Use
Impervious Cover
Wastewater Infrastructure
Nutrient Loading
CHEMICAL
Legacy Contaminants
Emerging Contaminants
J.
;
Narragansett Bay & Watershed
~
BENEFITS PEOPLE RECEIVE
FROM THE BAY AND
WATERSHED
Food. Materials & Energy
Shipping & Transportation,
Aquaculture
Regulation & Maintenance
of Essential Resources
including:
Clean Water, Human Health,
Property & Asset Protection,
Healthy Habitat & Wildlife
Cultural Benefits
including:
Outdoor Recreation,
Habitat & Wildlife,
Science, Education & Research,
Sense of Place
SOCIETAL USES OF
INDICATOR INFORMATION
Adaption to
Climate Change
Land Use & Marine
Spatial Planning
Management of Resources
& Uses
Wastewater & Stormwater
Management
Habitat Protection,
Conservation & Restoration
Science, Research
& Education
I J
Condition Indicators
BAY ECOSYSTEM
Seagrasses
Salt Marsh
Estuarine Fish Communities
Dissolved Oxyg
Chlorophyll
Water Clarity
WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM
Water Quality Conditions
for Aquatic Life
Stream Invertebrates
Freshwater Fish
Communities
PUBLIC HEALTH
Water Quality Conditions
for Recreation
Shellfishing Areas
Figure 4, A simple IESF developed for the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program State of Narragansett Bay and
Its Watershed report, clearly linking stressor indicators to condition indicators, and the relationships that
both have with ecosystem services and societal uses.
EPA input: Prior to beginning this subtask, a draft report and spreadsheet assembled for Subtask
2. A will be shared with the Monitoring and Ecosystem Services Subcommittees for feedback
(via Task 3). The Subcommittees' feedback will help frame the conceptual IESF, including a
process/flow diagram, and determine the focal ecological functions and services that should be
included for the SNEP region. If desired, revised drafts will then be offered to the SNEP
Committees (via Task 3) and feedback will be incorporated into the IESF. A final IESF
functional schematic and report will be produced (Deliverable 2B).
Scale: We will work with EPA staff and the Committees/Subcommittees to determine the
appropriate focal scale of the IESF. Considerations include the focal scale of the Ecological
Resource Characterization (Subtask 2.C), as well as the key management questions, priority
ecosystem services, and key data/metrics identified by the SNEP Committees and
Subcommittees (Task 3).
Nomenclature: We will also work with EPA staff and Committees/Subcommittees to choose a
consistent and accepted nomenclature for use in the IESF, building off of the Ecosystem Services
Valuation literature database compiled by ERG, MassAudubon, and others under Task 4 in the
2018 Solicitation, as well as the information gathered for this scope under Subtask 2. A.
10
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
Subtask 2.C. Characterization of SNEP ecological resources and the range of ecosystem
services provided, including the region's commonalities and linkages
To fully populate the IESF, and to understand the range of ecosystem services provided,
ecological resources of the SNEP region must first be characterized. E. Shumchenia and C. Heil
(E&C) will lead this effort. E. Shumchenia has topic-area and spatial data expertise, and C. Heil
brings experience gathering, manipulating, analyzing, and communicating large datasets.
This Subtask could be viewed as a first step toward the creation of ecosystem services maps
throughout the SNEP region. As such, while we will work with EPA staff, SNEP Committees
and Subcommittees to develop/select the preferred nomenclature and hierarchy, we also
recommend considering the nomenclature and hierarchy of existing spatial datasets to ensure
consistency between prior, current, and future ecosystem services maps. For example, National
Land Cover Data (NLCD), state Land Use/Land Cover data, and National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) data each present spatial resource characterizations and terminologies that could be
leveraged for this Subtask. The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program (NBEP) used these datasets in
their 2017 State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed Report which not only offers
methodological insights into data aggregation/hierarchies and trend interpretations that would be
of value to this project but further developed these characterizations and nomenclature with
respect to RI and MA environments (NBEP 2017).
