** CCIA United States
Environmental Protection Agency
REGION/ORD WORKSHOP ON
CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY REPORT
June 17 - 20, 2002
Keystone, Colorado
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
II
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Reeion/ORD Workshop on C'rilical Ecosvstem Assessment
June 17-20,2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WORKSHOP SESSION SUMMARIES.
, C: f* 1 £• ,
-^ ..-igBSKlaBte^A
in
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
SESSION I: THE IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPING A REGIONAL CRITICAL
ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH 3
Lessons in Critical Ecosystem Protection: The Role of Science in Management Decisions
at Lake Tahoe — Charles Goldman (University of California - Davis) 3
An Approach to Regional Ecosystem Protection: The Southeastern Ecological Framework
— Cory Berish (U.S. EPA Region 4) 5
An Approach to Regional Ecosystem Protection: Canaan Valley Institute’s Experience in
the Mid-Atlantic Highlands — Randy Pomponio (The Canaan Valley Institute) 6
Session Wrap-up - Doug Norton (U.S. EPA OW/OWOW) 8
SESSION II: AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES, ENDPOINTS AND MEASURES 9
A Bi-national Assessment: What We’re Measuring in the Great Lakes Basin — Duane
Heaton (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office) 10
If Eveiything is Important, What’s Critical? — Chuck Maurice (U.S. EPA Region 5) 11
EPA Region 8’s Approach to Ecological Assessment — Karl A. Hermann (U.S. EPA
Region 8) 12
Building a Regional Integrated Assessment Program: The Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAJA) — Patricia Bradley (U.S. EPA ORD/NHIEERL) 14
Where are the Good Areas? The Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) Approach —
Neil Burns (U.S. EPA Region 4) 16
Q & A and Panel Discussion 18
Ecoregional Planning and the Southern Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Assessment and
Conservation Blueprint — Betsy Neely (The Nature Conservancy of Colorado) .. 21
Setting Priorities for Conservation Opportunity Areas: Different Targets Result in
Different Answers David D. Diamond (Missouri Resource Assessment
Partnership, University of Missouri) 23
Q & A and Panel Discussion 25
iv
-------
US Environmental Protection A encv
RegionfORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
SESSION III: ASSESSING THE CRITICALITY OF PLACES 27
Biodiversity Investment Areas: Ranking Critical Areas in the Great Lakes Basin — Karen
Rodriguez (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office) 28
You Think It’s Critical? Now Prove It! — Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5) 29
Values — Doug Johnson (U.S. EPA Region 8) 30
What Makes an Ecosystem “Critical?” — Betsy Smith (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL) 3 1
Characterization and Prioritization of the Southeastern Ecology Framework — Tom Hoctor
(University of Florida) 32
Q & A and Panel Discussion 33
Irreversibility and the Collective Good: Managing Risk Under Competing Priorities — Lisa
Wainger (University of Maryland) 35
Q & A and Panel Discussion 36
Workshop Dinner and Guest Speaker 39
A Science Advisory Board Report: A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on
Ecological Condition - Virginia Dale (U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board) 39
SESSION IV: ISSUES WITH ASSESSMENT DATA AND TOOLS 41
The Western EMAP Approach to Assessment of Coastal Ecological Condition - Walt
Nelson (U.S. EPA ORD/NHEERL) 41
Landscape Assessments of Ecological Condition - Daniel Heggem (U.S. EPA
ORD/NHEERL) 43
Essential Ecological Attributes for the Southeastern Ecological Framework - John
Richardson (U.S. EPA Region 4) 45
Landscape Level Identification of Ecologically Significant Areas in the Upper Midwest -
Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5) 46
Statistical Geo-Spatial Modeling and Analysis of the Oak Resource in Minneapolis / St.
Paul - Maria Downing (U.S. Forest Service, State and Private Forestry) 47
V
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 1 7-20, 2002
Forest Health Monitoring: Program Overview - Maria Downing (U.S. Forest Service,
State and Private Forestiy) 48
Q & A and Panel Discussion 50
The Case for Connectivity - Tom Hoctor (University of Florida) 52
EPA’s 2 1 M Century Ecosystem Assessment Enterprise - A “Strawman” Proposal - Douglas
Johnson (U.S. EPA Region 8) 53
Q&ADiscussion 55
SESSION INTEGRATION OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO EPA GOALS 59
Integration of Assessment Results to EPA Goals - Anne Sergeant (U.S. EPA ORD/NCEA)
59
New York City’s Water Supply Protection Program and Results of a Landscape Analysis -
Anne Neale (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL) 61
Synoptic Model to Rank Wetland Ecosystems for 404 Permitting - Brenda Groskinsky
(U.S. EPA Region 7) 63
EPA Region 6 GIS Screening Tool (GISST): Applications to Critical Ecosystem
Evaluation - Sharon Osowski, Ph.D. (U.S. EPA Region 6) 65
Seven Lessons Learned from the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) Experience
- Tom DeMoss (The Canaan Valley Institute) and Patricia Bradley (U.S. EPA
ORD/NHEERL) 66
Panel Discussion: Lessons Learned 67
Q&A Panel Discussion 70
SESSION VI: PERSPECTIVES FROM EPA PROGRAMS AND OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCIES 71
Panel A: Taking Home What We Learned 71
Panel B: Feedback From Other Agencies 77
vi
-------
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Session VII: SEND-OFF 87
APPENDIX A: Agenda A-I
APPENDIX B: List of Participants B-I
APPENDIX C: Slides from Presentations and Poster Session C-I
APPENDIX D: Flip Chart Notes
APPENDiX E: Critical Ecosystems Workshop Participant Evaluation Summary E- I
vii
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
v iii
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
FOREWORD
The ORD Regional Training Workshop on critical Ecosystem Assessment was the ninth in a
series of Regional Science Topic Workshops sponsored by the Office of Science Policy (OSP) in
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) at the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Other workshop topics in this series included:
• Asthma.- The Regional Science Issues
• Comniunicaling Science. Waves of the Future I1?/o Fair
• Fully integrated Environmental Location Decision Support (FIELD )
• Noii-Indigenous Species
• Pesticides
• Endocrine DiSrII/)tOrS
• Emerging Issues Associated with Aquatic Environmental Pathogens
• Aquatic Life criteria
The objectives of the Regional Science Topic Workshops are to: I) establish a better cross-
Agency understanding of the science applicable to specific region-selected human health and/or
ecological topics, and 2) develop a network of EPA scientists who will continue to exchange
information on these science topics as the Agency moves forward in planning education,
research, and risk management programs.
Each year, EPA regions identify priority science topics on which to conduct workshops. The
workshops address the science issues of greatest interest to the regions on the selected topic area.
Each workshop is planned and conducted by a team of regional, ORD, and interested program
office scientists, is led by one or more Regional Science Liaisons (RSLs) to ORD, and is
facilitated by a regional chairperson. Participants maintain the cross-Agency science networks
they establish at the workshops through planned post-workshop projects and activities, such as
the identification of collaborative research opportunities, the creation of information sharing
mechanisms (e.g., interactive web sites), and the development of science fact sheets for regional
use. This workshop summary report is posted on the Office of Science and Policy internet Web
site:
http: epa. LtOv/OSp 1 reW onsiworkshops.htm
For additional information on a specific workshop or on the Regional Science Topic Workshop
series in general, contact David Klauder in ORD’s Office of Science Policy (202-564-6496).
ix
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 7-20, 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
x
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 7-20. 2002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ORD. Regional Training Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment was held on June 17 -
June 20, 2002 in Keystone, Colorado. The workshop was chaired by Patti Lyrine Tyler (U.S.
EPA Region 8) with support from David Klauder (U.S. EPA ORDIOSP) and Bobbye Smith,
Regional Science Liaison (U.S. EPA Region 9).
The workshop was organized into seven sessions:
I. The Importance qfDei ‘eloping a Regional Critical Ecosystems Approach
II. An Ecosystem Approach to Assessment; Goals and Objectives, Endpoints and
Measures
III. Assessing the Criticality of Places
Ii Issues it ith Assessment Data and Tools
Integration of Assessment Results to EPA Goals
7. Perspecrtt .’esfroni EPA Programs and Other Federal Agencies
171. Scud-off
Scientists from EPA (regions, program offices, and the Office of Research and Development)
and invited speakers from academia, non-governmental organizations, and other Federal
agencies presented methods, current research, and case studies on critical ecosystem assessment.
The breakout session focused on identifying data needs that support the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) Framework (Session IV). Participants heard various perspectives from EPA program
offices and other Federal agencies during two panel discussions held in Session VI. The last
session included a presentation summary of the first Ecosystem Stewardship Enterprise (ESE)
Steering Committee (SC) meeting held on June 19, 2002 in Keystone, Colorado. The ESE SC
was established during the conference to support critical ecosystem activities within the Agency
two framework objectives identified were: 1) Ecosystem Condition Framework, and 2) Building
Support Framework. The closing remarks and discussion generated a list of action points and
potential workshop outcomes (Session VII). Planned outcomes include the posting of
presentation slides and workshop proceedings on the Office of Science Policy (OSP) Internet
Web site. Other follow-up activities suggested included the formation of partnerships with other
Federal agencies and interested states, coordination with the EPA Science Policy Council, cross-
regional Steaming’ to advance the use of specific approaches, conducting quarterly conference
calls, establishing an interactive web site and/or list server, and conducting additional workshops
on a regional and national scale.
xi
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
According to Workshop evaluation comments, most participants found the information provided
at the workshop useful, especially the opportunity to learn about the variety of approaches used
by different EPA regions and outside organizations (e.g., other Federal agencies and non-profit
groups) to identify and assess critical ecosystems. Many attendees liked the discussions related
to integration of the approach(es) into mainstream EPA program activities and thought that the
creation of a Steering Committee to work on this and related workshop follow-up activities was
a good idea. Overall, the meeting was considered successful, with much praise given to the
organizers.
X I ’
-------
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Welcome: Patti Tyler (U.S. EPA Region 8)
Patti Tyler welcomed participants to Keystone, Colorado (U.S. EPA Region 8) and to the EPA
Region/Office of Research and Development (ORD) Science Topic Workshop on Critical
Ecosystems. Tyler acknowledged David Klauder (U.S. EPA ORD!OSP), Bobbye Smith (U.S.
EPA Region 9), the planning committee, and session co-chairs for their contributions over the
past six months. Rochelle Araujo, Acting Associate for Ecology, was introduced.
Opening Remarks from ORB: Rochelle Araujo, Acting Associate Director for
Ecology (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL)
Rochelle Araujo welcomed participants from ORD, regions, and program offices and noted the
exceptional turnout and setting. The Critical Ecosystems Workshop is a good example of using
the best science available to manage critical ecosystems. Participants were reminded of
Governor Whitman’s directive to “prepare a State of the Environment Report, ...to describe the
condition of critical environmental areas and human health concerns” (memo to Assistant and
Regional Administrators, dated November 13, 2001). In planning the Region/ORD Science
Topic Workshops, the regions select the workshop topics, identify the relevant science issues,
and jointly plan the workshops with ORD and interested program offices. Workshop objectives
are to create cross-Agency science networks and to identify opportunities to integrate EPA
science into regional decision-making, critical science uncertainties, and needed science
products. Expected outcomes of this workshop are: to identify existing and ongoing work
related to critical ecosystems; enhance networking among practitioners of critical ecosystem
science; consider critical ecosystems as an impetus to develop commitment and tools for more
integrated management of ecosystems; recognize that the science and the practice are in early
development identify gaps and outstanding science needs; and assure the small cells of critical
ecosystems scientists are working within program-oriented organizations.
Opening Remarks from Region 8: Carol Campbell, Director of Ecosystems Protection
Program (U.S. EPA Region 8)
Carol Campbell. Director of the Ecosystems Protection (EP) Program. provided opening remarks
and, on behalf of Jack McGraw (Deputy Regional Administrator) and Robbie Roberts (Regional
Administrator), welcomed participants to Keystone, Colorado.
The topic of this workshop - Critical Ecosystems - is especially timely in light of the drought and
fire Colorado is experiencing. Colorado is a headwaters state to the Colorado, Arkansas, Platte,
and Rio Grande rivers, which play important water quality and quantity roles nationally. This is
the ninth workshop in the Region/OR.D partnership and a great chance for the Regions to
describe real-world problems and network with ORD and other headquarter offices on the latest
science to help solve these problems. Patti Tyler and Region 8 staff (Doug Johnson, Karl
I
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Hermann) as well as others in the region and ORD were acknowledged for putting this workshop
together.
When Campbell became the Director of the EP program almost seven years ago, one of the first
tasks she was faced with was where to focus their geographic work. “Did we want to protect
critical/important pristine areas, still functioning areas that were threatened, or did we want to
restore areas that were once important and critical? Or did we want to do all of these things?”
More information was needed to make scientifically sound priority decisions; that was one
reason why Campbell supported becoming part of the Western Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) pilot and the potentially new Great Rivers / Central Basin pilot.
As resources in statutory programs get tighter and EPA’s understanding of systems grows, it is
clear that EPA must work in a geographic way (ecoregion, watershed, etc.) with all of the
program and statutory tools, in order to make a considerable environmental difference.
Otherwise, EPA would follow an environmental site or problem from media statute to media
statute without ever making a real difference.
The two major objectives of this workshop are:
1) To foster the exchange of technical information on science issues related to the
identification and assessment of critical ecosystems that are important to the
regions, and
2) To build cross Agency networks of scientists working on these topics.
Campbell closed with a plea for attendees to strongly consider how to continue the momentum
of this workshop and to pay special attention to Doug Johnson’s thought-provoking presentation
at lunch on Wednesday.
2
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
PLEASE NOTE: Slides from the Workshop presentations are available at:
http : //epa. gov/osp/re i ons/workshops . htm
SESSION I: THE IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPING A REGIONAL
CRITICAL ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH
Co-chairs: Barbara Levinson (U.S. EPA ORD/NCER) and
Doug Norton (U.S. EPA OW/OWOW)
This session consisted of brief overviews of current regional critical ecosystem approaches by
academia, the regions, and non-profit groups. Opening remarks were made by Patti Tyler (U.S.
EPA Region 8), who introduced Barbara Levinson and Doug Norton. Levinson then introduced
the first speaker, Charles Goldman of the University of California - Davis.
Lessons in Critical Ecosystem Protection: The Role of Science in
Management Decisions at Lake Tahoe— Charles Goldman (University of California -
Davis)
A multitude of largely anthropogenic stresses are threatening aquatic ecosystems worldwide. To
meet the challenge of maintaining ecosystem integrity, a more rapid conversion of basic
environmental science to management decisions is essential. The construction of hydroelectric
reservoirs in Africa and Central and South America, the proposed Three Gorges project in China,
the demise of the Aral Sea in Russia, new developments along Lake Baikal’s shores in Russian
Siberia and the continuing loss of clarity in Lake Tahoe all provide clear demonstrations of the
global problems to be faced in this twenty-first century. The conservation of lakes and streams,
as well as the protection of drinking water sources from pollution and possible terrorist attack
must be of particularly urgent concern to the EPA.
