DOCSLIB.ORG

TECHNICAL REPORT Implementation of Ecoaim™— a Multi-Objective Decision Support Tool for Ecosystem Services at Department of Defense Installations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TECHNICAL REPORT Implementation of Ecoaim™— a Multi-Objective Decision Support Tool for Ecosystem Services at Department of Defense Installations TECHNICAL REPORT Implementation of EcoAIM™— A Multi-Objective Decision Support Tool for Ecosystem Services at Department of Defense Installations ESTCP Project RC-201115 SEPTEMBER 2014 Pieter Booth Sheryl Law Jane Ma Exponent Jessica Turnley Galisteo Consulting Group James Boyd Resources for the Future Distribution Statement A This report was prepared under contract to the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). The publication of this report does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official policy or position of the Department of Defense. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Department of Defense. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202- 4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 09/26/2014 Technical 2011-2014 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Implementation of EcoAIM – a Multi-Objective Decision Support Tool for 5b. GRANT NUMBER Ecosystem Services at Department of Defense Installations v.1.0 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER Booth, Pieter, N., Law, Sheryl, A., Ma, Jane, Turnley, Jessica, and Boyd, James, W. RC-201115 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Exponent Inc., Bellevue WA and Alexandria VA; Galisteo Consulting Group Inc., Albuquerque, NM; Resources for the Future, Washington, DC 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 17D03 ESTCP Alexandria, VA, 22350-3605 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT This report describes the demonstration of the EcoAIM decision support framework and GIS-based tool. EcoAIM identifies and quantifies the ecosystem services provided by the natural resources at the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). A structured stakeholder process determined the mission and non-mission priorities at the site, elicited the natural resource management decision process, identified the stakeholders and their roles, and determine the ecosystem services of priority that impact missions and vice versa. The EcoAIM tool was customized to quantify in a geospatial context, five ecosystem services – vista aesthetics, landscape aesthetics, recreational opportunities, habitat provisioning for biodiversity and nutrient sequestration. The demonstration included a Baseline conditions quantification of ecosystem services and the effects of a land use change in the Enhanced Use Lease parcel in cantonment area (Scenario 1). Biodiversity results ranged widely and average scores decreased by 10% after Scenario 1. Landscape aesthetics scores increased by 10% after Scenario 1. Final scores did not change for recreation or nutrient sequestration because scores were outside the boundaries of the baseline condition. User feedback after the demonstration indicated positive reviews of EcoAIM as being useful and usable for land use decisions and particularly for use as a communication tool. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Ecosystem services, biodiversity, aesthetics, recreation, nutrient sequestration, land use, management decisions 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Unclassified OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES Pieter Booth a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE UU 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area 181 code) 425-519-8709 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 Contents Page LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF TABLES viii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION xi Decision Support Framework xi Geospatial Modeling Tool xii DEMONSTRATION RESULTS xiv Habitat Provisioning for Biodiversity xiv Landscape Aesthetics xiv Vista Aesthetics xv Recreational Opportunities xv Nutrient Sequestration xv COST ASSESSMENT xv IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES xvii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 2 1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE DEMONSTRATION 4 1.3 REGULATORY DRIVERS 4 2 TECHNOLOGY AND METHODS 7 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND METHODS 7 2.2 OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY AND METHODS 7 2.2.1 Decision Support Framework 9 2.2.2 Biophysical Production Functions, Measurement Endpoints, and ES Valuation 11 2.2.3 Role of Structured Stakeholder Engagement in the Decision Support Framework 11 ii 2.2.4 Geospatial Analysis Tool 14 2.2.5 ES Models 14 2.2.6 Development of EcoAIM™ 15 2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY AND METHODS 15 2.3.1 Models 17 2.4 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND METHODS 42 3 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES 47 3.1 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE NO. 1: DEMONSTRATE THAT QUANTIFICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IS WELL FOUNDED 47 3.1.1 Metrics 47 3.1.2 Data Requirements 54 3.1.3 Success Criteria 54 3.2 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE NO. 2: QUANTIFY THREE OR MORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 54 3.2.1 Metrics 55 3.2.2 Data Requirements 55 3.2.3 Success Criteria 56 3.3 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE NO. 3: DISPLAY QUANTIFICATION OF THREE OR MORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN GEOSPATIAL CONTEXT 56 3.3.1 Metrics 57 3.3.2 Data Requirements 57 3.3.3 Success Criteria 57 3.4 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE NO. 4: DEVELOP MAPS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICE FLOWS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION, AND CLEARLY DESCRIBE ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN THE MISSION 58 3.4.1 Metrics 58 3.4.2 Data Requirements 59 3.4.3 Success Criteria 59 3.5 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE NO. 5: QUANTIFY SHIFTS IN THE VALUE OF BENEFITS FROM ECOSYSTEM SERVICES UNDER DIFFERENT MISSION SCENARIOS 60 3.5.1 Metrics 60 3.5.2 Data Requirements 60 3.5.3 Success Criteria 60 iii 3.6 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE NO. 6: EASE OF USE AND UTILITY OF THE TOOL FOR DECISION MAKING 61 3.6.1 Metrics 61 3.6.2 Data Requirements 61 3.6.3 Success Criteria 62 4 SITE DESCRIPTION 63 4.1 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY 63 4.