Once the resources are cataloged and characterized, we will summarize similarities and
differences in resource expression across the SNEP region. This element will require extensive
data mining and manipulation to summarize resource information and generate summary
statistics and visualizations (e.g., total acres of urban land can be calculated and compared
among Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay, and Cape Cod areas). Zones for summarization will be
determined in collaboration with EPA and SNEP Committees/Subcommittees (especially with
regard to key management questions and other reporting considerations) and could build upon
USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds, for example. This information will then be
represented spatially in the form of draft maps. Because the database will be large and
multivariate, we suggest developing a draft web-based and interactive map that can be visualized
and queried in different ways depending on the topic of interest. For example, the map user could
select the "whole SNEP region" scale and visualize summaries of ecological resources and
ecosystem services profiles for the whole region. Alternatively, a user could select "large
estuaries" or "large rivers" and see summaries of ecological resources and services at those
scales.
Potential inputs to Deliverable 2C-2
Omernik Ecoregions of New England
Finer-scale state Land Cover/Land Use data, with insights from NBEP 2017 bistate
crosswalk
o New, nationally-consistent Beta Derived Moderate Resolution C-CAP Data (10m
land cover)
o MA high-resolution (1-meter) C-CAP program data (2016); 25 classes (Figure 5)
11
-------
Development of an integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
o RI 0.5-acre Land Cover/Land Use data (2011); 37 classes which could be
collapsed/cross-walked to match the MA C-CAP data (or other common set of
classes) using methods similar to NBEP 2017
Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System (CAPS) data for additional detail on
natural lands, as in NBEP 2017
NWI data for additional detail on wetland types
Shellfish habitat and eelgrass data from www.northeastoceandata.org
Aquaculture data from www.northeastoceandata.org
Land Cover/Land Use (2016)
Use in Impervious Surface Areas
Residential - single family
Residential - multi-family
Residential - other
m\ Commercial
|i Industrial
Mixed use. primarily residential
I Mixed use, primarily commercial
Mixed use, other
I Other Impervious
I Right-of-way
Land Cover in Non-impervious Areas
Cultivated
Pasture/Hay
Developed Open Space
I Deciduous Forest
I Evergreen Forest
Grassland
Scrub/Shrub
Bare Land
Forested Wetland
Non-forested Wetland
Saltwater Wetland
Water
Unconsolidated Shore
Aquatic Bed
Cranberry Bog
Figure 5. Example map and legend showing the 25 classes for the 2016 high-resolution Massachusetts C-
CAP land cover dataset (credit: MassGIS https://docs.digital.mass.gov/dataset/massgis-data-2016-land-
coverland-use).
12
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
Table 1. Task 2 Deliverables
Deliverable
Timeline
2A-1 Report documenting findings of the reviews
(literature, SNEP programs, other geographic programs)
Within eight (8) weeks of Kickoff Meeting
2A-2 Spreadsheet organizing the data and information from
the reviews
TBD based on kickoff meeting schedules/
workplans
2B IESF Report and functional schematic
Within four (4) months of kickoff meeting
2C-2 Ecological resource characterization of the SNEP
region (data summaries)
Draft maps of ecological resources and services in the
SNEP region
Within six (6) months of kickoff meeting
Within eight (8) months of kickoff meeting
Task 3: Development of Indicators and Metrics of Ecosystem
Function and Health
E. Shumchenia will coordinate the GLEC Team's work on Task 3. While the majority of effort
for Task 3 is concentrated on organizing, facilitating, and attending meetings with SNEP staff,
Committees, and Subcommittees, our team will be focused and dedicated to this Task's key
objective: to develop a common monitoring approach for southeast New England coastal
ecosystems. This will require our team to iteratively gather and synthesize information in Task 2,
communicate the findings to SNEP staff, Committees, and Subcommittees (a component of this
Task 3), and then incorporate the information gathered from experts and stakeholders into the
Task 2 synthesis. The final report will bring all of these elements together.