Lake Tahoe, a microcosm for the study of change, is losing its remarkable transparency at a rate
of 0.3 meters annually as algal growth rates increase about five percent per year. A
multidisciplinary approach has been essential at Tahoe to develop effective water management
strategies for solving increasingly complex environmental problems that occur throughout the
country. Long-term data collection, including paleolimnologica! studies of sedimentation and
pollutants, has been key to better understanding and managing the lake, its surrounding
watershed, and basin air quality. Convincing the public at large that ecosystems must be
protected remains a major obstacle. In the past, many policy decisions by regulatory agencies
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionJORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
have been based on scanty short-term data that are sometimes lacking methodologically or
subject to superficial interpretation. Such a case occurred during a short-term drought-related
improvement in transparency at Tahoe. The goal of EPA and its staff of talented ecologists and
limnologists should be to help meet our domestic and growing global challenge for restoration
and preservation of natural and altered ecosystems that support our increasingly limited water
supplies. Strong, broadly based and well-integrated environmental science must be at the
forefront in developing improved adaptive management practices for aquatic ecosystems
worldwide.
O&A Discussion
Question: Have you already done a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Lake Tahoe?
Response: We are putting one together now. We are still missing a few pieces for our
model.
Question: What about the particulate matter that you are measuring in the lake?
Response: A lot of it is coming from the air. A large transport of phosphorus and nitrogen is
being deposited from the air.
Question: How do you build a flow though system around Lake Tahoe?
Response: This is tough to deal with. The land around the lake is almost all bought out now.
We need to convince people to stop putting in lawns all the way down to the lake.
Everyone loses as the water quality of Lake Tahoe continues to decline.
Question: What about the threat of fire?
Response: There is a huge amount of dead wood in the basin. The forest service is now
attempting to remove it. They are trying to re-establish controlled bums in the
Sierra Nevadas.
4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 1 7-20. 2002
An Approach to Regional Ecosystem Protection: The Southeastern Ecological
Framework — Cory Berish (U.S. EPA Region 4)
The Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) is a decision support tool designed to integrate
program resources for protecting and sustaining ecological processes. The SEF model uses the
best available data to identify a hub and corridor network that maintains land, air, and water
quality along with the habitats and services they provide. Preserving connectivity between
natural areas and allowing ecosystem processes to operate at a large scale provides the
opportunity for ecosystems to functionally respond to significant environmental changes. The
SEF provides a foundation for regional landscape and natural resource planning. Its value as an
organizing theme to focus and coordinate environmental protection of large scale ecological
systems can be significant for the many state, federal, and non-profit agencies that are involved
in natural resource protection. Consistent with EPA’s mission, the SEF supports a number of
our Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Goals. These goals are met through
several of the objectives that fall under clean air, clean and safe water, reduction of global and
cross-border environmental risks, quality environmental information, and greater innovation to
address environmental problems under EPA’s strategic plan. Each of these goals is critical to
addressing the challenges we face as we step from thirty years of regulatory history toward more
proactive approaches built on partnerships to achieve environmental protection results.
Q&A Discussion
Question: Who is facilitating the data exchange at state borders (Georgia - Florida) for the
Okefenokee swamp?
Response: Department of Defense (DoD) is working with EPA in Southern Florida to map
critical areas.
Question: What are your major obstacles for moving ahead with this rapidly? Are they
political?
Response: Politics (people don’t want satellites looking down at them and determining that
their property is a critical area) and money. We are having some success working
with local governments.
Comment: It sounds as if your problems are outside of EPA.
Response: We are working on it. That is why we are here.
5
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
An Approach to Regional Ecosystem Protection: Canaan Valley Institute’s
Experience in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands — Randy Pomponio (The Canaan Valley
Institute)
The Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) is a non-profit organization that evaluates problems and helps
develop solutions for watershed associations. CVI views itself as an entire Mid-Atlantic
Highlands organization using multiple scales ranging from a broad regional scale to a specific
portion of a river basin. Pomponio described the CVI decision-making process (see slide 3),
and noted that partners such as EPA are engaged to accomplish their goals. CVI needs for its
toolbox: 1) a watershed profile. 2) a socio-economic/environmental integrator, 3) a landscape
analyst, and 4) a solid knowledge base.
Watershed Profile
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands represent a region of global ecological and natural resource
significance. Within this area is the largest contiguous deciduous broadleaf forest in the world.
in developing a watershed profile, CVI identifies problems and assessment endpoints; describes
the environmental and socio-economic setting, and identifies and evaluates current and future
stressors, risks, and opportunities (e.g., stream condition, biological condition, and ranking of
stressors).
Socio-Economic/Environmental Inte trator
A scientific foundation is needed for the [ holistic] integration of environmental and
socioeconomic data and models in public policies. CVI uses an energy systems analysis
approach. EmERGY is the availability of energy of one kind that is used up in transformations
directly and indirectly to make a product or service. EmERGY of something is calculated by
summing all inputs from a network of connecting inputs [ slide 10]. EmERGY endpoints need to
be simplified so that clients/users can easily take the information and apply it.
Landscape Analyst
C\TI built a tool that integrated several other tools using landscape indicator analysis, water
quality analysis, and wildlife habitat analysis; data generated is input into a Geographic
Information System (GIS) to create data sets. Primary analytical tools available are: U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development’s Ecological Assessment of Mid-Atlantic Approach, West
Virginia University’s Watershed Characterization and Modeling System, Penn State University’s
Cooperative Wetlands Research Center, and U.S. EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment.
6
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Case Example One: Mountain Top Minimt (MTM )
Valleys are being filled with tailings resulting in a loss of streams. CVI identified site- and
issue-specific social, economic, and ecological endpoints. The impact of mining activities can
be predicted by using satellite mapping of forest cover overlaid with existing, permitted, and
projected MTM activity. In addition, the Bird Community Index for the Central Appalachian
Ecoregion developed by Penn State can be used to model degradation of bird communities
correlated with MTM. Stream coverage is poor in this area, so mining companies are using
maps that do not show actual field-verified stream beds. As a result, a lot of stream area is not
being considered in decisions to grant mining permits by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the core 404 agencies. This model can track changes in watershed attributes over
time (Consumer Report Index). Pomponio presented a second example using the Cerulean
Warbler.
CVI’s Institutional Knowledge Base
CVI’s knowledge base is gained through implementing and evaluating selected solutions (CVI
Actions) and by developing and using interactive mapping.
O&A Discussion
Question: What office are you going back to? What is the process you are going to use to
give these tools to EPA?
Response: I want to take this program and run it with the tools within EPA (by measuring,
and including stakeholders).
Question: One of the most shocking things you mentioned was the filling of the valleys with
the mining spoils.
Response: Some of the mining permits don’t even show that they are operating in streams
due the scale of the map used in the permit process. If you are working for the
government and mining company, you use one set of maps and if you are
[ environmentally inclined] you use another.
7
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Session Wrap-up - Doug Norton (U.S. EPA OW/OWOW)
Doug Norton summarized several major/common themes and take home messages evident from
the Session I speakers:
Multiple players are involved in all cases; this is a form of environmental management
that requires excellent collaboration skills . Sometimes it may need EPA leadership, but
more often it may need EPA facilitation along with others’ leadership.
The choice of spatial scale to work on is crucial. We want to work on a scale where we
are effective. There are multiple considerations: small vs large watersheds, broader
landscapes, regions. And don’t forget the effect of time scales.
The importance of documenting natural processes was emphasized (Goldman:
phytoplankton dynamics, Berish: connectivity, Pomponio: headwaters and N processing);
it is crucial to understand the processes that underlie and sustain the benefits of these
areas.
• Protection alone will not work (Berish pointed out that site protection alone still leads to
much fragmentation and lost corridors). We need to o beyond protection to manage the
natural processes , not just the parcels.
• What messages resonate with the public ? Transparency in Lake Tahoe is something
measurable. Lake Tahoe is calculated to contain the equivalent of 300 trillion dollars of
bottled water: this example is something very clever that the public can relate to.
Comniunicate the value of critical ecosystems through finding effective “poster child”
messages.
• What are the ties to EPA programs ? GPRA goals, NEPA, TMDLs and many other
programs are the “power tools” that EPA works with. The connection to these programs
needs to be sold and supported internally as a crucial, early step in integrating critical
ecosystem protection into EPA. This can be a cross-program improvement for all, and
needn’t be seen as a separate, competing paradigm.
• Bottom line is, I don’t know how long we can afford NOT to do this without some tragic
environmental losses. And that is why this may be one of the most important meetings
you attend this year. I think this is a room full of people who feel the same way in
general, so let’s not get derailed by minor differences this week. We need to find a way
to implement it this time, incorporate it into EPA’s way of doing business, and build on
regional successes that are already taking place.
8
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
SESSION II: AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES, ENDPOINTS AND MEASURES
Co-chairs: Betsy Smith (U.S. EPA OR.D/NERL), Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5), Karen
Rodriguez (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office), and
C.huck Maurice (U.S. EPA Region 5)
The goal of Session II was to provide a broad survey of the various approaches used to plan
critical ecosystem assessments, and to facilitate the cross-fertilization of ideas and approaches.
The session approach involved internal “panelists”who provided a brief description, followed by
external speakers who gave a fuller story, which was succeeded by interactive discussion.
Questions to be addressed were:
What were the goal(s) and objective(s) of your assessment and how did you
identify or determine them (i.e., what was the purpose of your assessment)?
2) What was the scope, scale, and conceptual model for your assessment and how
did you determine them?
3) What assessment endpoints and measures did you use for your assessment and
how did you select or identi ’ them?
4) Was there a connection between the selection of the endpoints and the assessment
results? What was the connection?
5) What were the results of your assessment?
9
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 1 7-20, 2002
A Bi-national Assessment: What We’re Measuring in the Great Lakes Basin
— Duane Heaton (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office)
Begitming in 1994, the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) and Environment
Canada have co-sponsored biennial State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC). These
conferences allow broad participation of many organizations from both countries, and serve as
the platform for assessing progress toward meeting the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. In 1998, a suite of 80 draft SOLEC indicators was presented for
further discussion and refinement. In 2000, the first attempt was made to assess the health of the
Great Lakes ecosystem using thirty-one of the SOLEC indicators. Indicators were divided into 7
2roups and can be easily re-grouped by environmental compartment. There were no indicators
for the condition of forests in the Great Lakes region this is being addressed. Indicators results
were illustrated in color graphics. Some results were not classified due to missing endpoints.
Over the next several years, the number of indicators that are employed in the assessment will
gradually increase until the full suite is utilized. All previous SOLEC presentations are
available. Contact Paul Bertram with EPA (312-353-0153 or hertrampaul epa.aov ) or Nancy
Stadler-Salt with Environment Canada (905-336-6271 or Nancy Stadler-Salt )ec. cca ) for
additional information.
10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 1 7-2ft 2002
If Everything is Important, What’s Critical? — Chuck Maurice (U.S. EPA Region 5)
The Critical Ecosystems Team was created by EPA Region 5 senior management as a cross
media champion for the protection and restoration of “critical ecosystems.” Team members
included Charles Maurice, Mary White, Amy Mysz (Pesticides Program), Robert Beltran and
John Schneider (Great Lakes National Program Office), Mike Gentleman (Water Division),
Lawrence Lehrman (Office of Information Services), Brenda Jones (Superfund Division), and
Dan Mazur (Waste Management). The Team’s first tasks were to define what constituted a
critical ecosystem and to identify where they were located within the six-state Region S area
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). A brief synopsis was presented
describing the process the Team went through to frame and plan for the assessment required to
define what is critical.
The Team discussed more than one-hundred features of potentially critical areas over the course
of several meetings and developed three objectives:
To identify areas having the highest:
1) Potential for indigenous ecological “Diversity,”
2) Potential for long-term self “Sustainability,” and
3) Presence of Ecological “Rarity.”
The scope of the assessment was determined by criteria established by management (e.g., results
to be multi-media and region-wide), which determined the scale and led to the use of a
Geographic Information System (GIS) model. The conceptual model was divided by objective.
four GIS data sets were compiled for “diversity,” twelve for “sustainability,” and four for
rarity.” The management goal drove the assessment endpoints, which drove the measures of
exposure/effect. Different endpoints provided different results. Results of the top ten percent
scoring locations were illustrated.
11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
EPA Region 8’s Approach to Ecological Assessment — Karl A. Hemiann (U.S. EPA
Region 8)
EPA Region 8 is promoting an Ecological Assessment Framework to employ as “the way it does
business.” The Framework provides a logical approach to identify issues, develop assessment
goals and questions to be answered, analyze and interpret information, and effectively report the
findings to relevant stakeholders. The primary goal of the ecological assessment process is to
provide relevant information for optimal ecosystem stewardship. The Framework provides an
umbrella for assessment activities by supporting a hierarchical scale with respect to spatial,
temporal, and thematic dimensions. A coarser regional view (spatially aggregated information)
provides the context and targeting information for finer level, site or issue specific work.
Currently, several Region 8 projects incorporate the Framework, including the Colorado Plateau
and the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program’s Western Pilot. Future plans for
broader use include the upcoming Regional State of the Environment Report.
Ecological assessment is the process of determining and reporting ecological status, condition,
and trends, as well as the factors that may influence the current or future condition. It is the first
of two components in the ecosystem approach, the second being ecosystem management
opportunities. Focused on ensuring a sustainable economy and sustainable environment, the
ecosystem approach attempts to gain a comprehensive understanding of ecosystems, how we use
them, what factors affect them, and finally, optimal management and stewardship. A successful
ecological assessment process provides relevant information to a variety of stakeholders that
empowers them with an understanding of the existing condition of the environment and the
abilities to make effective ecosystem management decisions.
Recognizing the relationship between ecological systems and sustainable economies, Region 8’s
ecological assessment process employs the best available information and sound science to gain
an understanding of the multidimensional aspects of natural systems and the anthropogenic
stresses on those systems. The concept is to determine, and provide through partnerships,
relevant information about issues to stakeholders and decision makers. This information will in
turn assist in achieving optimal ecosystem use, which is a balancing act between natural
processes and human needs with respect to competing human values.
There are a few key elements for successful ecological assessments. First, a necessary holistic
approach requires expertise from a number of disciplines. Therefore, partnerships with other
agencies, et al., are highly desirable and perhaps critical for success. Secondly, no matter how
good the analysis and interpretation in the assessment process are, their value is lost without
effective communication of relevant information to the stakeholders for the practice of
ecosystem management. Thirdly, the issue identification and question and assessment endpoint
12
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
development are key to successful efforts. Only appropriate, well defined questions and
endpoints can drive a successful process. Finally, the effort must be management driven while
incorporating the best available information, sound science, and partnerships. The assessment
and research agendas need to be separated.
