U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
Ecosystems Service Research Program
Wetlands Ecosystem Services Research Program
Implementation Plan
Lead Author:
Janet Keough, EPA ORD Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN
Co-authors:
, Walter Berry, EPA ORD Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI (Co-Lead)
Timothy Canfield, EPA ORD Groundwater and Ecosystem Restoration Division, Ada, OK
Virginia Engle, EPA ORD Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL
Ted DeWitt, EPA ORD Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR
Brian Hill, EPA ORD Mid-Continent Ecology Division
Stephen Jordan, EPA ORD Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL
Jack Kelly, EPA ORD Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN
Mary Kentula, EPA ORD Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR
Charles Lane, EPA ORD Ecological Exposure Research Division, Cincinnati, OH (Co-Lead)
Ricardo Lopez, EPA ORD Environmental Sciences Division. Las Vegas, NV
Mary Moffett, EPA ORD Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN
Janet Nestlerode, EPA ORD Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL
Brenda Rashleigh, EPA ORD Ecosystems Research Division, Athens, GA
Michael Sierszen, EPA ORD Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN
Lisa Smith, EPA ORD Gulf Ecology Division. Gulf Breeze, FL
Kevin Summers, EPA ORD Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL
Cathleen Wigand, EPA ORD Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI
January, 2010
-------
Introduction and Background
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ml-A) produced a compelling synthesis of the global
value of ecosystem services to human well-being While the MEA was a critical, initial step to
demonstrate the potential for assessing global treads in ecosystem services, it is important to note
that the MEA did not attempt to scale such assessments to regional or even national scales of
analysis, nor did it attempt tu create methods and tools to support decision-makers at any level of
governance, industry, or citizen action. Carpenter et ai. identified many uncertainties and
research needs evoked by the MEA:
• What are the current spatial extent and condition of ecosystems?
¦ How are ecosystem structure, function, and processes related to the provision of
ecosystem sen ices?
¦ . What ecosystem drivers affect ecosystem services provisioning and how do human uses
• mollify or exacerbate these drivers?
• I low can ecosystem services he aggregated across the landscape at various spatial scales,
while retaining important ecosystem heterogeneity and the ability to detect change at the
various scales?
¦ [low can ecosystem services he linked to the maintenance and support of human well-
being?
¦ How do changes in ecosystem functions and services affect future human well-being?
The Wetlands Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP Wetland) is an ecosystem
component of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/esrp. index.htiii'!. Wetland ESRP will respond to the recommendations
of Carpenter et. al. by focusing on the wide range of wetland ecosystem services (e.g., carbon
sequestration, wildlife habitat. Hood control and storm surge protection, water quality and
quantity, fisheries support) which support human incomes, livelihoods, and social, cultural, and
spiritual enjoyment. Costanza et al. estimated the average global value of wetland ecosystem
services in I -S 1994 dollars to be almost S15K ha'1 yr"which is the highest value reported for
any biome, and urged, that future environmental decision-making processes weigh the value of
ecosystem services as an important contribution to human well-being.
As human population continues to increase, especially in coastal environments, wetlands
worldwide are projected to suffer continued loss and degradation, thus reducing the capacity of
these ecosystems to provide valued services that contribute to human well-being'-11. Rapid
development and population growth concurrently intensifies the demand for ecosystem services.
Major policy decisions in the next decade must address trade-oils among current and future uses
of wetland resources. Particularly important trade-oils involve those between coastal land use
and human safety during floods or storm surges: agricultural production and safe water supplies;
land use and biologically diverse terrestrial ecosystems; water use and biologically diverse and
productive aquatic ecosystems; and current water use for irrigation and future agricultural
2
-------
production UJ. Such decisions must also consider the full range of benefits io human well-being
provided hv different wetland ecosystem services.
In typical decision-making associated with wetlands, many functions and services are taken for
granted or not recognized. For instance, functions that arc less visible, such as flood protection,
air and water quality improvement, and carbon sequestration, are typically not estimated as
benefits of wetland protection or restoration. In many cases, only wetland area is considered in
wetland protection, restoration or mitigation. In addition, decision-making often considers
individual wetland sites or site-specific functions, without regarding the functions and services of
wetlands within the watershed or landscape.
Although much is known conceptually or qualitatively about the links between wetland
condition, function, and services'-4-' for certain wetland types, research is needed to quantify those
links at multiple scales and to demonstrate the impact of future management decisions on the
ability of wetlands to provide services that affect human well-being, while concurrently filling ill
the knowledge gaps between condition, function, and services in poorly-studied systems. The
complexity of wetland ecosystems has hindered the valuation of multiple services at regional and
larger scales Wetland services have historically been valued at fine scales because the
benefits of restoration or protection activities have been perceived as limited to individual land
owners or residents living in or near a particular ecosystem. Because some generalizations may
be made about ecosystem services across scales, ecologists often aggregate the value of
individual services to larger scales. However, understanding the scales at which wetland services
are realized and quantifying the uncertainty inherent in aggregation across scales is critical for
estimating at watershed or larger spatial scales and mapping and valuation of services.'2-1 For
example, individual wetlands in a watershed may have quantifiably different capacities to store
water but this function becomes important as an ecosystem sen-ice only when sufficient wetland
area in the landscape is available to desynehronizc the flow of floodwatcr. Hey and Philippi ^
for example, estimated that the restoration of approximately 13 million acres of wetlands in the
Upper Mississippi and Missouri River basins would be necessary to provide enough flood
storage to protect the residents in that region from excess river flow due to extreme flood events.
A landscape perspective is critical to understanding the services associated with the ecological
functions and services of wetlands. While some wetland functions (e.g., habitat) may be defined ,
as the scale of individual wetlands, most functions and values (e.g.., biodiversity, water-quality
improvement, flow moderation) depend on the type, abundance, and distribution of wetlands
across a watershed or landscape and the references cited therein). Bedford l'^ observed that
the services provided by wetlands result from the hydrogeologic characteristics of the landscape
that cause specific wetland types io form and support their characteristic structure and function.
Her findings were echoed by the National Research Council (NRC 1<0j) in operational guidelines
for creating or restoring wetlands that arc ecologically self-sustaining. Specifically, the NRC
called for adopting a dynamic landscape perspective in wetland management that paid special
attention to hydrological and topographical variability, subsurface characteristics, and the
hydrogeomorphic and ecological landscape and climate.
3
-------
Wetlands arc included in the legal definition of the Nation's waters and, therefore, protected
under multiple laws and statutes (for more information, see
^ http://www.qia.gov/owow/wctlands•¦'facts.''contents.html. The primary EPA legislative basis for
federal wetland protection is the Clears Water Act (CWA) whose objective is to restore and
protect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters in the United States. In March,
* 2008, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) released a final compensatory
mitigation rule with revisions to require that mitigation wetlands "...should be located where it is
most likely to successfully replace lost functions and services" (73 Fed. Reg. 1%88 (2008-04-
5 iy.il- Wetlands were also identified as a priority for preservation, restoration, and enhancement
. „ by the President on Earth Day 2004 J u. Recognizing the array of benefits provided by wetlands
to the economic, ecological, and cultural heritage of all Americans, this new national initiative
went beyond the "no net loss" policy with a goal to restore or create, protect, and improve at
least 3 million acres of wetlands by 200^ Multiple Federal agencies, including CPA, are
. working to achieve the President's goal, providing ample opportunity for leveraging partnerships
« and resources. ORD's research will help inform EPA decisions on the location and scale at
which certain types of wetlands should be protected, enhanced, or restored to optimize wetland -
services. As illustrated above by the MEAL'\ a rich history exists for evaluating ecosystem
services of wetlands. ORD has unique competencies that provide operational leadership on
multiple wetland science topics, including ccosvstero sendees, which directly address the needs
identified in the MEA and those of the E'cderai agencies tasked with achieving the President's
goal.
Strategic Direction
ORD proposes a coordinated, comprehensive research approach in the ESRP Muiti-Year Plan •
2()0'->-20 M to assess the multiple services provided by \ arious types of ecosystems and the
impact of changes in the landscape on the provisioning of services and human well-being.
Ecosystem services arc provided at a range of spatial and temporal scales from short-term/site-
specific to long-term/global, and benefit humans at multiple institutional scales from the
individual to community to international For wetlands, knowledge of the spatial and
temporal thresholds at. which wetland functions are altered and services are impacted is
necessary to inform management and policy decisions and large gaps remain in our
understanding of regional (and larger) scale impacts of changes in wetland functions on services.
Wetland regulation and management have historically occurred at the scale of individual
wetlands. An example of the site-specific approach is compensatory mitigation required in
permits issued under Section 404 of the CWA
(http://www.epa.gov/OWO W/wetlands-'reg.s/'sec404. html.) These individual wetland decisions
can, cumulatively, reconfigure the wetland resource over large geographic areas^^. Shifting
the scale of research and management to the broader landscape will involve the consideration of
ecologically meaningful regions of assessment, such as watersheds, ecoregions ^ landscape
hydrologic connectivity (e.g., and how they interface with the political units associated
with land use planning, and resource regulation and management. Effective assessments of
ecosysicm services and their connection to human well-being, therefore, cannot be conducted at
a single temporal or spatial scale. This research will focus on developing and applying the
4
-------
necessary tools to assess wetland ecosystem sendees at national, regional, and sub-regional
scales (e.g., watersheds).
Goals & Objectives for Wetlands
The goal of the ORD hSRP is to evaluate ecosystem services using three research approaches:
pollutant-driven, ecosystem-driven, and place-based. This section outlines our initial research
locus within the ecosystem-driven approach to evaluate ecosystem sendees provided by
wetlands. The long-term goal for the ecosystem component, of the ESRP is:
ESRP will provide guidance and decision support tools to target, prioritize, and evaluate policy
and management actions that protect, enhance, and restore ecosystem goods and services at
multiple scales for /wo specific ecosystem types: wetlands and coral reefs.
- - - ' : -p ¦ " " " ' " " ' - ' - " " < ¦ < ^ ^ s . . . ,
I Note: Coral Reef ecosystem services research is outlined in the Coral P^f Ecosystems ,
tImplementation Plan. ' 8
i I
8= - - - • , , - - - , , — _ t
To accomplish this outcome for wetland ecosystems, the objectives of the Wetland ESRP are to
produce the cutting-edge science necessary to:
1. Identify, characterize and assess ecosystem services of wetlands that contribute to human
benefits and values at multiple spatial and temporal scales;
2. Identi fy, characterize and assess environmental conditions and human activities that
influence the delivery of ecosystem services from wetlands;
3. Develop approaches to mapping, modeling and summarizing information suitable to
apply in forecasting local and regional sustainability of wetland ecosystems and the
services they provide.
These objectives provide the platform for this wetland research program to demonstrate:
• An ability to use wetland condition metrics to estimate ecosystem service production
functions
• The roles of location, pattern, and connectivity of wetlands in delivering multiple services
• Creation of wetland landscape profiles of services for most cl asses of wetlands within the
conterminous U. S.
• Testing wetland landscape profiles for usefulness in predicting suites of wetland services at
scales appropriate for decision-making.
-------
Conceptual Model and Research Questions (RQs) for
Wetland Research
The conceptual model for the Wetlands research within the Ecosystems Research Program (Fig.
1) represents Use environmental dynamics of the wetlands ecosystem, as well as the information
flow through the ecosystem from the perspective of a manager in support of decision-making. '
The main components of the conceptual model are the direct and indirect drivers, stressors,
wetland system, ecosystem services, and human well-being. Indirect drivers include economics,
demographics, and sociopolitical decisions that affect direct drivers (i.e., resource consumption,
climate change, land use change, and invasive species). Direct drivers regulate stressors or
pressures (e.g.. flow and physical alterations and sediment and pollutant loading) that affect
wetland ecosystems at multiple spatial and temporal scales. The wetland system is represented at
multiple spatial scales 1) regional national, where wetland condition (outermost circle) can he
determined through GIS landscape ecology appjoaches with the knowledge of distribution, •
abundance, and hydrogeomorphic setting of the v\ etland; 2 ) landscape scale (inner circle), where
the wetland is recognized to be imbedded within a hydrologicalh connected ecosystem that ¦
includes components of the landscape, surface water, and groundwater systems; and 3) wetland
(smaller circles) scale, where processes and dynamics wiihin the wetlands are represented
explicitly in time and space. Changes in the wetland ecosystem affect the delivery of services at
multiple scales which, in turn, impact components of human well-being. A feedback loop
between human well-being and indirect drivers represents how changes in the components of
human well-being influence socioeconomic decisions and policies.
6
-------
DIRECT DRIVERS
[ Resource consumption) \ Climate change
'
Land use change
Invasive species
H
STRESSORS (PRESSURES)
Flow
alteration
vhsramutturanro
Physical
alteration
•
r
Sediment
loading
V .
Pollutant
loading
INDIRECT DRIVERS
Economic
Demographic
.
Sociopolitical
- ~3~
HUMAN WELL-BEING
Basic human needs
Environmental needs
WETLAND ECOSYSTEM
o>
o
c
(tJ
?
13
jd
<
i
O
<<
0)
g
c/i
H*
O"
c
1"^
o
3
Economic needs
Happiness
J
Groundwater
Hydrogeomorphic setting
V
ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES
Climate regulation
Water quality
Flood/storm protection
Recreation
Fisheries support
Wildlife habitat
Figure 1. Conceptual Model for Wetland ESRP Research.
Two research questions have been posed to frame the objectives for Wetland ESRP. These
questions are logically connected to take advantage of EPA's approaches to monitoring and to
protecting ecosystem health and support them through the translation of traditional data into
ecosystem services information. Research Question 1 examines the links between direct drivers
and ecosystem services, while Research Question 2 strives to elucidate the links between wetland
system health (condition) and ecosystem services. ESRP Wetlands will coordinate with other
research areas in ESRP (i.e., decision support and placed-bascd themes) to quantify the links
between ecosystem services, human well-being, and indirect drivers.
Research Question 1. How do drivers of change affect the ecological function of wetlands
and the delivery of services at multiple spatial scales?
The primary indirect drivers of wetland loss and degradation are changes in demographics,
economics, and sociopolitical decisions^. The primary direct drivers of adverse change in the
ability of wetlands to provide services include climate change, land use change, hydrologic
alteration, over-harvesting and exploitation of natural resources, and the introduction of invasive
species Although the most recent Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) status and trends report described a net gain of 191,750 acres of wetland in the
conterminous U.S., losses of specific wetland types still continued to occur, primarily as a result
of human actions that destroy wetland hydrology Sixty-one percent of U.S. wetland losses
arc attributed to urban and rural development By producing stressors that cause loss of
7
-------
wetland area and changes in wetland function, the direct drivers also affect the ability of existing
wetlands to deliver ecosystem services. For example the continued loss and fragmentation of
coastal wetlands in Louisiana from restriction of river input and internal hydrological alterations
has reduced the ability of these ecosystems to provide protection from storm surged
Information on the effects of human activities (direct drivers) on the delivery of wetland services
at multiple scales is limited, and results from studies of wetland systems in Research Question 1
are directly applicable to landscape mapping and modeling efforts at the catchment, watershed,
and regional scale in Research Question 2.
Wetland ESRP research will:
¦ Establish the relationship between ecological function and deliver)' of services by
wetlands of different types at appropriate spatial scales (e.g. wetland, wetland complex,
wetland catchment, local and regional watersheds), and
¦ Determine the effect of direct drivers and stressors on wetland structure, ecological
functions, and the delivery of specific ecosystem services and bundles of services at
multiple spatial scales for seamless integration into landscape analyses addressed in
Research Question 2.
Research Question 2. What is the relationship between the abundance, distribution, and
condition of wetlands in the landscape and the delivery of ecosystem services?
Currently, national and regional surveys of wetlands are designed to assess the distribution and
condition of wetlands and, less commonly, the function of wetlands. To periodically assess the
nation's wetland ecosystem sen ices, we need to identify how to measure (he services of interest
most effectively at scales of interest to IIPA managers and their partners (I'SRP Lone-Term
(toai i i..Tin 2). The indicators and the associated metrics currently being used in state and
regional assessments of wetland condition, as well as for the National Wetland Condition
Assessment (NWC'A) may be adequate to quantify the provisioning of ecosystem services. These
include remotely sensed condition measures (e.g., landscape assessments); and rapid and
intensive on-site condition assessments. If, however, thev arc not sufficient, then new indicators
of ecosystem services or models linking condition, junction, and services will need to be
developed.
Functional classes of wetlands (c.g , hydrogeomorph ie (11GM) classification of Branson have
been related to ecological functions of wetlands L~,J ^ Changes in the relative abundance of
wetland functional classes in a landscape result in a change in the relative extent of ecological
functions and the related services W The relative abundance of functional classes is called a
landscape profile L^J, Current and limited research on the use of landscape profiles shows that
units of the landscape have different profiles depending on hydrogeomorphology, geology, and
climate. Use of landscape profiles is a first step in characterizing the ecological functions and
associated wetland services in an area of interest. To date, such profiles have been generated by
surveys of wetlands L~~-* and through geographic information systems (GIS) modeling by
Johnson^.
8
-------
The use of landscape profiles for wetlands is only a first step in understanding the potential
delivery of ecosystem services. There is also a need to consider the wetland resource as part of a
lunctional surface. A functional surface is the mosaic of land cover and land use ivpes in which
w etlands occur k-~, The distribution pattern of wetlands on the functional surface is also tied to
ihe hydrologic. geologic, and topographic characteristics of the landscape ^). Therefore,
functional types of wetlands occur in different, spatial and temporal settings and combinations
throughout the landscape; this mosaic determines the level to which ecosystem services are or
can be derived.
Wetland ESRP research will:
8 Determine how the results from wetland condition assessments can be used to estimate
the delivery of ecosystem sen-'ices by wetlands,
* Determine how wetland ixi.nct.ions are associated with landscape characteristics, and how
the distribution of functional classes of wetlands affects the delivery of ecosystem
services.
¦ Develop landscape approaches (i.e., landscape profiles, functional surfaces) for
determining the hydrologic and ecological functions of wetlands and associated delivery
of ecosystem services, and
¦ Develop landscape models predicting the delivery of specific ecosystem services and
bundles of services based on wetland landscape profiles, empirical stressor-response
models, and published literature.
Applications of Research Results ,
Ecosystem services must be quantified in a way that supports decision making among alternative
management strategies. Many management decisions are made at scales of individual water
bodies or watersheds (e.g., development ofTMDLs, compensatory mitigation); however,
regulatory programs are beginning to shift to a watershed orientation. Wetland ESRP research
will be designed to address the relevant types of decisions, and corresponding scales. Wetland
ESRP will work closely with the Decision Support Platform (DSP) and Human Well Being
(HWB) components of ESRP LTGI. IIWB research will address connections between wetland
ecosystem sen-ices and quality of life-—individual and community characteristics including
adequate livelihoods, security from natural disasters, spiritual fulfillment, and sense of place. In
addition to wetland ecosystem services data generated by Wetland ESRP, human well-being
research will require data and knowledge from anthropoceniric disciplines including public
health, epidemiology, sociology, and environmental psychology, and economics. Encompassing
multiple domains, proposed research focuses on developing an alternative method (index) for
valuation of wetland ecosystem services in terms of well-being. Research within the Wetland
ESRP and associated tools and approaches for linking ecosystems services and well-being will
inform place-based demonstration projects. Wetland research staff will collaborate with other
themes (Monitoring, Mapping, Modeling, Nitrogen, Decision Support, Human Well-Being) to
seek ways to demonstrate how their results to wetland values and human well-being indices.
Results will be used to characterize the implications for human well-being of policy action or
inact ion that affects the provision of wetland ecosystem services at multiple scales.
9
-------
Understanding how wetland ecosystems function, how different sizes and types of wetlands ,
provide ecological services, and what placement in the landscape provides the maximum level of
ecological services is a vital component of our future en v ironmental management efforts in EPA.
Implicit in the concept of wetland ecosystem services are benefits to human society. The
benefits provided by ccosysieras improve human well-being, which is often defined in terms of
economic values, or people's willingness to pay for improvements in ecosystem services. ESRP
research will include standard economic valuation, but will also address a broader definition of
human well-being, which includes health, adequate livelihoods, security from natural disasters,
and spiritual fulfillment.
The connections between human health and clean air, land, and water are obvious and are
already central to HP A policy and programs. In addition, the conceptual relationship of the
quality of the environment and its services to human well-being is well established and generally
accepted. However, while determining the quantitative value of ecosystem services can be
challenging, evaluating human well-being is more elusive and requires broader thinking than .
more straight-forward (yet difficult) economic approaches. A number of "alternative currencies"
have been suggested, including cmergy, happiness indices, and indices of quality of life and/or
well-being. Research conducted under the Human Well-Being component of the ESRP will
include development of an Index of Well Being that will be applied to national, regional, and
local (place-based projects) wetlands. This focus represents a shift from a stressor-driven
approach to protecting human health to one that considers the roie of ecosystem services in
overall human well-being, including disease prevention, health promotion, and community
welfare. *' . ,
Scope of Wetland ESRP Research in ORD ,
Wetland ESRP, in combination with other elements of ESRP, will advance greatly our
knowledge of the functions, services, and values of wetlands in regional and national-scale
landscapes. A particular strength is that Wetland ESRP will draw data and information from
several other programs, including regional and national assessments of wetland condition,
primary research within the place-based elements of ESRP. and through partnerships with other
agencies with strong interests in the values of wetlands (e.g., U.S. Department of Agriculture
(IJSDA), FWS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), States, and non-governmental
organizational (NGOs)). Along with EPA, these agcncic> have responsibilities for wetlands
conservation and restoration, and the tools and information supplied by Wetland ESRP will
support better decision-making, coordination, and accountability.
Wetlands are diverse in terms of size, type, functions, and location within landscapes. Wetland
ESRP will synthesize available information from many areas of the U.S. to create a larger
understanding of how wetlands provide sendees and how the. services are affected by natural and
anthropogenic stressors. Where possible, Wetland ESRP w ill work with other federal agencies, •
academics, and state/regional groups to conduct research to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of
wetland ecosystem services. Ultimately, this information should support more informed,
10
-------
efficient, and effective policies and actions to preserve and enhance ecosystem services from
wetlands.
Numerous ecosystem services are provided by the diversity of wetland types-IJ L^, but the initial
ORD effort has somewhat limited capacity to address all types of serv ices for all wetland classes
in every ecoregion. This project will focus on the set of core ecosystem services common to the
entire ESRP (Table 1), and on a set of wetland classes (e.g., coastal wetlands of the U.S. and
specific wetland types that occur in the Midwest, Willamette, Tampa Bay, and Coastal
Carolinas) (Table 2). Wetland ESRP research is limited by the availability of ORD staff with
appropriate expertise at each Laboratory, competing demands from other ORD research
priorities, and finite resources. Thus, we do not expect that this program will be able to
comprehensively address all services and wetiar.d types in all regions. These limitations are
reflected in the distribution of ecosystem services and wetland types described in this plan (see
Table 3 and Appendix A for examples of proposed case studies). Frequent discussion among the
Laboratories and investigators will be necessary to identify critical data and knowledge gaps and
prioritize research needed to achieve the goals and objectives of Wetland ESRP.