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 65 4.2.1 Physical Site Characteristics 65 4.2.2 Natural Resources 66 4.2.3 Impacts of Military Mission on Natural Resources 67 4.2.4 Impacts of Natural Resources Management on Military Mission 68 4.2.5 Biodiversity 68 4.2.6 Recreational Opportunities 69 4.2.7 Aesthetic Values at APG 70 5 TEST DESIGN 71 5.1 CONCEPTUAL TEST DESIGN 71 5.1.1 Task 1: Site Selection 71 5.1.2 Task 2: Site-Specific Problem Formulation 71 5.1.3 Task 3: Field Verification 78 5.1.4 Task 4: Select Biophysical Models 79 5.1.5 Task 5: Site-Specific Implementation 79 5.1.6 Task 6: Documentation 82 5.1.7 Task 7: Technology Transfer 83 5.2 BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION AND PREPARATION 83 5.3 DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF TECHNOLOGY AND METHOD COMPONENTS 84 5.3.1 Geospatial Analytical Tool 84 5.4 FIELD TESTING 86 5.5 SAMPLING PROTOCOL 86 5.6 RESULTS 86 5.6.1 BIODIVERSITY MODEL RESULTS 87 5.6.2 Landscape Aesthetics Model Results 87 5.6.3 Vista Aesthetics Model Results 94 5.6.4 Recreational Opportunities Model Results 94 5.6.5 Nutrient Sequestration Model Results 94 iv 6 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 101 6.1 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE 1: DEMONSTRATE THAT QUANTIFICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IS WELL FOUNDED 101 6.2 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE 2: QUANTIFY THREE OR MORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 102 6.3 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE 3: DISPLAY QUANTIFICATION OF THREE OR MORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN A GEOSPATIAL CONTEXT 103 6.4 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE 4: DEVELOP MAPS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICE FLOWS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION, AND CLEARLY DESCRIBE ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN THE MISSION 104 6.5 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE 5: QUANTIFY SHIFTS IN THE VALUE OF BENEFITS FROM ECOSYSTEM SERVICES UNDER DIFFERENT MISSION SCENARIOS 105 6.6 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE 6: EASE OF USE AND UTILITY OF THE TOOL FOR DECISION MAKING 116 7 COST ASSESSMENT 117 7.1 COST MODEL 117 7.2 COST DRIVERS 120 8 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 122 9 REFERENCES 124 Appendix A Contact Information Appendix B Models Reviewed for Nutrient Sequestration ES Appendix C Usability and Utility Survey and Responses Appendix D Presentation of ES Scores Appendix E Statistical Testing Results Used to Determine Significant Differences between Baseline and Scenario 1 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of the relationship between ecosystem services and military installations Figure 2. Schematic diagram for the implementation of EcoAIM™ Figure 3. An example of biophysical production functions and ecological endpoints within the flow of ecosystem services provided by emergent wetlands Figure 4. Structured stakeholder engagement process Figure 5. Vista aesthetics—visibility parameters Figure 6. Types of vegetation-water interspersion patterns in wetlands Figure 7. Schematic depicting the relationship between the U.S. EPA P8 model and the Riparian Analysis Toolbox EcoAIM™ Figure 8. Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) site location Figure 9. APG environmental division chain of command Figure 10. Mind map of stakeholder relationships at APG Figure 11. Mind map of information flow at APG Figure 12.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PHA for Aberdeen Proving Ground , Aberdeen, Harford County, Maryland
    U.S. ARMY ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, ABERDEEN AREA U.S. ARMY APG, MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL ABERDEEN, HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND EPA FACILITY ID: MD3210021355 JUNE 17, 2008 THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION This Public Health Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) section 104 (i)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6)), and in accordance with our implementing regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document, ATSDR has collected relevant health data, environmental data, and community health concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state and local health and environmental agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate. In addition, this document has previously been provided to EPA and the affected states in an initial release, as required by CERCLA section 104 (i)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document was released for a 30-day public comment period. Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended the document as appropriate. The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public health assessment process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry.................................................... Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., Administrator Howard Frumkin, M.D., Dr.P.H., Director Division of Health Assessment and Consultation…. .....................................................................William Cibulas, Jr., Ph.D., Director Sharon Williams-Fleetwood, Ph.D., Deputy Director Cooperative Agreement and Program Evaluation Branch ....................................................................Richard E.