Ideally, the ecological assessment process is iterative. In this way, trends can be monitored and
adaptive management can be effectively practiced. In order to accomplish this, a primary
assessment tool set is the employment of ecological indicators. Designed properly, indicators
can be associated with assessment and/or measurement endpoints and can provide status
information with respect to issues. The amount or percent of resource in a given area is an
example of an indicator. A direct measure is a measurement endpoint and an indirect measure is
an assessment endpoint. Monitored over time, the indicator may show loss or gain of the
resource. Depending on ecosystem dynamics, the loss of a particular resource may imply loss of
a habitat or similar impacts. Likewise. stressor indicators can show increase or decrease of a
particular ecological stress over time (e.g., impact of anthropogenic nitrogen releases over time).
1-.,
1-,
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Building a Regional Integrated Assessment Program: The Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MAIA) — Patricia Bradley (U.S. EPA ORD/NHEERL)
The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) is an inter-Agency, multi-disciplinary program
that is integrating and assessing research and monitoring information to provide answers to
policy and management questions. Keys to success include partnerships with EPA program
offices, other Federal agencies, state and local governments, non-governmental organizations,
and academia; multi-scale monitoring designs (temporal and spatial); scientific tools that support
decision-making (indicators, methods, models, and decision-support systems); and high-quality
data (documented and accessible). MAIA drainage areas include Region 3 and parts of Regions
2 and 4. The mission of MAIA is to provide integrated scientific knowledge to support the
environmental decision-making process for the Mid-Atlantic region. Goals and objectives can
influence the measures and outcomes, and include:
• Developing acceptable and valid environmental indicators for natural resource
protection;
• Developing best characterization of environmental resources to date;
• Merging with physical, chemical, socio-economic and human health data into
dynamic and useful assessments:
• Having data influence and drive management decisions and influence public
perception and opinion; and
• . Translating to relative risk.
Five basic assessment questions of concern to the public were identified by the MAJA Team:
I) What is the current condition?
2) is it changing, and if so, how fast?
3) What is causing it?
4) What can we do about it?
5) Are we making a difference?
Bradley provided a brief overview of the history of partnerships leading up to the formation of
the MAIA Team beginning in the late 1970s with the Chesapeake Bay Program and the start of
Region 3 Strategic Planning in the mid- 1980s. in the late 1980s, there was increased regional
investment in monitoring and data analysis, as well as ORD’s initiation of EMAP as a Strategic
Research and Monitoring Program. The ORD/EMAP-Region 3 partnership began in the early
l990s, at which time ORD assumed the leadership role in developing the science of ecological
risk assessment. In the mid-1990s, EPA implemented community-based environmental
protection programs in the regional offices; the Committee on Environmental and Natural
14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Resources (CENIR) Workgroup was to develop a National Framework for Integration and
coordination of environmental monitoring and related research, and ORD and Region 3 formed
the MAIA Team as the Proof-of-Concept Regional study to test new ORD research and
monitoring programs. Currently, MAIA is conducting integrated monitoring, vulnerability and
risk assessment, and risk management research.
It is important to have the right leadership within EPA and partnerships outside of EPA. The
assessment process entails formation of the Assessment Team (partners/stakeholders), agreement
on key issues, development of assessment questions, identification of indicators, determination
of the adequacy of existing information, and integration/analysis of existing information and new
data. Of key importance is the ability to identify the trends and to look at a variety of political
and natural scales.
Product development consisted of establishing a core writing team, developing multiple drafts,
and producing a final report that was public-oriented, in full-color, as well as web-based.
Bradley recommended that all groups consider product development.
The MAIA Web site address is: wwwepa.govtmaia .
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Arencv
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Eeosv stem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Vhere are the Good Areas? The Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF)
Approach — Neil Burns (U.S: EPA Region 4)
Neil Burns presented a summary of the Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) approach to
ecosystem assessment. In Region 4, a charge similar to that in Region 5 was given by the
management: to identify where the good areas are. Planning questions addressed identification
of goals and objectives, scale, endpoints and measures, the endpoints and results connection. and
results.
The main goal was to integrate regulatory requirements with protecting ecological processes by
protecting environmental quality and human health, preserving the integrity of watershed
function, establishing cooperative planning and communication, using a multi-media and multi-
source approach, and coordinating the management of natural resources. The primary objective
was to use a regional landscape approach to design an Ecological Framework that would
function to
1) Conserve critical elements of native ecosystems and landscapes,
2) Restore and maintain connectivity among native ecological systems and
processes,
3) Facilitate the ability of these ecosystems and landscapes to function as dynamic
systems, and
4) Maintain the evolutionary potential of the components of these ecosystems to
adapt to future environmental changes.
Good” areas can be defined in various ways based on uses, services (such as water resources) or
biota. The SEF approach assumes that ecological function and health are sustained when large
patches of the natural landscape are maintained and linked by natural physiogeographic patterns
and land cover that has minimal influence from human activities. The resulting framework
allows for the natural evolution of ecosystems, and for the flow of matter and energy required to
sustain such systems. Analysis steps included the identification of ecologically significant areas
and the selection and delineation of”hubs.” A wide range of attributes were then measured for
each of the selected areas [ slide 8]. In addition, paths were identified that represented the best
ecological pathways for connecting the hubs.
Results indicated that 46 percent of the Region 4 area consisted of either priority ecological areas
or significant ecological areas [ slides 10, 1 l] 76 percent of those areas are privately owned.
Among Federal lands. Fort Bragg and Fort Stewart are among the ones that provide good
opportunities for linking critical areas. Fall line ecosystems can be managed intact from
16
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 20L2
Alabama to North Carolina. Those states are considering using the SEF to connect and manage
this region.
The SEF approach is consistent with Science Advisory Board (SA.B) guidelines, considers the
importance of environmental goods and services, and has the ability to connect across
ecoregions. However, it uses indicators instead of detailed monitoring data, and is frequently
mistaken for simply a mega-fauna model. The land cover data used in SEF is from 1993.
17
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Q & A and Panel Discussion
Question: Does anybody have any examples of how your work affected programmatic
management decisions?
Response: We are just starting to implement our results in Region 5. There was a case
where a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) officer consulted our maps
to see if a natural gas pipeline would impact any critical areas. There are some
cases involving the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in Indiana
(corrective action sites) where they are using our maps to help areas adjacent to
critical areas.
Response: In Region 4, we extended the critical area outside of our regional boundaries. We
have been working with our NEPA group, as well.
Response: In the last couple of years there has a been a study of lake level fluctuations. As a
result of SOLEC we will be doing some pilot monitoring programs of coastal
wetlands.
Response: We have some examples of our stream design network in Maryland. Randy
talked about Mountain Top Mining. We scale up and down.
Question: Is anybody working with county land use managers?
Response: We just published our most recent publication. In Maryland, they changed their
comprehensive plan in Calvert County as a result of our approach.
Response: In Georgia we are working with a lot of counties. Some examples of GIS work
are included in the Poster Session.
Response: We are working at the local level. We have a small grant program. We have
given some grants to Chambers of Commerce to develop economic assessments
as a result of SOLEC.
18
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Repion/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Question: Regarding the question of influence on programs: how did you define diversity
and what was your data set? (Addressed to Chuck Maurice).
Response: We searched the Internet and network of people to identify inexpensive data sets,
then sorted through data sets to see which ones were applicable. If a data set
would cause more error than the benefit, it was not used.
Question: Do you feel that your groups are able to identify those goals, or if not, who is?
Have you run into any situations where someone else needs to step in to validate
goals?
Response: We had discussions over a year that were very extensive. These are very tough
issues, value issues, that bring in individual values and beliefs (Maurice).
Response: I don’t think EPA can do this alone. We need to involve stakeholders (Hernzaiiii).
Response: I agree with Karl. I like the question regarding involving county commissioners.
One of the biggest obstacles is getting it implemented by upper management at
the regional level - getting them to come on board (Burns).
Response: We were talking with the Departments of Natural Resources (DNRs), the Nature
Conservancy, and others we wanted on board.
Question: How much do you think it would cost to implement?
Response: 1 don’t think there is an answer to that. Assessment is a continuum. There is
always a need to continue work.
Response: Different organizations are working on this. I think if you could spread it out,
with different organizations using their own full-time equivalents (FTEs), it might
be more manageable.
Response: Some of the data was widely available (e.g., USGS). I think we had a couple of
different grant cycles around $200K, maybe a total of $300K. I think this cost
will come down as more information becomes available for free. (U.S. EPA
Region 4).
Response: [ We have] one FTE to document the study and conduct Regional Applied
Research Efforts (RARE) projects to ground truth the results (Maurice).
19
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Question: Have there been any court challenges of assessment results?
Response: Our assessments are new enough that we have not been challenged. We are
publishing papers to document the study and conduct a RARE study to ground
truth the results Ma,irice).
Response: In the Mid-Atlantic, Mountain Top Mining is in the courts today and has yet to be
resolved. It is the only one that I am aware of
20
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 7-20, 2002
Ecoregional Planning and the Southern Rocky Mountains Ecoregional
Assessment and Conservation Blueprint — Betsy Neely (The Nature Conservancy of
Colorado)
Betsy Neely gave an overview of the ecoregiona! assessment and conservation blueprint, a
comprehensive, rigorous assessment process which takes one and a half years to complete. The
conservation approach used — Conservation by Design — involved setting priorities, developing
strategies, taking action, and measuring success. This project was funded by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) as well as The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Ecoregions are large areas of
land and water delineated by climate, vegetation, and geology; they form the framework for
capturing variation in biodiversity across environmental gradients. The status of ecoregional
planning in the United States and Canada was presented on a map [ slide 4] indicating areas
where it has been completed, is in progress, or has not yet begun. A map of the Central
Shortgrass Prairie ecoregion indicating conservation sites was also presented as an example
[ slide 5].
The Southern Rocky Mountains ecoregion is one of the fastest growing regions in the United
States, 65 percent of which is public land. Additionally, it is the highest U.S. ecoregion and
contains the headwaters for three major North American rivers. The conservation goal for this
region was to design a portfolio of conservation areas that, with proper management. would
ensure the long-term survival of the species, communities, and ecological systems of the
Southern Rocky Mountains. Specifically, this involved selecting conservation targets and setting
goals; assessing the viability and integrity of areas and selecting areas to include in the portfolio
(or network); and identifying the threats and conservation strategies. Ecological systems can be
terrestrial or aquatic, and are composed of groups of communities linked by ecological
processes. A coarse-filter/fine-filter conservation approach assumes that conserving multiple
viable examples of systems and communities will conserve the majority of species; however, it
recognizes that some species are not captured by the ecosystem approach and require individual
attention. Aquatic areas were classified into ecoregions, drainage units, aquatic systems (or
community assemblages), microhabitats, and their associated biological communities [ slide 11].
These ecological drainage units were used because sufficient data was not available to classify
the systems on the basis of biotic communities. There were almost 400 species that needed
protection in this region, including federally listed, endemic, wide-ranging, declining, disjunct,
and imperiled species [ slides 12, 13]. Information was gathered from all sources available [ slide
14] and peer reviewed throughout the process and at the end.
Conservation goals were set in terms of number and distribution of the targets — specifically,
globally rare species and ecological systems. Some of these were restoration goals, e.g.,
restoring systems to thirty percent of their historic extent. Assessments were performed to
21
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
determine the viability of populations and the integrity of the systems chosen for conservation.
Combined with land use factors, these assessments were used to determine the suitability index,
or “cost” of conserving an area [ slide 17]. The SITES spatial optimization software was then
used to model selected areas for inclusion in the portfolio or network. The model results were
refined by experts, and the result was the conservation blueprint for the Southern Rocky
Mountains ecoregion [ slide 19]. The green areas on the map are those that must remain intact or
be restored to ensure the long-term maintenance of viable and diverse species and populations.
Since so many areas were identified, however, a second level of refinement was performed,
which considered:
1 Conservation value: Areas were identified whichwere deemed irreplaceable based on
the number of imperiled targets and landscape integrity [ slide 20].
2. Priority threats: Threats included incompatible development; incompatible fire
management practices; mining, oil, or gas development; roads; invasive species; and
hydrologic alterations [ slide 21]
3. Field verification: Areas which were well-inventoried and ready for conservation plans
or action were distinguished from those that still needed extensive field inventories [ slide
22].
The challenge in conservation efforts lies in developing strategies that can capture all
ecoregional targets, as well as abate critical threats both within and across ecoregions. The
framework for developing multi-scale strategies should consider systems, stresses and sources of
stress, strategies, and success measures. This framework and conservation blueprint can be used
by TNC partners for land use, conservation, and fire management planning. It can also guide
research and restoration activities and provide information for protection efforts and policies.
The United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, specifically, would like to
incorporate this new information into their planning efforts. The conservation blueprint is
available to others interested in using the information; those interested can obtain a CD-ROM by
contacting Betsy Neely ( bneelv:’ tnc. org) .
22
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Setting Priorities for Conservation Opportunity Areas: Different Targets
Result in Different Answers — David D. Diamond (Missouri Resource Assessment
Partnership, University of Missouri)
The goal of conservation efforts is to preserve natural resources; to that end, ecological
subsections are chosen as the assessment units. Since conservation strategies vary and each
group involved has different concerns, it is assumed that each subsection is worthy of
conservation effort. Conservation opportunity areas (OAs) can be identified in such a way that
different organizations can work from the same information base and explore the outcomes of
using different geographic areas or conservation targets. Conservation opportunity areas are
defined using land use I land cover data from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD). Land
cover classes from the database were used to create 30-meter grids that indicate distance of each
section of forest from the forest edge [ slides 8-121. These can be converted to plots showing
forest pixels according to distance from the forest edge [ slide 131 or from nearby roads [ slide
14]. Opportunity areas can be identified by selecting forest pixels that meet threshold values
appropriate for each situation — from “liberal” or close to edges and roads [ slide 15] to
“conservative” or mid-distance from edges and roads [ slide 16]. An ecoregion can be further
divided into subsections, and different strategies used for different ecoregions.
Five modules were used to set conservation priorities according to targets:
• Module A: Landform Representation
• Module B: Vertebrate Diversity
• Module C: Target Bird Diversity
• Module D: Rare Species and Communities
• Module F: Target Land Cover Types
In a case study for the St. Francois Knob and Basins ecoregion, opportunity areas were ranked
for each of the five modules. Landform representations were derived by using slope and relief
data obtained from 30-meter digital elevation models [ slides 22-25]. OA groups were formed
based on landform similarity, including a “mixed” landform group; the largest OAs from each
group were chosen as top priorities [ slide 26]. The methodology for developing each of the
other four target modules was presented [ slide 27-3 0] along with a list of the target land cover
types [ slide 31] Module outcomes were considered using different combinations of modules to
determine the amount of overlap; priorities can be determined according to the targets [ slides 32-
36]. Outcomes can be adjusted for different scales, such as the county or watershed level; this
allows geographic areas of interest to be considered in outcomes [ slides 37, 38].
-------
U S Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 1 7-20, 2002
Top priority areas based on different targets generally overlapped ten percent or less. None-the-
less, different observers can use the same base data to accomplish planning within different
regions or to emphasize different targets. Give the variety of biases among government agencies
and non-government conservation organizations, plus differences in geographic areas of concern
(e.g. state, county, region), no one right answer in terms of priority setting may be achievable or
even appropriate.