Table 1, Core Ecosystem Services addressed by Wetland ESRP
SUPPORTING; Biogeochemical Cycling: Carbon sequestration j
Wetlands are significant carbon reservoir1: ^ and contribute (<> regulating global climate ^ Imnge through sequestration and release of fixed |
carbon, Carbon is contained in the standing crops of trees and other vegetation and in litter, peats, organic soils and sediments. The magnitude !
of storage depends upon wetland type and size, vegetation, the dipth of wetland soils, ground water levels, nutrient levels, pH and other factors ;
discussed below. These carbon resersoir: mnv supply large amo'inls of carbon to (he atmosphere if water leu-Is are lowered or land i
management practices result in oxidation oi soils. Many wetlandi also continue to -iequester carbon from the atmosphere through :
photosynthesis by wetland plants; many also act as sediment (raps lor carbon-rich sediments from watershed souu-cs However, wetlands also I
simultaneously release carbon is carbon ,iu-side, dissolved carbon, and methane. • j
Glohallv, wetlands may store much as -10",.of terrestrial cariwn. with pe.nlands and forested wetlands being particularly important carbon \
sinks. Because wetlands serve as significant carbon sinks, the destruction of wetlands will release carbon dioxide. Although much is still not j
understood about the role of wetlands in the global carbon cycle, it is generally agreed that drainage, conversion to agriculture and degradation j
of wetlands will release large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change. j
SUPPORTING; Habitat refugia: Wildlife habitat j
Wetlands provide essential habitat for wildlife. iriMiJutg in:m\ endemic, tliie.itened or endangered species. As such, wetlands are a reservoir j
for biodiversity which has many links to human well-being ' lie genetic diversity housed in wetlands has demonstrated economic potential in :
the pharmaceutical industry and in commercial crops such as rice. Rstuarine and marine fish and shellfish, various birds, and certain mammals ;
require coastal wetlands to survive. For many annuals and plants. like wood ducks, muskrat, cattails, and bald cypress, inland wetlands are the ;
only places they can live. Beaver may actually i reaii their own wetlands, for others, such as striped bass, peregrine falcon, otter, black bear, j
raccoon, and deer, wetlands provide important t.xnl. water,shelter. Many of the U.S. breeding bird populations- including ducks, geese,
woodpeckers, h '*vks, wading birds, and many smg-birfs— feed, nest, and raise their young in wetlands. Migratory waterfowl use coastal and
inland wetlands as resting, feeding, breeding, or nesting grounds for at least part of the year An international agreement to protect wetlands of
international importance >\as developed because some species o.' mieratorv birds are completely dependent on certmr wetlands and would
become extinct i f those wetlands were destroyed (see Ramsar.org).
REGULATING: Disturbance & natural hazard regulation: Flood control and storm surge
protection ¦
Wetlands protect human wcll-beiiii! by mitigalm-j floods and buffering the effects of coastal storms. The value of wetlands to reduce impacts
of floods and storms has often been retrospect'.,:, based an the estimated costs of damage or i-iss after a flood or storm has occurred (e.g., the
1993 Mississippi River floods which caused $ 12-16 billion in danagc; or the costs associated with Hurricane Katrina on the Louisiana coast).
Welands i educe flooding by absorbing rainwater and by slowing the downstream flow of flood water, it is estimated that 0.4 ha of wetland can
store > 6-Jim m5 of floodwatcr. Wetlands decrease the area of open water i letch) for wind to form waves, which increases drag on water
motion, thereby decreasing the amplitude of storm surge 1 id.il surge attenuation iv defined as the capacity of a wetland to reduce amplitude
of tidal storm surges and is quanti lied as the percent reduction is c energy (hi) pel timt distance across wetland surface. Estimates of wave I
height reduction range from 4.7 to 7.9 cm wave hi reduction per km wrttimd '-H
Wetlands function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release sut face water, rain, snowmelt, groundwater and flood waters. Trees, root
mats, and other urtlnnd vegetation also slow the speed of llnod waters and distribute them more slowly over the floodplain. This combined
water storage and braking actum lowers flood heights and reduces erosion. Wetlands within and downstream of urban areas are particularly
valuable, counteracting the greatly increased rate and volume of surface- water runoff from pavement and buildings. The holding capacity of
wetlands helps control floods and prevents water logging of crops. Preserving and restoring wetlands, together with other watei retention, can
often provide the level of flood control other» nc provided by expensive dredge operations and levees. The bottomland hardwood- nparian
11
-------
wetlands along the Mississippi River once stored at least 60 days of floodwater. Now they store only 12 days because most have been filled or
drained.
The ability of wetlands to eomtol erosion is so valuable thai some slates are restoring wetlands in coastal areas to buffer the storm surges from
hurricanes and tropical storms. Wetlands at the margins of lakes, riv ers. hays, and the i>cean protect shorelines and stream banks against
erosion. Wetland plants hold the soil in place with their roots, absorb the energy of waves, and break up the flow of stream or river currents.
PROVISIONING: Water: Water qualify ami quantity
Many wetlands contribute to recharging groundwater aquifers tha arc .in important source of drinking water and irrigation. Plants and soils m
wetlands affect water quaJuv b\ amoving excess nutrients, sediments. and toxic chemicals. This is important in reducing eutrophication in
downstream waters and prevenism? contaminants from reaching groundwater and other sources of drinking water. WciU.ds are often used to
mitigate water quality in dischaojes from w >isiewater treatment p'ants icsumpics - Nov York City saved billions of dollars in wastewater
treatment by conserving wetlands around rese* voire rather than bidding treatment plants; Florida's cypress swamps remove >95% of all
nitrogen and phosphotu * hom w^tewatej entering the wetlands)
Wetlands have imporum? filtering capabilities for intercepting su tace-watcj runoff from higher dry land before the runoff reaches open water.
As the runoff water passes through, the wetlands retain excess nutrients aiici some pollutants, and reduce sediment that would otherwise clog
waterways and affect fish and amphibian development In pc-i.'rmim: thi> hSicnt^ function, wetlands save us a great deal of money. For
example, a 1990 study showed that, without the t onauree Uoiiot tLind 1 iuiduood s\*ump in South Carolina, the area would need a $5 million
waste water treatment plant. In additum its mipon my u.uei *;ualn\ shfou-jh littering some weti.mds maintain stream flow during dry periods,
and many replenish LMmmdwiier Mum
PROVISIONING: Food/Fiber Production: Fisheries support
Many of the nation's fishing and shellfishing industries harvest w eiland-dependent species; the catch is valued at SI 5 billion a year. In the
Southeast, for example, nearly all the commercial catch and ou»r half of the recreational hardest are fish and shellfish that depend on coastal
wetland ecosystems. Louisiana's coastal marshes produee an amual commercial fish and shellfish harvest that amounted io 168 million pounds
worth more than S200 million in 2005^, Moss commercial and ;;ame fish breed and raise their young in coastal marshes and estuaries.
Menhaden, flounder, sea Hunt. sp<>;, enuker. and Mnped his\ are amon;j the .note familiar fish Unit depend on coastal vutlatuh, Shnmp.
oysters, clams, and blue ;uid Dimueiurs* etahs likewise need these v. ei lands h-r h>, ni. sheliei. and breeding jzronnds
CULTURAL: Human Well-Being
Human well-being is not an ecoxjsiem service by itself but rather the cumulative desired result of all ecosystem senium. Wetlands have
recreational, historical, scientific aid cultural values. In wetland-, of the Great Lakes region, for example, natural populations of wild rice arc
central to Native Ames-ait c^noimc, cultural, and spiritual \u-llheir.ii More than half of all U.S. adults {98 million) hunt, fish, birdwatcher
photu^rdph wildlife. They spuui a total of $59,5 billion annuallj Pamteib and writers continue to capture the beauty of wetlands on ca.njs
and paper, or through cameras, and video and sound recorders. Others appreciate these wonderlands through hiking, boating, and uilici
recreational activities. Almost everyone likes being on or near the water; part of the enjoyment is the varied, fascinating lifeforms
Ecosystem Services by Wetland Categories
Ecosystem service research in the Wetlands P.SRP will he conducted at multiple spatial and
temporal scales and among many different wetland types and geomorphic settings. The
synergistic integration of data on the provisioning of wetland ecosystem services and wetland
responses to stressors across Wetland 1:SRP will he organized by wetland classes based on the
Cowardin ct al. (1979) system. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland Inventory
(http://www.fws, aov/wetlands/) and the Status and Trends of Wetlands program .
(http:-Avww.fws.gov/wctlands/Sta;usAndTrends/index.html) use this classification system as a
basts to map and assess wetlands of the United States. And this classification scheme is now
recommended by the Federal Geographic Data Committee for wetland maps
(http://www,fws.gov/wctlands/_documems- gNSDL'FGDCWetlandsMappingStandarcLpdf). The
proposed hierarchical wetlands classification (Figure 2; from
http://www.geog.psu.edu/wetlands/manuai/eowardin.gif) effort will also be an opportunity for
Wetland ESRP researchers to discuss or develop collaborations on wetlands ecosystem services
research projects, and can provide an external link to relevant wetland ecosystem service
research in other agencies, institutions, and academic centers. The empirical studies associated
with Research Question 1 will provide critical new data on the capacity of wetlands to provide
core ecosystem serv ices and ecological factors that affect that capacity, focusing on specific
wetland types and core ecosystem services (Table 3). This research will form the basis for
stressor-response modeling applied to the relations between anthropogenic stressors and services.
Research will provide an opportunity to test concepts de\ eloped in the stale of the science report
12
-------
(e.g., how the quality or magnitude of services scale with relative levels of anthropogenic stress,
or the efficacy of classification schemes to help predict functioned responses to drivers and
stressors). This research will utili/e available data sources and emergent relationships between
drivers of change, processes, wetland condition, wetland type, and wetland services to derive
stressor-response functions for wetland ecosystem service models. These models will build on
, the research output the empirically derived stressor-response relationships, to identify model
processes requiring calibration and validation at multiple scales.
The goal of the Wetlands ESRP research program will be a coordinated effort across ORD to
produce stressor-response junctions for wetland ecosystem service models that are robust at a
national scale. One way to accomplish this, optimizing the use of limited funds and principal
investigators, would be for ORD Divisions addressing particular wetland services to work
together on a limited, common set of stressor-response functions affecting particular wetland
ecosystem services or models which allows for comparisons between regions, types, and scales,
as well as possible aggregation to larger scales as addressed in Research Question 2, Research
results will provide estimates (including estimates of range and variability) of values for
functions (e.g. water quality improvement, flooc storage capacity) stressors, wetland types, and
covariatcs (e.g., hydrologic regime, trophic state). Integration of ecosystem service information
(include information on effects of stressors, landscape, and variability) will be organized
associated with wetland classes at ecoregion levels to improve monitoring, mapping, modeling
and decision tools. For instance, services such as nutrient retention, carbon storage, support for
fish and wildlife populations and communities, will be summarized for major classes of wetlands
at ecoregion scales.
Bi-directional integration of Research Question 1 (RQ1) and RQ2 projects, and integration of
RQ i research results with decision support applications are key steps in the successful
completion of the goals of the Wetland ESRP. A key outcome will be demonstrations of
landscape profiles of services for classes of wetlands at ecoregion scales. Characterizing the
spatial and temporal scales at which ecosystem functions and services operate arc critical links to
mapping wetland ecosystem services. Quantitative linkages between field data and broad-scale
landscape data are important for calibrating remote sensing and some GIS data processing steps,
and are critical components of model validation and scaling. Integration of landscape
characterization and modeling with ground-level wetland functional assessments is a key part of
linking RQI and RQ2, and critical to dc\ eloping ecosystem function and service models/maps
that are relevant to decision makers at multiple scales
We have a unique opportunity for comparing results at ecorcgional scales to the national scales
with the partnership with EPA's Office of Water's (OW) National Wetland Condition
Assessment (see RQ2). Deriving ecosystem service measures from the probabilistic data
collection in the national survey of wetland condition, to be undertaken by EPA OW in 2011, can
be used to compare to measures from regional studies and our assess our ability to scale local
and regional results to the national level.
13
-------
System
Subsystem
-Murine
• Suhlidal .
- intertidal-
-Sstuarine-
- Subtidal •
. Intertidal.
-Riverine
¦ Limnetic
-Lacustrine -
¦ Littoral •
-Palusirinc -
Figuro 6. Classification hierarchy of wetlands. Source: Cowardin et al.
11979. The Paiuslrine System does not include deepwaier habitats.
Class
-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bouom
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef
Aquatic Bed
Reef
Rocky Shore
-Unconsolidated Shore
-Rock Bottom
.Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef
- Strcambcd
-Rocky Shore
-Unconsolidated Shore
-iimcrgent Wetland
» Scrub'Shrub Wetland
-l onuled Wetland
-Rock Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Aquatic Bed
Rocky Shore
Unconsolidated Shore
firoergem Wetland
Rock Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Aquatic Bed
Rocky Shore
Unconsolidated Shore
Emcrflenl Wcliaiid
•Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
Aquatic Bed
Rocky Shore
Unconsolidated Shore
Streambed
ERock Bottom
Unconsolidated Bottom
Aquatic Bed
-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
- Rocky Shore
- Unconsolidated Shore.
-Emergent Wetland
"Rock Bottom
"Unconsolidated Bottom
'Aquatic Bed
" Unconsolidated Shore
-Mow Lichen Wetland
-Emergent Wetland
-Scrub-Shrub Wetland
-Forested Wetland
.Figure 2. The Cowardin et al. (1979) wetland classification hierarchy.
14
-------
Table 2. General categories of wetlands to be addressed in the ESRP \\ etland research.
These categories are consistent with the types of wetlands assessed in I S Fish and Wildlife
Service's Status and Trends analysis (I)ahl 2006) and are based on the (,'owardin et al.
(1979) wetlands classification system.
| Wetland Type (System / Subsystem)
| Estuarine intertidal emergent
Estuarine Intertidal Forested / Shrub
Estuarine aquatic bed
Estuarine unconsolidated shore
Palustrine Forested
Palustrine Shrub
Palustrine Emergent
Palustrine aquatic bed
Generic Descriptor
Salt marsh
Mangrove
Seagrass '
Beaches / bars / tidal flats
Forested swamp
Shrub swamp
Inland marsh / wet meadowy
Floating / submerged vegetation
i'able 3. Wetland services within wetland classes to be addressed by ESRP Wetland
research
Wetland Type
Carbon
Storage
Fisheries
Support
Storm /
Flood
Protection
Water Quality
Protection
Wildlife
Support
Estuarine
Emergent
X
X "
X
X
X
Estuarine
Forest/shrub
X
X
X
Estuarine
Aquatic Bed
X ,
V
s\
X
Estuarine Flat
X
X
X
Palustrine Forest
x •
X
X
X
X
Palustrine Shrub
*%/-
Jk
X
X
X
x
Palustrine
Emergent
X
X
X
X
X
Palustrine
Aquatic Bed
X
X
X
X
X
15
-------
Approach
The Wetland ESRP is an integration of work performed under the Research Questions, shown as
a Critical Path (Fig, 2), designed to inform applications of the research results. An analysis of
existing knowledge will be used to refine priorities for research on the relationships between
wetland functions and ecosystem services, responses of ecosystem services to anthropogenic
stressors, useful wetland classification schemes, and approaches to landscape analysis of
services. ' .
The critical path frames the sequence of research to be conducted. ORD research, performed
under RQ1, will produce refined relationships between stressors and ecosystem services for
major classes of wetlands. Research on the sen-ices of wetlands in landscapes (RQ2) will
incorporate stressor-responsc relationships developed under RQ1 to develop ecosystem service
indicators and predict the effects of wetland class, condition, and distribution on the delivery of
ecological services at multiple spatial scales. Anticipated products from RQ1 and RQ2 research
include indicators, landscape profiles, functional surfaces, and interactive maps thai will
contribute to a national atlas of wetland ecosystem services. Applications of these research
results will rely upon the predictive models developed under RQ1 and RQ2 to inform decision
support tools that estimate ecosystem services, determine the tradeoffs (relative risks) of
managing for different services, and predict service impacts and benefits under alternative
management strategics at multiple scales. Place-based studies conducted through the ORD ESRP
and case studies described in this implementation plan ('see Appendix A) will be conducted in a
way that enables the results to be used in developing decision support tools.
The ORD ESRP is designed to foster cross-ORD collaborations, as well as collaboration with
outside experts to translate many of the results of this and other research to decision-makers. The
Decision Support Platform and the Monitoring, Modeling, and Mapping Themes as well as other
elements of ESRP will provide bridges from research in the Wetland ESRP into decision support
tools and other end products. Program Managers within ORD are working to facilitate cross-
program integration and collaboration. Collaboration across ORD research teams and with
partners (still being idemitied) will serve to integrate case study and place-based efforts across
the Research Questions and snake the results of this implementation plan relevant to alternative
management strategies.
16
-------
State of the
Science Report
informs
prioritizes research
& identifies gaps for
informs &
refines
RQ1 Research
Eco Function-Service Relationships
Stressor-Response Analyses
works
with
1
RQ2 Research
Landscape-Scale Analyses
produces
Research Applications
Decision Support Tools
works
with
National Wetlands
Condition Assessment
(WQ MYP)
Valuation
Methods
Relative
Risk Models
Ecosystem Service
Management
Stragegies
ERP Monitoring
(Services Inventory)
^ ERP Mapping j
Figure 3. Critical Path for Wetland ESRP research showing research questions, products,
and coordination with other ESRP projects and clients
Research Question 1:
How do drivers of change affect the ecological function of wetlands and the delivery of services
at multiple spatial scales?
Background
Research on certain wetland types has shown that drivers of change and their attendant stressors
can affect the resiliency of wetland ecosystems and modify wetland functions and processes, the
relative condition of the wetland resource, and the provisioning of wetland ecosystem services
(Figure 4). The MEALU identified drivers of change that can be broadly categorized to include
infrastructure development, land conversion, hydrologic alterations, pollution, resource
exploitation, and the introduction of invasive species.
17
-------
Ovcrharve»t ng of wild
resources,
tispau-ai y 'ab ty for agncufcura.
ar d contnbute X
sill /a? a- h-ouq-
sahvatec irftrusfo" - *.h<:
coasts! 7o-e
Rosas and flood coii'ol n restructure
ntten irriwTUftf *ve'la-d conredvrty risn.it ng ac.ja-rc
haoityl, reduorg Irs h.nclrjr cf «B&mds *c rerove
pc utans arc aasoro flcoowaters. a- d potential y
increasing h- fosses wrer hch (bod% co occ,.r.
fcorest clearing
i r pefmeneftiy o* seasons v
inwncavpfl /ofes, often
motivated oy unsustairsb ©
a-}UGv-t.re production
canwica y reduces habira
icj' wile aqw & u'oa- SW6
n too co&fta zore t afcsc
irawes the landscape rruch
met? susceptible tc c-rosio"
Urban and industrial polluton,
wren rates**: . repeated irv aquatr ^v 'or-.-rrs.
reduces water q,.ai .y, af ectnq .he cvsr&i'y and
abu»iU«irgj' tsn.^as weJ a&njman ' catr.
\kUu-
i lite la mH fan iiBaBBtt
Figure 4. Interactions between wetland stressors, and the provisioning of wetland ecosystem services.
Each of these drivers has multiple stressor pathways by which the driver of change may affect
numerous wetland functions and services (e.g., Figure 4). For example, the construction of levees
is an infrastructure driver of change that creates stressors such as altered hydrology and
decreased sediment loads that can affect the wetland structure by decreasing hydrophytic
macrophytes and change biogeochemical functions, such as denitrification, by decreasing the
anoxic zones in the wetland (^). In this example, the drivers of change produce multiple
stressors that modify multiple services (e.g., land use change may result in stressors that alter
wetland flora that modify a wetland's ability to sequester carbon and provide wildlife habitat;
hydrologic alterations may disconnect the wetland floodplain from the river, thereby altering the
capacity to provide flood control and water quality services).
18
-------
f Levee \ r~ ,
( . .. I I lrfras!aic?ure
I construction } ¦! „ ,
\ / l_ Development
(Deceased \ /
wetland \ /
inundation / \
Increased *"ond
in tens ty. change
in biodiversity
Decrease:;
AneroC'ic
cof-d lions
*
Decrease"
denilri'icaiiori,
increased est-jarv
eotrophication
Decreased
sediTent
wetlands
JL,
Lard subuic'eice
sedimentation lo
estuaries
Altered Wetfanc
f'unr.tior.
impacted
Ecosystem
Services
Figure 5. Conceptual model showing relationships between driver of change to stressor to
function to service.
Objectives
To understand the effect of drivers and stressors on the provisioning of wetland services, ORD
will conduct research to address the following goals:
1. Establish the relationship between ecological function and delivery of services by
wetlands,
2. Determine the effect of drivers of change on wetland structure, ecological functions, and
the delivery of specific ecosystem services and bundles of services.
Task 1.1: State of the science report on the ecosystem services provided by
wetlands
Wetlands provide a wide range of ecosystem services, including the core services addressed in
the ESRP Multi-Year Plan (MYP) (i.e., carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, fisheries support,
flood control and storm surge protection, water quality and quantity with an emphasis on
nitrogen, and human well-being). However, the degree to which these services are provided
across all wetland types and the effects of anthropogenic stressors on the capacity of wetlands to
provide those services are poorly known. The first step in Wetland ESRP is to summarize
existing knowledge and identify knowledge and data gaps on these topics by specific wetland
class by reviewing the scientific literature and recent research findings. To facilitate the
comparison of data within the study, the reviewers will adopt a single wetlands classification
scheme (such as the Cowardin^ classification system which is the basis for NWI or the HGM
19
-------
method' '*); later, Wetland ESRP will explicitly evaluate which wetlands classification system
would be most useful for assessing wetlands ecosystem services at a national scale The review
will consist of three components: ;
¦ Analysis of the capacity of wetlands of all types 10 provide core ecosystem sen-ices. ,
¦ Characterization of the effects of anthropogenic stressors on the capacity of wetlands to
provide core ecosystem serv ices, and
« Synthesis of the results, including knowledge and data gaps to guide prioritization of new
research within Wetland ESRP.
All wetlands provide some measure of most or all of the core ecosystem services, however, it is
highly unlikely that the services are rendered equally across wetland types. For example,
estuarine low-marsh wetlands probably provide less fisheries support than cstuarine seagrass
wetlands on an area! basis. The first component of this Task is to summarize and evaluate
existing literature and data on the capacity of wetland types in different regions of the U.S. to
produce core ecosystem services. This will include an assessment of existing information about
the magnitude of each service and natural factors that moderate that magnitude (e.g., geographic
location, season, rainfall, presence of abiotic features or organisms within the landscape, etc.). In
addition, the review will evaluate the known or potential ecological relationships among
ecosystem services within wetlands, particularly as several ecosystem sendees have linkages to
similar structural and functional features of wetlands (i.e.. both carbon sequestration and nitrogen
removal arc strongly affected by vegetation and biogcocheraistry of soils or sediments). Some
ecosystem serv ices might be closely linked such '.hat measurement of one service is predictive of
the magnitude of another service. The review will include studies of natural, constructed, and
restored wetlands: much of the wetland ecological function and services data resides in studies of
constructed and restored wetlands, particularly for freshwater wetlands (e.g..l). As
excess nitrogen loading is a stressor of concern within the ESRP MYP and the development of
nitrogen water quality criteria for wetlands is of interest to EPA Office of Water (™, ),
particular attention will be given to nitrogen removal and cycling processes as water quality
services to link Wetland ESRP to those programs. A key component of this report will be the
identification of local, regional, and national databases containing parameters and indicators
relevant to measurement and modeling of core wetland ecosystem services.