Subtask 3.A. Meetings with SNEP staff, Monitoring Subcommittee, Ecosystem Services
Subcommittee, Policy Committee, and Steering Committee
Meetings will serve as important checkpoints to allow SNEP entities to learn of our team's
progress and provide feedback. Our team's experience meeting with the Subcommittees and staff
over the past year positions us to take immediate action on this Task and offer a seamless
transition from the previous work to this new scope. Resuming ongoing work with the
Subcommittees, we will continue developing:
Key management questions that reflect the basic human needs or ecosystem services that
the SNEP community values and that SNEP should focus on long-term and over the next
5-10 years
Metrics needed to answer those key management questions
An understanding of the data being currently being collected in the region that can feed
into those metrics (see Task 4)
A characterization of other supporting data that should be continually collected for its
legacy value (e.g., temperature data)
13
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
Approaches to communicating status and trends (i.e., monitoring results presented in a
"State of the SNEP region" report)
Next steps to implementing a SNEP monitoring framework
The GLEC Team has budgeted for four in-person full-day Subcommittee meetings (Deliverable
3A-1), one in-person full-day Policy Committee meeting (Deliverable 3A-3), and one in-person
full-day Steering Committee Meeting (Deliverable 3 A-5). We assumed that we will retain no-
cost venues within the SNEP region for each meeting, in accordance with EPA preferences. The
GLEC Team will schedule the meetings and handle venue logistics including registration. Based
on previous experience, we assumed that EPA will provide all meeting consumables (e.g.,
nametags, handouts, flipcharts, easels, markers, etc.). Our team will work with EPA to design the
agendas to be engaging, interactive, and productive and to identify appropriate read-ahead and
supporting materials that are pertinent to the meeting agenda items. E. Shumchenia will serve as
lead facilitator for all meetings, with assistance from C. Goodhue. All four Core staff will attend
each in-person meeting, with a team member designated to take notes. Notes will inform meeting
summaries, which will be sent to EPA for review, input, and distribution to Subcommittee
members.
We have also budgeted for six Subcommittee conference calls/webinars (Deliverable 3 A-2), one
Policy Committee call/webinar (Deliverable 3 A-4), and one Steering Committee call/webinar
(Deliverable 3A-6). The GLEC Team will schedule all calls and handle webinar (GoToMeeting)
logistics. We will work with EPA to design the agendas and identify appropriate read-ahead and
supporting materials that are pertinent to the call/webinar agenda items. E. Shumchenia will
serve as lead facilitator for all calls, assisted by C. Goodhue. Another team member from either
E&C or ERG will join these calls to take notes for the meeting summaries.
Finally, we have budgeted for two in-person meetings with EPA staff at Region 1 offices
(Deliverable 3 A-7). We have assumed that these meetings will be approximately a half-day each.
One of these meetings may align with a SNEP Technical Assistance Network Steering
Committee meeting to ensure continuity and communication among our projects. E. Shumchenia
and C. Goodhue will work with EPA staff to identify meeting objectives and desired outcomes
prior to each meeting.
Joint Subcommittee meetings may be held to foster cross-pollination and coordinate among
groups/topics, and to create efficiencies in project communication.
Subtask 3.B. Report summarizing discussions, approach to track status and trends,
management questions, recommended indicators and metrics, and next steps
This Task culminates in a final report that summarizes all of the discussions held with and
recommendations from SNEP entities on the SNEP monitoring framework elements. E&C will
lead this Subtask. The report will be provided to EPA staff in draft form and revised with their
input. If desired, we will also offer members of the Subcommittees and Committees
opportunities to provide input before finalization (Deliverable 3B).
14
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
Table 2. Task 3 Deliverables.