24
-------
Ii S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Q & A and Panel Discussion
Question: There is no natural ecosystem protection like the farm program. Wouldn’t it be
great to hold a meeting with that goal in mind?
Response: There have been groups that have done mock-ups to see how to accomplish this.
Response: I agree, I think it is the way to go. If we go species by species it will take a long
time. We are in transition now and becoming more efficient at addressing the
threats. We cannot forget about the species, but we need to spend more time
focusing on large unfragmented landscapes (Neely).
Question: What is an enduring feature?
Response: They are ecological features that do not change much with time, e.g., soil or
slope.
Question: Betsy, how has the work that you have done to influence management affected
your region?
Response: We have been able to get the attention of the Colorado Department of
Transportation. They are using our Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional plan to create
their advance mitigation effort with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
We have been invited by the USFWS to integrate our information at the Forest
planning level and will be piloting efforts with three southern forests in Colorado.
We have also successfully been integrated into one Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) Resource Management Plan and have presented to Field Office managers
and the State director. We have also had one Colorado county use our data for
their master plan. We are trying to get our information integrated into public
management efforts at all levels through our community-based conservation
network. A plan isn’t any good unless it is implemented, and we are trying to do
that at all levels (Smith).
Question: Do you see Fish and Wildlife buying into this process?
Response: Fish and Wildlife are my partners in Missouri. They are mandated to pay
attention to endangered species.
Comment: I never saw the multi-species recovery plan completed.
25
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Response: This will be answered in the next session.
Question: How do you make the decision whether to preserve or restore an area?
Response: It depends on the geographic perspective of the area.
Response: EPA ’s priority is more to restore an area to instill pride. I guess it goes back to
the priority of who is doing it.
Response: You could work with the county planners to connect the green space.
Response: if you work together you can preserve connectivity and prevent fragmentation.
Question: Session II was really about endpoints and measures, but what in particular would
any of you like to see done as follow-on for Session II? What I mean by follow-
on is: does anything emerge as a useful activity to work on in the weeks and
months to come?
Response: I would like to see better integration of the information to keep the
communication going (Burns).
26
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
SESSION III: ASSESSING THE CRITICALITY OF PLACES
Co-chairs: Betsy Smith (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL), Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5),
Karen Rodriguez (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office), and
Chuck Maurice (U.S. EPA Region 5)
Session III was an overview of assessing the criticality of places, and had three main goals:
1. To provide participants with information about a wide range of approaches;
2. To encourage interaction and information sharing; and
3. To identify problems and issues, including research needs and future workshop topics.
Questions to be addressed during the session included:
• How do you rank critical areas?
• How do you integrate data on condition, sensitivity, current and future stressors?
• How do you reconcile social values in rankings?
• How do you incorporate ecological forecasts?
• What are examples of approaches that have been used to identify priorities and target
specific ecosystems?
• How do you turn monitoring data into spatially-explicit estimates of condition crucial to
targeting risk management activities?
27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Biodiversity Investment Areas: Ranking Critical Areas in the Great Lakes
Basin — Karen Rodriguez (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office)
Biodiversity Investment Areas (BIAs) are natural areas along the Great Lakes shoreline with
high ecological values that warrant exceptional attention to protect them from degradation.
BIAs include broad areas (rather than isolated sites), clusters of exceptional biodiversity, and
areas that are candidates for restoration, as well as pristine sites, at this time, BIAs include only
coastal areas. The concept was introduced at the 1996 State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC) as a balance to the Great Lakes Areas of Concern, forty-two areas on the
shoreline that are in need of remediation because of severe pollution and loss of natural features
and functions. Originally, BIAs were identified for nearshore terrestrial, coastal wetland, and
nearshore aquatic areas in separate SOLEC papers. At SOLEC 2000, the three areas were
integrated into one overarching BIA system in a four-step process. Step one was the
development of a set of shoreline units as a framework for assessment of the nearshore area. Step
two was the development of three integrated criteria which can be applied equally to terrestrial
wetlands and aquatic environments. Step three was the identification often data sets to assess the
three criteria. In the final step, the shoreline units with the highest composite ranks were
identified as potential Biodiversity Investment Areas. The EPA-Great Lakes roles are, with
Environment Canada and other partners, to work within each BIA to identify ecological
protection and restoration opportunities, to provide programmatic and financial resources to
implement protection and restoration activities, and to continue to track the status of the Great
Lakes ecosystem so that management priorities can adapt to the resulting changing landscape.
28
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
You Think It’s Critical? Now Prove It! — Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5)
Three criteria were used to characterize and prioritize ecosystem health during a recent
ecosystem assessment conducted in Region 5:
1. High ecological diversity
2 Ecological sustainability and
3. Rare and endangered species, features or communities (“rarity”).
Each of these three criteria can contain several data layers which, when combined, yield a
composite “score” for each attribute. This type of analysis was conducted for all of the
undeveloped land in Region 5 using data layers that were applicable to all six Region 5 states
and representative of 1990-1992. Scores for diversity, sustainability, and rarity were combined
to produce a composite “final” ecosystem score that was used to rank critical areas [ slide 3]. For
all the undeveloped areas in the region, the average score was 135, with a maximum score of 259
and minimum of 29 [ slide 4] (maximum possible score = 300).
Social values were not considered in this study, as its goal was to identify areas of high
ecological quality. These were presented for the area near the coast of Lake Michigan [ slide 6].
The Lake Michigan forum has expressed interest in using these results for planning management
and protection efforts. Collaborators in the study [ slide 7] included representatives from several
EPA offices and programs.
29
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Values — Doug Johnson (U.S. EPA Region 8)
Effective environmental decision-making is inextricably associated with socio-economic,
cultural, and natural values. Understanding this association is paramount for science and society
to enhance our ability to improve / sustain our ecosystems, while attempting to meet the
consumptive demand for resources. Demand is increasing at alarming rates, on a global scale,
with the ever-increasing human population. Determining what is usable, expendable, sacred,
significant, sustainable, and affordable hinges on the values of every stakeholder, i.e., each
individual. Therefore, developing the capacity to have a more enlightened dialogue about values
should help stakeholders with different and sometimes conflicting views respond to and address
basic and / or complex issues more rationally and objectively. Valuation (measuring
significance) is an important component in developing our capacity to have a more informed
dialogue, not just in economic terms, but also, in cultural, historical, spiritual, and environmental
terms - none at the expense of the other to the best of our informed ability. Weighting and
ranking values are also critical components of the decision-making process.
30
-------
U.S. Env ronrnentaI Protection Agenc’.
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosvstem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
What Makes an Ecosystem “Critical?” — Betsy Smith (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL)
Ecosystems are defined as critical because of attributes relating to their condition, sustainability,
and value to society. Multiple criteria are used in making decisions to protect these critical
areas; stakeholder input, politics, economics, and feasibility all have to be evaluated.
EPA’ s Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) project is in the process of developing new
approaches to assess ecosystem vulnerability and to improve trade-off analysis through
alternative future scenarios. ReVA offers a flexible framework that can integrate existing data
on condition, sensitivity, and stressor distributions. Existing monitoring data can be used to
develop empirical landscape models, which give results over a broad scale to capture spatial
variability. These models can, in addition, be applied to finer scales across a region. Estimates
of uncertainty and error are also reported [ slides 3, 4].
Multiple integration methods are incorporated into ReVA, including ranking methods, distance
from good, grouping of like units, and overlay of stressors and/or resources. Results can be
presented as maps, radar plots of individual units, or according to user-specified weightings
(e.g., focusing on aquatic indicators versus human health indicators) [ slides 5, 6]. ReVA can
also project future scenarios as another means of evaluating trade-offs [ slide 7]. Currently,
ReVA is being used as a pilot in combination with the Region 3 Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MATA), with plans to expand to other regions in future years.
31
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Characterization and Prioritization of the Southeastern Ecology Framework —
Tom Hoctor (University of Florida)
Prioritization of the Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) was conducted to identify areas
that are most significant for natural resource protection activities across EPA Region 4. Since
time and funding are always limited, it is important to identify the areas of highest priority to
help focus resource protection efforts. Prioritization was completed for four categories:
biodiversity, ecosystem services, threats, and recreation potential. In addition, prioritization was
completed for four areas of interest: EPA Region IV, the SEF, ecological hubs within the SEF,
and ecological linkages within the SEF. For each prioritization category, there are multiple
criteria that are individually ranked and prioritized. For example, within the Biodiversity
Category, potential black bear habitat and listed species hot spots were two of the criteria that
were prioritized. Each criterion was ranked on a scale of one to ten, with one representing low
priority areas and ten representing high priority areas. Then, for each prioritization category
(biodiversity. ecosystem services, etc.), individual criteria were added together to create an
overall prioritization ranking for the particular category. This assessment was a first iteration
and an example of how priorities can be identified. Future iterations should strive to include
more specific information on areas needed to conserve viable populations of species of
conservation interest and to protect water resources. CD-ROMs were distributed that describe in
detail how to characterize and prioritize areas of interest.
32
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Q & A and Panel Discussion
Question: Betsy, how does ReVA deal with data quality, and data with different biases in
mind 9
Response: We don’t have answers for that yet in ReVA. There are a lot of data sets that we
work with that have data gaps that need to be {filledjJ.
Response: For BIAs, we talked about it up—front for each data set. We put our idea before
many people from many agencies for review. We make sure we have QA plans
in place for all data collected and all interpretation is open for comment at State
of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences and by the general public. This is iterative
(Rodriguez).
Response: We are looking at this problem from many views. We are looking to see if there
are layers that are more prone to bias/error and whether there are any models that
need to have sensitivity analysis conducted. We need to state up-front what the
problems with the data might be and how they should be viewed (White).
Response: We try to use metadata where possible and cover a large area (Johnson).
Response: We work very hard describing our metadata in the CD-ROM. We realize we do
not have all the data we wanted and need to work to fill the gaps. I am interested
in setting thresholds and how that might affect the results.
Response: it is important to see where there is a high degree of correlation of data layers.
especially of landscape data from a common source. We have examined
correlations (Sniiih).
Question: is the definition of property lines an issue, and if so, how?
Response: Our maps are never precise, for that reason. We want the local people to work
with us on identifying features. We just lay the groundwork. Industry, city and
towns take part in this iterative process, it is always in draft. Anyone who has
some information to contribute is welcome.
Response: We do interface with local communities in both the U.S. and Canada. We have a
small amount of discretionary money for restoration that goes to small
communities Rodriguez).
fin
3
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Comment: Is that a legitimate omission?
Comment: One of the major problems is how you map something in GIS. Waste
assimilation would need a model to deal with it. It is a huge national problem.
Comment: I hear the response is intentionally vague.
Comment: Many value judgments were made but not recognized, e.g., when selecting layers.
Comment: When it comes... it requires behavior change and preserving land for future uses.
Question: It seems that there are a lot of branches. What about work in Region 2 on critical
ecosystems?
Response: Region 2 folks work on Lake Ontario, Niagara Falls, and the Hudson River.
Mario Delvacario is the one to talk to.
Response: Look into work done on Long Island Sound.
Response: Coastal areas may be more in focus.
Comment: Region 2 folks were engaged in the initial planning process. Part of our goal was
to get as many regions here as possible. Region 2 decided to use their resources
to work on developing regional efforts rather than on attending the conference.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Irreversibility and the Collective Good: Managing Risk Under Competing
Priorities — Lisa Wainger (University of Maryland)
Lisa Wainger presented the application of economic concepts to the identification of critical
ecosystem services. Given that it is largely unknown which ecosystems will sustain human
spiritual and physical well being, the best ecological information must be balanced with an
understanding of the tolerance for and capacity to absorb risk. If ecosystem preservation or
restoration choices are viewed as investments, concepts from financial portfolio management
can guide the development of a portfolio of environmental investments that manage risk for a
variety of social outcomes. Portfolios are managed for a certain level of risk tolerance, which is
evaluated by considering not only willingness to take risks, but also the ability of the portfolio to
withstand unexpected events. In the case of environmental investments, the question must be
considered: which services are we least tolerant of losing? This question is approached by
evaluating the quality and availability of replacement or substitute services and the irreversibility
of service loss. Incorporating risk into the selection of sites for restoration or preservation may
result in choosing a set of sites that includes not only the most fragile sites (which are high risk
and high return) but sites that will be resilient to expected change (which are low risk with either
high or low return). Balancing risk involves looking for investments that will change in opposite
ways to a perturbation, not avoiding risky investments entirely.
Examples from current research on wetland mitigation policy and invasive species management
were used to demonstrate types of social and economic dependencies on ecosystem services
within various landscape settings. A variety of management needs are considered when
selecting sites for investment, although goals must be prioritized in order to generate the highest
level of benefits for a given level of investment. Questions to consider with environmental
investments include does the adjacent land use or zoning enhance or detract from site value? is
adjacent land publicly or privately owned (representing low or high risk to services)? and how
are different social needs met by this investment? The most effective investments will:
• Hold value over time
• Manage risk,
• Rely on leading indicators of scarcity;
• Consider local economic needs, and
• Equitably distribute burdens.
The design of a portfolio of investment sites should be revisited at least once every generation,
taking into account all new technical information and changing socioeconomic conditions.
-I
3
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Q & A and Panel Discussion
Comments: I remember when the only way over here was through Loveland Pass. Now there
are tunnels in place, and ski areas, and there is a large influx of people into this
part of Colorado. Road sand is filling up drainage to Lake Dillon. It is louder
here off my balcony than at my home in downtown Denver. Now the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) is looking at how to put more lanes
through the tunnels. We looked at the 1-70 corridor and thought it was a good
place to put emphasis (not an ecosystem per se). It is very difficult to implement
tools and to sway CDOT. is the 1-70 corridor a sacrifice zone? We need to make
the science much more available and less cumbersome.
Comment: The Florida DOT is considered to be progressive because they continue to build
roads in critical areas, which increases access. We are considering growth
pressure models that will illustrate how much land will be lost if you change
access to an area Hoctor).
Comment: We can now use our model to show what impacts come from different types of
development.
Comment: People will forego economic gain for quality of life. People do recognize
biodiversity protection as a good thing for keeping quality of life.
Comment: I don’t know if anyone has actually framed the debate by looking in terms of
reducing risk. Preserving biodiversity is like selling insurance people will pay to
reduce the risk of a lost opportunity by preserving the option to have these species
in the future.
Comment: Process is very important in success.
Question: Has a functioning equation or model been developed to address inverse risk?
Response: The curve was a theoretical example but think of global climate change. You
may want to preserve ecosystems that will respond positively to expected climate
change in order to balance investments in those that may respond negatively.
36
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 7-20, 2002
Question: Your presentation was mostly about decisions. What are the long-term economic
implications to this type of process?
Response. There are several tools available to bring this to the process. We are still trying to
develop a model that brings in economic considerations.
Question: You seem to have an understanding of rational behavior. It might be more
persuasive if you attach it to the other things that are part of the picture.