Wetland ESRP will conduct a detailed literature review identifying the primary and ancillary
drivers of change and associated stressors that affect wetland functions and the provisioning of
wetland ecosystem services. Conceptual models suggesting the linkages between the drivers of
change and the wetland ecosystem services will also be developed (e.g., Figure 3). This analysis
will also examine mitigating factors that can modify the sensitivity of wetland ecosystem
sendees to anthropogenic stressors; for example, how the concentrations of other nutrients
(particularly phosphorus) or time of year alter the effects of excess nitrogen on wetland structure
and function. Additionally, the review will examine the effects of stressors on interactions
among core ecosystem services to further investigate the possibilities for bundling ecosystem
service characterization. Wetland ESRP will also identify and evaluate indicators of stressors
that could be used in stressor-response studies or monitoring programs. The report will not only
provide a detailed examination of the current literature but will also identify the knowledge and
20
-------
data gaps that can be used to prioritize new stressor-response research for Wetland ESRP
scientists.
The final product will be a state of the science report that will synthesize the existing knowledge
and data gaps related to the capacity of we! land types to provide core ecosystem sen/ices and the
effects of drivers and stressors on wetland services. As the available research and conceptual
models linking wetland condition, function, and the prov isioning of core wetland ecosystem
services are compiled and reviewed, gaps in data and knowledge necessary to produce predictive
stress-response models for wetland ecosystem services will become apparent. Analysis of those
gaps will reveal opportunities for Wetland ESRJ' scientists to conduct new research to provide
critical information for stressor-response modeling. The review will also address the challenges
regarding selection of a wetland classification scheme for Wetland ESRP (hat will form the basis
from which to extrapolate ecosystem services and their values at several spatial scales (including
national scale). These evaluations can then be used by Wetland ESRP and ORE) laboratories to
prioritize new research activities.
The state of the science report will be composed of separate chapters for geographic regions,
wetland types, specific ecosystem services and drivers and a synthesis of this information at a
national scale. Literature and data reviews will be accomplished primarily by Ecology Divisions
in ORD's National Health and Environmental Effects and National Exposure Research
Laboratories (NHEER.L and NERL). All wetland types, services and drivers will not be covered
in every geographic region, although every attempt to do so will be made. NHEERL and NERL
Divisions will contribute data and literature reviews on regionally-relevant wetland types,
ecosystem services, and drivers of change. The contributions will be planned and coordinated
through conference calls (beginning in September 2008) to identify data resources that meet
modeling and valuation needs, and to ensure consistent cross-regional analyses of ecological
services and stressor effects. All regions will directly consider water quality/quantity and wildlife
habitat, most will consider fisheries support and carbon sequestration, and other ecoserviee
categories will be considered as situations and availability of literature and data warrant. The
contributions will represent a diverse array of s\ stems, examined at a variety of physical scales,
and studied at a range of spatial resol utions.
Task 1.2: Development of predictive stressor-response functions for wetland
ecosystems and core ecosystem service models
Many, if not most, decisions associated with wetland management are associated with protecting
wetlands from anthropogenic stressors that threaten to cause degradation or with remediation of
wetland impairment caused by stressors. Wetland management is typically based on
hypothetical or understood models of the relationships between stressors and wetland response.
To incorporate ecosystem services considerations into management decisions requires adapting
such stressor-response models to ecosystem services endpoints. Predictive stressor-response
functions and models for wetland ecosystem services arc needed by resource managers to
forecast the effects of human activities on valued sen-ices for major classes of wetlands and
multiple functions and services. The state of the science report produced from Task 1.1 will
identify the services, wetland types, and stressors for which existing data are available and for
21
-------
which stressor-response relationships can be most readily modeled. The literature analysis will
also identify data gaps in the linkage between wetland functions and processes, wetland types,
stressors, and wetland ecosystem services.
Certain functions and means to measure those functions in particular wetland types are very well
known (e.g., nutrient processing in constructed wetlands) while in other wetland types the
functions performed, the processes underpinning those functions, and ways to measure various
processes involved in the provisioning of wetland functions and services are poorly known,
especially at the scale of interest for protection and restoration by EPA and partner programs. It
is expected thai the state of the science report (Task 1.1) will identify gaps in quantitative data
for the delivery of core ecosystem services by most wetland classes. The goal of this research
effort will be to conduct empirical studies to quantify the relationships among wetland structure,
ecosystem function, and delivery of core ecosystem services to fill critical data. Furthermore, this
research will address how the delivery of ecosystem services is affected by wetland size and
location for classes of wetlands within a landscape to extrapolate the delivery of ecosystem
services to larger spatial scales. This research will form the basis for stressor-response modeling
by providing quantitative metrics of ecosystem functions with which to measure the effects of
stressors on wetland ecosystem services at multiple spatial scales and link directly with Research
Question 2 by providing information on provisioning of ecosystem services by wetlands that can
be incorporated into the creation of functional profiles at the catchment, watershed, or larger
mapped scales, . . •
Research is envisioned to entail a combination of experimental and survey efforts to quantify the
relationships and variation between ecosystem structure and function and the delivery of
ecosystem services, and the dominant natural covariates that affect the delivery of the sendees.
The research should also characterize how the spatial characteristics of wetlands habitats (i.e.,
area, shape, location with a landscape) affect the ecosystem functions that underlie ihc delivery
of ecosystem services. Multiple services by wetlands will be estimated to provide the foundation
for a synthesis of core ecosystem services across all wetland classes. This effort will result in a
comparative dataset of stressor-response relationships lor suites of ecosystem services that can
be applied to wetland classes at the ecoregion and national scales.
Table 4. Case Studies to a
Case Study
RQ1-1 Quanti fying Tidal
Wetland, Habitat-based
Relationships for Ecosystem
Services for PN'W Estuaries
idress Research Question 1
Geographic
('overage and
Wetland Type(s)
Pacific Northwest
Estuarine Aquatic
Bed, Estuarine
intertidal
Emergent
Estuarine
Inter! idal
Unconsolidated
Wetland Milestone
Service(s) (Product)
Wildlife
I labitat,
Carbon
Report quantifying
relationships between
Sequestration, ecosystem function and
Fisheries delivery of core ecosystem
Support. services .for tidal wetlands in
W ater Quality PNW Estuaries
lmprox ement
22
-------
RQ1-2 Quantification of
Nutrient Assimilation
Capacity of Forested and
Herbaceous Isolated wetlands
in Varying Landuse
Modalities in Regions 4 and 5
RQ1-3 Relalionships Between
Stressors and Support of
Fisheries, Wildlife Habitat,
Water Quality and Carbon
Sequestration in Great Lakes
Coastal Wetlands
RQ1-4 Quantifying the
Effects of Anthropogenic
Stressors on the Delivery of
Ecosystem Services by
Coastal Salt Marshes in the
Northeast U.S.
Shore
Florida.Ohio.Iowa
Pa lustrine
F crested
Palustrine Shrub
Palustrine
Emergent
Great I .akes
Palustrine
Emergent
Palustrine
Aquatic Bed
Water Quality
Fisheries
Support
Wildlife
Habitat
Report quantifying
relalionships between
ecosv^tern function and
delivery of core ecosystem
sen sees for depressional
wetlands in selected states
Predictive stressor-response
models for ecosystem services
Water Quality in Great Lakes
Carbon
Sequestration
New England Wildlife Predictive stressor-response
Estuurine I lahiial models for wildlife habitat and
Intertidal Carbon carbon sequestration in NE
Emergent Sequestration coastal salt marshes
Research Question 2:
What is the relationship between the abundance, distribution, and condition of wetlands in the
landscape, and the delivery of ecosystem services? ' ,
Currently, national and regional surveys of wetlands assess the distribution and condition of
wetlands and. less commonly, the function of wetlands. To periodically assess the nation's
wetland ecosystem services, we need to determine how to measure to represent the services of
interest most effectively (ESR.P LTG 2).
Condition can be defined as the relative ability of a wetland to support and maintain its
complexity and capacity for self-organization with respect to species composition, physico-
chemical characteristics and functional processes as compared to wetlands of a similar class
without human alterations (sensu Karr and Dudley 1981). Wetland functions are the
characteristic activities that take place in wetlands or simply the things that wetlands do (Smith
et al. 1995). Ecosystem services are the "benefits people obtain from ecosystems" (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2000), Wetland sen ices are wetland functions (e.g., regulation of floods,
nutrient cycling) or the result of wetland functions (e.g., provision of fish and wildlife habitat).
Wetland condition, functions, and services are related through the concept of ecological
in tegrity. Wetlands perform a variety of functions in a hierarchy. At the highest level of this
hierarchy is the maintenance of ecological integrity (Figure 6). Condition is a measure of
ecological integrity and therefore is related to wetland function. If condition is high then
ecological integrity is intact and the wetland is functioning and delivering services as would be
23
-------
expected of a wetland of that type in thai location. Conversely, a wetland in low condition would
have impaired ecological integrity and the wetland would function and deliver services
commensurate with the type and level of impairment.
Ecological Integrity
k.
Cycling
Nitrogen Cycling
J
Nitrogen
Removal
'¦¦'yriroiog-f
riydroiogic Com
r
2.
Flood Cw-i.'oi
D.vt-.'i ->iiv
-X
Vegetation Diversity
^
Characteristic
Vegetation
Community
Figure 6. An illustration of the hierarchical relational ;;p Kjtween the biogeochemical process
(smallest boxes) that lead to wetland functions (larger boxes) and the integrative concept of
ecological integrity (from Fennessy et al. 2007 as adapted from Smith et al. 1995).
The indicators and the associated metrics currently being used in state and regional assessments'
of wetland condition, as well as for the National Wetland Condition Assessment may be
adequate to quantify the provisioning of ecosystem services. These include remotely sensed
condition measures (e.g., landscape assessments* and on-site rapid and intensive condition
assessments. If, however, they are not sufficient to quantify the provisioning of ecosystem
services, then new indicators of ecosystem services will need to be developed.
Functional classes of wetlands have been related to ecological functions of wetlandsi"' -
and are specifically addressed in RQ1, Changes tn the relative abundance of wetland functional
classes in a landscape can influence ecological functions and related services u~i. The relative
abundance of functional classes, or landscape profi le "sJu, has rarely been considered at broad
scales, much less on the magnitude of a conterminous US study. The use of the 'profile' concept
is one of several first steps used to map the ecological functions of wetlands, as they affect the
delivery of wetland ecosystem services.
Landscape characterization, ecology, and mapping (i.e. landscape metrics and landscape
indicators) for determining the relationships between the abundance, distribution, and function of
wetlands in the landscape, and associated delivery of ecosystem services, are summarized by the
workflow process diagram in Figure 7. Bi-dircctional integration of RQ2 and RQ1, and
integration of RQ2 with applications of our research results are key steps in the successful
completion oi.The goals of the Wetland FSRP. It is important to note that the landscape approach
does not preclude the collection or use of field-based data, which may be a critical part of
mapping wetland ecosystem services. Quantitative linkages between field data and broad-scale
landscape data are important for calibrating remote sensing and some GIS data processing steps,
and are critical components of model validation and scaling. Integration of landscape
24
-------
I
characterization and modeling with ground-level wetland functional assessments is a key part of
linking RQ1 and RQ2, and critical to developing ecosystem function and service models/maps
that are relevant to decision makers at multiple scales.
Figure 7. The Landscape Approach of Research Question (RQ) 2.
25
-------
Objectives
ORD will conduct research to understand the relationship between the abundance, distribution,
and functions of wetlands in the landscape, and the delivery of ecosystem services, by addressing
the following objectives:
1. Determine how the results from wetland condition assessments can be used to estimate
the delivery of ecosystem services by wetlands,
2. Determine how wetland functions are associated with landscape characteristics, and how
the distribution of functional classes of w etlands affects the delivery of ecosystem
services,
3. Develop landscape approaches (i.e., landscape profiles, functional surfaces) for
determining the hydrologic and ecological functions of wetlands and associated delivery
of ecosystem sendees, and
4. Develop landscape models predicting the delivery of specific ecosystem services and
bundles of services based on wetland landscape profiles, empirical stressor-response
models, and published literature.
Task 2.1: Indicators of wetland ecological functions and services at multiple
spatial scales
The goal of the CWA is to maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the
nation's waters, including wetlands. To this end, states and tribes have been developing methods
to assess and monitor the ecological integrity of their wetland resources, which is commonly
defined as, "'...the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive
community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization
comparable to those of natural habitats within a region" (U-J. p. 56). In 201 1, the EPA Office of
Water will collaborate with states and tribes to conduct the first national survey tN'WCA"? to
assess the condition of wetlands nationwide. A number of state and regional assessments of
wetland condition will also be conducted, prior to the MVCA in 2011. The state and regional
assessments will contribute valuable data and information on methods and approaches that will
be integral to achieving the objectives of RQ2. A non-exhaustive list of these efforts, illustrating
the range in scope and scale of projects, includes the assessment of the condition of wetlands in
the Cuyahoga watershed in Ohio; tidal and riparian wetlands in California; wetlands along the
Gulf of Mexico coastal region; and nontiilal wetlands in the VI id-Atlantic region. Quantitative
biophysical data, qualitative habitat assessment data, and rapid assessment data from such
research projects are also critical as inputs (from RQ1) to RQ2 models (Figure 6).
Identification and derivation of metrics of core ecosystem services and their relationship to
measures of wetland condition
The Monitoring Component of ESRP's LTG 2 (see Monitoring, Modeling and Mapping
Implementation Plan) proposes to develop the scientific tools and technologies that will allow
26
-------
the nation's ecosystem services to be periodically assessed and interpreted by decision-makers
and the public. An essential component of this goal is defining what to measure to represent the
ecosystem services of interest most effectively. Boyd & Banzhaf^ argued that rigorously
defined ecosystem service metrics (units, in their terminology) must be consistent with the
principles of the underlying ecology and with the economic accounting system to which they will
be applied. The Wetland ESRP proposes to buil.i on existing indicators of wetland condition and
function to quantify ecosystem services. Tools and models are needed to translate wetland
condition indicators and functional assessments into ecosystem service estimates to conduct a
national inventory of wetland services.
One such tool is the Wetland Value index (WV1; that expands on the HGM functional
capacity indices to estimate relative (nondollar) indices of wetland values. The WVI System
accounts for differences in the mix and level of services provided by different types of wetlands
and similar wetlands in different landscape settings as well as relating changes in service flows
to stressors on the landscape^. For example, measures of the presence of gamefish and
infrastructure to support fishing will yield estimates of recreational fishing opportunities as a
wetland service. Gleason et al.UVl have estimated selected ecosystem services provided by
wetlands and other conservation lands in the Prairie Pothole Region from easily measured
indicators of soil and vegetation characteristics. For example collection of soil organic carbon
(SOC) samples from 270 wetland catchments in 1,'SDA's Conservation Reserve and Wetlands
Reserve Programs (CRP & WR.P) combined with published SOC sequestration rates yielded
carbon sequestration estimates of 222,287 Mg/yr or a total of more than 2 million Mg since lands
were enrolled in CRP & WRP.
Wetland ESRP will review indicators and the associated metrics being used in state and regional
assessments of wetland condition, as well as for the NWCA. to determine whether those
measures of condition can be used to quantify the provisioning of ecosystem services. These
include remotely sensed condition measures (e.g. Level 1 assessments; ^), rapid assessment
measures (e.g., Level 2 assessments, u), and intensive on-site condition assessments (e.g.. Level
3 assessments; to determine whether those measures of condition are sufficient to quantify
the provisioning of ecosystem services. In addition, the review will assist Wetland ESRP
scientists in identifying research gaps and opportunities to advance the science of interrelations
among condition, function, and the provisioning of ecosystem services.
Indicators of ecosystem services and the associated metrics arc being included in the planning
and preparation for the NWCA. Current work to evaluate the utility of measures of condition for
the national survey will also consider their utility as indicators of wetland services. In addition,
regional surveys will test indicators of services prior to the NWCA. The case studies associated
with this task are outlined below and detai led in Appendix A and illustrate the types of research
we envision being done under Task 2.1. ¦
27
-------
Task 2.2; Develop landscape profiles and functional surfaces for wetlands at
multiple spatial scales .
Biophysical conditions in which wetlands exist (e.g., hydrology, surface geology, and climate)
affect their physical and biotic characteristics. Anthropogenic activities in the landscape (e.g.,
agriculture and development) are a major cause of wetland loss and degradation (addressed in
R.Q1). Anthropogenic stressors may be physically distant from wetlands, with influences exerted
over relatively large areas, such us watersheds or ecoregions. Biophysical conditions such as
climate (e.g., temperature and precipitation), surface geology (e.g., soils), and watershed
characteristics (flow direction, volume, and duration) are often available as geospatial data
themes. Landscape data on anthropogenic stressors arc widely available (or can be modeled) and
can be used to assess the intensity and types of impacts, as well as the spatial variability of such
impacts. Adjacent land cover may also be relevant to wetland functions and services, because
natural lands surrounding wetlands can buffer wetland vulnerability to anthropogenic impacts.
The spatial configuration of wetlands (e.g., size, shape, connectivity, and intcrspersion within the
larger landscape) can be important in regulating their (unctions and services.
Consistent, repeatable, and broadly applicable data sets are needed to facilitate assessment of
functional surfaces (i.e., the biophysical environment, that is the landscape within which
wetlands reside), wetland functions, and thus wetland ecosystem services across the study area.
Reliance on geospatial data, airborne/satellite imagery, and other remote sensing data (e.g.,
coordinates from field-collected global positioning units or telemetry from automatic samplers)
obtained and processed by collaborating government entities or commercial enterprises is often
the only means for assessing landscape changes across a large region. This implementation plan
docs not report on the other numerous means of remotely collecting/sharing data from wetlands,
aside from re-emphasizing that field data collected among many wetlands nationwide, by way of
telemetry and information networking (e.g., via automatic samplers and the Internet) is a critical
component of the success of the Wetland ESRP. Several Internet-based collaborative tools are
also available to transmit and utilize field-based and remote sensing data, among researchers that
may be located in different locations around the US. ' • ;i
Once data layers have been developed through remote sensing and GTS data processing, along
with the incorporation of fine-scale work (RQ1). geospatial, statistical, and other models can be
developed to accurately demonstrate and predict ecosystem functions, and hence ecosystem
services. In addition, results from the NWCA and other wetland surveys can be used to inform
and evaluate the modeling. For example, NWCA field crews will assign wetlands to functional
classes which can be used to check the mapping of wetland function and related services
produced under Task 2.1. •*
Sub-task 2.2.1, Compile and investigate the use of remote sensing data layers to assist In the
determination of functional surfaces.
Airborne and satellite remote sensors detect energy in mam regions of the electromagnetic
spectrum, from optical and ultraviolet, to near infrared (IR). to thermal and RADAR. Similarly,
the resolutions vary widely among sensors from kilometers (Advanced Very .1 iigh Resolution
28
-------
Radiometer | AVHRR] and Moderate Resolution imaging Spcctroradiomctei [V10DISJ) to a few
meters (IKONOS). Some of the data sources arc Free to users (MODIS) or relatively inexpensive
(Japanese Earth Resources Satellite |JF.RS] and Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture
Radar [PALSAR] - S25 and SI25 per scene), but generally speaking, the finer the resolution the
higher the cost. The sensor choice depends on the study area, availability of ancillary data, cost,
the resolution desired and what landscape featuies need to be observed, monitored, modeled, or
assessed. To assess a large area such as the conterminous US or a sub-region, moderate
resolution (e.g., 30-meter grid cells or Whcctare) would be the best choice. High-risk areas
should be reviewed more closely with higher resolution imagery or air photos and field troth.
Sometimes, there are advantages to using coarser resolution data with a frequent (1 -2 day)
repeat, especially when looking for broader-scale features (e.g. coastal wetlands can be observed
using 1 km MODIS and AVHRR data) or more general regional changes due to climate. Using
repeat pass satellite imagery allows the advantage of multi-temporal data analysis. In many
cases, however, finer-scale but less frequently generated data are necessary. An implementation
plan using both high and moderate spatial and temporal resolution sensors will provide the
greatest amount of information.
Traditionally, optical and IR data have been used for land-cover mapping, including wetlands.
However, wetlands are difficult to map and monitor using this type of data alone, due to the high
variability in wetland morphology and the inability of optical sensors to detect flooding beneath
closed tree canopies. There are additional problems associated with cloud-cover and obtaining
data with optical systems during timely conditions. Some of the most promising "new-" sensors
for mapping and monitoring wetlands include those operating in the thermal and microwave
spectra. Additionally, unlike optical, thermal or IR data, RADAR data can be collected during
day or night and penetrate clouds so that timely data may be collected. Systems using Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR). synthetic aperture RADAR (SAR) and thermal IR provide
information complementary to optical sensors.
Types and sources of selected remotely sensed data are summarized in Table 5, for comparison,
although this in not intended to be an exhaustive summary. Table 6 describes the fundamental
digital G1S datasets that are currently (or soon to be) available for mapping wetlands across the
US, with some important limitations. The National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) is a remote
sensing classified product based on 30-meter resolution Landsat ca. 2001 satellite data, with two
wetland classes (woody or herbaceous wetlands), among other land cover classes. The Coastal
Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) data is based on the same Landsat data type as NLCD, but
focuses on a wide marine and Great Lakes coastal region of the conterminous US. This 30-meter
resolution dataset has three wetland classes for freshwater and estuarine wetlands (each type of
wetland has woody, shrub, and emergent wetlands classified). Both NLCD and C-CAP have a
change component, which covers periods during the 1990s and 2000s. The Gap Analysis
Program (GAP) datasets are partially available regionally and based on the same satellite-based
data type as NLCD and C-CAP. Depending on the GAP dataset of interest, the number of
wetland classes mapped typically is as many or more than NI.CD or C-CAP. A National GAP is
planned, but likely not available until after 2010. The NWI is a finer resolution digitized dataset
mapped to 1:24,000 "quad" maps, primarily as mapped in the 1980s. NWI maps describe major
freshwater classes (emergent, forested, 'pond', lacustrine, riverine, and others, i.e. shrub, aquatic
29
-------
Table 5. List of potential airborne and satellite data available, the spectral regions in which
they work, spatial resolution, swath size, revisit time, period of operation, approximate
cost, and a link to further information on each sensor and where the data can he obtained
(MS = multispectral, PAN = panchromatic, HS = hyperspectral). Traditional aerial
photography is not described in this table hut is a potential tool to consider.
l'U,n' . Spatial Size/revisit Operation . _
Sensor Frequency Spectral . * , , Lost Source
n * ' Resolution time
Bands
period
AVI iRR
(saiel lite)
.MS
4-6
MODIS
(satellite) 1
Landsat . ,,,
ETM+ Pan'MS
^"dsat Pan/MS
1 M
Landsat
MSS Pan/MS
(satellite)
ASTER MS ^
(satellite)
SPOT n .. ._
, t ... . Pan MS
(satellite)
QuickBird n ... ,0
(satellite) Pan'MS
Airborne
(several MS/HS
types)
8 bands
7 bands
1.1 km
250-1000
m
15m pan
30m MS
60m
thermal
2¦¦¦00 x
6-00 km
single,
swath,
other
options
2300 km,
1-2 day
revisit
IX km 5-16 1999-
day revisit present
18 km 5-16 1982-
day revisit present
5 bands 89m
0.5-1
urn
3--130 • 0.6m-4m
1978-
present
2000-
present
18 km 5-16
day revisit
! 5 bands 15m VNIR
30m SWIR
90m TIR
10m pan
20m MS
0,7m pan
3.9m MS
60km 4-! 6 2000-
day revisit present
20x20- 1986-
6(1 x 60 km present
16.5 km 1-
4 days
Variable /
Scheduled
2001-
present
Present
with some
historical
1990-
2000s
Free (single
scene)-$190
stitched
georegistered
segments
Free
1973-1983
Free - S3 70J
S1000-
SI4000
SI8 km'2
Dependent
upon flight
time and
sensor - MS
sensor costs
are
comparable
to aerial
photography
costs
AVHRR
at USGS
LPDAC ;
$700 ETM+ EROS
$425 TM EROS
EROS
LPDAAC
data pool
SPOT "•
Images
QuickBird
NO A A
Airborne
MS
ITRl-'S
Airborne
HS
30
-------
bed. and unconsolidated shore). The N\V! also describes a qualitative water regime attribute. The
original maps were an outcome of aerial photography interpretation and major areas of the
conterminous U.S. are digital, although many areas of the country are available solely in hard-
copy map format.