    [Show full text]
  • 513 Part 334—Danger Zone and Restricted Area Regulations
    Corps of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, DoD Pt. 334 must be finalized before any credits credits (e.g., stream credits to a wet- can be released. land bank) must be consistent with the (2) For in-lieu fee project sites, real terms of this part. estate instruments, management plans, (2) In-lieu fee program instruments. All or other long-term protection mecha- in-lieu fee program instruments ap- nisms used for site protection must be proved on or after July 9, 2008 must finalized before advance credits can be- meet the requirements of this part. In- come released credits. lieu fee programs operating under in- (u) Long-term management. (1) The struments approved prior to July 9, legal mechanisms and the party re- 2008 may continue to operate under sponsible for the long-term manage- those instruments for two years after ment and the protection of the mitiga- the effective date of this rule, after tion bank site must be documented in which time they must meet the re- the instrument or, in the case of um- quirements of this part, unless the dis- brella mitigation banking instruments trict engineer determines that cir- and in-lieu fee programs, the approved cumstances warrant an extension of up mitigation plans. The responsible party to three additional years. The district should make adequate provisions for engineer must consult with the IRT be- the operation, maintenance, and long- fore approving such extensions. Any re- term management of the compensatory visions made to the in-lieu fee program mitigation project site. The long-term instrument on or after July 9, 2008 management plan should include a de- must be consistent with the terms of scription of long-term management this part.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Year Review Report for the Aberdeen Area, Dated September 2003”
    Five-Year Review Report for the Aberdeen Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland September 2003 Prepared by Directorate of Safety, Health, and Environment Environmental Conservation and Restoration Division Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 October 21,2003 Colonel Mardi U. Mark Commander, US Army Garrison (AMSSB-GCO) 2201 Aberdeen Boulevard Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005-5001 RE: Five-Year Review for the Aberdeen Proving Ground - Aberdeen Area Dear Mr. Stachiw: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III has reviewed the report entitled “Five Year Review Report for the Aberdeen Area, dated September 2003”. The report was prepared to address the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121 (c) Five Year Review requirements. EPA has reviewed this report and compared it to the OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five Year Review Guidance (EPA, June 2001). The report generally meets the intent of EPA’s Five Year Review Guidance Document. EPA concurs conditionally with the Five Year review for the Aberdeen Proving Ground - Aberdeen Area NPL Site, assuming that all short term appropriate land use controls will be applied by the Army. The protectiveness of many of the remedies strongly depends on the proper application of land use controls. There is still an unresolved dispute between EPA and the Army regarding EPA’s post ROD authority as it applies to land use controls. Since there is not a final all-encompassing land use control document which obligates Aberdeen Proving Ground to enforce all needed and appropriate land use controls at this site, any protectiveness statement is dependent on the Army’s vigilance and application of appropriate controls.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Building Inventory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
    HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY Ln ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND PREPARED BY Historic American Buildings Survey/ * Historic American Engineering Recora National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. DTIC 'ELECTEfl LA. SUM1vifR 1982 .7-.. There a-- Category I properties at . w Aberdeen - - - . There are 11 Category r properties at Aberdeen Area and 12 at Edgewood Area. At Aberdeen Area there are 79 Category TTT properties and 49 at Edge wood Area. National Register Nominations have been prepared for the Pooles TWand Lighthouse, the Plumb Point Officers Housing area, and the existing National Register Nomination for the E NIA C Building #as revised. Copies of these are appended to this report. AcceSsion For NTIS GPII&I DTIC TA SU-znnno-,inced ~icatio By Distributionf! Availability Codes _ -vail arnd/or