Deliverable
Timeline
3A-1 Four in-person Subcommittee meetings
TBD based on discussion at Kickoff Meeting
3A-2 Six Subcommittee conference calls/webinars
TBD based on discussion at Kickoff Meeting
3 A-3 One in-person Policy Committee meeting
TBD based on discussion at Kickoff Meeting
3A-4 One Policy Committee conference call/webinar
TBD based on discussion at Kickoff Meeting
3A-5 One in-person Steering Committee meeting
TBD based on discussion at Kickoff Meeting
3A-6 One Steering Committee conference call/webinar
TBD based on discussion at Kickoff Meeting
3 A-7 Two in-person meetings with EPA staff
First meeting within six (6) to eight (8) weeks of
Kickoff Meeting; second meeting within four (4)
months of Kickoff Meeting
3B Report summarizing discussion, approach,
recommendations
No later than September 1, 2020
Task 4: Assessment of Data and Gaps
E. Shumchenia will coordinate the GLEC Team's work on Task 4. J. Heinlein will provide
overall Task guidance, and leverage her knowledge of bioassessment, monitoring, and metrics
development. We anticipate that the discussions, data gathering, and synthesis that occur
throughout Tasks 2 and 3 will logically highlight 1) data that have been and continue to be
collected in the SNEP region and are readily available and 2) gaps in data collection. We will
start by expanding upon the existing data collection and known gaps cataloged by the Monitoring
Subcommittee and Ecosystem Services Subcommittee in their 2019 workshops. Further research
and discussion as part of the current scope is expected to reveal additional details on existing
data and data gaps and will be collated into separate reports in Subtasks 4. A and 4.B,
respectively. These individual reports will be synthesized with input from SNEP Committees,
Subcommittees, and staff into a single report of recommendations to address data gaps in the
SNEP region (Subtask 4.C).
A final component of data gathering for this scope involves characterizing the ecological
attributes, community features, and ecosystem services that the public values. Full ecosystem
services valuation exercises are complex and using stated-preference and willingness-to-pay
techniques can introduce social and economic biases (Waigner et al. 2018). Therefore, to
understand what ecosystem attributes and services the SNEP community values, we propose a
novel crowd-sourced approach, described below.
Subtask 4. A. Summary of existing monitoring data in the SNEP region
Using information collected during the Task 2 literature review and Task 3 meetings and
webinars, ERG staff will compile the information on existing monitoring data. Then, with EPA
input, GLEC staff will then dig deeper into a number of representative SNEP-funded projects
that required monitoring over a period of time to compile:
15
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
The parameters monitored by the projects and the kinds of information those parameters
were proposed/intended to convey;
How long the project was monitored and how well it captured the proposed/intended
information;
Whether the project achieved its aims and continues to meets its aims, and whether
monitoring is continuing after the project period is over
Obtaining the above information will involve coordination with EPA and SNEP grant partners.
As necessary and in consultation with EPA, GLEC will contact SNEP project leads and grantees
to glean further detail about SNEP project monitoring and to evaluate projects.
We will develop a summary of existing monitoring data in the SNEP region including who is
collecting the data and how the data can be found/accessed (Deliverable 4A).
Data gathering completed for this task will then be used to inform discussions at meetings with
SNEP Subcommittees and Committees (Task 3) and to inform the IESF (Task 2).
Subtask 4.B. Summary of data gaps
ERG staff will compile the information on monitoring data gaps. We will use information from
the Task 2 literature review and feedback from the Task 3 meetings to develop a summary of
data gaps as part of the same document in Subtask 4. A (Deliverable 4B). As such, the timing of
completion for this deliverable may depend on the timing of the Task 3 meetings (see Table 6
below). We will connect these gaps to related performance metrics from other geographic
regions as we transition to Subtask 4.C. below to inform recommended data collection.
Subtask 4.C. Summary of recommended data collection to address data gaps
E&C will synthesize the information from Subtasks 4. A and 4.B as well as information provided
by EPA staff, Subcommittees, and Committees to develop recommendations for addressing data
gaps along with an assessment of the usefulness and applicability of existing data and monitoring
programs to answer management questions of interest (Deliverable 4C). In addition, this
summary will be informed by the metrics and indicators collected throughout the SNEP region
and other geographic programs (Task 2) as well as the priority ecosystem services valued by the
community and identified via Subtask 4.D.