Many of the data layers mentioned above will be acquired by ESRP researchers and investigated
for incorporation into enhanced mapping of wet,and profiles as described below in Sub-task
2.2.2. The data layers and subsequent wetland maps will provide the underlying geospatial
information for many of the case studies in Appendix A.
Table 6, Existing geospatial data available to assess the relationship between the
abundance, distribution, and functions of wetlands in the landscape, and the delivery of
ecosystem services.
Historical Resolution Agency Era
Wetland Map
US National
Wetlands
Inventory (NWp
National Land
Cover Database
(NT-CD)
Coastal Change
Assessment (C-
CAP)
(JAP Analysis
Program
0.01-1 m FWS 1970s-present
30rn USE-PA 1902-2001
1995-2005
30m NGAA (varies
regiot ally)
30 m USGS 2000
Extent
US Nationwide (with
significant gaps
nationwide) NWI Digital
EMI IH
US Nationwide
US Coastal (Basins -
Lower 48)
incomplete nationwide
coverage as of 04/23/08
Base
Data
Aerial
Photos
Landsat
Landsat
Landsat
Sub-task 2.2,2. Improve the mapping of wetland functions and services at a landscape scale
by modeling the relationships between biophysical conditions of the landscape matrix and
those wetlands embedded within the landscape.
An important emerging approach to multi-scalar landscape approaches is the implementation of
remote sensing synthesis products. To address the unique logistical and ecological elements of
the Wetland ESRP a synthesis is needed of multiple remote sensing (with ancillary data)
methodologies, utilizing broad scale procedures, followed by targeted wetland assessments in
selected wetlands of interest, relevant to the broad-scale components. For example, higher
resolution airborne or satellite data approaches to mapping plant assemblages at fine-to-moderate
scales could then be utilized to map precisely the location of wetland characteristics that are
relevant to RQ1 project needs, and can then be scaled up using coarser resolution remote sensing
data for regional to national ecosystem service map generation. The synthesis of various scales
of remote sensing approaches ensures that the broad-scale goals of the Wetland ESRP and the
accuracy requirements for addressing the ecological processes within a wetland are both
31
-------
incorporated into maps and models, providing all of the necessary data for developing ecosystem
function and service models at multiple scales. ' •
Several types of gcospatial 'ancillary' datasets are useful for wetland mapping, including
elevation data, soils maps, and climate data, especially in combination with remote sensing data.
A non-exhaustive list of useful CilS data and processing approaches is given below, which can be
used to improve wetland mapping accuracy and classification specificity of remote sensing
products. Table 4 describes existing gcospatial data that are immediately available to assess the
relationship between the abundance, distribution, and functions of wetlands in the landscape.
Elevation Data - There are several Digital Elevation Model (DEM) datasets available for
conterminous US. DEM utility depends on the resolution of the model, both in elevation
and on the ground. Generally, the 30-m DEMs available from the USGS are too coarse
for the fine-scale microrelicf that often results in wetland development, but 10-m DEMs
arc also widely available and offer improved resolution of landscape topography.
Intcrferometric SAR and LiDAR arc two sources of remote sensing that can produce
higher resolution DEMs.
Soils - The NRCS has created soils maps with classification of hydric soils that can be a
useful ancillary dataset in mapping wetlands. There are two U.S. soils maps sources: U.S.
General Soil Map (STATSGO) available for everv state but at coarser scale and Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) available for ail states but Alaska.
Additional Processing Approaches - Object-based classification methods and software
may be useful for wetland mapping. This type of classification involves two steps: 1)
spatial objects are formed using a region- growing segmentation algorithm to merge
pixels of homogeneous type; then 2) image classification techniques are applied using
traditional statistical methods, a fuzzy logic rule base, or a combination of both methods,
The segmentation phase provides additional attributes describing the spatial context and
morphology of features that, can be used to inform the classification beyond spectral
values alone. Moreover, the segmentation phase can be reiterated at various scales to
capture the range of features contained in the image. This also allows heterogeneous
wetland types (e.g., wetlands containing some open water pixels mixed with denser
canopy) to be grouped or not depending on the scale of the segmentation.
Many of the data layers mentioned above will be acquired by ESRP researchers and investigated
for incorporation into enhanced mapping of wetland profiles as described below in Task 2.2. The
data layers and subsequent wetland maps will provide the underlying gcospatial information for
many of the case studies in Appendix A.
Task 2.3: Development of landscape modeling approaches to predict delivery of
wetland ecosystem services at multiple spatial scales
We propose a suite of case studies organized around specific ecosystem services and landscapes.
These case studies represent landscape approaches to modeling wetland services and their
responses to drivers and stressors that are geographical!) extensive, and representative of a
32
-------
diversity of landscapes. Considering that if is neither technically nor logistically feasible to
model explicitly every wetland in every landscape, we offer a manageable, efficient means for
achieving the Wetland ESRP goal of accounting for wetland ecosystem services at multiple
scales. Stage 1 of many of the case studies outlined below are linked to Task 2.2 (i.e., the •
geospatial data synthesis products, improved mapping tools, and models developed in Sub-tasks
2,2.1 and 2.2,2 will be developed specifically for the geographical extent/boundary for Stage 1 of
the case studies). The case studies outlined below are detailed in Appendix A and illustrate the
types of research we envision being done under Task 2.3.
Table 7. Case Studies contributing to Research Question 2.
Case Study
RQ2-1 Indicators of PNW Tidal
Wetland Condition and
Ecosystem Services
RQ2-2 Methods to link
indicators of Gul("of Mexico
coastal wetland condition to
ecosystem services
RQ2-3 Indicators of Mid-
Atlantic Inland Wetland
Condition and Ecosystem
Services
RQ2-4 Indicators of Wetland
Condition and Ecosystem
Services
(apliic
Cmeraye and
Wetland
Type(s)
Pacific
Northwest
Estuarine
Intertidal
Emergent
Gulf of
Mexico
Estuarine
Intertidal
Emergent and
Forestcd'Shub.
Palustrine
Emergent,
Forested and
Shrub
Mid-Atlantic
Inland
Palustrine
Emergent,
Forested and
Shrub
Continental
US
All wetland
types
Wetland
Service(s)
Wildlife
llabilai
Water
Quality
Water quality
Wildlife
habitat
Carbon
sequestration
Fisheries
Support
Flood
Control
Milestone (Product)
Report on ecological condition
of Pacific Northwest tidal
wetlands and their utility for
assessing ecosystem services
Water quality
Wildlife
habitat
Water
Quality
Wildlife
Habitat
Fisheries
Habitat
Carbon
Report on methods and models
to link COM coastal wetland
condition indicators to provision
of ecosystem services
Report on the application of
Held and landscape indicators of
the water quality and habitat
services in an assessment of the
inland wetlands of the Mid-
Atlantic region
Rcpon on the potential for using
indicators of the ecological
condition of we!lands to
estimate delivery of ecosystem
services;
Methods and indicators to link
regional and national surveys of
Sequestration wetlands condition to the
33
-------
Selected
, , j¦ » . regions in the
and wave/tide energy dissipation ^ ^ >astal
zone
RQ2-5 Storm, surge protection
and wave/tide energy dissi
potential of coastal wet lan
RQ2-6 Water Quality and
Nitrogen Cycling: Development
of a Nitrogen Removal Model in
the Wetlands of the Willamette
Basin
Willamette
Valley. OR
Palustrinc
Emergent,
Forested,
Shrub
RQ2-7 Regional and Landscape . vw
Scale Assessments of Pacific
Art I 1 l*J AC
Coast Estuarine Ecosystem ,
_ . Tidal wetlands
Services
RQ2-8 Landscape Analyses of
Riparian Wetlands of the
Mississippi
River,
Missouri
Mississippi Basin and Impact on Ri \ er. Ohio
delivery of Water quality and Ri\ er
Fisheries Support Services Riparian
wetlands
RQ2-9 Ecosyslem Sen'ices
accounting at the Watershed
Scale
Palustrinc
Forest. Shrub,
Emergent,
Aquatic Bed
and
Moss/Lichen
Storm S
Protection
Wildlife
Habitat,
Fisheries
Habitat,
Carbon
Storage
Water
Quality
Wildlife
Habitat
Fisheries
Support
Water
Quality
Water
Quality
Fisheries
Support
provision of selected ecosyslem
sendees
Report on storm surge
protection service of coastal
wetlands and the modeled
effects of sea level rise on
multiple ecosystem services
using remote sensing data and
geospatial models
Report on nitrogen removal
funct ion and water quality
service of riparian wetlands in
the Willamette Basin
Report on Pacific Coast
estuarine ecosystem services
and relationship to landscape-
scale processes and stressors
Report on water quality and
fisheries support services of
riparian wetlands in the
Mississippi River basin
Water
Qualitv
Water
Quant i i>
Wildlife
Habitat
Fisheries 1
Support
Biodiversity
Carbon
Sequestration
Report on bundled services
across the watershed scale
34
-------
Applications of Research Results
Research results under the two Research Questions (RQ1 and RQ2) of this program must
ultimately be useful to decision makers. Case studies will be designed so that results can be
incorporated into decision-support applications for protection, enhancement, and restoration of
the delivery of wetland services and support human health and well-being. Ultimate outcomes of
the long-term efforts of this research program sre illustrated in Figure 8.
Wetland ESRP
Science Questions Outcomes
ERP Long-term Goal 4
ERP will provide guidance and decision support tools to target, prioritize, and evaluate
policy and management actions that protect, enhance, and restore ecosystem goods and
^ services of wetlands and coral reefs at multiple scales.
Figure 8. ESRP Wetland research questions, outcomes and long-term goal.
We envision applying research results toward some of the following types of activities:
• Linking wetland ecosystem services to human well-being
• Linking policy variables to changes in ecological endpoints
• Applying monetary and non-monetary valuation methods to wetland decision-making
Valuation methods and their application to wetland ecosystem services
35
-------
Decisions that affect wetlands are made by resource managers, public agencies, and private
landowners even when they do not fully understand how ihose decisions affect the provision of
ecosystem services by wetlands and on human well-being*'-"^). An understanding of how policies
affect ecosystem services, and how changes in ecosystem services arc valued by people, would
help decision makers select the most beneficial options.
Valuation involves two essential components. First ecological production functions must be
estimated to predict how ecosystem services will change as a result of policies or actions. Then,
these changes can he valued, in order to prioritize policies or actions, ideally, economists would
conduct primary studies to assess changes in human well-being as ecosystems services change
with different policy alternatives. Original economic valuation studies, however, are expensive
and time-consuming. Alternatively, the results of past valuation studies can he adapted to apply
to new cases, if various conditions are met. This approach benefit transfer may be used by the
ESRP wetlands team to value wetland services. However, most valuation studies in the literature
are location-specific, with unique biophysical attributes (Table 8; and see reviews ^ mi
They also include differing sets of ecosystem services, enjoyed by households with variations in
underlying population characteristics - all of which serve to limit their applicability to new
research.
Table 8. Examples of wetland valuation studies from Boyer & Polasky (2004
Valuation
Method
Wetland
Type
Location
Value
Reference
1 ledonic
Urban
Ramsey Co.,
MN
$19/ha {1989 S)
Lupi ct ai 199L- -
Hedonic
Urban
Portland, OR
$24'ha (1994$)
Mahan ct al 200(j- :-
Travel Cost
Lake
Lake St, Clair,
Ontario
S271-$2952/ha (1985
Canadian S)
van Vuuren & Roy
I993MI
Travel Cost
Inland
San Joaquin
Valley, CA
S 5 5/hunter/season
Cooper & Loomis
1991L±-
Production Cost Coastal
Florida Gulf
Coast
$0.1040.12/ha (1971 S)
Lynne ct al 1981'--*
Production Cost Mangrove
Thailand
$4-$135/ha (1993 $)
Barhier el al
20021"-
Replacement
Cost
Coastal
Louisiana &
Florida
S1-S1088/ha (2000 S)
Kazmierczak
2O01mj
Replacement
Cost
Coastal
Louisiana
$2522-$3 899/ha/yx (1992
$)
Breaux et al 1995^
Contingent
Riparian
Illinois & Iowa
S15-$19/ha/yr (1987 S)
Lant & Roberts
1990®!
Contingent
New England
S31/ha/yr (1993 $)
Stevens et al
1995™
i
36
-------
ESRP researchers will address wot buds valuation using several approaches. Some of the
individual case studies will incorporate valuation of services using either original studies if
possible, benefit transfer of dollar values, or benefit indicators ! *!, In eases where valuation
cannot be applied, the ease study results will be focused to provide ecological production
functions that can inform valuat ion for a variety of policy contexts and geographic scales.
The following steps will be taken to incorporate valuation into the wetlands ESRP case studies:
• A valuation/policy framework will be added to each of the case studies, to demonstrate
how valuation can be applied to the study's ecological outputs (production functions),
even if it is not possible to accomplish tte actual valuation, given resource constraints.
This "valuation approaches" section will describe the study's ecological production
function(s) and their measured endpoints, and outline what would be needed to apply
valuation to the case study to inform various relevant policy decisions at different scales.
It will include suggested approaches, sources for available data, and data and analysis
requirements.
• Valuation will be applied to selected case studies, using values from existing studies in
the literature combined with some original valuation research. Where dollar values for
relevant ecosystem services are unavailable or where the study's production functions do
not provide endpoints amenable to dollar valuation, non-monetarv value indicators may
be applied.
• Existing valuation studies and valuation resources relevant to wetlands ecosystem
serv ices will be compiled to create a reference source for the case studies and other
groups within ESRP. This process will also identify gaps in value estimates for wetlands'
services. , ...
• Case studies thai are addressing valuation for similar ecosystems and services (e.g.,
seagrass studies of habitat values in New England, West Coast, and Gulf; studies of
carbon sequestration in salt marshes) will be linked to provide an overall picture of these
services and values by region and at the national scale.
• The wetlands ESRP valuation approaches and case studies will be linked to approaches
and studies in the rest, of the ESRP program, through discussions and coordination with
the ESRP "economics network."
Coordination
Coordination within ESRP
An important goal of the ESRP is to integrate and coordinate research on ecosystem services
across organizational units, disciplines, and the thematic research areas of the ESRP. The
program opens an opportunity to answer critically important ecological questions at the largest
scales. This vision will be realized only through effective coordination and integration among
and across program elements. The critical path for Wetland ESRP (Fig. 2) shows how other
ESRP projects are integrated with Wetland ESRP. In this section, wc outline a strategy for
37
-------
coordination of a large, diverse research program that is distributed across ORD laboratories and
centers, other agencies, geographic regions, and scientific dimensions,
A principal aspect of coordination involves linking the major projects and cross-culling themes
of the HSRP through commonalities. For example, wetlands receive reactive nitrogen from
aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric sources, process it in various ways, and deliver the products,
transformed or not, to other systems. Reactive nitrogen also exerts biological and ecological
effects on wetland ecosystems. In place-based research, wetlands are important features of the
landscape within each of the demonstration project regions, performing various functions and
delivering various services. Although none of the proposed place-based projects are focused
primarily on wetlands, the research will present an excellent opportunity to investigate the roles
wetlands play in three [or four] very different regions, types of landscapes, and future scenarios.
There are several levels of coordination:
1. among individual projects within the wetlands research program (initially accomplished
through this implementation plan),
2. between wetlands research and the nitrogen and place-based research themes,
3. between agencies and organizations with roles in wetlands research and management, and
4. between wetland research and national monitoring and snapping efforts
Achieving the objectives of this research program will require not only effective coordination,
but also scientific and technical staff assigned and dedicated to large-scale products, including
national-scale geospatial modeling, meta-analysis, and data management.
Project-level coordination
There are two critical elements of project-level coordination. The first is to ensure that all
projects are aligned with the goals and requirements of the ESRP and that the ORD seek to
achieve synthetic results that span wetland types and ecoregions. This element is the
responsibili ty of all ORD research staff in the wetland program, the Wetland HSRP lead, the
National Program Director, and ORD Laboratory and Division management.
Coordination across ESRP themes
The wetlands theme lead is responsible for working with the other leads to ensure integration of
wetlands into the nitrogen and place-based projects, integration of nitrogen processing and
effects into the Wetland ESRP, and that models resulting from place-based pilots include the
services of wetlands within their regions.
¦ Wetlands and Nitrogen
The capacities and tolerances of wetlands for rN are important research questions that cut across
the wetlands and nitrogen elements of the HSRP. Fundamental questions remain about the extent
(rate) to which wetlands of various classes and conditions remove reactive nitrogen from loading
into receiving waters and about the effects of loading of reactive nitrogen on wetland services.
38
-------
Nutrient enrichment could degrade the condition and functions of some wetlands- —what are the
trade-offs between removing and sequestering rN, versus potential degradation of other functions
and sendees? Could wetlands protection and restoration be used effectively in rN management,
not in a site-specific sense, but as a component of regional or national nutrient management
strategies ^u? How would the aggregate net values of wetlands used for nutrient reduction
compare with nutrient removal in wastewater treatment plants?
*. • Wetlands in Place-based Projects
Whether large or small, isolated or connected, wetlands supply a diversity of habitats for aquatic
and terrestrial biota, hydrologie services (flow moderation, groundwater recharge, etc.), high
biological productivity, and processing, transformation, and sequestering of nutrients and
contaminants. Aesthetic and existence values also apply to wetlands, although these latter values
can be positive or negative depending on a variety of social, economic, geographical, and
environmental factors.
In developing alternative future scenarios for F.SRP place-based projects, it will be essential to
incorporate wetlands as features of current and future landscapes, to include the associated
services in comparative valuations, and to explore scenarios with changing extent, distribution,
and quality of wetlands within the region. The ESRP projects include:
1. the Willamette Valley, where riparian wei lands and wetland prairies are prominent
features of the landscape providing services such as ftsh and wildlife habitat, flow
moderation, and water quality enhancements;
2. the Tampa Bay region, with a vast complex of coastal and inland wetlands that not only
provide essential services, but also interact with development pressures, water supply
demands, coastal storms, and rising sea level;
3. the upper Midwest region, where services provided by riparian and depressional wetlands
need to be understood in the context of agricultural expansion, flood control, wildlife
habitat, and commitments to reduce nutrient loads to the Mississippi River system and
Gulf of Mexico.
4. Coastal North and South Carolina, where salt marshes and freshwater swamps, which
dominate the coastal landscape alongside bays, sounds, and and tidal rivers, are under
pressure from sea level rise, development and incompatible land uses.'
• Wetlands and Human 11 ell-Being
Research conducted by the Human Well-Being component of ESRP will provide a literature
review of well-being conceptual models related to wetlands and the relationships among
economics, sociology, political science, aesthetics and ecological services. The compilation of
this literature will allow us to utilize existing models and approaches in the construction of a US
Index of Well-Being and apply that index to wetlands. Based on this literature review a report on
the state of the sciences regarding human well being and index construction will be completed in
2010.
39
-------
Research to relate wetland ecosystem services to human health will be conducted under the
Place-Based components of the ESRP. A study on wetland type and condition, mosquitoes, and
human proximity is currently under development in the F.SRP Coastal Carolinas place-based
pilot. This work will build on recent initiatives and findings on the relationship between ecology
and emerging infectious disease^-*—It will involve field collection of mosquito, wildlife,
and water-quality parameters in a probability-based sample of isolated wetlands, assessments of
human perceptions and uses of wetlands of different types and conditions, and landscape
modeling of disease risk using existing scenarios of sea-levei rise and human population
expansion. Analysis of mosquito-borne disease risk will include Dengue fever and encephalitis
that can result in significant human mortality and arc projected to emerge or increase in the study •
area due to global climate change. Wetland ESRP will provide technical guidance on the issue of
wetland type/condition and mosquito abundance/in fectivitv. Results will provide environmental
decision makers and managers at multiple spatial scales with an approach to include mosquito-
borne disease risk from changing landscapes as an element of decision making. In addition, the
case study listed below and detailed in Appendix A is being developed by the Human Well-
Being component of ESRP to link wetland ecosystem services to human well-being.
• DPSIE Framework for Wetlands ESRP
While the coordination of the Wetlands ESRP work continues as outlined above, we will begin to
develop a DPSfR framework for Wetlands. Development of a DPSIR framework for Wetlands ESRP
will further facilitate research coordination in seveial ways, on several levels. 1) DPSIR frameworks
are being developed for all of the place-based efforts. The use of common terminology and a
common framework will make it easier to see how the Place-Based research fits into the Wetland
program, and how the Wetland research can help the Place-Based efforts. 2) A DPSIR framework
that shows how the sorts of decisions made by research managers in wetlands relate to the ecosystem
production function development and measurements of wetland condition that comprise the bulk of
our proposed research will help us to see how our current research tits together to meet, she needs of
decision-makers, help us prioritize future research, and to highlight gaps that need to be filled by
research outside of the ESRP and 3) A Wetland DPSIR framework will facilitate working more
closely with the DSF and Outreach and Education portions of the RSRP to better formulate our
research goals, and then communicate our research to those who can use it.
Coordination with EPA Office of Water and EPA Regions
The Wetland ESRP will rely on a collaborative science program involving both Wetland ESRP
scientists and EPA program staff to help accomplish the objectives and answer the research
questions posed in this plan. The Wetland ESRP collaborative science program will be co-
managed by the Wetland ESRP Leads and the Regional Liaison for EPA's National Wetlands
Program (Office of Water - Wetlands Division). Our collaborative projects will be designed to
complement the more intensive spatial analysis and site specific environmental sampling planned
by the Wetland ESRP.
40
-------
An immediate opportunity for coordination and collaboration with the Office of Water arises via
the NWCA scheduled for 20 i i. The NWCA. and current regional and state assessments of
wetland condition will document the presence of stressors in wetlands and in the surrounding
landscape, assess the ecological condition of wetlands, and test indicators of wetland services.
Data from such surveys can he used in the calibration and validation of the stressor-rcsponse
relationships derived from the literature and Wetland ESRP research. For example, a Mid-
Atlantic regional assessment1--1 conducted in 2008 and 2009 will evaluate rapid assessment
methods for their application region-wide. This information will be used to evaluate the level of
wetland services (e.g., water quality and habitat) predicted by models based on land cover data
and other metrics of landscape alteration such as road density. ,
We will seek opportunities to coordinate our research efforts with EPA Regional Offices and
EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP). This includes keeping RPA Regional Offices informed
about our activities as they apply, and seeking managers input on applications for our results to
issues of interest to Regional Offices and NEPs.
Coordination with other Federal Agencies and NGOs
Many federal and state agencies, and NGOs conduct wetland research, provide technical support
, on wetland management, and manage the wetland resource. The following subsections present a
brief overview of the activities of groups doing work related to the objectives of the Wetland
ESRP and efforts to date to foster cooperation in areas of mutual interest. This is not meant to be
an exhaustive list of potential partners and cooperators. The Wetland ESRP will continually add
to this list as the proposed research is implemented.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The mission of FWS is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildife along with their
habitat. Because wetlands are important habitats for many species of fish and wildlife (especially
waterbirds), the management and conservation of wetlands is a major component of the FWS's
responsibilities. The portion of the FWS's activities that has the closest ties to the research
planned under the Wetland ESRP is the N W1 and its Status and Trends program. The FWS
produces wetland maps for the U.S. and prepares reports on the status and trends of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the conterminous United States on a ten-year cycle, in accordance with the
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. of 1986.