Response: I think it is a key concept to get across that there is an opportunity cost for
everything. Economics is about how we recognize the trade offs, the cost of the
activity versus the cost for conservation.
Question: How can tourism affect this process?
Response: The land deal in New England illustrates the game theory where people will pay
to reduce risk. In the Berkshires, The Nature Conservancy and local government
made a deal to grant an easement and continued recreation. We have to accept
some risk to species. but cannot forego all economic risk.
37
-------
U.S - Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 7-20, 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEfT BLANK
-I
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Workshop Dinner and Guest Speaker
A Science Advisory Board Report: A Framework for Assessing and Reporting
on Ecological Condition - Virginia Dale (U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board)
Virginia Dale, Ph.D. served as the evening’s keynote speaker, presenting the soon-to-be-released
Science Advisory Board report: A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological
Condition. The report development team included experts with a broad range of expertise in
landscape, aquatic, forest, and other ecological fields. The purpose of the report is to provide a
standardized approach to reporting on ecological conditions that: 1) fosters consistent and
comprehensive reporting on the condition of ecological resources; 2) provides a checklist of
ecological attributes that contribute to ecological “health” or integrity; and 3) enhances
communication to the public and decision-makers on the state of ecological systems. The report
is organized to provide a list of the ecological characteristics that should be measured, based on
current ecological principles; it illustrates how the resulting information can be organized to
create an understandable and coherent picture, and it serves as an example methodology, but is
not considered the single “correct” reporting framework.
The report outlines a hierarchal architecture, which integrates six Essential Environmental
Attributes (EEAs) under which individual Ecological Indicators are partitioned. Each indicators
has varying types of measures or monitoring data. Many of the measures may relate to more
than one indicator and EEA, and it is not expected that data can be or will be obtained in all
categories and subcategories. It is more important that every category is considered, and an
attempt is made to include at least some data within each of the six EEAs to ensure a
comprehensive approach. Dr. Dale provided examples of the types of data and indicators
identified under each of the six EEAs and provided a summary of the Ecological Indicators
under each EEA.
The Ecological Reporting Panel is a subcommittee of the SAB. The full SAB has approved the
report. It is being prepared for the Administrator, and will be going to press in the beginning of
July.
O&A Discussion
Question: The success of this workshop is networking. Adoption of this type of consensus
approach is going to require buy-in from upper management. Who is going to
lead the way out in the regions?
3
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Response: in practice it has to be both the workers and the bosses. The report will be going
to the Administrator so it will be heard at a high level. Healthy ecosystems are
very important in the Agency’s Report Card (in addition to healthy land, water,
air and people). This will further support our efforts.
Question: How can natural disturbance data be included?
Response: There is a history of natural disturbance and thus there is some predictability. We
recognize that for other disturbances (wind, ice storms, etc.) there are very little
data, yet these could be very important. Even though these disturbance events
lack key data for understanding the process, there is still some predictability of
when they can occur and what their potential effects are.
Question: What should the regions do when it is not possible to collect data in all
categories?
Response: The report does not advocate collecting all the data. The concept is that there are
six EEAs that should be considered and in many cases the data may already be
available. Many times you just need to find and analyze the data. We suggest
you take the information collected, put it into the matrix, and see what it might
tell you. It is an interpretive process.
Audience Comment: We do collect a lot of data in Region 1; we are unique in this respect.
Others stated they were sending out 5-6 people to collect reference data in
certain areas, which is extremely important, and 1 want to stress that the
EMAP sampling strategy is very useful for collecting data.
Final Dale Comment: The SAB is supportive of this effort, and they would like to see it
transferred nationwide. Dale’s job will be to alert other Boards on which
she is a member, i.e., Department of Energy (DOE), National Academy, to
increase awareness of the framework and promote its adoption. Dale
requested that the conference participants help move the process forward
in their own work. This approach has the potential to change the way we
protect the environment in the U.S. The public adoption of the weather
channel demonstrates the general thirst for information as the environment
becomes more interesting and predictable. The opportunities are there, we
just have to be consistent in how we present our information and message.
40
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
SESSION IV: ISSUES WITH ASSESSMENT DATA AND TOOLS
Co-chairs: Rick Durbrow (U.S. EPA Region 4) and Bill Fisher (U.S. EPA ORD NHEERL)
This session consisted of five brief overviews of issues with assessment data and tools followed
by four concurrent breakout session to evaluate how data fits into the SAB Framework identified
by Virginia Dale the previous evening. National data were presented, as well as data from a
regional approach. Opening remarks were made by Patti Tyler, Rick Durbrow and Bill Fisher.
The Western EMAP Approach to Assessment of Coastal Ecological Condition
- Walt Nelson (U.S. EPA ORD!NHEERL)
The primary objective of the Western Coastal Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (WEMAP) is the assessment of ecological condition of the coastal systems of
Washington, Oregon, and California. WEMAP also includes two associated pilot projects to
demonstrate feasibility of coastal condition assessments in Alaska and Hawaii. By 2003,
WEMAP will have examined the condition of soft sediment habitats including low salt marsh,
intertidal flats, and shallow subtidal habitats of estuaries, and continental shelf habitats down to a
depth of 120 M for the three west coast states. The Hawaii pilot project will begin to establish
methods for assessment of hard bottom habitats such as rock outcrops and coral reefs, while
assessment methods for deep water habitats will also be examined as part of the efforts in Alaska
and Southern California.
As an element of the larger National Coastal Assessment, WEMAP utilizes a common set of
indicators, a unified approach to achieving high standards of quality assurance, a standard
approach to sampling design, and a common approach to data analysis for all indicators and
geographic regions. WEMAP has evolved from a decade long series of regional coastal
assessment programs, and continues to have a principal focus on indicators derived from the
Sediment Quality Triad approach, namely sediment toxicity, benthic community structure, and
sediment contaminant levels. Within the draft framework proposed by the Science Advisory
Board (SA.B) for assessing ecological condition, WEMAP has focused most effort on examining
essential ecological attributes within the categories of Biotic Condition and Chemical and
Physical Characteristics, but is exploring more explicit incorporation of measures of Landscape
Condition. In 2002, WEMAP will have two pilot efforts to evaluate a number of landscape
metrics as indicators of coastal wetland condition. More explicit incorporation of measures of
natural disturbance regimes is needed as the program moves from the status of pilot project to
4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
on-going monitoring mode. The greatest challenges will be to effectively incorporate
meaningful measurements of ecological attributes within the SAB framework category of
Ecological Processes. This will also ultimately require a simultaneous approach for
incorporating Hydrology/Geomorphology measures through an effective coastal classification
system.
42
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection A encv
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Landscape Assessments of Ecological Condition - Daniel Fleggem (U.S. EPA
ORD/NHEERL)
Landcover and land use data are fundamental ingredients of ecological studies, including
landscape assessments that deal with the impacts of human activities over large regions.
Environmental management practices are moving away from simple, local-scale assessments
toward complex, multiple-stressor regional assessments. Landscape ecology provides the theory
behind these assessments while geographic information systems (GIS) supply the tools to
implement them. A common application of GIS is the generation of landscape indicators, which
are quantitative measurements of the environmental condition or vulnerability of an area (e.g.,
ecological region or watershed). The generation of these indicators can be a complex, lengthy
undertaking, requiring substantial GIS expertise.
Heggem provided illustrations depicting the landscape change of the Las Vegas Valley from
1972 to 2000. and asked the participants to consider the associated water and air quality issues.
Landscape assessments of the ecological condition involve data acquisition, landscape
indicator/model development, assessment method development, change in the direction of
research, and remote sensing. Landscape assessments attempt to associate landscape metrics
with environmental endpoints. identifying landscape metrics is a creative process. It is easy to
list numerous metrics, but are they really going to work?
Analytical Tools Interface for Landscape Assessment (ATtILA) is an easy-to-use software
extension for ArcView desktop” GIS developed by EPA’s Office of Research and Development
(ORD). It currently uses readily available land cover and other spatial data to summarize and
map over fifty landscape factors thought to be important to water quality concerns. Three
families of indicators are included in the extension: landscape characteristics, human stresses,
and riparian characteristics. Landscape characteristics available through ATtI1LA use land
use/landcover data such as Multi-Resolution Landscape Characterization (MRLC), Southern
Appalachian Assessment (SAA), and others, such as aerial photography-derived land
use/landcover. Any available analysis boundaries (based on polygons/shape files) can be used,
including watersheds, hydrologic units, ecological regions, counties (all readily available as part
of EPA’s BASINS water quality tools) and others. Slope-based factors also rely on slopes
derived from digital elevation models (DEMs). Total area is calculated for each factor. The
slope based factors are f1exible the user may specify desired slopes. Three example results were
presented for the Mid-Atlantic region. Landcover change was highlighted in the
Raleigh/Durham area from 1970s to 1990s, a fast growing area. The nitrogen yield change can
be calculated for the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) using this data. Heggern also
provided examples of changes in riparian habitat (increase vs. decrease of area). The final map
developed for this North Carolina region showed logistic regression, depicting some of the city
43
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
RegionJORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
and agricultural land, giving the user the power to predict possible areas to look for fecal
coliform bacteria contamination.
Heggem briefly described northwest Oregon metrics. Oregon EMAP data is from known
sources of high quality; it is late in coming, but can be used with confidence. The Landscape
Team predicted phosphorus applied over the state, and attempted to combine water quality data
to make further predictions. In the desert areas, it does not hold up as well. A conceptual design
of the Association of Ground Water Agencies new software will be coming out in the winter.
44
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Essential Ecological Attributes for the Southeastern Ecological Framework -
John Richardson (U.S. EPA Region 4)
The development of the Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) came about from the request
of Region 4’s Regional Administrator for a listing or map of the “good areas” remaining in the
region. This came at a time when the University of Florida (UF) Department of Landscape
Architecture had just finished a “greenways” project for the state of Florida. The SEF was
developed by UF under a grant from EPA. A GIS modeling procedure was used to develop the
SEF. A series of priority ecological areas (PEAs) were used to define where the important hub
areas were. A GIS model was then used to connect the hubs against a background of ecological
costs. This unique approach provided a framework of priority ecological areas in the
southeastern U.S. The information is being used by several federal, state and local governments
as well as nbn-governmental organizations to help in regional scale coordination of greenspace
planning, watershed protection, and highway planning.
The data available for the model was primarily regional, but in some cases, data from only a few
states was available. The data primarily fell into three of the six categories in the SAB report: A
Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition. It brings home the point that
data needed to develop a model or analysis do not always fit with existing data and often
modeled surrogates must be used. Some of the tools and methods in this modeling process were
new and unique, but in some cases, adequate tools did not exist to complete all of the tasks that
were needed Reliability of existing data sets and often unknown quality of the data prevent a
thorough quantitative understanding of the uncertainty in this kind of model. Redundancy of
input data layers for the definition of the PEAs helped to alleviate this.
45
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Landscape Level Identification of Ecologically Significant Areas in the Upper
Midwest - Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5)
Is it possible to quantitatively assess the quality of ecosystems at a landscape scale over a large
(six-state) area? The Critical Ecosystems Team of EPA Region 5 was charged with this task in
order to prioritize areas for regional protection and restoration efforts. Three criteria were
identified that would be necessary in an ecosystem in order to consider it a “critical ecosystem”
These are: 1) high biodiversity 2) self-sustainability; and 3) rare or endangered species,
features, or communities. In this presentation a GIS-based model was discussed that uses twenty
data layers. It was proposed that the combinations of data layers could serve as indicators for the
three criteria. In many cases, the actual data for the criteria did not exist at a regional level, and
appropriate proxies were used. The results identified ecosystems that satisfy all three criteria, as
well as a distribution of ecosystem “scores.”
46
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Statistical Geo-Spatial Modeling and Analysis of the Oak Resource in
Minneapolis I St. Paul - Maria Downing (U.S. Forest Service, State and Private Forestry)
Rapid development is threatening the ecology of the oak forests in the wildland-urban interface
around Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that there is
a spatial relationship between urban development and forest dieback and decline. Before
dieback and decline can be controlled, causal factors must be identified. This landscape-level,
geospatial analysis uses indicator data (e.g., landscape condition, biotic condition, physical
characteristics, hydrology, and disturbance) to assess the extent of urbanization and its effects on
the condition of impacted oak forests. This project provides important information to decision
makers, city planners, landowners, and developers for use in land-use decisions in order to
conserve the ecological integrity of the oak forests in Minneapolis/St. Paul.
The objective of this U.S. Forest Service project was to spatially model some continuous or
discrete variable (e.g., oak condition) in order to understand how it was distributed or changed
across the landscape. Modeling and analysis can indicate whether the variable of interest is
distributed randomly across a region, is spatially independent, or changes in a predictable
manner based on another variable or collection of variables [ e.g., elevation, soils, or Landsat
Thematic Mapper (TM) bands]. The first step is to create the Sample Point Theme (dependent
variable) data set. Each point in this data layer represents a sample location that becomes the
dependent variable in the spatial analysis sites that are in good condition are shown as black
stars, sites that have oak wilt present are indicated with red dots [ slide 5]. The second step is to
create the Independent Variable GRID Data Themes such as road density, Landsat satellite band
values, distance to streams, elevation, and slope. Step three is the creation of a geospatial model
spreadsheet comprised of independent variable values collected at the dependent variable
geographical locations. Once steps one through three have been completed, spatial analysis is
conducted by importing the model spreadsheet into SPLUS (step 4). The importance of each
variable can be set and ranked. Next, a dependent variable TREND surface is created. Data can
be interpolated between sites based on independent variables. The Landsat TM thermal band
was the most important data layer and may be related to evapotranspiration; this is a question for
further research.
This methodology uses multiple data types to classify the dependent variable of interest, and is
not reliant on a single data source, such as Landsat data, which only uses spectral information.
By using more than one independent variable, the overall accuracy of the classification may
increase.
47
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Forest Health Monitoring: Program Overview - Maria Downing (U.S. Forest
Service, State and Private Forestry)
The Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program was initiated in 1990 to provide information on
the status, changes, and trends in forest health and sustainability. A plot component of FHM was
integrated with the Forest Inventory and Analysis program in 1999. The FHM program provides
information on all forest lands to land-managers and policy makers that affects, directly or
indirectly, all Americans.
FHM objectives are to:
• Establish a monitoring system throughout the forests of the United States to
determine detrimental changes or improvements that occur over time.
• Provide baseline and health trend information that is statistically precise and accurate.
• Report annually on the status of and changes to forest health.
FHM components include:
• Detection Monitoring (DM);
• Evaluation Monitoring (EM);
• Research on Monitoring Techniques (ROMT); and
• Intensive Site Monitoring (ISM)
The process for integrating the FHM components with assessment endpoints and societal needs
was illustrated in a graphic in slide 5. Detection Monitoring consists of the Nationwide grid of
permanent sample points, and off-plot aerial and ground surveys. The purpose of the Evaluation
Monitoring component is to determine the extent, severity, and causes of undesirable forest
health changes. Intensive Site Ecosystem Monitoring (ISEM) has now changed to ISM, which is
implemented in only one location at this time. It is anticipated that ISM will have sites across the
U.S.; however, it currently only has one site in Delaware where Fl-JIM is working in concert with
USGS. The EMAP global grid can be intensified as was demonstrated in Minnesota where a
different colored dot is visited each year.