Subtask 4.D. Report highlighting environmental and community features most valued by the
public in the SNEP region
E&C will lead this Subtask. The challenge presented by this Subtask is to obtain information
outside the environmental protection sector and SNEP stakeholders and to characterize
preferences and values of a broader segment of the population living, working, and vacationing
within the SNEP region without using traditional survey methods. Although we expect to obtain
helpful and useful information on this topic from SNEP Committees and Subcommittees, many
of whom conduct robust public outreach campaigns and/or can contribute results of their own
public surveys, we propose a novel crowd-sourcing approach to supplement SNEP programmatic
knowledge.
16
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
Social media data represents a vast quantity of information that could reveal the interests,
preferences, and values of its users. Although this area of social research is relatively new, tools
to gather and analyze social media resources are readily available (Waigner et al. 2018). Social
media content has been used to quantify nonuse ecosystem values (Waigner et al. 2018), links
between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features in Europe (Oteros-Rozas et al.
2018), and to map nature-based recreation patterns and value recreational ecosystem services
related to wetlands in India (Sinclair et al. 2018).
We plan to access publicly available content from Twitter, one of the most widely used social
media platforms, to examine the prevalence of words in users' posts that would reflect interests
and values within the geography of the SNEP region. Public Twitter data will be accessed in
accordance with the Twitter Developers' Policy and User Agreement, then the data will be
gathered, aggregated, and anonymized using the TwitteR R package. In consultation with EPA,
we will select focal words or phrases to include in searches (see Table 5 for examples). Word
prevalence can be easily summarized and visualized using bar charts and word clouds which
represent the relative importance of these topics in the community (Figures 6 and 7,
respectively). C. Heil will lead the application development and data analyses necessary to
summarize the interests, preferences, and values of social media users in the SNEP region. E&C
will interpret the data and write the report (Deliverable 4D).
Table 3. Some potential search terms for characterizing what the public values
Example words and phrases that could represent
interest in SNEP ecosystem services to include in
social media searches
River
Beach
Fishing
Marsh
Wetlands
Ocean
Farmland
Habitat
Open space
Shellfish
17
-------
Development of an integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
. used -
unS:
social -
slides -
see -
research -
postdoctoral -
c/5 position -
ง a:
.a> mining -
introduction -
exa%ฐI:
computin
cod
D
ipplication
analys
ok -
s -
150
Count
Figure 6. A bar chart showing the frequency of terms used in a university twitter account
Credit: https:/Avww.slidesh are.net/rdatamining/text-minins-with-r-an-analvsis-of-twitter-data
18
-------
Development of an integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
is
boneb raking
portlandia
esa social
ecological
Cฐpagealaฐne Jecology waiting
K M noaa inundata officers edt)e
exploited conference useinspired
* ~ visit c
$
ฃ
scientific expioitea conference usemspirea
-ฆa. student hope SCibeyondfield jebyrnes . VIS' e
ostrom answer npnn|p started m* wฎei =
advice meet J???10 Witter pdx research -*
career scientists Science etป|ogists -
ents bird rniriomnrilrlctci ian<
day
sci
advice
career
citizen scientists suenue ewuyisis Eซ
"" meeting miriamgoldste ttaJ
*** = ppsr2012 1g I
I folks |
ฆฃ fi 111 nphonpn rep'y
tons
elected g media
week iฐin
2'E
e
-Q
03
UIIILU
workshop ฆ - iu--
lubchenco
o | 4 elected
keynote
D) "gffl
co x "w
0)
to ro
(D
wish _
cant q _
social cm (1) fig
funding gP -C y
poster o
stickers
chal talks ^
- thanks
o students
portland o
run ฆ r*\
- nobei amn check m >>
i960 d,MM time! O
data pd( free attn .