The Wetland ESRP's interactions with NWI has evolved through its connections with EPA's
NWCA scheduled for 2011.. This collaboration ensures that EPA's assessment of wetland
condition complements FWS's reporting on trends in wetland area. The next, step will be to
assure that reporting on the delivery of wetland services through the work done under the
Wetland ESRP is consistent with the work on status and trends in condition and area.
NOAA
41
-------
NOAA works In the conservation, management, and creation of wetlands in program throughout
the agency, both directly and through partnerships. Taken as a whole, NOAA works to better
understand the structure and ecological function of wetland habitats, then applies this knowledge
to the conservation, restoration, and management of these critical habitats. Wetland ESRP is in
communication with NOAA regarding potential areas for cooperation, including:
* Basic and applied research: Scientists in laboratories and research centers throughout the
U.S. conduct research into the ecology of wetlands, advancing our understanding of the
habitats. Groups such as the NOAA Galveston Lab and the National ("enters for Coastal
Ocean Science, among others, have been advancing the state of wetland science for
decades. Additionally, extensive research is undertaken in the NOAA National Estuarine
Research Reserves system, a network of 27 estuarine areas nationwide that protect more
than 1.3 million acres of land and water in 23 states and Puerto Rico.
¦ External funding: Programs such as Sea Grant, the Restoration Center, and the National
Centers for Coastal Ocean Science award grants to scientists outside of NOAA to
compliment and build upon the work undertaken by Agency scientists.
¦ Restoration: The NOAA Restoration Center works to restore the Nation's coastal,
marine, and migratory fish habitats, including wetlands, through the funding and
collaboration on projects with public, private, and agency partners. Of particular note is
the Community-based Restoration Program that awards millions of dollars to national
and regional partners and grass roots organizations each year. In conjunction with
partners,, the NOAA Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program
restores natural resources after oil spills, toxic releases, and physical damage such as boat
groundings.
¦ Coastal Zone Management: Through partnerships with the coastal states, the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management provides technical and financial support to
protect, conserve, and manage coastal resources, including wetlands. By leveraging
federal and state matching funds, this Program strengthens the capabilities of its partners
to address coastal issues and gives states the flexibility to design a program that
accommodates their unique coastal challenges and legal requirements.
USD A Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)
The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) is a multi-agency effort to scientifically
quantify the environmental benefits of conservation practices used by private landowners
participating in USDA and other conservation programs. Project findings will guide USD A
conservation policy and program development. The goals of the wetlands component of CEAP
(CEAP-Wetlands) are to:
* produce science-based data, results and information to inform conservation decisions
affecting wetland ecosystems and the services they provide, including the effects of
conservation practices on wetland ecosystem services, and
¦ develop a broad collaborative foundation that facilitates the production and delivery of
scientific data, results and information.
42
-------
Five objectives were developed to guide CEAP-wctlands:
¦ Conducting collaborative regional investigations;
* Building collaborative science alliances
• Developing a literature synthesis;
¦ Conducting analysis using NRCS conservation practice and program data; and
¦ Developing a National Wetlands Monitoring Framework.
Five regional investigations are underway: Prairie Pothole Region. Mississippi Alluvial Valley,
High Plains, California Central Valley and the California/Oregon lntermountain Region, and the
Mid-Atlantic Rolling Coastal Plain and Coastal Flats.
The Wetland ESRP is developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CEAP-
Wctlands and anticipates opportunities for sharing information and cooperating on research
efforts.
The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar)
The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971. is an intergovernmental treaty
which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the
conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources (see Ramsar.org). There are presently
158 Contracting Parties to the Convention, with 1743 wetland sites, totaling 161 million
hectares, designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance.
The Convention's mission is "the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local,
regional and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving
sustainable development throughout the world". The Convention works closely with other
environment-related global and regional conventions, it has Joint Work Plans or MOUs with
various groups such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and has collaborative relations
with many other non-governmental organizations, such as the Society of Wetland Scientists and
The Nature Conservancy,
Ramsar's Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP) provides guidance on key issues for the
Convention. The Ramsar STRP has ongoing work related to wetland ecosystem services. Further
guidance for valuation of ecosystem services is likely to be an important area of work in 2009-
2011, following the development of ecosystem services concepts (as per the Millenium
Assessment), the applications to the ecological character of wetlands and to the implementation
of the "wise use" of wetlands.
The Wetland ESRP is developing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ramsar STRP and
anticipates opportunities for sharing information and cooperating on research efforts, in addition,
a member of the Wetland ESRP team has been invited to attend the meetings of the U.S.
National Ramsar Committee.
Summary
43
-------
The ultimate goal of Wetland ESRP is to provide guidance and decision support tools to target,
prioritize, and evaluate policy and management actions that proieel, enhance, and restore the 1
goods and services delivered by wetland ecosystems at multiple scales. This implementation plan
presents the science to he conducted to accomplish this goal. We will:
• Identify, characterize and assess ecosystem services of wetlands that contribute to human
benefits and values at multiple spatial and temporal scales;
• Identify, characterize and assess environmental conditions and human activities that
influence the delivery of ecosystem sendees from wetlands;
• Develop approaches to mapping, modeling and summarizing information suitable to apply
in forecasting local and regional susiainability of wetland ecosystems and the services
they provide.
We anticipate that applications of this research program will result in major changes in the way
that the wetland resource is managed and protected. Specifically, we anticipate the consideration
of the delivery of wetland services in decision-making as illustrated below.
¦ Restoration, protection, and improvement of wetlands will consider: . '
¦ All services provided by wetlands
¦ How wetland services are improved or degraded
» How landscape position affects delivery of wetlands services
¦ Mow land use decisions will affect wetland services
* The monetary and non-monetary value of wetland services
¦ Wetland management decisions will be based on knowledge of ecosystem services using:
» Interactive maps to determine restoration options that maximize wetland services
• Wetland trading scenarios to optimize wetland services
¦ Decision-support tools to evaluate alternative scenarios
¦ National atlas of wetland services
¦ Tools to achieve optimal bundles of sen-ices from wetlands
¦ Wetlands policy (i.e., no net loss and President's Wetlands Initiative) will include no loss
of wetland services.
ORD Research Team
The following ORD Divisions will be leading and supporting research specific to the Wetland
ESRP. The Core Team members for the Wetland ESRP have been responsible for production of
this Implementation Plan. The Core Team and additional research staff throughout ORD, but
principally in the Divisions listed below, will conduct research in the case studies and participate
in the development of synthesis products. They will also partner with other projects and themes
within the ESRP to take advantage of a wider array of approaches and technologies to make
wetland ecosystem services information available to decision-makers.
44
-------
ORD Research Team foi Wetland ESRP
Lab/Division i t tore Team Member
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NIIEERL)
Waller Berry
Atlantic Ecology Division (AED)
Gulf Ecology Division (GED)
Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED)
Western Ecology Division (WED)
Cathleen Wigand
Virginia Englc
Janet Nestlerode
Lisa Smith
Steve Jordan
Kevin Summers
Janet Kcough
Mar>- Moffett ¦
Mike Sierszen
Jack Kelly
Brian Hill
David Bolgricn
Mary Kentula
Ted DeWitt
National Exposure Research Laboratory
-------
Appendix: Case Studies
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQ1-1: Quantifying Tidal Wetland, Habitat-Based
Relationships for Ecosystem Services for Pacific NW Estuaries In Support of a National
Inventory of Wetland Services,
Lead Laboratory / Division: NHEERL/WED
ORD Contacts: ' Ted DcWitr
Geographic Extent: Northern California, Oregon, Washington Estuaries
Wetland Type(s): Estuarine Intertidal & Subtidal Aquatic Bed
Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Low and High Marsh
Estuarine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: SUPPORTING: Wildlife Habitat, Carbon
Sequestration
PROVISIONING: Fisheries Support, Water Quality
Improvement (Nitrogen Reduction)
Abstract:
The proposed research focuses on quantifying ecosystem services at the habitat level by
developing and testing metrics of ecosystem services for estuarine wetlands in the PNW.
Whereas few studies have measured the capacity of PNW estuarine wetlands to provide
ecosystem services, PCKB will fill critical data gaps with field research to measure the capacity
of estuanne wetlands to support fisheries and wildlife (i.e., birds) species. This study will also
examine nutrient retention and removal as a water quality ecosystem service of estuarine
wetlands. This research builds upon recent research conducted at PCRR under the N! 1EERL
Aquatic Stressors Research Program and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Prop-air. (EMAP). The research will address a suite of interrelated objectives in studying habitat-
scale ecosystem services. Specific objectives are to:
1. Estimate the forage value of estuarine wetland habitats to valued fish, shellfish, and birds,
2. Measure the habitat value of selected estuarine wetland habitats to several species offish,
with particular attention to salinonids,
3. Measure and compare the abundance of economically valuable shellfish (bivalves,
shrimps, and crabs) among estuarine wetland habitats, and to characterize the sensitivity
of shellfish populations to anthropogenic stressors.
4. Measure the seasonal variation in abundance and species richness of birds among
estuarine wetland habitats, and estimate foraging use of each habitat type by key species
of birds, and
5. Measure nutrient (N,P) retention and removal and carbon sequestration among estuarine
wetland habitats at a regional scale.
The primary target habitats are intertidal scagrass habitats, unvegctated fidelands, and low
emergent marsh. Within each of these major habitat t\pes. elected sub-habitat types will be
examined to varying degrees dependent on a variety of issues. For seagrasses, both Zostera
46
-------
marina (eelgrass) and Z.japonica (dwarf eel grass) will be considered because the two species
differ widely in morphology, and may have different roles in sustaining ecosystem services.
Unvcgetated tidelands will include both areas with significant populations of burrowing shrimp
and areas lacking these engineering species. Low emergent marsh will examine both the marsh
surface and the tidal channels that dissect the marsh, which because of elevation differences, may
contribute in widely differing fashion to ecosystems services of the integrated marsh habitat.
Methods: In order to develop forecasts of changes in ecosystem services, data on fish, shellfish,
birds, and nutrient retention and removal, and carbon sequestration will first be collected in the
primary target habitats at the cstuary-scalc1-- from both data mining and new data collection, if
required. Data will be collected for as many PNW estuaries as feasible. The research will be
conducted in two phases. Initial efforts will take place in Yaquina Bay, a well-studied PNW
estuary where a great deal of data to support development of ecosystem services already is
available. In Phase 2, additional studies will be conducted across additional estuaries and
watersheds to confirm results from Yaquina Bay. For each estuary, habitat maps will be
constructed using the best available information. Candidate estuaries include Tillamook Bay, and
Coos Bay, OR, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, WA, and Humboldt Bay, CA, as these estuaries
have been most studied^ — and offer the best possibilities for collaboration and partnerships
with other government agencies and research institutions.
The first step in the new research is to complete a thorough process of literature review and data
mining for information on the ecosystem services provided bv the target habitats (and
subhabilats) for the PNW. The first phase of research will also seek to clarify a variety of
uncertainties with respect: to habitat support for fish, shellfish, and birds as ecosystem services.
For example, our previous sampling for evaluating habitat specific support for nekton has been
done during the day, and it remains to be seen whether there is significant nighttime use of
unvcgetated tideflat habitats when risk of predation may decrease. If such use takes place, our
current assessments of relative levels of support for nekton may be somewhat biased. Similarly,
much of the previous sampling effort has tended to under-represent low salinity areas of the
estuary. The salinity gradient is one of the strongest environmental signals along the axis of the
estuary, and estimation of the effect of salinity on habitat level ecosystems serv ices will be
important in scaling such services to entire estuaries or across multiple systems. This information
will also be used in developing models of change in ecosystem services in PNW estuaries due to
global climate change.
Phase 2 of the research will move to cross-estuary scale assessments of ecosystem services. The
first priority of the research is to evaluate the cross-estuary pattern of habitat specific ecosystem
services. This information will be used in conjunction with habitat mapping to develop one
approach lo estimation of ecosystem services at regional scale. A second priority refinement of
the basic cross-estuary ecosystem services comparison will be to factor in spatial variation in
expression of ecosystem services based on variations in habitat condition, e.g. that associated
with estuarine salinity gradients. A third level of refinement of habitat specific ecosystem service
models would be to account for the effects on ecosystem services of patch size, shape, and types
of adjacent habitats within and estuarine seascape.
Applications:
47
-------
• Support development of regional-scale estimates of wetland ecosystem services for
Pacific northwest estuaries.
• Contribution to a national inventory of wetland ecosystem services,
• Models of habitat-specific fish, shellfish, and bird use can be used by Slate resource
agencies, such as Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of State
Lands, for habitat and land use management
• Nutrient retention and reduction data can, 'be used to support development of tidal wetland
nutrient criteria
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQ1-2: Quantification of nutrient assimilation capacity of
forested and herbaceous isolated wetlands in varying land use modalities located in
Regions 4 and 5
Lead Laboratory / Division: NERL/EERD Ecosystems Research Branch (ERR)
ORD Contacts: Charles R. Lane, Lane.Charles@epa.gov
Geographic Extent: Region 4: Florida, Region 5: Ohio
Wetland Type(s): Palustrine emergent marsh (PEM), palustrine forested (PFO)
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: ambient and maximum nutrient assimilation rates in
wetlands in different land uses
Abstract
Background: Palustrine isolated wetlands are common throughout, the United States, perhaps
comprising up to 20% of the total area of US wetlands*2^. A high density of isolated wetlands
occurs in several noted areas: 1) Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains, typically cypress domes
dominated by Taxodium ascendens (pond cypress), and herbaceous marshes dominated by a mix
of grasses and sedges; 2) Vernal Pools of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the Northeastern US, typically
forested systems dominated by a mix of Fraxinus spp. (ash), Acer spp. (maple), and Quercus
spp. (oak) canopy species and marked seasonal hydrology; and 3) the Prairie Pothole Region of
the Upper Midwest, typically herbaceous systems replete with grasses, sedges, and forbs. These
wetland systems are located in various land use types, including agricultural, urban, and natural
areas. Isolated wetlands arc depressions on the landscape, typically completely surrounded by
uplands, and are often exposed to elevated nutrient and pollutant levels as fertilizers, animal
wastes, and other pollutants that are mobilized through runoff down slope. Within isolated
wetlands, soil microbial activity, plant assimilation, and adsorption of pollutants on to clays and
organic matter, as well as the creation of various oxides can temporarily or permanently remove
pollutants from the landscape, thus sequestering the pollutant from down stream sources. In
Phase One of this research, NERL/EERD scientists have collected and analyzed data on the
phosphate sorption capacity of forested and herbaceous isolated wetlands in urban, agricultural,
and reference land uses in Region 4 (Florida). In Phases Two and Three, additional isolated
wetlands in EPA Region 4 and venial pools in Region 5 will be sampled and analyzed to
measure the ecosystem sen-ices provided by isolated wetlands in sequestering and/or
assimilating pollutants of concern, namely nitrogen, phosphorous, and priority pesticides
identified in the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). Efforts will
concurrently be undertaken to identify and map isolated wetlands on the landscape using satellite
imagery, thereby providing opportunities to model the mo\ ement and ultimate denouement of
many pollutants to quantify the ecosystem services of isolated wetlands at multiple scales.
48
-------
Methods'. Using existing daia on wetland locution and through partnerships with Tribes, Regions,
and State resource managers, isolated wetlands in a variety of land use modalities will be
identified and access obtained to quantify the assimilation of phosphorous and dcnitrificatioii
potential. In addition, measures of the concentration of priority pesticides in the soil and water
column will be measured, and sorption isotherms calculated and quantified. Quantification at the
wetland scale will be incorporated into watershed, basin, and regional analyses through the
identi fication of isolated wetlands through remote sensing platforms and through judicious use of
modeling capabilities.
Applications; wetland mitigation decisions, watershed nutrient dynamic modeling, land use
planning
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQI-3: Relationships between stressors and selected ecosystem
services in Great Lakes coastal wetlands
Lead Laboratory / Division: NHEERL/MED
ORD Contacts: Michael Sierszen, John Morrice, Anett Trebitz, Jack Kelly
Geographic Extent: Coastal wetlands of the Lawrentian Great Lakes Basin
Wetland Tvpe(s): paiustrine emergent, palustrine shrub/scrub and forested wetlands
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: Fisheries Support, Wildlife Habitat, Water Quality,
Carbon Sequestration
Abstract: Protection of wetlands from threats such as agriculture and industrial and urban
development has long been justified on the basis of the ecosystem functions and services they
provide - for example, waterfowl habitat, fish nurseries, groundwater recharge zones, and
biodiversity reservoirs. However, the data to evaluate the distribution and condition of wetlands
and their biota have often been collected independently of measures of wetland function, and
relatively few efforts have considered how to connect and translate these to wetland services.
Because of the extensive work that MED and its research partners have conducted along the
Great Lakes and Great Rivers, we have amassed a large amount of information with which to
consider wetland ccoscrvices and their relationships to anthropogenic stressors, MKD wetlands
research on the Great Lakes has focused on understanding the responses of coastal wetland water
quality, habitat, and biota to stressors via an extensive field sampling effort across a nutrient
disturbance gradient. The nutrient disturbance gradient used in our experimental design was
successfully predicted using a comprehensive watershed characterization. MED research on
Great Rivers has focused oil developing methods and conducting surveys of condition on the
main stems of the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, This was supported by a detailed
landscape analysis for the entire riparian zone, including wetlands,
MED will build upon current research to investigate 1) how the results of effects and monitoring
research on wetlands can be translated into functionally expressed ecosystem services; and 2)
how changes in wetland distribution and condition might influence the delivery of ecosystem
services to the wetlands themselves or to the downstream receiving waters. MED expects that the
available data will relate most directly to certain supporting and provisioning ecosystem services,
and also to indicators of ecosystem services. Fish community characteristics will be used as an
49
-------
indicator of fisheries support; algal biomass (as chlorophyll a) and relative macrophytc cover
will be used as indicators of carbon sequestration. The degree to which MED can translate
existing data to estimates of services may range from quantitative to qualitative, narrative, or
bracketing ranges. The Great Lakes effort will proceed from existing data, coupied with
information from the literature; however we may eventually conduct targeted field investigations
to fill gaps in data and understanding. Secondly, wetlands within the upstream watershed will be
identified for extent and potential role in downstream water quality, biological condition, and
runoff potential. This research would primarily be a landscape analysis approach of mapped
wetlands, examining presence and pattern of wetland classes and relationships to other G1S
spatially explicit data, including the indicators of condition of the streams and rivers of the basin.
For fisheries support and wildlife habitat components, our approach will be to:
1. Compile measures of physical habitat quality for fish and wildlife in coastal wetlands;
2. Derive metrics of fish and wildlife communities and their responses to habitat quality;
3. Analyze the relationship among coastal wetland habitat quality, fish and wildlife
community characteristics, and drivers of change (as landscape stressor gradient) across
the Great Lakes Bask.
For carbon sequestration and water quality improvement components, our approach will be to:
1. Quantify, through published and other sources, the relationships among sedimented
carbon, sedimentation rate, and carbon sequestration.
2. Establish, through published information, realtionships among hydrology, productivity,
and water quality improvement in coastal wetlands.
3. I "sing existing in-house data and field investigations, estimate water quality improvement
(as nutrient and sediment retention) and C sequestration (as buried, i.e.. sedimented,
carbon) and establish the effects of drivers of change (e.g., landscape condition, nutrient
concentration) on water quality and C sequestration ecoservices..
4. Test for influence of wetland class on water quality and carbon sequestration ecoservices,
and responses to drivers of change.
Applications: Decisions affecting ecosystem services of Great Lakes coastal wetlands range in
scale from binational decisions on Great Lakes water level regulation, through state-level
decisions on near-coastal development, to watershed-scale regulation of dammed river discharge
and land use. This study focuses on landscape-scale disturbance and concomitant nutrient
enrichment and habitat degradation, and therefore would primarily address decisions on land use
and zoning, permitting (e.g. NPDKS), and nonpoint-source nutrient controls.
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQ1-4; Quantifying the Effects of Anthropogenic Stressors on
the Delivery of Ecosystem Services by Coastal Salt Marshes in the Northeast US
Lead Laboratory / Division: NHEERL/AED Habitat Ecology Branch (HEB)
ORD Contacts: Walter Berry, Cathy Wigand, Riek McKinney
Geographic Extent: Narragansett Bay estuary (RI); Stage 2, selected east coast estuaries
Wetland Type(s): Kstuarine Intertidal Emergent
50
-------
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: Carbon Sequestration, Wildlife Habitat
, Abstract;
Background-. Coastal wetlands in the northeast US provide important habitat for economically
valued wildlife species, contribute to mitigating erosion, and provide the function of carbon
sequestration. However, these wetland ecosystem services can be influenced by drivers of
change, including nutrient enrichment, through adjacent agriculture and urbanization. The
research proposed here will investigate the effects of drivers of change on the ecological function
of wetlands and the delivery of ecosystem sen-ices by coastal salt marshes in the urban northeast
US. This work will draw upon and use as a model studies in northeast salt marshes in which
various aspects of wetland function were examined along a nutrient disturbance gradient.
Specific objectives are to;
Develop indicators, metrics, or quantitative estimates of wildlife habitat value and carbon
sequestration for coastal salt marshes in northeast US estuaries and
Hxamine the effects of adjacent urbanization and nutrient enrichment on the delivery of these
ecosystem services.
Methods'. A similar overall approach will be tak en for the examination of stressor effects on
wildlife habitat value and carbon sequestration: quantification or estimation of the ecosystem
service, quantification of the anthropogenic stressor, and development of stressor-response
relationships to assess the effects on the delivery of ecosystem services. For wildlife habitat, we
will 1) estimate the wildlife habitat value of coastal salt marshes to a suite of valued wildlife
species (i.e.. birds); 2) develop land use metrics to quantitatively estimate the extent of
urbanization adjacent, to a marsh, and 3) use these estimates to examine the effects of adjacent
urbanization on the support of wildlife by coastal marshes. In order to quantify wildlife habitat
value, a previously-developed assessment method will be applied to the study salt marshes. The
model is based on a recently published framework that describes the habitat characteristics
(aggregated into wetland and landscape components such as salt marsh size and salt marsh
landscape setting) that influence the presence and abundance of wildlife species. The assessment
model is based on marsh characteristics and the presence of habitat types and other components
that influence the use of salt marshes by terrestrial wildlife, and is a stand-alone tool that can
readily be applied to coastal salt marshes and can be completed solely with data generated from
aerial photographs in a relatively short period of time.
To assess carbon sequestration, we will examine 1) soil respiration and 2) bclowground stores of
roots, rhizomes and peat. Soil respiration will be measured with a infrared gas detector and dome
system to measure carbon dioxide efflux and bclowground stores of roots, rhizomes and peat will
be assessed with CAT (computer-aided tomography) scan imaging. Anthropogenic stressors to
be examined in the carbon sequestration research will include changes in land cover,
urbanization, and nitrogen loading estimates.