FHM indicators are:
• Tree Growth
• Tree Regeneration
• Tree Crown Condition
• Tree Damage
48
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 7-20, 2002
• Tree Mortality
• Lichen Communities
• Ozone Bioindicator Plants
• Soil Morphology and Chemistry
• Vegetation Structure
• Plant Diversity
49
-------
US. Environmental Protection Acencv
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Q & A and Panel Discussion
Question: When Mary was talking it rang a bell, how do you deal with the tribes?
Response: In our case, we do not have any data sets from the tribes, but when they hear, the
tribes are very interested in participating in what we have done. There is a large
cultural value associated with some of the areas we worked with (White).
Response: In the northwest, they are very interested. The tribes have expressed interest in
participating in field surveys. In general, they have been very helpful in
permitting access to the numerous estuaries on tribal land used in the surveys
(Nelson).
Response: It varies from nation to nation. The Navaho Nation was cooperative the Apache
were less cooperative with access (Heggen;).
Question: Mary, could you clarify the water layers? How does waterway data overlap with
dam data?
Response: We took a layer of permitted dams in our area. If a water body was created as the
result of a dam, it was not natural We used 8-digit HUC data. One was a
fragmentation and the second was an impoundment. Region 2: the quality
assessment of concern regarding cost involved in the quality analysis. If you
don’t do quality assessment, you end up with immense problems (White).
Response: We agree. We just are saying that it delays the results and people must be patient
(Nelson).
Comment: Quality assurance is a very important issue. If it is not done properly, it is very
expensive and difficult to regain confidence. If it takes a little longer to release
data, that is acceptable. Most of the problems we have are with our contractor
labs.
Comment: This is going to be an issue with all Federal agencies.
50
-------
U.S. En ironmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Question: Do you have funding by states/NOAA and any others to carry it on?
Response: We would consider it a failure if not. Investigating is important in technical
transfer tool development. A lot of hand holding is needed to get the states up to
speed. Some funding is used to help update the states (Nelson).
Question: How well are the indices working?
Response: The jury is still out. There are a lot of issues to resolve and many are related to
ecological compatibility. We need more effective methodology.
Comment: States need a base sample, then sub samples. EMAP is trying to address critics
by going at intensive sites. Our understanding of these sites with the academic
community should work, but we are still weak. Any insight?
Question: How much do landscape differences affect the use of tools and the lack of data
sets? (Addressed to Heggem).
Response: We accessed land use data. It is true that the better the data, the better the
outcome. Maybe digital elevation is better, thus, so is the outcome. Count on
that need to check the quality of data. For instance, we used aerial photography
that was free and checked it out (Heggeni).
Question: I guess the question is that nutrient data is scattered?
Response: Yes, we need to do this over several years to verify data quality (Nelson).
Question: Are we just accepting the Science Advisory Board (SAB) Framework? We didn’t
ask for it, yet are the ones that will have to use it.
Response: We are not saying that the SAB Framework is the only way to do it. We will be
working on breakouts to determine how it can be used to help us.
The plenary group dispersed into four breakout sessions to identify data needs that support the
SAB Framework. (See Breakout Session notes in Appendix D).
51
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionJORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
The Case for Connectivity - Tom Hoctor (University of Florida)
With the rise of conservation biology and landscape ecology the importance of connectivity for
protecting biodiversity and maintaining or restoring viable ecological systems has become
increasingly apparent. Habitat fragmentation, which is the decrease in size and increase in
isolation of remaining ecosystems as habitat loss progresses, results in biodiversity erosion and
the degradation of ecological integrity. Reserve design, which is the delineation and design of
protected areas to effectively conserve biodiversity, includes connectivity as a key component.
The development of connected reserve networks has become a standard reserve design strategy
to minimize habitat fragmentation, to conserve viable populations of species of conservation
interest, and to maintain or restore landscapes with functional ecosystem processes.
Although connectivity can be achieved through stepping stones (such as for migratory birds) and
by maintaining compatible multiple-use landscapes between reserves, explicit corridors or
landscape linkages have become the most common strategy considered for protecting or
restoring connectivity. Such connections can function at various scales and for various purposes
including: providing functional habitat gradients; facilitating daily to seasonal movements;
facilitating dispersal and functional metapopulation dynamics; and potentially allowing for range
shifts. Though there are some concerns about connectivity and the design of functional
corridors, connectivity is an important attribute of functional landscapes necessary to maintain
ecological integrity. Research on connectivity and corridors continues to increase, and
knowledge about the components of functional connectivity and the characteristics of functional
corridors and networks should expand accordingly.
52
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecos ’stem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
EPA’s 21 st Century Ecosystem Assessment Enterprise - A “Strawman”
Proposal - Douglas Johnson (U.S. EPA Region 8)
Douglas Johnson suggested using the Critical Ecosystems Workshop as an opportunity to create
a new EPA Ecosystem Assessment Enterprise process.
EPA was established in 1970, took on many existing laws and statutes [ slide 4] and implemented
new legislation [ slides 9 - 11]. The Agency is currently operating under 80 or 90 different legal
statutes. EPA’s historical budget information was presented [ slide 12], showing slight increases
throughout the 1990s and a decrease from 2001 to 2002. In terms of full-time equivalents
(FTEs), EPA is now operating at levels comparable to those in 1991. Key events in the risk and
environmental stewardship (ES) enterprise occurred in 1986 and 1987, and led to a proposal that
was well received by Congress [ slide 13].
Environmental degradation and impacts of concern to EPA are compounded by high population
density. The United States has the highest growth rate among industrialized countries, the
population has increased steadily since the 1940s and is projected to reach 310 million people by
2010. High birth rates combined with immigration contribute to this population growth, whose
impacts include the rapid conversion of forest land to suburbs [ slides 14-16]. Concerns still need
to be addressed on environmental and human health despite s thirty-year history [ slides 17,
18]. To solve these problems EPA needs an enhanced understanding of the criticality of
ecosystems, as well as the ability to work with other Federal agencies and the states [ slides 19-
21].
An Ecosystem Stewardship Enterprise (ESE) would be most successful if built on the risk
paradigm foundations of training, assessment, management, and communication. This workshop
presented the opportunity to expand the ecosystem stewardship knowledge base and examine its
evolution across time and administrations. Recent statements by Administrator Whitman have
addressed both the state of the environment and the importance of developing innovative
strategies for achieving environmental progress [ slides 25, 26]. Such a strategy must: focus on
environmental performance: emphasize comprehensive environmental responsibility; integrate
environmental management; and use the full range of available tools to achieve ambitious
solutions. The key to successful marketing, the first phase of this proposal, will be the ability to
connect ecosystem stewardship with the programs. The ESE can include programmatic science,
legal mandates, needs, and data, and provide an important context for programmatic actions. It
can also provide an ecological perspective and new knowledge about ecological condition,
confirm programmatic actions, and help define priorities.
-------
U S Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
As the ESE moves to a second phase, ecosystem stewardship training would be provided to
interested staff, partners, and contractors. Ecosystem science and assessments should be
expanded during this phase. Assessments across all Omernik’s Level HI ecoregions would be
ideal, although, realistically, areas would likely need to be prioritized by criticality. Ecosystem
management and communication strategies should also be enhanced during phase II. The
strategy proposed for action included incorporating the proposal in the Keystone workshop
proceedings, which would be presented to the regional and headquarters managers and to the
Administrator. Work groups would be established to plan training, assessment, management and
communication, as well as a steering committee to identify future steps in the process.
Champions of the ESE within EPA should also be identified during this phase [ slides 32-36].
Selection of a National Ecosystem Assessment Framework will be crucial to the function of the
ESE, the 1994 EMAP Assessment Framework and the draft SAB Framework for Assessing and
Reporting on Ecological (‘ondition are examples of the type of framework that could be used
[ slide 37]. This is not unknown territory, as numerous effective environmental assessments have
already been performed by EPA [ slide 38].
The third phase of the process will need to involve partners outside EPA, as no single agency has
the capacity or resources to perform broad-scale environmental stewardship and assessments
alone. A memo from the Administrator could engage the states, tribes, and other Federal
agencies; holding a national workshop for potential partners would also be useful. A time-line
was presented for implementation of the three ESE phases as an example — dates are likely to
change, and specific steps could be accomplished during one phase or another [ slide 41].
There seems to be a need for an environmental stewardship enterprise; if this is indeed a
compelling need, the opportunity exists to address it starting with the workshop participants. If
the proposal is accepted by participants, the next steps would be discussion and debate to
determine the direction of the proposal, and the formation of an ESE Steering Committee.
54
-------
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Rethon/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 20C2
Q & A Discussion
Comment: I completely agree with the opportunity the strategy represents for moving
geospatial data for getting the attention of people at the regions and headquarters.
Strategies focus on all four components: 1) strengthening partnerships with the
states and tribes, 2) focusing on priority issues, 3) using innovative tools and
approaches, and 4) fostering a more “innovation-friendly” Agency culture and
organizational system. There are opportunities to get this on the radar screen.
Linda Fisher has put out a call to the regions to put forward geospatial issues.
Question: What is the date for that?
Response: It has already passed.
Comment: Today is the deadline for regions to provide examples of geospatial data that can
be inserted into the Agency’s Strategic Plan.
Comment: The 2003 strategic plan will be the first opportunity for this Administrator to put
in her mark. Since the Governor has made this commitment to protect the
environment, I would encourage people to speak up.
Comment: Browner made this a priority. I think some of the work done so far is as a result
of this.
Question: You mentioned in your vision that the Assistant Administrator has to accept
2002 2003 as her “plan.” A lot of people have feared that those activities will not
be there to see follow-through.
Comment: Having been a part of human health risk assessment in the 70s, I can confirm that
there were huge drivers with regulatory developments.
Comment: Why would people want to use this approach versus what is currently being done?
We need to show the benefits and be clear about what we are talking about. I
agree with your proposal.
Comment: What was unique about the 70s? What were the drivers? We had a pretty scared
industry. There was a huge driver in the form of American Industry. Can we
look for those drivers for critical ecosystems?
55
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Comment: We need a way to conduct ecological risk assessments in a consistent fashion. I
see us in about the same place. I think we agree that it should be done
consistently. It is time to see what works best or pointing people in the direction
of what does work.
Question: What do you think about a small steering committee to take these ideas forward?
Maybe we should have a sign-up sheet in the next room and invite the non-EPA
organizations and other Federal partners. If you are interested, let us know.
Question: Doug, is one of your recommendations to come to a resolution from Keystone as
opposed to doing the proceedings?
Response: I like the idea of a resolution.
Comment: I am concerned that we could get hung up on the process. If one person writes it
and edits it, that is fine. I would like to see us move forward with
implementation.
Comment: Steering Committee members will be strongly motivated not to waste time.
Comment: I would like to second John’s motion. if we make a declaration to do something,
we might be inviting someone to tell us to stop. If we mainstream into existing
programs, who is going to tell us to stop?
Comment: One of the biggest push backs today was that it is not EPA’s business. There was
not a single thing that was broader than what EPA has done. Geographic
programs have to be big; if you want to mainstream these types of ecosystem
approaches, you must integrate them into the program objectives and decision
making process.
Comment: Mainstreaming through existing programs: use the existing geographic programs
in your regions, e.g., the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Great Lakes
Program.
56
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Comment: You need to be cagey as to who you open yourself up to. The new budget
initiative has grants available for twenty-five watersheds. There is a small well-
placed group that has formed a substantial watershed round table. It is open-
ended and does not have an agenda. Keystone should be involved.
State of the Environment Update - Patricia Bradley (U.S. EPA ORD/NHEERL), Charles Spooner
(U.S. EPA OW), and Thomas Barnwell (U.S. EPA ORD/NCER).
Three of us represent three out of the five chapters in the State of the Environment Report to
come out in November. We are on a fast track to complete the report by fall. We have to have
nationally covered data. The land theme chapter includes OSWER (Brownfields) as well as
OPPT activities and discusses national land use and land cover. The water chapter will be brief
and concise. The goal is to identify what we need to know, e.g., can I drink the water, can I eat
the fish, can I swim in the water, and is my watershed healthy? The ecosystem condition chapter
is organized based on the SAB Framework. Biological indicators are emphasized. Our group
will need to do some reconciliation with Heinz Center and National Research Council (NRC)
report indicators.
O&A Discussion
Question: What happened to the global change chapter?
Response: It was embedded in Air.
Question: How often will it be updated?
Response: This is one of the first times EPA has gotten involved in the health of the country.
You were talking about driving forces, and I think this will become one. I hope it
will be updated every year.
Comment: I hear rumors that the agency Strategic Plan will be revamped around the five
themes in the State of the Environment Report.
Comment: The first chapter in the report is ecological condition.
Question: How does it link with the indicator report?
Response: It is part of the report.
57
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Question: How does this report relate to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)?
Response: For a large part, this relates to EPA’s responsibilities, but we recognize we will
need to partner with other agencies.
58
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
SESSION V: INTEGRATION OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO EPA
GOALS
Co-chairs: Brenda Groskinsky (U.S. EPA Region 7) and
Tom Barnwell (U.S. EPA ORD [ NCER)
Integration of Assessment Results to EPA Goals - Anne Sergeant (U.S. EPA
ORD/NCEA)
Anne Sergeant briefly summarized Session V planning topics and goals.
Session V planning topics included:
• How were results used to meet Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals.
set priorities, and target specific regional ecosystems?
• How were results used to meet innovative avenues to meet program goals?
• How can we convince programs to go beyond bean-counting and to protect high-quality
ecosystems?
Session V goals were to: share ideas of success for regional program applications, examine
lessons learned from regional experiences, and relate ecosystem protection to GPRA goals.
Sergeant then highlighted the ecological risk assessment process, emphasizing planning,
problem formulation, and application to larger-scale “critical ecosystems’ issues. Ecological
Risk Assessment was defined as a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological
effects may occur as a result of exposure to a stressor (chemical, physical, or biological as
defined in the guidelines). Ecological Risk Assessments are conducted to make informed risk-
management decisions. Risk is described in terms of the nature of the effect, the magnitude of
the effect, and the likelihood of the effect. If the decision has already been made, risk
assessment is not needed. The Ecological Risk Assessment Framework diagram was presented
in a graphic [ slide 7]. Inside the bold outlined box reflects the official guidelines outside the
box is planning. Some people feel trapped by the box. The planning aspect of the framework is
a supplement to the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines and is available in draft form.
Request a draft copy via e-mail from Anne Sergeant at sergeantanne( epa.gov . Planning
activities include identifying the decision context, identifying information needs, and developing
objectives.
59
-------
US Environmental Protection A encv
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
The next most important part of the Framework is problem formulation. A few assessment
endpoints should be selected that represent the ecosystem. Assessment Endpoints identify the
entity, attribute and spatial and temporal extent (when and where it is) based on ecological
relevance, susceptibility to the stressor, and relevance to the management goal. Conceptual
model elements are source, stressor, response/receptor, and change in endpoint attribute.