Dist Special DTI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) is located in both Hi-arford ana Baltimore Counties, Maryland, approximately thirty miles northeast of Baltimore and seventy miles northeast of Washington, D.C. It comprises approximately 78,04z acres of property of which 39,100 acres are water and 38,942 acres are lana. The installation is divided into two geographic sections: the Aberdeen Area to the nortneast and the Edgewood Area to the southwest. Aberdeen Area includes the central built-up core, firing ranges and impact areas stretching southeast to the Bush River, Spesutie Island, and Pooles Islana locatea one-half mile off the southern tip of Gunpowder Neck peninsula. Edgewood Area entirely occupies Gunpowder Neck peninsula and two smaller peninsulas, Grace Quarters, ana Carroll Island. There are several other off-site areas owned by Aberdeen Proving Grouno P including the Churchville Tank Test Course Track, the Atkisson Dam (consiaereG excess property), Deer Creek Area, and some Wherry housing complexes.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Humanities Council History Matters!
    Maryland Humanities Council History Matters! Interpretive Plan for the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway History Matters! A History of Maryland’s Lower Susquehanna Region The Lower Susquehanna region is the bold termination of the wide, powerful Susquehanna River and the gentle beginning of the great Chesapeake Bay. Water dominates and shapes the lives of the humans along the shores just as it dominates and shapes the contours of its land.1 The commanding river pulls people together; and at the same time, it divides them. Maryland’s Harford County to the south and Cecil County to the north, separated by the river, are pulled away from one another toward competing economic centers. Harford County easily connects with urban Baltimore, and Cecil County is lured away from Maryland’s influence by Philadelphia and Wilmington. The Lower Susquehanna is a borderland connected by the mighty waters that dominate its existence. When we began reviewing the history of the Lower Susquehanna region of Maryland, we read the existing volumes on Harford and Cecil Counties; and we talked to our heritage area partners in the region. What did they need? Excellent histories focusing on the important men and events of the region already exist.2 What could we add? We gathered together experts on Maryland’s history and culture to discuss how we might fill in what was missing in our existing knowledge of the state. We visited local historians in the Lower Susquehanna to learn what information they needed to better interpret their region. Most agreed that we needed to explore the lives of the everyday people who lived and worked and died near these great waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood
    Aberdeen Proving Ground HAER No. MD-47 » (Edgewood Arsenal) .Aberdeen . Karford & Baltimore Counties Maryland mi?, WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Recorc National Park Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20013-7127 • HkeR HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD MO, • Aberdeen Proving Ground m (Edgewood Arsenal) l MD-47 Location: In Harford and Baltimore Counties, Maryland, approximately 30 miles NE of Baltimore. Date of Construction. Established in 1917. Owne r: Department of the Army Significance: Encompassing both Aberdeen and Edgewood Areas, Aberdeen Proving Ground includes significant structures related to ordnance testing and development, chemical weapons research and production, and WW II mobilization temporary housing and administrative facilities. Aberdeen Proving Ground has been associated with many significant advances in 20th century military technology. Historical Report Prepared by: Katherine Grandine, William R. Henry, Jr. and Irene Jackson Henry. Prepared for Transmittal by: Robie S. Lange, HABS/HAER, 1985- Aberdeen Proving Ground HAER MD-47 Page & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) is located in both riarford ana Baltimore Counties, Maryland, approximately thirty miles northeast of Baltimore and seventy miles northeast of Washington, D.C. It comprises approximately 78,042 acres of property of which 39,100 acres are water and 38,942 acres are land. The installation is divided into two geographic sections: the Aberdeen Area to the northeast and the Edgewood Area to trie southwest. Aberdeen Area includes the central built-up core, firing ranges and impact areas stretching southeast to the Bush River, Spesutie Island, and Pooles Island located one-half mile off the southern tip of Gunpowder Neck peninsula.
    [Show full text]