Phase 1 of this research will focus on salt marshes in Narragansctt Bay, RI, and Jamaica Bay,
NY, where a great deal of data to support development of ecosystem services already are
available. This research effort will proceed from existing data, coupled with information from
51
-------
the literature; however wc may also conduct targeted field investigations to fill gaps in data and
understanding, in Phase 2, the examination of stressor effects on carbon sequestration will be
extended to include coastal salt marshes in additional east coast, estuaries of similar hydrologic
and geomorphic character. Candidate estuaries include Long Island Sound, CT, and North
Iulct/Winyah Bay, SC as these estuaries have well studied and offer the best possibilities for
existing data as well as collaboration with other government agencies and research institutions.
Applications: Information will help support regulatory decisions and wetland management
actions, especially restoration. Information will also aid wetland managers in providing
scientifically-based rationale for protection and restoration decisions.
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQ2-1: indicators of Pacific Northwest Tidal Wetland
Condition and Ecosystem Services.
Lead Laboratory / Division: NHEERL/WED
ORD Contacts: Walt Nelson
Geographic Extent: Oregon Estuaries
Wetland Type(s): Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Low and High Marsh
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: SUPPORTING: Wildlife Habitat
PROVISIONING: Water Quality Improvement
(Nitrogen Reduction)
Abstract: There has been limited work to develop and assess indicators of tidal wetland
condition and associated ecosystem services in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). This lack needs to
be addressed prior to the National Assessment of Wetlands to be conducted in 2011 by EPA. A
pilot program of field sampling will be conducted to determine the existing ecological condition
of tidal wetlands using existing rapid assessment methods, to use intensive assessment indicators
to evaluate the ability of existing rapid assessment methods to determine the ecological condition
of tidal wetlands, and to identify intensive indicators for use in assessing both the ecosystem
serv ices and ecological condition of tidal wetlands. Specifically, ecosystem service indicators
related to support for wildlife and nutrient retention capacity will be examined. The research is
also designed to support the monitoring component of the ESRP research plan.
Background: While a great deal of work has been done on the development of indicators of tidal
wetland condition^, only 20% of proposed tidal wetland indicators have been systematically
validated (Weilhoefer unpub.), and little such work has been done in the PNW. PNW tidal
wetlands differ from those where many assessment methods were developed, and thus condition
indicators may need to be modified in order to be relevant in the National Assessment of
Wetlands. Following EPA's National Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment Workgroup'*'', three
assessment levels will be examined: landscape (Level 1), rapid, field-based (Level 2), and
intensive assessment (Level 3) collecting quantitative biological, physicochemical. and
morphological data. The California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (CRAM*- -) will be
used to characterize sites based on 14 metrics in 4 broad indicator categories: buffer and
landscape context; hydrology; physical structure: and biotic structure (vegetation communities).
Intensive indicators of ecosystem sendees (support for wildlife), biotic condition, chemical, and
physical characteristics will also be examined. The work will complement the Gulf of Mexico
1
52
-------
Wetlands Pilot Survey by the Gulf Bcology Division, and work on development of Rapid
Assessment Methods for Tidal Wetland in the Northeast U.S. by the Atlantic Ecology
Division^.
Methods: The project will leverage resources by taking advantage of existing studies such as the
evaluation ofHGM for Oregon tidal wetlands^--1 and a field evaluation of CRAM for
California tidal wetlands. A key issue is whether the CRAM methodology can be extended
northward. We will utilize a subset: of the Adatnus HGM study sites consisting of
marine-sourced low marsh and marine-sourced high marsh that are located only on public lands,
due to permission access issues. The Adatnus study ranked sites in order of condition based on
an Index of Risk and Best Professional Judgment (BPJ). We selected the seven most disturbed
and least disturbed sites for both low marsh and high marsh classes (28 sites) supplemented with
an additional 12 sites for the two classes selected in high and low marshes based on BPJ.
Field work will also examine eight additional rapid indicators including the extent to which
upland development limits upland marsh migration, and habitat cover for fish in the marsh tidal
channels. Potential ecosystem service indicators such as nutrient retention capacity and wildlife
habitat will be assessed. Nutrient retention capacity will be estimated by measuring the N:P ratio
and 615N signature in tidal marsh macrophytes and macroalgae. Wildlife habitat usage will be
estimated for each site by documenting the presence of animal scat in the vegetation transect and
performing a bird count. Intensive indicators will include metrics of soil characteristics, channel
water characteristics, sediment pore water characteristics, primary producer communities,
adjacent estuarine habitat, and ecosystem services.
Metrics displaying wide ranges in values will be considered to have good indicator potential.
Responsiveness will be evaluated by comparing the mean indicator metric at sites designated a
priori as "good" and "poor" (based on BPJ) using t-tcsts. The predictive ability of rapid
indicators will be evaluated by correlation of Level 2 and 3 metrics, e.g. soil bulk density
measurements (Level 3) and overall CRAM score at a site. In addition, each individual metric
score for the CRAM will be correlated io corresponding Level 3 indicator scores. Predictive
ability will also be assessed by other statistical techniques (e.g., regression, ordination). Rapid
indicator scores will be regressed on the relevant intensive indicator data. Principle Components
Analysis (PCA) will be used to determine the best linear combination of Level 2 indicator scores
that predict Level 3 data. It all statistical approaches to comparing Level 2 and Level 3 data have
similar results, we can conclude our inferences are robust.
Approach:
1. Evaluate landscape indicators at three scales containing the sampling point, the 8-digit
HUC watershed, the contributing subwatershed, and the NWI polygon.
2. Conduct CRAM at 40 sites following the CRAM manual1--', supplemented by eight
additional rapid indicators.
3. Collect data on intensive indicators, including ecosystem services indicators, at all study
sites.
4. Assess utility of Level 3 data indicators based on range and responsiveness.
5. Assess utility of rapid indicators by correlation, regression and ordination approaches.
53
-------
Applications:
The work will support the potential inclusion of metrics of ecosystem services in the EPA
National Assessment of Wetland Condition.
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQ2-2. Methods to link indicators of Gulf of Mexico coastal
wetland condition to ecosystem services
Lead Laboratory/Division: NIIF.ERL/GED
ORD Contacts: Virginia Engle, Janet Nestlerode
Geographic Extent: Gulf of Mexico coastal watersheds defined by 8-digit HUCs that
border the coast and estuarine drainage areas.
Wetland Tvpe(s): Estuarine emergent, Estuarine shrub-scrub, Palustrine emergent,
Palustrine forested and shrub-scrub
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: Water Quality (nutrient retention). Carbon
Sequestration, Wildlife Habitat, Fisheries Support, Flood Control
Abstract. The diverse array and vast extent of coastal wetland and estuarine ecosystems along the
northern Gulf of Mexico coastline provide numerous ecological and economic benefits,
including improved water quality, nurseries for fisheries species, wildlife habitat, flood buffers,
erosion control, and recreational opportunities Sustainabiiity of the Gulf Coast
wetlands is increasingly under pressure from modified hydrology, sediment transport, rising sea
levels, increased storm activity, contamination, and habitat loss due to land use changes. A Gulf
of Mexico Coastal Wetlands Assessment pilot survey was conducted in 2007-2008 to 1) evaluate
the feasibili ty of implementing a probability survey design for wetlands on regional scale, 2)
evaluate the applicability of condition indicators across multiple wetland types, and 3) assess the
ecological condition of Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands. The results from this survey will
inform the development of indicators and protocols for the National Wetlands Condition
Assessment.
The GOM Coastal Wetland Condition Assessment used a 3-Level assessment framework
recommended by EPA Office of Water L-J where Level 1 is a landscape level assessment, Level
2 is a rapid assessment of condition, and Level 3 includes intensive field collection of water,
vegetation, and sediment samples. The survey was designed to complement other regional
surveys of wetland condition, including Development of Rapid Assessment Methods for Tidal
Wetland in the Northeast U.S. by the Atlantic Ecology Division-1"-*.
The objective of this ease study is to develop methods and/or models that can be used to translate
common wetland condition indicators into quantitative estimates of ecosystem services for Gulf
of Mexico Coastal Wetlands. This case study will, build on the results of the GOM Coastal
Wetland Condition Assessment, to develop methods to translate condition indicators to function
and services. We will develop conceptual models linking Level 1 -2-3 indicators to function and
services. Level 1 indicators are primarily landscape and stressor characterizations at the
watershed scale; Level 2 indicators result from a rapid assessment of condition at the wetland
scale; and Level 3 indicators are intensive data and samples collected at a wetland site. We will
54
-------
explore various methods and/or models to estimate she quantitative relationships between Level
1-2-3 condition indicators; and ecosystem services using data from the GOM Coastal Wetland
Condition Assessment. For example, nutrient retention capacity, an important component of
water quality service, can be estimated from Level 3 indicators (e.g., C:K:P ratios in vegetation
and sediment, pore water nutrient concentrations, and stable isotope S15N ratios). Another
ecosystem service, provision of wildlife habitat, can be estimated from a combination of Level 1
composition and connectivity indicators. Level 2 physical and biotic structure indicators, and
Level 3 vegetation condition indicators. We will work closely with Case Study RQ2.-1
[Indicators of Pacific Northwest Tidal Wetland Condition and Ecosystem Services] to coordinate
this research. 1
Applications:
Contribute information to support regulatory decisions, especially wetland permitting.
More effectively communicate the importance of decisions to protect and restore wetlands.
Enable wetland managers to put the rationale for decisions in a context that the public can
understand and appreciate.
Guide targeting of wetland management actions, especially restoration. Outcomes of actions that
increase services would be high priority.
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQ2-3: Indicators of Mid-Atlantic Inland Wetland Condition
and Ecosystem Services.
Lead Laboratory / Division: National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory,
Western Ecology Division
ORD Contacts: Mary E. Kentula
Geographic Extent: The Piedmont, Ridge and Valley, and Appalachian Plateau
physiographic regions of the Mid-Atlantic Inland (non-tidal) wetlands
Wetland Type(s): Riverine, Lacustrine, Palustrine
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: wildlife habitat and water quality
Abstract: The Mid-Atlantic Regional Wetland Assessment is a multi-year effort to assess the
ecological condition and delivery of ecosystem services by the inland (non-tidal) wetland
resource in the region. This first regional survey to assess both wetland condition and services
was funded by EPA in response to requests from the states in EPA Region III for support in the
conduct of assessments of their wetland resources. The work is being conducted by Penn State
University's Cooperative Wetlands Center and the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences' Center
(VIMS) for Coastal Resources Management in cooperation with NHEERL-WED and Region III.
The goal of the work on ecosystem services is to characterize the capacity of every mapped
wetland in the region to provide water quality and habitat services.
Data from the survey of ecological condition of the wetlands in the region will be used to test
field indicators and validate water quality and habitat, service models previously developed for
the State of Virginia. These models are currently best suited for application in the Coastal Plain
region. This effort will extend the application of the models to the Piedmont. Ridge and Valley,
and Appalachian Plateau regions. The initial model development is designed to characterize land
55
-------
use patterns and features around wetlands as well as individual wetland characteristics to
determine the overall condition of the wetland as related to habitat and water quality services.
The habitat analysis determines the percentages of different, land covers and features within
200m and 1000m of each wetland while the water quality analysis looks within the contributing
drainage area of the targeted wetland. The assessment of the delivery of services of wetland
units (polygons, arcs, points) will be validated with field data collected concurrently with an
assessment of wetland condition. Four hundred field sites in West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, and Pennsylvania will be assessed in 2008-9 using methods developed and tested for
states in the region.
Applications: This research will result in two applications. First, the methods and approaches
developed can be adapted for use in other regions. Second, the information from the assessment
will be used by the participating states to evaluate the effectiveness of wetland management and
protection efforts and to target and prioritize locales for future actions,
1SEP Wetland Case Study RQ2-4: indicators of Wetland Condition and Ecosystem
Services,
Lead Laboratory / Division; National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory,
Western Ecology Division
ORD Contacts: Mary E. Kentula
Geographic Extent: Continental U.S.
Wetland Type(s): Estuarine, Riverine, Palustrinc. Lacustrine
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: To be determined
Abstract: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (KPA) is planning a National Wetland
Condition Assessment (NWCA). Field work is scheduled for 2011; the associated report is due
in 2013. The NWCA will be one in a series of National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS)
conducted byEP A to provide the public with a comprehensive assessment, of the condition of the
Nation's waters. Wetlands will be evaluated as part of NARS because, in addition to being
waters of the U.S., they are among the most diverse and productive of aquatic resources.
Wetlands also provide invaluable ecological services by filtering pollutants, storing flood waters,
and providing essential fisheries and wildlife habitat. The NWCA is an opportunity to establish
a national baseline of wetland condition and services by developing indicators and monitoring
approaches that can be used for all wetland types across the country.
Indicators of ecosystem services and the associated metrics are being included in the planning for
the NWCA. Current work to evaluate the utility of measures of condition for the national survey
will also consider their utility as indicators of wetland services. This effort will be finalized in
2010 at a workshop of experts who will review and evaluate the proposed metrics, field
protocols, and quality assurance procedures. The recommendations on assessment of services
will be documented in the report on the meeting and incorporated into the protocols for the
NWCA. Results of their application will be reported along with recommendations for continued
assessment of wetland services.
56
-------
Applications: This research will extend the data collected on wetland condition to ecosystems
services and will make national reporting on wetland services possible and routine. This
information can be used by wetland managers and policy makers to track the effects of
regulation and management actions (e.g., restoration) on the delivery of wetland services
nationally and regionally.
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQ2-5: Storm surge protection, wave/tidal energy dissipation
potential, and estimated effects of landscape change on ecosystem services of coastal
wetlands using geospatial models
Lead Laboratory / Division: NERL-ESD
ORD Contacts: Ric Lopez
Geographic Extent: Stage 1, Selected regions of the US coastal zone
Wetland Type(s): Marine, Estuarine, and Lacustrine
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: (Supporting Ecosystem Services) carbon cycling and
wildlife habitat; (Regulating Ecosystem Services) tide/wave energy, and storm surge
protection; (Provisioning Ecosystem Services) water quality and fisheries support
Abstract:
Background: Wetlands are often cited as capable of reducing storm surges and otherwise
attenuating wave energy from the sea4-1-1, but few empirical data and models cxisttifi,,J lJ-4a L'9i
and may be dependent on the magnitude of the storm. Some of the existing results specifically
suggest that for onshore kilometer of wetland, a reduction in storm surge can be anticipated by
approximately 5-7 em (e.g.. L—Research into the influence of wetland condition on storm
surge is in its infancy but the amount of biomass (one possible indicator of wetland quality) does
have an additional influence on the reduction of wave heights under non-storm conditions'-10-^.
Despite the potential benefits to humans of tidal wetlands, in terms of storm surge protection and
tidal/wave energy dissipation, the extent of tidal wetlands continues to decline and many of the
remaining wetlands have been degraded. Nationwide, tidal wetlands were lost at -13,000 acres
per year from the 1950's through the 1970's, and have been lost at a average annual rate of 2,400
per yr since the I980'suaj. While the largest decline was along the Louisiana coast, tidal marshes
along the Atlantic Coast have also experienced declines. At the same time, coastal populations
have increased despite the continual threat of tropical storm activity and 'the possibility of
intensification due to global warming*-^.
The extent of tidal wetlands is also affected by multiple factors, including sea-level rise and
development. Sea-level rise occurs naturally at a rate of 3 4.6 mm/yr in the Carolinas^® and is
expected to increase due to climate change1-'-1'-1. Salt marshes at the seaward edge are lost as
sedimentation and accretion rates fail to keep pace with sea-level rise. In areas with natural
adjacent land cover, tidal marshes can incrementally move inland as sea levels gradually rise,
resulting in no net loss. However, where tidal marshes abut human-developed areas, marshes are
unable to expand/develop further inland and wetlands acreage is lost.
57
-------
Methods & Approach: Analyses showing the percentage of the coast in tidal wetlands will be
combined with published tidal/wave energy dissipation or surge reduction estimates from
models, to derive the potential decrease in storm surge provided by tidal wetlands. An analysis of
storm frequency, intensity, and probability of landfall along the staged study areas will then be
compared where wetlands currently are located, or could be restored to provide a better idea of
what wetlands are most likely to provide benefits. These analyses will be integrated with human
population data or infrastructural information along the staged coastal study areas, representing
the risks to past, current, and future human populations and sea level rise. Analyzing the change
in wetland extent and population/infrastructure over time, and therefore the change in risk for
specific locations over time would also be of benefit to the models described here. It is
anticipated that the models will cover the time period from the early 1970s through 2008, with
potential for additional scenario building into the future. Until resource availability has been
determined for ORD's ESRP, a staged approach is proposed for this project, to optimize the
timeliness and research benefits to the ESRP.
To determine the potential functions and services that tidal wetlands provide it is necessary to
first identify and quantify the extent of tidal wetlands and their relative quality. To measure
extent, we propose using 1 .andsat satellite data, tnullispcetral airborne data, analogue remote
sensing data (e.g., aerial photography), and geographic information systems data (e.g., C-CAP,
GAP, and/or NWI data; see Tables 5 and 6) to identify tidal wetlands and tnonolypic stands of
dominant wetland vegetation in tidal wetlands of the staged study area. A hybrid image analysis
approach similar to those techniques piloted by Lopez et al.1^ will he used to delineate
relevant coastal-zone wetlands, utilizing the above-described remote sensing and GIS data. The
resulting gains and losses of wetlands across that time period can be combined with coefficients
of storm surge reductions with wetland acreage to provide relative levels of vulnerability for
coastal regions during the different decades. Probabilities of storm activity vary widely across
the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and would also be incorporated into the level of vulnerability and
estimate ecosystem services provided by the mapped wetlands in the coastal zone. Wetland
condition may also be determined using the best available and practicable field-assessment
protocol(s), such as a floristic quality index (FQI; e.g., UiU ~l or a (rapid) qualitative
habitat assessment(s), or other applicable assessment methodology, which is robust enough to
apply to a representative sample of wetlands, across a biophysical gradient, relevant to wetland
quality. This approach is very similar to other landscape ecology analyses, where empirical
models are developed using landscape metrics and field-based ecosystem data.
Applications: Decisions about which land should be acquired for coastal wetland restoration
and whether permits should be granted for development in coastal areas
58
-------
ESR.P W etland Case Study RQ2-6: Water quality & nitrogen cycling: development of a
nitrogen removal model in the wetlands of the Willamette Basin
Lead Laboratory / Division: NERL-ESD
ORI) Contacts: Jay Christensen
Geographic Extent: Stage 1. Agricultural regions of the Calapooia watershed in the
Willamette River Basin; Stage 2. Calapooia watershed ; Stage 3. Willamette River Basin ;
Stage 4. Exploration of applications to other place-based areas; Stage 5. Exploration of
applications to areas of national applicability
Wetland Type(s): Riverine Palustrine
Ecosystem Services and Benefits: (Supporting Ecosystem Services) nitrogen cycling;
(Provisioning Ecosystem Services) water quality
Abstract;
Background: Wetlands have been recognized for their ability to remove nutrients via
denitrification and thereby improve water quality, but relative position and the cumulative
impact of wetlands on water quality within a watershed need to be assessed11211 ~ The
Calapooia River watershed (29,400 km2) is located with in the Willamette basin, was one of the
higher nitrate tributaries from the NAQWA study, and has subsequently been the focus of
several USDA-ARS (Corvallis. OR) studies into nitrogen dynamics. It has a USGS gauging
station at the outflow of the river with 40 years of continuous data (1940-1980) which is essential
for calibrating and validating the hydrology portion of the model. ARS has also had an intensive
effort in utilizing GIS and remotely sensed data to delineate agricultural fields and to work with
producers to track agricultural practices and fertilizer application rates, hi addition, the USDA-
ARS Corvallis has completed extensive SWAT model calibration and verification on the
Calapooia1-™'-1 and SWAT subwatershed hydroiogic response unit results are available to
compare to more spatially explicit K2-02 modeling results.
Hydrology and nutrient models combined with wetland extent can provide estimations of
nitrogen removal and incorporate spatial and temporal variability. Comparisons of nutrient
removal using the spatially explicit vs. non-explicit models would provide important insight into
the appropriate level of resolution needed to determine the impact of wetlands on nutrient
removal. In addition to the Calapooia watershed, hydroiogic data from other 10 digit IIUC
watersheds are available that provide a gradient of agricultural land use within the WRB.
Ultimately, using the watershed nitrogen removal model across these varying watersheds could
provide a gradient of nutrient removal and provide insights into nitrogen removal for the WRB.
Methods & Approach: We propose a multi-tiered approach to investigate issues of watershed-
level analysis of nitrogen removal. The first step would be to apply the recently coupled
KINEROS2-OPUS2 (K2-02) model developed under an Interagency Agreement between
USDA-ARS (Tucson, AZ) and USEPA. ESD/'LEB to an agricultural portion of the Calapooia
River. This initial step will be to focus on verification of the hydroiogic aspects of the model as
accurate hydrology is needed in order to model nutrients and water quality. Initial modeling will
focus on two shallow groundwater sites with combinations of poorly and well drained
59
-------
agricultural fields and adjacent riparian sites where the USDA-ARS Corvallis group has
collected shallow groundwater data in conjunction with nutrient data and herbicide data. For the
K2-02 model, we must first determine hydro!ogic flowpaths and wetlands within the designated
area through the use of digital elevation models and existing wetland maps. Currently the most
consistent wetland coverage is the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). Efforts are under
way to provide a more detailed estimation of wetland extent both in space and time as much of
the poorly-drained lower portions of the Calapooia under perennial crops might be important in
nitrogen removal. Next, wc must obtain relevant data layers of precipitation, soils, land cover,
and rainfall. Then we can calibrate and validate the model and arrive at valid discharge
estimates. With a valid hydrology model, we would propose to successively move forward on
calibrating the nutrient component of K2-02. Both the hydrology and nutrient component arc
essential to developing the nitrogen removal model and once completed, a 1st order
denitrification model would be coupled with the modeled retention times and nitrate input loads
for each wetland. With the nitrogen model completed, we can evaluate the impacts of future
scenarios of wetland placement and climate change on the hydroiogic and water quality
responses of the basins under investigation. Next we would compare the hydrology, nitrogen,
and nitrogen removal results of K2-02 to SWAT model results at the same scale that considers
wetlands as a proportion of the contributing area. The hydrology and nutrient SWAT model
results are available from USD A-ARS Corvallis. OR. Depending on the comparison between
both models at the small scale, scale up to the entire Calapooia drainage as well as the
Willamette basin using SWAT and apply the model to other areas of interest to the B8R.P.
Applications: Decisions about development, and land use/land cover alterations and their
effects on nitrogen loading; also where in the landscape restored wetlands should be placed.
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQ2-7. Regional and Landscape Scale Assessments of Pacific
Coast Estuarine Ecosystem Services.
NHEERL/WED
Henry Lee
California, Oregon, Washington Estuaries
Estuarine Intertidal & Subtidal Aquatic Bed
Fstuarinc Intertidal Emergent Low and High Marsh
Estuarine Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore
Ecosystem Services and Benefits; SUPPORTING: Wildlife Habitat
PROVISIONING: Fisheries Support, Water Quality
Improvement (Nitrogen Reduction)
Abstract: Many estuarine ecosystem services, as well as threats to these services, are best
assessed at landscape scales. For example, one metric of the vulnerability of an estuary to laud
use alterations is the percent impervious surfaces within the associated watershed1 ' Other
types of insights arc best generated by comparisons among estuaries, such as classifying
estuaries by similarities in wetland patterns-11-1'-1. The research under this case study is focused on
such landscape and regional scale assessments, where the general approach is to evaluate both
services and stressors at the watershed or estuary scale and to compare patterns of services and
Lead Laboratory / Division:
ORD Contacts:
Geographic Extent:
Wetland Type(s):
60
-------
threats across a range of estuary types. The primary locus of the research will be on coastal
estuaries within the PNW, though certain analyses will be conducted for estuaries in California
and Puget Sound. The broad objectives are to: I) generate watershed/estuarine scale services and
stressor profiles for PNW estuaries; 2) develop wetland, profiles for each PNW estuary at
sufficient biotic resolution to allow predictions of different ecosystem sen-ices: and 3) predict
habitat suitability for key species and community attributes used as metrics of ecosystem
services. The concept of the ecosystem serv ice and stressor profiles is that they provide,
respectively, a macroscale analysis of why the public values a particular estuary and the large-
scale threats that are often missed in site-specific studies. Similarly, the wetland profiles provide
an integrated assessment of the habitat, availability within an estuary that is not apparent from
site specilic studies. I o the extent that specific ecosystem services, or surrogates for ecosystem
sen-ices (e.g., biodiversity metrics), can he assigned to wetland habitat types, estuary-scale
assessments of services can be derived from profiles of the extent, nature, and location of
different habitat types..