Sergeant used an example from the Global Change Program of the conceptual model using the
Yupik people. The types of measures used in problem formulation were listed as exposure,
effects, and ecosystem and receptor characteristics. The analysis component involves risk
characterization, communicating the results to the Risk Manager, and Risk Management and
communicating results to interested parties.
O&A Discussion
Question: When you are in problem formulation, why wouldn’t you start with the ecosystem
at risk?
Response: When I think of risk assessment, I start with a stressor, but if you start with the
ecosystem at risk, then the SAB concept would apply.
Comment: How were results used to meet GPRA goals? In your presentation there were no
results.
Comment: If it is not a GPRA goal, folks don’t feel like they can do it.
60
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecos\ stern Assessment June 17-20, 2002
New York City’s Water Supply Protection Program and Results of a
Landscape Analysis - Anne Neale (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL)
New York City’s drinking water is supplied by three upstate watersheds (Croton, Catskill, and
Delaware) encompassing an area of approximately 1950 square miles. The system, with a total
storage capacity of six hundred billion gallons, supplies water to nine million people. The water
supplied from the Catskill/Delaware watersheds has, to date, not required filtration and has met
the Safe Drinking Water Act’s criteria for filtration avoidance. One of the requirements for
filtration avoidance is an active Watershed Control Program which must characterize the
watershed’s hydrology, physical features, land use, source water quality, and operational
capabilities. It must also identify, monitor and control man-made and naturally occurring
activities that are detrimental to water quality. The watershed control program must be able to
control activities through land ownership or written agreements.
The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between landscape metrics and
water quality in the Catskill/Delaware watersheds. Landscape data were collected using multiple
snap shots in time spanning two decades (1975-1998). Biweekly water quality, rainfall and
discharge data from 1987-1998 were used to examine temporal trends in total nitrogen,
phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria. Stepwise multiple regression analyses (n32) were used
to determine the contribution of the landscape metrics to surface water quality measurements.
Percentages of agriculture and urban development were the dominant landscape variables over
the years and explained 25-65% of the variability in water quality measurements. The vast
majority of agriculture and urban land use was located within two hundred and forty meters of
streams. Barren agriculture on steep slopes and agriculture on erodible soils also contributed
significantly to water quality, but explained only a small portion (4-8%) of overall variability.
During the past two decades the release of agricultural fields from farming has returned a small
percentage of land (2%) to secondary growth forest. Most of these changes took place between
1985 and 1998, corresponding to significant decreasing trends in nitrogen and phosphorus. The
results from this study suggest that combining approaches, such as increasing riparian forest
within the 240 meter buffer zone and encouraging Best Management Practices (BMPs) on
remaining farmlands, should provide an effective way of controlling non-point source pollution
to surface waters in the Catskill/Delaware watersheds.
61
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionfORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
O&A Discussion
Question: Forest, is it pasture and crops?
Response: Yes.
Question: Was there resistance from those upstate of New York City?
Response: We do not benefit, by supplying water to New York City, but they have been
cooperative.
Comment: It is an area in strong economic decline. There has been a large loss in agriculture
production.
62
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 7-20, 2002
Synoptic Model to Rank Wetland Ecosystems for 404 Permitting - Brenda
Groskinsky (U.S. EPA Region 7)
A synoptic assessment intended to maximize the benefits to wetland species biodiversity gained
through Clean Water Act regulatory efforts within two hundred twenty-five sub-basins in
Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas (U.S. EPA, Region 7) has been developed. The synoptic
assessment provides a method for prioritizing sub-basins potentially critical for supporting
wetland species biodiversity and may assist environmental managers and conservationists
constrained by limited resources. Sub-basins are prioritized based on the projected increase in
the risk of wetland species extirpation across Region 7 that would be avoided by applying a unit
of regulatory protection effort. This quantity is represented by an index of indicators drawn
from readily available data. Incorporation of the ranking results into management strategies has
the potential to allow managers to cast their local decisions in the context of regional scale
maintenance of wetland species biodiversity, increasing ecological benefits for a given
protection effort.
Q&A Discussion
Question: Why was it a problem to prioritize?
Response: The goal was to develop a scientifically based prioritization with known accuracy.
Identifying useful datasets was an effort in itself, as data was inconsistent across
political boundaries, and often had no known level of accuracy. The model was
finally based primarily on national data sets {primarily U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) National
Resource Inventory (NRI) data]. The effort was user driven, meaning that the
Region 7 Wetland staff was consistently consulted throughout the effort to ensure
that the analysis was going to provide products that they could use.
Question: How would you do it instead? Individual?
Response: There was a lot of time invested in the project, but very few resources. The work
was conducted using only the equivalent of one FTE, ½ of which was a co-op
student. it took about four years to produce a final product, but now the best data
sources have been identified, and the methodology is now worked out.
Comment: This speaks to whole-data availability. There wasn’t anything at the smaller
scale. If not available, we cannot prioritize at the state level.
0 )
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Response: The effort could be undertaken at the state level utilizing state data, the problem
with that is that the results can not be compared across state boundaries.
Question: You made comments that they support best professional judgment. Was this
because you selected supporting data?
Response: Since we were working with data that contained inaccuracies, we had to ask the
experts to ensure that the output was consistent with what they knew. So we took
the model to the experts for validation. They were surprised that the model
supported their own anecdotal priontization so well, which they had hand drawn
several years before. The model also provided additional information to the
experts that they did not know.
Question: Some years ago, wetlands would be identified in advance, so that when permits
came in, they would get increased scrutiny. Is this part of it?
Response: Actually, the intent was to prioritize those wetlands that contribute to regional
wetland biodiversity. Please note that all of the wetlands in Region 7 have not
been mapped.
64
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
EPA Region 6 GIS Screening Tool (GISST): Applications to Critical
Ecosystem Evaluation - Sharon Osowski, Ph.D. (U.S. EPA Region 6)
Region 6 has used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for a wide variety of applications.
Some of these are traditional environmental programs, including health risk assessments and
enforcement targeting. Using GIS, Region 6 developed a screening too] that helps
environmental scientists to assess a wide variety of factors and to analyze them cumulatively.
The current presentation is a compilation of case studies using GISST. GISST uses GIS
coverages and adds a decision structure in the form of factors with a one to five ranking. This
ranking helps to prioritize areas or concerns. The factors or criteria can represent facility
impacts or ecological vulnerability. Currently we have about ninety of these factors, with the
bulk representing ecological or environmental vulnerability. This type of GIS analysis is very
helpful for use in regional or complex projects where there are a number of issues and concerns.
Region 6 staff have also used the tool within the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Program to provide information when little or no data exist (e.g., on endangered species, cultural
resources) and as a check on Environmental Information Documents (EID) usually provided by
applicants. Landscape metrics, helpful in determining mitigation measures, are being considered
for inclusion into the next version of GISST.
O&A Discussion
Question: What were the HUC criteria? What is the source?
Response: Data is online, or e-mail me for additional information.
Question: Why was the NEPA Program involved in a permit for a concentrated animal
feeding operation (CAFO)?
Response: That was a new source review - certain sites require review for permit.
Comment: We do the same in Region 7 if it influences tribal lands. Regions 7 and 6 are
working together to store data with maps and make them available. The data
come from the end users.
65
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Seven Lessons Learned from the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA)
Experience - Tom DeMoss (The Canaan Valley Institute) and Patricia Bradley (U.S. EPA
ORD/NHEERL)
Region 3 and the Office of Research and Development in 1993 began a national demonstration
of new ways to monitor and assess the environmental condition. The demonstration, called the
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAJA), measured the condition of living organisms — fish,
birds, insects, and trees — and related their condition to physical and chemical indicators. MAIA
also developed new approaches for using satellite images to assess environmental condition.
Using these approaches resulted in some patterns or lessons to be learned:
• Biological organisms are stressed throughout the region;
• Biology, ecological condition and land cover are all linked in definable patterns;
• Biological indicators work (link chemical, physical habitat, pathogens and other effects);
• Chemical and physical indicators alone are not the complete picture;
• Habitat loss and degradation is a major problem;
• Forest fragmentation is widespread; and
• Non-native and exotic species have invaded significantly.
With these findings in mind, MAIA has made specific suggestions on what can be done to
address these problems.
66
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Panel Discussion: Lessons Learned
Anne Sergeant (U.S. EPA ORD/NCEA)
Tom DeMoss (CVI)
Cory Berish (U.S. EPA Region 4)
John Perrecone (U.S. EPA Region 5)
Doug Norton (U.S. EPA OW/O WOW)
Anne Sergeant: There have been a number of lessons learned in this area. I have made many
observations about the people involved, processes used, and products obtained. Most people
have in mind a greater good, go beyond what is expected, and are willing make a decision. The
processes used are flexible and are shared by the people involved. Products are created that are
connected and that sup port something. They are presented in more than one format and are
accessible to newspaper reporters and the general public.
Cory Berish: We need higher level management support from the Assistant Administrator,
headquarters and the Office of Water for projects. There is a need to work on realigning within a
new Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) structure; we need to be sure we are in
that structure for funding. We need good program customers. We do not want this to be viewed
as research; management needs to make sure their project is within GPRA and touches
customers. The question of “How will this affect my daily job?” needs to be addressed. One
area that is doing well is the source water protection group. The Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation (OPEl) is funding based on innovation needs. Externally, partnerships are key.
One best case in point is that when work is in progress, good external resource players are
involved. The Department of Defense (DoD) is a successful example of this. Bases need to be
buffered to prevent sprawl. Small land trusts like The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are also
important.
John Perrecone: In talking with management, EPA is already involved with ecosystem health,
but does not have a holistic view of what happens as a result of permit programs. Based on a
wellness model, there is a question of how to keep things healthy that are already of value.
Sharon’s model was good because it showed cause and effect.
We need to find pockets within EPA where they need help. We gave resources to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and gave Lake Michigan a team. Look for a champion that
will support and carry forward what you want to do. The Superfund Branch Chief is my
champion for waste programs (e.g., Fox River); use Superfund laws as a base and build on them.
67
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
There is a need to figure out how to get the FY03 Water Initiative into a process. Part of the
solution is to work with External Partnerships; for example, the mid-western group working with
external partners (i.e., Hallmark, Anheuser-Busch, etc.).
We need to take the blinders off and see what other similar work is being done. This work will
help with enforcement. We need to ensure we are doing the right work at the regional level.
Doug Norton: It is clear from what we are seeing this week that justifiably the Regions are
going to take the lead in this. In the Office of Water! Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds (OW/OWOW), we haven’t done anything similar on the regional geographic scale
that is so comprehensive across many ecosystem types. The existing regional successes should
be our starting point; now national programs should come on board the already-moving train and
build the critical ecosystems protection process into the many ways that we interact with the
regions in implementing all EPA programs. I for one would like to go back after this workshop
and determine how OWOW’ s different watershed programs could interact with and use regional
ecological frameworks and why it might be an improvement in many ways.
Organizationally. I think we’ve had some valuable experiences in OWOW that are relevant to
what we’re doing here. In the past two years we did put together a cross-division Watershed
Ecology Team (approximately thirty members), which faced some of the challenges of cross-
organizational survival and acceptance that this effort may face. There were technical and policy
issues in ecology that rose above and cut across all three divisions, and that was the best reason
for our team to exist. We wanted to centralize expertise, offer expert advice, and put out some
ecological products that may not have been produced in other documents, and we were generally
successful at this. Above all, we wanted to help OWOW’s mainstream programs do their
ecological components better. No one wanted to become a “fringe group,” and we haven’t.
Nevertheless, despite consistently aiming to support (not compete with) mainstream programs, it
took a long time to build comfort and acceptance of our role by some managers and more line-
organization-oriented staff. The same challenge will face the efforts to institutionalize
ecosystem protection, and that is why I recommend especially strong effort to build your ties
with existing programs right from the start. Be aware that program managers and staff may
initially fear your ideas as competition for resources, recognition, or influence; one of your first
jobs is to win them over to the idea that critical ecosystem protection is value added to their
programs.
I have another story’ about how you can benefit and fit in with existing programs by recognizing
where the most influence really exists, and finding a way to work within it. About a month ago,
I attended an advanced Stream Restoration Training Course. Several trainees from the West
\‘irginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT) participated, not on their own initiative but
because the Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) had partially funded them to attend. Someone had
clearly done some thinking about “who in West Virginia could make a really big difference in
68
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agen v
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
stream condition if they had better restoration training?” and then put in the money in an existing
program to make it happen. It was great to see this focus on reaching people and programs who
have the biggest impact. Let’s also try to find out what parts of EPA — what key programs — are
in that position and determine how to get them to buy in on critical ecosystems protection.
Tom DeMoss: There have been lessons learned outside of the Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAJA): You may have a finding that makes an impact outside of your agency (find
a chief). CVI was a way to do this, we educated bulldozer operators. I think we fight the wrong
fight, we should have an engineering mindset and argue from that position. There are morejobs
than in the construction of highways. Why not suggest E79? Politicians care about jobs more
than the second part of the economic story of restoration, restoring areas. Do you think that we
are going to predict the next Wal-Mart location, where growth is going to occur? We should
partner with Wal-Mart and limit the impact.
69
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Q&A Panel Discussion
Question: Define E79. Why aren’t we talking about ecological highways/corridors?
Comment: I totally agree with engaging programs. We need to go further. No one’s
mandate is to create corridors. We need a new program specific to that.
Question: Do you have information on the E79 concept that proves the economics of
ecologic restoration,, proving that jobs are created?
Response: In draft form, this information can be made available in about a month.
Question: Does the Office of Research and Development (ORD) keep a running log of
proj ects?
Response: In the Office of Water, there have been topical lists, which are not always up to
date. There is no ORD master list.
Response: No, I don’t think there is a running log.
Response: There is the Science Inventory (SI), which has not lived up to potential. The
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMIRL) did put together a
web site of all projects. The SI was initiated by two groups, and through ORD,
the inventory got up and running. They had 2300 projects up on SI and are trying
to get it up on the intranet. To be most useful, ORD labs, plus all program and
regional offices need to populate a list of projects. You should be able to log into
the SI and search for projects using keywords.
Comment: The Office of Water/Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OW/OWOW)
is in the habit of putting summaries of projects on the web. You would be hard
pressed to find every project, but it requires searching. The SI is supposed to be
“one-stop” with a brief abstract and contact names.
Comment: You would be hard pressed to find every project.
Comment: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is also in the process of cataloging
projects with abstract and contact information. The BLM science catalogue is in
the first generation stage.
70
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stern Assessment June 17-20. 2002
SESSION VI: PERSPECTIVES FROM EPA PROGRAMS AND OTHER
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Co-chairs: Karl Hermann (U.S. EPA Region 8) and David Klauder (U.S. EPA ORD) for
Karen Klima (U.S. EPA OW/OWOW)
Panel A: Taking Home What We Learned
Charles Spooner, Office of Water (OW)
Jerry Ellis, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Richard Haeuber, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
David Klauder: The use of ecosystem assessments in EPA programs is our focus in Panel A. I
am here because Karen Klima was unable to attend. You will hear a Panel of three EPA
scientists (Panel A), then a Panel of three external scientists (Panel B).