citizenscience D00tn
tomorrow
dont
CD
q- oregon esa2012students
jacquelyngill overexploited plenary attending
au9 cutting advocating 630 httptcovonfuvzm attendees
f policy J**
looking public
hey lots
crashed bingo
tweets involved c
session ฃ
program
Figure 7. A word cloud made from analyzing tweets from the 2012 Ecological Society of America (ESA)
meeting held in Portland, OR. Credit: ESA Blog, https://www.esa.org/esabloq/ecologv-in-the-news/esa-and-
twitter-sunday/
Subtask 4.E. Support for four webinars
The GLEC team assumes that these webinars will last approximately 90 minutes each and
supporting effort could include:
- Invitation/promotion (need to identify maximum number of participants)
- Agenda and presentation preparation {assuming each webinar is unique)
- Hosting and facilitating the webinar
- Summary notes
Table 4. Task 4 Deliverables
Deliverable
Timeline
4A Summary of existing monitoring data in the SNEP
region
Within six (6) to eight (8) months of Kickoff Meeting
4B Summary of data gaps
TBD. based on timing of Task 3 meetings, but likely
within six (6) to eight (8) months of Kickoff Meeting
19
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
Deliverable
Timeline
4C Summary of recommended data collection to
address gaps
Within eight (8) months of Kickoff Meeting
4D Report highlighting enviromnental and
community features most valued by the public in the
SNEP region
Within ten (10) months of Kickoff Meeting
4E Support for four (4) webinars
TBD
Task 5: Ecosystem Service Valuation of SNEP Ecosystem
Resources/Functions - A First Step
E. Shumchenia will manage the GLEC Team's work on Task 5, in close coordination with Mick
DeGraeve (GLEC), and ecosystem valuation experts at the EPA Office of Research and
Development Atlantic Coastal Environmental Science Division (ORD-ACESD) in Narragansett,
RI, Nate Merrill and Marisa Mazzotta. Merrill and Mazzotta will serve as technical experts and
advisors on this task.
This task will initiate a preliminary ecosystem services (ES) valuation of targeted and
appropriately-bounded SNEP ecosystem resources/functions (EF/R). This task is directly
dependent on the Integrated Ecosystems Services Framework (IESF) to be developed for Task 2
of the original Performance Work Statement (PWS). Consequently, it is expected that the level
of effort (LOE) for this task will be greatest in the latter half of the project performance period.
The draft report and spreadsheet (Subtask 2. A), and IESF functional schematic (Subtask 2B), on
which this work depends, are projected to be developed by late February or early March. These
products will define the focal EF/R in the SNEP region that could be targeted for valuation
studies, and may describe existing valuation exercises in the region that could be used for a
benefit transfer approach.
This task will represent the initial foray into ES valuation in the SNEP region. To define
reasonable and appropriate bounds, we will limit this ES valuation to one (1) estuary-related
ecosystem service that may be affected by a, or a set of, coastal water quality improving actions
within the SNEP region. The Oyster Pond (Chatham, MA) case study described in this
Amendment is a likely candidate for the ES valuation, but we will take guidance from advisors
Merrill and Mazzotta, and also solicit input from both the SNEP Ecosystem Service
Subcommittee and the SNEP Monitoring Subcommittee to identify other potential ES valuation
opportunities in the SNEP region before making a final selection.
The ES valuation will employ the benefit transfer method by which economic values for ES are
estimated by transferring available information from existing ES valuations of other locations
with common ES. In order to attempt this benefit transfer it is necessary to 1) identify the
available and quantifiable, water quality sensitive ecosystem services that lend themselves to
benefit transfer types of valuation, 2) develop the appropriate benefit transfer functions or
process for select ES, and 3) conduct a valuation of the flow of and changes in services due to
water quality improvements. Because it is difficult to fully assess the LOE necessary to conduct
an extensive ES valuation with the information currently available, it is anticipated that, at a
20
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
minimum, we will develop an ES valuation framework that will provide the rationale and
assumptions to initiate and/or complete the valuation of whichever ES is ultimately chosen in the
event that the LOE for Task 5 is inadequate.