Methods: The research under this case study will be approached in a sequential fashion building
on existing efforts. The first step is to finali/e ail inventory of all the estuaries on the Pacific
Coast and to delineate each estuary's watershed to assure a one-to-one relationship between each
waterbodv and its watershed. Approximately 500 estuaries and siibestuaries will be delineated
on the Pacific Coast, which represents the entire pool of cstuarinc services within our study
domain. . The next step is to finalize characterizing the landscape attributes of this suite of
watersheds and estuaries. Populations density will be determined for all estuaries while land use
will be determined using the 2001 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC,
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/) data, including assessing the percent impervious surfaces. Estuarine
landscape attributes including profiles of NWI classes of wetland will be generated for each
estuary. By using other PCEB research that relates ecosystem services to NWI wetland type
(i.e., Case Study RQ1-I), this analysis represents a first-order cstuarine-scale assessment of
ecosystem services related to wetlands. Other types of estuarine-scale services not closely linked
to habitat type (e.g.. salmon aquaculture, tourism, ports, percent rare or endangered species) will
also be evaluated to generate a comprehensive services profile. To evaluate how these services
might be altered by stressors, we will also evaluate the suite of stressors best captured at a
landscape scale, such as watershed alterations (e.g., percent imperv ious surfaces), extent of
shoreline modification, or areal extent of an estuary below DO criteria.
The next step will be to refine the NWI wetland classes, which provides comprehensive habitat
coverage but at a coarse resolution. The specific objective is to translate NWI classes into
specific plant assemblages and/or unvegctated habitat types (e.g. Salicorma marsh, Zostera
marina bed, unvcgetaled tide flat), which may be more readily related to various ecosystem
services such as bird habitat utilization or commercial/recreational clam abundance. The general
approach is to use data obtained in wetland condition assessment studies (such as Case Study
RQ2-I) which will survey a range of NWI classes across different classes of PNW estuaries and
measure the dominant wetland plant species (or other dominant ecosystem engineering biota),
associated site-specific environmental parameters, and metrics of ecosystem services (including
nutrient retention capacity and wildlife habitat). Using the coupled biotic and environmental
data, as well as the estuarine and watershed landscape attributes, habitat niche models would be
developed to predict the spatial distributions of dominant wetland types within and among
61
-------
estuaries. Habitat-related ecosystem services would then be mapped on these more refined
habitat classes, providing estuary-scale estimates of services and how they vary among estuary
types. The among-estuary pattern of ecosystem services would also be related to the landscape-
scale measures of stress to assess if there are potential impacts on services.
The final step will be to develop habitat suitability models to predict the distribution and
abundance of individual species (e.g., harvested species of clams, oysters, crabs) and species
communities (e.g., biodiversity, prey species for fish and birds). These values can then be used to
estimate the relative biological value of estuaries along the West Coast, using techniques similar
to that employed by Vincx and colleagues (2007) to obtain a biological valuation map for the
Belgian part of the North Sea. Their relative estimates of biological value took into account
criteria such as rarity and proportional importance for birds, fishes, and macrobenthos.
Furthermore, these types of models will be especially advantageous when attempting to predict
the impact of a specific stressor (e.g.. temperature increase from climate change) on a species'
distribution or abundance.
Approach:
1. Finalize the inventory of estuaries and associated watersheds in California, Oregon, and
Washington, generating a suite of landscape-scale estuarine and watershed metrics
including percent impervious surfaces for each watershed.
2. Analyze wetland patterns (based on NWI) in all Pacific Coast estuaries.
3. Generate a preliminary estuary-scale ecosystem services profile using landscape-scale
services and services associated with NWI wetland classes.
4. Develop niche models to translate the NWI classes into specific vegetated and
unvegetated wetland types using existing data.
5. Generate habitat suitability models for individual species and community metrics,
6. Using the habitat-based niche models and the habitat suitability models assess the pattern
of ecosystem services across classes of estuaries in the PNW and the potential
relationship with landscape-scale stressors.
7. Overlay the potential landscape stressors on the habitat/ecosystem services maps to
identify the wetland types at greatest risk and the vulnerability of different types of
ecosystems services.
Applications;
This research w ill inform the development of maps of estuarine wetland ecosystem services for
the Pacific Northwest, which could be included in the Ecosystem Services Atlas. Estimation of
the relative contributions of different wetland types to whole-estuary or regional-scale ecosystem
service production can inform estuarine resource and land use decision making at local to
regional political scales. For example, this information could be used to inform regional
prioritization of wetlands to be restored or protected from development.
e:
-------
F.SRP Wetland Case Study RQ2-8: Functional Assessment of W etlands and Associated
Ecosystem Services in the Upper Mississippi River basin
Abstract:
Functional assessment is a quantified description of the aquatic resource types and functions that
would be impacted by authorized activities or that could be restored or preserved as
compensatory'' mitigation. Assessment for permitting became explicitly stated policy when the
Federal Rule on Compensatory Mitigation: Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic
Resources; Final Rule, was published in the Federal Register in April 2008. This Rule
established "a functional or condition assessment or other suitable metric" as the basis for
determining compensatory mitigation requirements. Furthermore, the Rule uses the term
"ecosystem service1' and recommends it as a useful, more quantifiable term than the previously
used term "value" for measures of functions performed by an ecosystem that benefit humans.
Wetlands sendees vary according to natural wetland characteristics including landscape position,
hydrology, vegetation, sediment composition, and associated dynamic ecological processes.
There is interest in the EPA regions in developing a means to quantify these services for in
support of regulatory permit decisions.
Background
Wetland assessments are proliferating as the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and EPA
strive to implement the Rule. The USAGE endorses the I iydrogeomorphic Methodology (HGM)
for wetland assessments. The HGM is based on assumptions that geomorphic position and
hydrology drive wetland function. As such, undisturbed wetlands should range in function based
on their position in a given landscape. The degree that a wetland deviates from its HGM
benchmark is a measure of its relative functional impairment, and also a measure of potential
• loss of ecosystem services. The Upper Mississippi River basin contains a variety of wetland
types (moss lichen to emergent, to forested) under varying degrees of anthropogenic stress,
resulting in a gradient of ecosystem services delivery7 to adjacent and downstream ecosystems.
Lead Laboratory/Division:
ORD Contacts:
Geographic Extent:
Wetland Tvpe(s):
NHEERL/MED
Mary F. Moffett, Brian II. Hill
Upper Mississippi River basin
Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Shrub, Palustrine
Emergent, Palustrine Aquatic Bed, Palustrine
Moss/Lichen
Supporting—Carbon sequestration, Denitrification,
Nitrification, Wildlife habitat, Biodiversity;
Provisioning—Fisheries support. Water quality &
quantity
Ecosystem Services/Benefits:
63
-------
This proposed research complements MF.D's emerging wetland ecosystem services research,
which focuses on 1) the role of wetland landscape position and connectivity on the delivery of
ecosystem services, and 2) the role of anthropogenic stressors on the ecosystem services derived
from Great Lakes coastal wetlands. The proximity to, and similarity of, the headwater
catchments of the Upper Mississippi River and the catchments of the Lake Superior basin present
the opportunity to compare hvdrologic functioning and ecosystem services across a range of
wetland types that is relevant at the global scale. This project aims to answer three questions.
First, how do wetlands on the landscape vary in functional processes (hydrology, biogeochemical
cycling, etc)? Second, how do these processes and drivers affect the delivery of ecosystem
services from wetlands? Finally, how can wetland ecosystem services information be used for
assessment purposes?
Approach :
Hydrology is the driver that controls wetland structure and function, and all other wetland
processes (e.g.. biogeochemical cycling, water storage) respond to hydrology. To address the
link between wetland function and ecosystem services in the Upper Mississippi River basin, we
propose to measure proxies for hydrologicai drivers and relate these to landscape position and
the wetland processes related to supporting (C, N, P, and sediment sequestration and/or removal;
wildlife habitat; biodiversity) and provisioning (fisheries support.; water quality; water quantity)
ecosystem services. Therefore we propose to investigate hvdrologic function in relationship to
wetland characteristics and to potential impact on ecosystem services.
To answer these questions we will combine climate data, water table hydrographs, and porewater
chemistry profiles with soil nutrient chemistry, microbial enzyme analyses, ana wetland maps to
understand factors driving wetland processes. Once these factors are better understood by
identifying quantitative relationships we can use them to predict effects of disturbances (local
anthropogenic to climate change) on wetland function and the delivery of ecosystem services.
Applications
We anticipate three major products from this research, 1) an improved wetland methodology for
the assessment of wetland (especially moss/lichen wetlands) function in the Upper Mississippi
River basin; 2) a protocol for linking wetland function with supporting and provisioning
ecosystem services; and 3) a tool for prioritizing wetland type and landscape position for
management or restoration. Environmental managers in the midwestern states where peatlands
exist (Michigan. Wisconsin and Minnesota) shall benefit from these research results that shall
provide better understanding of the relationships between landscape, wetland function and
ecoservices. Wetland conservation planning and wetland mitigation efforts will be better
informed and this is especially needed where peatlands are under development and mining
pressure. Site specific permitting decisions for the (lean Water Act Section 404 program will be
less uncertain when more reliable metrics of w etland function can be used for assessments.
64
-------
ESRP Wetland Case Study RQ2-9: Ecosystem Services Accounting at the Watershed Scale
Lead Laboratory/Division;
ORD Contacts:
NHEERL/MED
Brian Hill, Ted Angradi, Dave Bolgrien, Tom
Hollenhorst
Laurentian Great Lakes
Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Shrub. PaJustrine
Emergent, Palustrine Aquatic Bed, Palustrine
Moss/Lichen
Supporting—Carbon sequestration. Denitrification,
Nitrification, Wildlife habitat Biodiversity;
Provisioning—Fisheries support. Water quality &
quantity
Geographic Extent:
Wetland Type(s):
Ecosystem Services/Benefits;
Abstract
The ability to quantify gains in ecosystem services expected from investments in watershed
restoration is limited by a lack of indicators of services and incomplete understanding of how
services translate through watersheds. Ecosystem services are benefits that people obtain from
the environment. They are analogous to the designated uses listing of the Clean Water Act such
as sustaining aquatic life and water quality. Measuring services and anticipating their responses
to management actions are vexing issues because they depend on complex interactions between
supply, transformation, and transport, processes occurring in the local watershed and in multiple
(often distant) upstream watersheds. Understanding how the spatial arrangement of watersheds
affects the net flow of services through a basin is a prerequisite to understanding how to target
investment to protect or enhance services. A modeling approach is needed to help identify those
factors, such as relative watershed position, that regulate ecosystem services at spatial scales of
management decisions to target and prioritize watershed investments for protection, restoration
or mitigation.
Background
Considering ecosystem services analogous to designated uses listed in the Clean Water Act
provides the conceptual framework for the indicators and models developed in this project. The
importance of ecosystem services (e.g. clean water, resilient biotic assemblages) derived from
watersheds is evident by the magnitude of investment in their management. This is particularly
true for the Great Lakes, However, those investments may have lower than desired returns if they
do not consider how ecosystem services change throughout the nested hierarchy of watersheds
within a basin. This is illustrated on the St Louis River, a large tributary of Lake Superior. The
modeled potential for water quality (a surrogate ecosystem service) is relatively low along
northern tier watersheds of the basin where there arc extensive mining operations (Fig, 1). The
poor potential for water quality is ameliorated downstream by inflows from watersheds with
considerably higher potential for water quality in she middle of the basin. Urbanization in the
lower basin again lowers the potential for water quality. However, there is no remaining capacity
for improvement before waters enter the lake. This example highlights the importance of relative
watershed position in a river network for estimating cumulative downstream effects on
ecosystem service delivery. The interactions among multiple watersheds must be considered to
65
-------
understand the reduction of mine-impacted, but not urban-impacted, waters delivered to the lake.
Such analyses could help balance investments for improving versus protecting (or restoring)
water quality and help identify opportunities for water quality improvements. Our project will
address the problem of insufficient tools for including river network and watershed interactions
when predicting ecosystem services, or for anticipating the effects of watershed management
investments. ' •
Our overall goal is to model indicators of ecosystem services as net products of intra- and inter-
watershed processes so that their response to management investments can be predicted. Simply
put, how does geography determine the delivery of ecosystem services from watersheds? This
question directly addresses policy and regulatory problems faced by EPA and Sates. Our project
will provide resource managers with indicators of ecosystem serv ices and tools with which to
identify the types and spatial scales of service drivers. If service drivers are located in the local
watershed, regulatory investment in, for example, total maximum daily loads (TMDL) or best
management practices (B.VlPs) might be prudent. However, if ecosystem services of a watershed
are determined from cumulative upstream inputs and processes, then it might be prudent to target
upstream watersheds (or take a regional perspective) for management investment. Thus, local
gains in ecosystem services may be accrued from distant investments.
66
-------
Figure 1. Cumulative downstream water quality potential of watersheds of the St Louis River
based on agricultural land use, population density, road density, and point-source pollution
dischargers.
Our specific goal is to use GIS-based flow accumulation tools to account for the inputs and
translation of supporting and provisioning ecosystem services within and between watersheds of
the Great Lakes basin. Resulting models will incorporate land cover and physiography, the
extent and configuration of the stream channel network, and overland- & downstream-transport
processes. State, tribal, and EPA regional partnerships will be developed to ensure the relevancy
of the products. The nominal ecosystem services and service drivers modeled here are in-stream
or landscape processes related to supporting (C, N, P, and sediment sequestration and/or
removal; wildlife habitat; biodiversity) and provisioning (fisheries support; water quality; water
quantity) services. While these services may derive from similar types of drivers, the drivers may
67
-------
operate at different spatial scales. For example, basin-scale drivers such as reservoirs may
dominate sediment and P retention while watershed-based drivers such as the extent of riparian
wet lands or headwater streams may drive denitrifieaiion. While the project will focus on spatial
patterns of drivers and indicators through watersheds and the basin, models will be spatially-
scalable to facilitate analysis of cumulative down-stream effects of landscape and in-stream
processes on nutrient and sediment retention up to and including inputs to the Great Lakes.
Results will include spatially-hierarchical estimates of ecosystem services provided by si ream-
reaches, river networks, watersheds, tributaries, and receiving waters. It may be possible to
expand the approach to other major river basins or to a national scale.
The success of this project depends on its impact on watershed management. Our goal is to
incorporate basin stakeholder input into model development and products. EPA Region 5 has
identified a need for improved targeting of watersheds for nutrient reductions by devitrification
and sediment retention. The Region is particularly interested in how ihe potential return on
investments in watersheds adjacent to the lakes compares to investment in upland watersheds.
Determining the importance of relative watershed position for these processes is a project goal.
Further, our analysis of spatial patterns of nutrient reduction, and the processes driving them,
may help the Region and state agencies expand the application of Clean Water Act designated
uses on the lakes. Project results also may be used to identify management investments needed to
achieve sufficient nutrient or sediment reduction in a specific watershed or a constellation of
watersheds to meet designated uses. Models that increase our understanding of watershed and
downstream transport processes are of particular interest to EPA's Office of Water, especially if
they can evaluate "what if scenarios at multiple spatial scales. We envision a modeling
framework capable of identifying watershed characteristics that 1) predict nutrient and sediment
yield, 2) identify specific risks of degradation, and 3) quantify the benefits of watershed
preservation or restoration. In addition, flow accumulation functions of the models should be
useful for addressing TMDLs and the significant nexus issues of isolated streams.
Approach
The Mid-Continent Ecology Division has ongoing research in watersheds and coastal areas of
the Great Lakes that provide data-rich opportunities for indicator and model development. We
also have existing partnerships with federal and state agencies, such as Region 5 and GLNPO
that involve environmental and biological assessments that support river and watershed
management and restoration in the basins. Shifting from conducting ecosystem assessments to
managing ecosystem services is a mutual goal of these stakeholders and EPA ORD MED.
Many numerical models are available (e.g. SPARROW, SWAT, SWIM, AGNPS, BASINS) that
either statistically or mechanistically derive nutrient or sediment yields from watersheds. These
models, however, do not explicitly address nutrient and sediment retention in terms of ecosystem
services. We intend to re-cast output from selected models as indicators of ecosystem services
and then model how service indicators may change in response to management investments.
Advanced flow-accumulation tools (such as ArcIIydro) can be used to couple high resolution
hydrography data with nutrient models (such as SP ARROW) to first more accurately map, and
then estimate ecosystem services in, river networks at finer spatial scales.
-------
We arc evaluating the use the Framework for Risk Analysis for Multimedia Environmental
Systems (FRAMES) that was recently release by EPA. The FRAMES facilitates the use of
multiple numerical models in a common database management and processing environment. It is
capable of making multiple runs in Markov chain analysis and Monte Carlo simulations to
predict responses of ecosystem services to posed management investment (i.e. "what if
problems). Novel research will evaluate the use of game theory within FRAMES io reconcile
model output from alternate input scenarios. Game theory mathematically analyzes choices
players make when pay-offs (desired results) depend on choices made by other players. Game
theory considers players' motivation to cooperate (positive, negative, or neutral). The tie-in here
is that watershed managers (players) presently make decisions with inadequate knowledge of
how those decisions will affect (or be affected by) decisions made in local or distant upstream
watersheds. Without tools to predict the net effect of those interacting decisions, managers may
not be motivated to work cooperati vely or regionally. FRAMES may provide a platform from
which to better predict and quantify the pay-off investment in watershed restoration, protection
or mitigation in terms of ecosystem services delivered. We will work with stakeholders so that
project outputs can be used to target and prioritize the type, scale, and location of watershed
protection, restoration, or mitigation to optimize pay-offs.
Applications
We anticipate two major products of this research, ]) a suite of indicators of ecosystem services
that relate to Clean Water Act designated uses; and 2) a modeling framework that integrates
indicators of ecosystem services and service drivers with hydrologic and process models for
targeting and prioritizing watersheds for protection, restoration, or mitigation. These tools will
help watershed managers make informed decisions regarding watershed and wetland protection,
mitigation, or restoration.
69
-------
Appendix B - Acronym List
r ~ " ~ ' ' f i
1 ! 1
t&COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers I
iavhrr Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer ¦ i
'C CAP Coastal Change Analysis Program , , '
'CEAP Conservation Effects Assessment Program
jCRF Conservation Reserve Program • ,
,CWA Clear, Water Act l
IDEM Digital Slevation Model I
•DSP Decision Support Platform ¦ 1
'EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1
Jksrf Ecosystem Services Research Program ,
,EVI Ecoservice Valuation Index ,
iFWS U.S. Fish and wildlife Service i i
iGAP Gap Analysis Program ' t
•GIS Geographic Information System . , 1
'HSK Hydrogeomorphic Method , '
[hwb Human Well-Being ,
IIR Infrared * i
iJESS Japanese Earth Resources Satellite , ¦ I
iLiBAR Light Detection and Ranging . ¦
'LTG Long-Term Goal ( '
[kea Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , . t
|K0D1S Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer I
iMOU Memorandum of "Jr.de r »t andi ng , ' i
iMYP Killti-year Plan >
•HERIi National Exposure Research Laboratory ' '
'NGO Hon-governmental Organization J
jNHEBRL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory ,
iNLCD national Land Cover Dataset i
iNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. i
iNSC national Research Council I
'NWCA National Wetlands Condition Assessment '
JNWI National Wetlands Inventory ' (
,ORB Office of Research and Development ,
iFALSAR Phased Array type L-baad Synthetic Aperture Radar I
iPCEIS Pacific Coast Ecosystem Information System i
>ENW Pacific Northwest , '
'rq Research Question . . 1
[sar Synthetic Aperture hadah !
iSQC Soil Organic Carbon ,
lSSORGO Soil Survay Geographic , I
ISTATSGO State Soil Geographic (U.S. General Soil Map) •
•tFSDA U.S. Department of Agiiculture * *
JOSGS U.S. Geological Survey J
jWRP Wetlands Reserve Program {
jWVI Wetlands Value Index ' « I
i i
70
-------
References
1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Wetlands and Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 68p
2. Carpenter, S.R., R. DeFries, T. Dietz, I1.A. Mooney, S. Polasky, W.V. Rcid, and R.J.
Scholes. 2006. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Research Needs. Science 314:257-
258
3. Coslanza, R., R. D'Arge, R. do Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. llannon, K. Ltmhurg, S.
Naecm, R.V. O'Neill, J. Paruclo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The
value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260
4. King, D.M., L.A. Wainger, C,C, Bartolus, and J.S. Wakeley. 2000. Expanding Wetland
Assessment Procedures: Linking Indices of Wetland Function with Services and Values.
ERDC/EL TR-00-17. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vieksburg, MS.
5. National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better
Environmental Decision Making. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 277
P-
6. Mitseh, WJ. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and
landscape setting. Ecological' Economics 35: 25-33
7. Hey, D.L. and N.S. Philippi. 1995. Flood reduction through wetland restoration: the
Upper Mississippi River Basin as a case history. Restoration Ecology 3:4-17
8. Detenheek, N, E., S. M. Galatowitsch, J. Atkinson, and H. Ball. 1999. Evaluating
perturbations and developing restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes
Basin. Wetlands 19:789-820
9. Bedford, B. I.. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape scale for
freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:57-68
10. National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the
Clean Water Act. National Academy Press, Washington. DC.
11. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2006. Conserving America's Wetlands 2006:
Two Years of Progress Implementing the President's Goal. Executive Office of the
President, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC. 57 p.
12. ilein. L., K. van Koppcn, R.S. de Groot. E.C. van Ierland. 2006. Spatial scales,
stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57:209-228
13. Kentula, M. E., R. P. Brooks, S. E. Gwin, C. C. Holland, A. D. Sherman, and I. C.
Sifneos. 1992. An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and
Creation. Island Press. Washington, DC.
14. Kentula, M. F.., S. E. Gwin, and S. M. Pierson. 2004. Tracking changes in wetlands with
urbanization: sixteen years of experience in Portland, Oregon, USA. Wetlands 24:734-
743
15. Omemik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 77:118-125
16. Winter, T. C. 2001. The concept of hydrologic landscapes. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 37:335-349
17. Wolock, D. M., T. C. Winter, and G. McMahon. 2004. Delineation and evaluation of
hvdrologic-landscape regions in the United States using geographic information system
71
-------
tools and multivariate statistical analyses. Environmental Management 34(Suppl 1):S71-
S88
18. Dahl, T.E, 2005. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998
to 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 116 p.
19. Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report
WRT-DE-4, U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
20. Magee. T. K., T. L. Ernst, M. E. Kentula, and K. A. Dwire. 1999. Florisiic comparison of
freshwater wetlands in an urbanizing environment. Wetlands 19:517-534
21. Shaffer, P. W., and T. L. Ernst. 1999. Distribution of soil organic matter in freshwater
emergent/open water wetlands in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area. Wetlands
19:505-516
22. Shaffer, P. W., M. E. Kentula, and S. E. Gwin. 1999. Characterization of wetland
hydrology using hydrogeomorphic classification. Wetlands 19:490-504
23. Kendall, M.S.. K.R. Buja. J.D. Christcnsen, C,.R. Kruer, nd M.E. Monaco 2004. The
seascape approach to coral reef mapping: an integral component of understanding the
habitat utilization patterns of reef fish. Bulletin of Marine Science 75:225-237
24. Gwin, S. E., M. E. Kentula. and P. W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of wetland
regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape profiles. Wetlands
19:477-489
25. Johnson, J. B. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Profiling: An Approach to Landscape
and Cumulative Effects Analysis. EPA/620/R-05/001, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
26. Forman. R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics. Cambridge, New York, New York. 652 p.
27. Kusler. J. 1999. Climate Change in Wetland Areas Part II: Carbon Cycle Implications.
Acclimations July-August 1999 (Newsletter of the US National Assessment of the
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change).
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcTp/Lib.rary/nationalasses5rnent/newsletter/1999.08/Wet.html
Accessed on May 22, 2008
28. Costanza, R.. W.J. Milsch, and J.W. Day, Jr. 2006. A new vision for New Orleans and
the Mississippi Delta: applying ecological economics and ecological engineering.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:465-472
29. Day, J.W. and others. 2007. Restoration of the Mississippi Delta: Lessons from
" Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science 315:1679-1684
30. Lovelace, J.K. 1994. Storm-tide Elevations Produced by Hurricane Andrew along the
Louisiana Coast, August 25-27, 1992 (Open File Report 94-371, U.S. Geological Survey,
Baton Rouge, LA, 1994)
31. Swenson, E.M. 1994. Hurricane Andrew: the Inundation of the Louisiana Coastal
Marshes (Department of Natural Resources contract no. 256081-95-02, report to the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Baton Rouge, LA, 1994)
32. Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries Sendee. Fisheries Statistics
Div ision, Silver Spring, MD
33. Johnston, C. A., S. D. Bridgham, and J. Schubaucr-Berigan. 2001. Nutrient dynamics in
relation to geomorphology of riverine wetlands. Soil Science Society of America Journal
65:557-577
72
-------
34. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F, C. Ciolct, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands
and dccpwatcr habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington. D.C.
35. Kadlec, R. H. and R. L. Knight. 1996. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers. Boca
Raton, Florida, 893 pp.
36. Milsch, W. J. (ed.) 2005. Wetland Creation, Restoration, and Conservation: The State of
the Science. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 175 pp.
37. Gleason, R.A., Laubhan, M.K., and Euliss, N.H., Jr., eds., 2008, Ecosystem services
derived from wetland conservation practices in the United States Prairie Pothole Region
with an emphasis on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve and
Wetlands Reserve Programs: U.S. Geological Professional Paper 1745, 58 p.
38. U.S. EPA. 1990. Water quality standards for wetlands. EPA 440/S-90-011, Office of
Water, Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C. 34 p.
39. U.S. EPA. 2007. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Wetlands. EPA-822-R-
07-004. Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
40. U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Wetlands Classification.
EPA-822-R-02-017.Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
41. Kurtz, J.C., N.D. Detenbeck, V.D. Engle, K . Ho, E.M. Smith, S.J. Jordan, and D.
Campbell. 2006. Classifying coastal waters: current necessity and historical perspective.
Estuaries and Coasts 29:107-123
42. Doherty, S. J., C.R. Lane, and M.T. Brown. 2000. Proposed Classification for Biological
Assessment of Florida Inland Freshwater Wetlands. University of Florida, Center for
Wetlands, Gainesville, FL.
43. Adamus, P.R., J. Larsen, and R. Scranton. 2005. Wetland Profiles of Oregon's Coastal
Watersheds and Estuaries. Part 3 of a Hydrogeomorphic Guidebook. Report to Coos
Watershed Association, US Environmental Protection Agency, and Oregon Depart, of
State Lands, Salem,£2]
44. Vance, L., G. Kudray and S. V, Cooper. 2006. Crosswalking National Wetland Inventory
attributes to hydrogeomorphic functions and vegetation communities: a pilot study in the
Gallatin Valley, Montana. Report to The Montana Department of Environmental Quality
and The United States Environmental Protection Agency. Montana Natural Heritage
Program, Helena, MT, 3" pp.
45. Stevenson, R. J. 1997. Scale-dependent determinants and consequences of benthic algal
heterogeneity. Journal of the North America Benthological Society 16:248-262
46. Morris, J. T., 1991. Effects of nitrogen loading on wetland ecosystems with particular
reference to atmospheric deposition. Annual Review of Ecology: and Systematics 22:257-
279
47. Rader, R. B. and C. J. Richardson. 1992. The effects of nutrient enrichment on algae and
macroinvertebrates in the Everglades: A review. Wetlands 12:121-135
48. Karr. J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981, Ecological perspective on water quality goals.
Environmental Mangement 5: 55-68.
49. Boyd. J.W and H.S. Banzhaf. 2005. Ecosystem Services and Government Accountability:
The Need for a New Way of Judging Nature's Value. Resources., Summer 2005. £3]
50. Reiss, K. C. and M. T. Brown. 2007. Evaluation of Florida Palustrine Wetlands:
Application ofUSEPA Levels 1, 2, and 3 Assessment Methods. Ecohealth 4: 206-218
73
-------
51. Fennessy, M. S„ A. D. Jacobs, and M. E. Ken tula. 2004. Review of Rapid Methods for
Assessing Wetland Condition. Washington, D.C.. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA/620/R-04/009
52. Mack, J. 2007. Developing a wetland IB I with statewide application after multiple testing
iterations. Ecological Indicators 7: 864-881
53. Dasgupta, P. 2001. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 351 pp.
54. Costanza, R.(editor). 1992. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of
Sustainabilily. New York: Columbia University Press. 525 pp.
55. Costanza ,R. B. Fisher, S. Ali, C. Beer. L. Bond. R. Boumans. N.L. Danigeiis, J.
Dickinson, C. Elliot, J. Farley. D.E. Gayer, L.M. Glenn, T. Hudspeth, D Mahoney, L.
McCabill, B. Mcintosh, B. Reed, S.A.T. Rizvi, D.M. Rizzo, T. Simpatico and R. Snapp.
2007. Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective
well-being. Ecological Economics 61: 267-276.
56. Kumar, M. and P. Kumar. 2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural
perspective. Ecological Economics 64: 808-819
57. Odum, H.T. 2007. Environment; Power and Society for the Twenty-first Century. New
York: Columbia University Press. 418 pp.
58. Layard, R. 2005. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Hew York: The Penguin.
Press. 3 10 pp.
59. Daskon, C.I). 2007. Gross national happiness: A new paradigm? International Happiness
Conference Proceedings, Bhutan, 12 pp.
60. Guyatt. G.H., D.H, Feeny and D.L. Patrick. 1993. Measuring health-related quality of
life. Annals of Internal Medicine 118: 622-650.
61. Wamger, L.A. and F..W. Price. 2004. Evaluating quality of life, economic vulnerabilities,
and drivers of ecosystem change. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94: 69-84.
62. Talberth, J. C. Cobb and N. Slattery. 2007. The genuine progress indicator 2006: A tool
for sustainable development. Report from Redefining Progress, 31 pp.
63. Kahnrnan, D., E. Diener and N. Schwarz (editors). 1999. Well-Being: The Foundations of
Hedonic Psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 593 pp.
64. Prescott-Allen, R. 2001. The Wellbcing of Nations: A Couotry-by-Country Index of
Quality of Life and the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 343 pp.
65. Butler, C D and W, Oluocb-Kosura. 2006. Linking future ecosystem services and future «
human well-being. Ecology and Societv 11:30-46.
66. McGillivray, M. (editor). 2007. Human Well-Being: Concept and Measurement
Basingstoke: Pal grave McMillan Publishing. 308 pp.
67. McGillivray, M. and M. Clarke (editors). 2006. Understanding Human Well-Being. New
York: United Nations University Press. 386 pp.
68. Newton, J. 2007. Wellbcing and the Natural Environment: A Brief Overview of the
Evidence. Report to Wellbcing in Developing Countries (WeD) Research Group,
University of Bath. 52 pp.
69. Boyer, T. and S. Polasky. 2004. Valuing Urban Wetlands: a Review of Non-market
Valuation Studies. Wetlands. 24:744-755.
70. Woodward, R.T. and Y. Wui. 2001. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-
analysis. Ecological Economics 37:257-270
74
-------
71. Kazmicrczak, R. Jr. 2001. Economic linkages between coastal wetlands and water
quality: a review of the value estimates reported in the published literature. Department
of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge,
LA, USA.
72. Anderson, R. and M. Roekel. 1991. Economic Valuation of Wetlands. Discussion Paper
#065. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC 60p.
73. Lupi, F. Jr., T, Graham-Thomasi and S. Taff. 1991. A hedonic approach to urban wetland
valuation. Department of Applied Economics. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
Staff paper pp. 91-98.
74. Mahan, B.L.. S. Polasky and R. Adams. 2000. Valuing urban wetlands: a properly price
approach. Land Economics. 76:100-113.
75. van Vurren, W. and P. Roy. 1993. Private and social returns from wetland preservation
versus those from agricutiture. Ecological Economics. 8:289-305.
76. Cooper, j. and J. Loomis. 1991, Economic value of wildlife resources in the San Joaquin
Valley: hunting and viewing values, p. 447-463 In: A. Dinar and D. Zilberman (eds.) The
Economics and Management of Water and Drainage in Agriculture. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
77. Lynne, G.D., P. Corirov and F. Proehaska. 1981. Economic valuation of marsh areas for
marine protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 8:175-181.
78. Barbier, E.B., 1. Strand and S. Salhirathai. 2002. Do open access conditions affect the
valuation of an externality? Estimating the welfare effects of mangrove-fishery linkages
in Thailand. Environmental and Resource Economics. 21:343-367.
79. Brcaux, A.M., S. Farbcr and J. Day. 1995. Using natural coastal wetlands systems for
wastewater treatment and economic benefit analysis. Journal of Environmental
Management. 44:285-291.
80. Lanl. C.L. and R.S. Roberts. 1990. Greenbelts in the combelt: riparian wetlands, intrinsic
values and market failure. Environment and Planning. 22:1375-1388.
81. Stevens, T.H., S. Benin and J.S. Larson. 1995. Public attitudes and economic values for
wetland preservation in New England, Wetlands. 15:226-231.
82. Patz, J.A., M.A. McGeehin, S.M. Bernard, et al. 2000. The potential health impacts of
climate variability and change for the United States: executive summary of the Report of
the 1 lealth Sector of the U.S. National Assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives
108{4):367-76.
83. Orme-Zavaleta, J,, J. Jorgenscn, B. D'Ambrosio, et al. 2006. Discovering spatio-temporal
models of the spread of West Nile Virus. Risk Analysis 26(2):413-22.
84. Swaddle, J.P. and C.E. Stavros. 2008. Increased avian diversity is associated with lower
incidence of human West Nile infection: observation of the dilution effect. PLoS One
3(6):e2488 (www.plosone.org).
85. http: ;''es.epa.govvncer/biodiversity
86. Mitsch. W. J., J.W. Day Jr., L. Zhang, and R. R. Lane. 2005. Nitrate-nitrogen retention in
wetlands in the Mississippi River Basin. Ecological Engineering 24:267-278.
87. Taft, O. W. and S. M. Haig. 2003. Historical wetlands in Oregon's Willamette Valley:
Implications for restoration of winter waterbird habitat. Wetlands 23:51-64
88. Wardrop, D.H. and R.P. Brooks. 2008. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Mid-
Atlantic States Regional Wetlands Assessment, Internal Report. U.S. Environmental
75
-------
Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western
Ecology Division, Corvatlis, OR.
89. Muth. R.M and J.C. Hendee. 1980. Technology transfer and human behavior, Journal of
Forestry 78(3): 141-144
90. Ferraro. S.P. and F.A. Cole. 2007. Benthic macrofauna—habitat associations in Willapa
Bay. Washington, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 71: 491-507.
91. Litlc, K., and J. K. Parrish (eds.) 2003. Where the River Meets the Sea: Case Studies of
Pacific Northwest Estuaries. Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study
(PNCERS) 136 p. [iix]
92. Barnhart, R.A., M.J. Boyd and J.E. Pequcgnat. 1992. The ecology of Humboldt Bay,
California: an estuarine profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report No. 1.
121 pp.
93. Likens, G. E., J. Zedler, B. Mitsch, R. Sharitz, J. Larson, L. Fredrickson, S. Pimm, R.
Scmlitsch. C. BoMen. C. Woltemade, M. Hirschfeld, J. Callaway, T. Huffman, T,
Bancroft, K. Riehter, J. Teal, and the Association of State Wetland Managers (2000).
Brief for Dr. Gene Likens et al., as Amici Curiae of Writ of (Certiorari to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook
County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178: Submitted by T. D. Scarchinger
and M, J. Bean, attorneys for Amici Curiae
94. Lee II, H. and D.A. Reusser. 2007. Pacific Coast Ecosystem Information System
(PCEIS). Vcr. 1.3. U.S. EPA and USGS (Microsoft Access 2003 database).
95. Brady, V.. S. Anderson, II. Paerl, G. Niemi, R. Brooks, D. Wardrop, M. Brouwcr, and J.
Morris. 2003, The Estuarine and Great Lakes (EaGLe) Coastal Indicators Program: ;
Centers Developing the Next Generation of Indicators, A report to the EPA National
Center for Environmental Research
96. U.S. EPA. 2006. Application of Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment
Program for Wetlands. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Wetlands Division.
hup: 7www.epa.ao\ 'owow/wetlands^monitor/ Retrieved September 14, 2007.
97. Collins, J.N.; E.D. Stein; M. Sutuia; R. Clark; A.E. Fetscher,; L. Grenier; C. Grosso and
A. Wiskind. 2007. California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for Wetlands, v. 4.5
98. Wigand, C. 2004. Rapid Assessment Method for Characterizing the Condition of New
England Salt Marshes, Draft Report, Version 1.0.
99. Adamus, P.R. 2005, Science Review and Data Analysis for Tidal Wetlands of the Oregon
Coast, Volume 2 of a Hydrogeornorphic Guidebook. Report to Coos Watershed
Association, US Environmental Protection Agency, and Oregon Department of State
Lands, Salem * ,
100. Adamus, P.R. 2006. Hydrogeornorphic (HGM) Assessment Guidebook for Tidal
Wetlands of the Oregon Coast: Part 1. Rapid Assessment Method. Produced for the Coos
Watershed Association, Oregon Department of State Lands, and the U.S. E.P.A. - Region
10, Coos Watershed Association, Charleston. OR. pp. 85
101. Twilley, R, R. (2007). Coastal wetlands and global climate change: Gulf Coast
wetland sustainability in a changing climate. (In K. L Ebi, G.A. Meehl, D. Rachelet, I. M.
I.enihan, R, P. Neilson, R. R. Twilley, D. F. Boesch, V. J. Coles, D. G. Kimmel, & W. D.
Miller (Eds), Regional Impacts of climate change: four case studies in the United States
I
76
-------
(pp 42-56). Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.)
Retrieved January 7, 2008 £6]
102. USACOE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Interaction of
Hurncanes and Coastal Landscape Features: A Literature Review. Final Report. 90pp.
103. Stokstad, E. 2005. Louisiana's wetlands struggle for survival. Science 310:1264-
1266
104. Stone, G. W., X. Zhang, and A. Sheremet. 2005. The role of barrier islands,
muddy shelf and reefs in mitigating the wave field along coastal Louisiana. Journal of
Coastal Research S 144:40-55
105. Motler, I. 2006. Quantifying saitmarsh vegetation and its effect on wave height
dissipation: Results from UK Hast coast saitmarsh. Estuarim, Coastal and Shelf Science
69:337-351,
106. Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructivcncss of tropical cyclones over the past
30 years. Nature 436:686-688
107. Griggs, S. R. and D. V. Ames. 2003. Drowning the North Carolina Coast: sea
level rise and esluarine dynamics. North Carolina Sea Gran!. Raleigh, NC. 152pp.
108. IPC'C, 2001. Climate Change 2001: the scientific basis, contribution of working
group 1 to the Third Assessment Report of the International Panel, on Climate Change
(IPCC), .1. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van dcr Linden, andD.
Xiao.su (Eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 944 pp.
109. Lopez, R.D., C.M. Edmonds, D.T. Hcggem, A.C. Neale, K.B. Jones, E.T.
Slonecker. E. Jaworski, D. Garofalo. and D. Williams. 2004. Accuracy Assessments of
Airborne Hyperspcctral Data for Mapping Opportunistic Plant Species in Freshwater
Coastal Wetlands in (R.S. Lunetta and J.G. Lyon, eds.) Remote Sensing and GIS
Accuracy Assessment. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 304pp.
110. Lopez, R. D., L. Mata, E. J. Evanson, L. A. Bice, L. R. Tinney, T. D. Sajwaj, and
D. R. Williams. 2006. An inventory and assessment of geographically isolated wetlands
in the Texas coastal region: initial mapping and accuracy assessment. U.S. EPA internal
report (EPA/600/X-06/018). 31pp.
111. Cohen, M.J., S. Carstenn, and C.R. Lane, 2004. Floristic Quality Indices for
Biotic Assessment of Depression^] Marsh Condition in Florida. Ecological Applications
14:784-794.
112. Lopez, R.D. and M.S. Fennessy. 2002. Testing the Floristic Quality Assessment
Index as an Indicator of Wetland Condition. Ecological Applications 12:487-497.
113. Ervin. G.N., B.D. Herman, J.T. Bried, and D.C. Holly. 2006. Evaluating Non-
native Species and Wetland Indicator Status as Components of Wetlands Floristic
Assessment. Wetlands 26:1114-1 129.
114. Bridgham, S. D., J. P. MegonigaL J. K. Keller. N. B. Bliss, and C, Trettin. 2006.
The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands 26:889-916
115. Craft, C. B. and W. P. Casey. 2000. Sediment and nutrient accumulation in
floodplain and depressionai freshwater wetlands of Georgia, USA. Wetlands 20:323-332
116. Van Huisstedcn, J, R. van den Bos, and I.M. Alvarez. 2006. Modelling the effect
of water-table management on C02 and CH4 fluxes from peat soils, Netherlands Journal
of Geosciences 85:3-18
77
-------
117. Zhang Y. C, S, Li, C. C. Trettin, and G. Sun. 2002. An integrated model of soil,
hydrology, and vegetation for carbon dynamics in wetland ecosystems. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 16: article 1061.
118. Fumoto, T., K. Kobavashi, C. Li. 2008. Revising a process-based
biogcochcmistry mode) (DNDC) to simulate methane emission from rice paddy fields
under various residue management and fertilizer regimes. Global Change Biology
14:383-402
119. Cui, Jianbo, Li, C.S., G. Sun, and C. Trettin. 2005. Linkage ofMlKK SHE to
Wetlami-DNDC for carbon nudgeting and anaerobic biogeochemistry simulation.
Biogeochemistry 72:! 47-167
120. Euliss, N. IL, Jr., R. A. Gleason, A. Olness, R. L. McDougal, H. R. Murkin, R, D.
Robarts, R. A, Bourbonniere. and B. G. Warner. 2006. North American prairie wetlands
are important nonforested land-based carbon storage sites. Science and the Total
Environment 361:179-188
121. Arheimcr, B. and H. B. Wittgren. 2002. Modeling nitrogen removal in potential
wetlands at the catchment scale. Ecological Engineering 1 9:63-80.
122. Crumpton, W.G. 2001. Using wetlands for waler quality improvement in
agricultural watersheds; the importance of a watershed scale approach. Water Science
and Technology 44:559-564
123. Confessor, R. B. Jr. and G, W. Whittakcr. 2007. Automatic calibration of
hydrologic models with multi-objective evolutionary algorithm and pareto optimization.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:981-989
124. Gleason, R. A., B. A. Tangen, M K. Laubhan, K. E. Kcrmes, and N. H. Euliss Jr.
2007. Estimating waler storage capacity of existing and potentially restorable wetland
depressions in a subbasin of the Red River of the North. U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 2007 - 1159. 36 p.
125. I.udden, A, P., D. L. Frink, and D. H. Johnson. 1983. Water storage capacity of
natural wetland depressions in the Devils Lake basin of North Dakota. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 38: 45-48.
126. Vining, K. C. 2002. Simulation of strcamflow and wetland storage, Starkweather
Coulee subbasin, North Dakota, water years 1981-98. U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 02-4113.
127. Zedler, J. B, 2003. Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at
the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology' arid the Environment 1: 65-72.
128. Gleason. R. A. and B. A. Tangen. 2008. Chapter D: Floodwater storage in
Gleason, R.A., Laubhan, M.K., and Euliss, N.H., Jr., eds., Ecosystem services derived
• from wetland conservation practices in the United Slates Prairie Pothole Region with an
emphasis on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve and Wetlands
Reserve Programs: U.S. Geological Professional Paper 1745, 58 p.
129. Nilsson K, A., M.A. Ross, and K..E. Trout. 2008. Analytic method to derive
wetland stage-storage relationships using GIS areas. Journal of Hvdrologic Engineering
13:278-282
130. Hill A.J., V. S. Nearv, and K.L. Morgan. 2006. Hydrologic modeling as a
development tool for 1 K.iM functional assessment models. Wetlands 26:161 -1 80
78
-------
131. Hayashi, M. and G. van dcr Kamp. 2000..Simple equations to represent the
volume-area-depth relations of shallow wetlands in small topographic depressions.
Journal of Hydrology 237:74-85
132. Lopez, R.D., D.T. lieggem, C.M. Edmonds, K.B. Jones, L.A. Bice, M. Hamilton,
E. Evanston, C.L. Cross, and D.W. Ebcrt. 2003. A Landscape Atlas of Ecological
Vulnerability: Arkansas' White River Watershed and the Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Ecoregion. (EPA/600/R-03/057). The United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D C. 302 pp.
133. Lopez, R D , Nash. M.S., lieggem, D.T., and I).W. Ebert. (in press, 2008).
Watershed Vulnerability Predictions for the Ozarks using Landscape Metrics. Journal of
Environmental Quality
134. Arnold, C.L. and C.J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage: the
emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning
Association 62:243-258
135. Holland, A.F., D.M. Sanger, C P. Gawle, S. B. Lerberg, M.S. Santiago, G.H.M.
Riekerk, L.E. Zimmerman, and G.I. Scott. 2004. Linkages between tidal creek
ecosystems and the landscape and demographic attributes of their watersheds. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298:151-178
136. Lee, H. II, C.A. Brown. B.L. Boese, and D.R. Young (cds.). 2006a. Proposed
Classification Scheme for Coastal Receiving Waters Based on SAV and Food Web
Sensitivity to Nutrients, Volume 2: Nutrient Drivers, Seagrams Distributions, and
Regional Classifications of Pacific Northwest Estuaries, United States Environmental
Protection Agency Report, Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Laboratory. Internal Report.
137. Lee 11. H. and D.A. Reusscr with contributions from Kathy Welch, Patti
Haggerty, Laurel Hillman, and Russell Fairey. 2007. Pacific Coast Ecosystem
Information System (PCEIS). Ver. 1.3. U.S. EPA and USGS (Microsoft Access 2003
database) .
79
-------
------- |