We propose the following steps for Task 5.
Identify existing data and potential resources for economic values of EF/R that can be
applied to the SNEP region using the benefit transfer method, and select an appropriate
focal estuary for testing the method.
Using the IESF report and functional schematic, identify the SNEP region EF/R
commonalities with existing valuation reports to define, to the extent allowable from
EF/R commonalities, a valuation table relevant to the SNEP ES selected for evaluation
(and generally relevant to the SNEP region).
Determine if or how existing ES valuations require economic modifications specific to
the SNEP region and/or its ES.
Generate a tailored report on the ES valuation of the EF/R target determined by SNEP
Staff and the SNEP subcommittees.
E&C has budgeted for four (4) half day (~4 hours) meetings for E. Shumchenia and C. Heil to
meet with Merrill and Mazzotta at ORD in Narragansett, RI for this task. We suggest that one
meeting occur as soon as the amendment is approved to more fully scope the task with respect to
the bullets above, understand potential limitations of the assumptions in this response, and
preliminarily identify a focal estuarine system and focal ecosystem function/resource to include
in this exercise. Two of these meetings will occur in spring and summer 2020 to track progress
on the task and hear feedback from the advisors. The final meeting will be scheduled near
completion of the draft tailored report (estimated in early September 2020) to hear feedback from
the advisors and finalize the report (estimated in late September 2020).
E&C will leverage existing meetings that have been budgeted as part of the original PWS to
obtain input and feedback on this task from the SNEP Subcommittees.
GLEC has also included project management time for team member E. Shumchenia for this
additional element to ensure continuity and integration of these deliverables into the overall
project.
Task 5 Deliverables
Four (4) half day meetings with EPA ORD-ACESD staff
Draft and Final ESV Reports on EF/R target per the schedule below
Table 5: Task 5 Deliverables
Deliverable
Timeline
Four (4) meetings with EPA ORD-ACESD advisors
January 2020; April 2020; July 2020; September
2020
DRAFT ESV Report on EF/R target
No later than September 15, 2020
FINAL ESV Report on EF/R target
No later than September 30, 2020
21
-------
Development of an Integrated Ecosystem Framework for the
Southern New England Program (SNEP) Region
3 REFERENCES
Grizzetti B, Lanzanova D, Liquete C, Reynaud A, Cardoso AC. 2016. Assessing water
ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science and Policy.
61: 194-203.
NBEP (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program) 2017. Chapter 5: Land Use, in: Narragansett Bay and
Its Watershed Technical Report, pp. 108-134. www.nbep.org
Olander LP, Johnston RJ, Tallis H, Kagan J, Maguire LA, Polasky S, Urban D, Boyd J, Wainger
L, Palmer M. 2018. Benefit relevant indicators: Ecosystem services measures that link
ecological and social outcomes. Ecological Indicators. 85: 1262-1272.
Oteros-Rozas E, Martin-Lopez B, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Plieninger T. 2018. Using social
media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape
features across five European sites. Ecological Indicators. 94(2): 74-86.
Sinclair M, Ghermandi A, Sheela AM. 2018. A crowdsourced valuation of recreational
ecosystem services using social media data: An application to a tropical wetland in India.
Science of the Total Environment. 642: 356-365.
Waigner LA, Helcoski R, Farge KW, Espinola BA, Green GT. 2018. Evidence of a shared value
for nature. Ecological Economics. 154: 107-116.
Yee S, Cicchetti G, DeWitt TH, Harwell MC, Jackson SK, Pry or M, Rocha K, Santavy DL,
Sharpe L, Shumchenia E. In review. The Ecosystem Services Gradient: A Descriptive
Model for Identifying Thresholds of Meaningful Change, in: Ecosystem Based
Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Diversity, Theory, Tools and
Applications. O'Higgins T, Lago M, Boetler B, and DeWitt T (Eds). In review. Expected
publish date January 2020.
22
------- |