Three panelists for Panel A were introduced. The panelists were asked to address four topics:
1. Enhancing the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds’ (0 WOW’s) current
ecosystem programs
2. Examining newly discovered opportunities
3. Next steps
4. Preparing for the future
Chuck Spooner is in OWOW with Doug Norton and is also a co-chair. He previously worked in
the Chesapeake Bay office from 1986-1992 and now works in the Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds in Washington, D.C.
Chuck Spooner: In OWOW, we are interested in Ecological Assessments (see slide 1). We
work on regulatory programs with the Office of Science Policy (OSP); in Watersheds, there is a
regulatory program limited to the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) program. We are also
responsible for nonpoint source controls. A summary of Automanagement and Geographic
Information Systems (GIS), our center is the center for this in OW and shares needs with United
States Geological Survey (USGS).
Comments on Water Quality Data Standards were due yesterday and we are engaged in
volunteer monitoring. The Regulatory programs rely on understanding, inventory, permitting,
and assistance with infrastructure work. The purpose of re-centering a base program has its
71
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stem Assessment June 17-20, 20Q2
worth, but currently it does not work smoothly. For future use, twenty-five watershed protection
assessments for FY03 are underway. TMIDL is now a high-pressure program, with established
deadlines. The TMDL effort needs funding for monitoring and workable water quality
standards. There is an integrated 303(d) list and 305(b) assessment. In the Clean Water Act
(CWA), nonpoint source controls are vague. The Stormwater and Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation (CAFO) permit processes are the best examples of assigning local nonpoint source
controls. There are new regulations that require TMDLs to be part of the state planning process.
As far as preparing for the future: 1) Landscape Ecology must go local - it’s where the
bulldozers are, and local stewardship is essential; 2) Assist where technologies fail, and 3) Form
innovative partnerships and institutions (e.g., CVI).
0 & A Discussion
Question: Could you say a little more about the Sustainable Resources Round Table”
Response: The Round Tables do not have members, they have participants. A meeting has
never been held. The first meeting is planned for late October and the group
hopes to have quarterly meetings from then on. OWOW has not decided how to
approach this or how much to fund. The Secretary of the Interior will be
informed of the Round Tables on Resource Management and other topics. There
are existing issues in ecological protection and sustainability in water supply, as
future water demands are of interest.
Question: What about the twenty-five grants for Watershed Assessment?
Response: The details are not yet well-defined; however, the cost is about one million
dollars each.
David Klauder: Jeny Ellis works for the Environmental Effects and Fate Division and is
involved with Ecological Risk Assessment for the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP).
Jerry Ellis: Thank you to all presenters for providing a wealth of information. We are
interested in the protection of nontarget organisms; we currently utilize two Lethal
Concentration at 50°/s (LC 50 ) tests and one Lethal Dose at 50% (LD 50 ) test. We use human, lab,
and rat data to take (LD 50 ) and extrapolate LC 50 . We will do this for the species we are interested
in protecting. We work on a broad scale.
72
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
1. Section 18 Process: Certain states will request of OPP the use of a product that is not
permitted. We look at the impact to endangered species at the county level. We need
more data. The way we protect them is not equivalent to ecosystem protection. We can
hint to the impact they will have on ecosystems.
2. Monitoring Data: We use monitoring data to characterize risk from exposure to
pesticides. This effort is state-driven and a human health interest. We proceed to the
Human Health Effects (HIHE) division. We utilize GIS to map all surfaces and water
intakes.
3. Probabilistic Use: The process is still evolving.
Question: When we write risk assessments we take into account certain things to mitigate
risk. I think this can help to restrict buffer zones. Would we be able to use data
on sediment toxicity to regulate aerial application of pesticides?
Response: To facilitate this, first we need to develop a workgroup across EPA and we need
more participation within OPP. We don’t have information on this type of
exposure.
Question: It sounds as if GIS would be a useful tool for setting regulations,. Do you have a
GJS workgroup?
Response: We do have a GIS workgroup that’s water and human health driven, not
ecological, and is doing more with drinking water.
Comment: Atrazine has been in the news lately with amphibians.
David Klauder: Richard Haeuber is currently writing on the ecological effects of atmospheric
deposition.
Richard Haeuber: The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is [ an office] with a lot of moving
pieces (lists sub offices). The driver for OAR is largely human health (e.g., hospital
admissions). What we do is work to reduce atmospheric emissions. The most familiar efforts
are the Acid Rain Program and the Clean Air Act (CAA). It comes down to cost-benefit quite
often. We do care about ecological aspects: coastal eutrophication, nitrogen, mercury impacts, et
al.
73
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
The Office of Atmospheric Programs (OAP) is working with OAR; our administrator now
knows: (1) what coastal eutrophication efforts have been accomplished; (2) program
projections; and (3) policy/program development for various scenarios: start with emissions; go
to atmospheric deposition; then to surface water; then employ insensitivity; National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP); and a peanut family of models We rely on
monitoring data from the National Atmospheric Deposition, the National Atmospheric
Precipitation Program, etc. All ecological assessments are model-driven. Atmospheric
modeling and GIS approaches are used to project changes in deposition and overlay them with
maps of sensitive areas. This is not a terribly sophisticated method as opposed to the method
used for surface water quality modeling, MAGIC.
As for tools being used, there is one major one I have heard about. The ReVA program is most
promising for us. We need to be able to say: “If we don’t do X, what will happen to Y?”; what is
the impact to the environment? We don’t know much about mercury so we haven’t done much
with it. Nitrogen is another issue, especially with regard to coastal eutrophication.
We work very closely with the academic community. We are continually trying to develop
contacts and ORD is trying to help us do that.
0 & A Discussion
Question: What models and techniques do you use? I have a hard time in Air bringing
ecology into the permitting process.
Response: There may be opportunities to do that. Our office is the only office that brings in
ecologic concerns. The park service does when permitting, and the Class I
service areas would be a good area to bring in ecology and these tools.
Response: We have been working with Park Services in Fort Collins; I think, likewise, there
would be an opportunity for that.
Question: Can you give a contact name in Air Headquarters for a Region 5 person to be
referred to with respect to permitting and enforcement?
Response: I will have to get back to you.
74
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Aoencv
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Question: in evaluating the impacts of air, I have no data on how those impacts affect
endangered species. Is there something I can use in biological assessments?
Response: As far as Air Emissions Impacts on specific species, I don’t know ORD may
have information. Yes. EPA has a Research Strategy for endocrine disrupting
chemicals (EDCs) and there is an advisory commirtee to EPA called the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC).
EDSTAC works with EPA to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals and
evaluate their potential effects on human health and the environment. We need to
research chicken mortality, eggshell thinning, reduced population size, etc. If you
suspect EDCs. be cautious in setting up the appropriate studies in confirming their
presence and effects. We don’t have a way of working it into Risk Assessments
(RA). It is up to the risk assessors.
Question: What about the Chesapeake Bay?
Response: The Chesapeake Bay was a bad example. They do have a model, which they use
for the Clear Skies initiative, but there are a lot of other estuaries. We don’t know
what will happen if we reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by a certain amount -
what do you get?
Comment: Air really is the wild card. When you look at mercury, it’s the number one cause
for fish advisories and the number one source of atmospheric deposition.
Response To get from fish advisories to human health really is difficult. We get challenged
on this. Who’s at risk, what is the impact, etc.?
Comment: Look for the Health Chapter of the forthcoming State of the Environment Report.
in Mississippi, there is renewed interest in addressing these risks. Please contact
me to participate in the planning (Chuck ,S ooner).
Comment: We have opportunities to look at fate, exposure. and effects. Is it safe to say that
our biggest challenge is OPP. then OA, and we are a shoo-in with OW?
Response: You are not a shoo-in with OW.
Question: Over fifteen years 1 have been doing enforcement and have found that regions
don’t know how much inspections cost. Where do you go? Which facility do
you inspect?
75
-------
U S. Environmental Protection AgencY
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Response: Inspections can cost five thousand dollars. They are in desperate need of
targeting inspections, not just to satisfy compliance. The Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation (CAFO) Program can target resources in critical areas and
areas of environmental impairment using GIS data. I think there is a useful thing
we can do by communicating ecological information and resources to
enforcement/permitting. Look at your enforcement and compliance programs and
see what their drivers are. We need to get more enforcement folks from the
region level.
Question: How do genetically modified organisms function in an environment?
Response: (No response)
Question: Do you see a value in this group trying individual programs, putting a report
together for program offices, and starting to integrate this type of approach into
those programs?
Response: (No response)
76
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosv stem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Panel B: Feedback From Other Agencies
Karl Hermann introduced the four panelists:
• Maria Downing, U.S. Forest Service (USFS);
• Julie Prior-Magee, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS);
• Brian St. George, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Science and
Technology Center (NSTC); and
• Nancy Smith, The Nature Conservancy (mc).
Karl Hermann: There has been a lot of talk this morning about the need for partnerships, so we
will now get a reaction and statement of opportunities from several partners and/or potential
partners.
Maria Downing:
1) Reflection on key points from the works/top?
Data issues :
• Lack of data, continuity, and complete coverage both across regional boundaries and
within regions prevents us from knowing the “ecological condition story.”
• Lack of quality assured data leaves all of us vulnerable to criticism.
• Good data give us confidence in our decisions.
Assessment results are being used to make decisions :
• To determine where to intensify program efforts.
• In reviewing permits, taking enforcement action, and targeting inspections.
• To provide the context for conducting program work.
Protection of critical ecosystems will reiuire :
• Integrated management to consider the impacts of air, land and water quality on critical
ecosystems.
• Agencies combining efforts to apply the full suite of mandates available to them.
• Agreement between agencies when reporting on ecological condition.
2) Did we miss anything?
• Play time?
• Perhaps we should have had some follow-up discussions about what the participants felt
were best aspects of the assessments that were presented and if these aspects could be
combined, what the next generation of assessments should look like?
77
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
3) Engaging in inter-agency partnerships.
Stratified sampling design: a good place to start
• The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) sampling design has
been accepted by 24 western states.
• Several regional EMAP studies also use the EMAP sampling design.
• Forest Service Forest Service Health Monitoring and now Forest Inventory and Analysis
use the EMAP design.
• Who else may accept it? NRCS? More states?
National base data layers: it’s feasible !
• Only need to look to MoRAP (Missouri Resources Assessment Partnership) and Region
4 as examples. Each formed partnerships with multiple agencies to define base data layer
needs.
• Common base data layers could enable Federal agencies to work together on common
issues.
Common issues are our opportunities for inter-a encv partnerships :
• Ecological condition.
• Invasive non-native species.
• Global climate change.
• Biological control.
4) Inter-agency “next steps” may be best focused on common issues facing agencies today.
Julie Prior-Magee: The Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is administered through the U.S.
Geological Survey, and involves working partnerships with over 500 federal, state, and local
agencies, universities, and private organizations. GAP is a scientific method for identifying the
degree to which native animal species and plant communities are represented in our present-day
network of conservation lands. During this workshop several of the projects presented
mentioned the use of GAP data sets, as well as other USGS data. I encourage the continued use
of GAP data and also suggest some type of feedback mechanism from agencies using GAP data.
In this way. GAP can evaluate its products and understand how the data is being used by other
agencies.
While most projects in GAP have focused at the state level, many regional projects are undeRvav
also. The poster presented at this workshop was for the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis
Project (SWReGAP), encompassing the states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and
Utah. Currently the EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory-Landscape Ecology Branch in
Las Vegas is conducting the Nevada portion of SWReGAP. Doug Johnson and Karl Hermann
(U.S. EPA Region 8) are also collaborating with SWReGAP as part of their Colorado Plateau
78
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
activities. As other regional GAP projects are initiated EPA may find opportunities for
collaboration in other areas of the U.S. See
http I/leopold. nmsu edu/fwscoop/swre ap/defaul t. htm for more information on SWReGAP
activities or http:I/gapanalvsi s.usgs. t ov for information on GAP activities in other states and
regions. Aquatic GAP projects are described in the following table.
Another program of USGS — Land Use History of North America (LUIHNA) — seeks to
understand the relationships between human land use and land cover change and works to assess
future implications of these interactions. The principal aim of the LUHNA program is the
production of a well-documented history of the patterns of land use and environmental change.
Additional LU}TNA objectives include demonstrating the educational value of a land use history
and using such a history to help inform future resource management decisions. Current LUHNA
projects can be viewed at http : /.fbiologv . us .s. govilulinal .
79
-------
“ I •,nv IR )! uiien tall holec 1101 A gei Icy
Region/( )Ri) Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Summary of Aquatic CAP Programs ( Ls ot’June 2 O2)
Pioject/State Sunlm ary poc
Alabama Aquatic GAP applications br the Alabama —Coosa—Tallapoosa (ACT) and Apalachicola—Chattahooche—Flint (ACF) Elise Irwin,
river basins wilt he developed. Research will be conducted in 3 sub-basins of the ACT/ACF Watcrsheds. At least tel: 334-844-9190.
114 aquatic species in the ACT. Chattahoochec. & Flint rivers arc considcrcd imperiled as a result of habitat email: irwiner4iiauburn.cdu
degradation & loss. Will develop probabilistic models using historical & current (empirical) data on the distribution
ol aquatic species to provide a decision support svstenl hr resource managers.
Georgia Aquatic GAP applications br the Alabama —Coosa—Tallapoosa (AC!) and A palachicola—Chattalioochc—l ’lint (ACF) James Peterson.
river basins will he developed. Research will be conducted in 3 sub—basins of the ACT/ACF Watersheds. At least tel: 706—542—1 166,
14 aquatic species in the ACT. Chattahuochee. & Flint rivers are considered imperiled as a result of habitat email: Petcrson vsiuokey.forestry.
degradation & loss. Will develop probabilistic models using historical & current (empirical) data on the distribution uga. edo
of aquatic species to provide a decision support system for resource managers.
Iowa Project will focus on the need tot a comprehensive system relating physical, chemical, and biological information Clay l’ierce,
on a broad spatial scale to in-stream habitat and fishery resources in Iowa rivers. tel: 515—294—3159,
email: cpierce( iaslatc.edu
Kansas Program will involve mapping of both hiotic (fishes. macroinvertebrates. & mussels) and ahiotic (e.g.. water Keith Gido,
quality) components ol aquatic systems in the region. Will base aquatic classification on the 7 level method used in tel: 785—532—6615
Missouri (from valley segment types up to ecological regions). A goal is to establish collaborative efforts among
state and federal agencies. universities, and special interest groups (i.e.. TNC) to provide a database of the fauna and
water quality that can he linked with GAP programs in nearby states.
South Dakota Aquatic GAP vill he developed for the Upper Missouri River Basin utilizing methods developed by Missouri GAP. Jonathan Jenks.
‘Ibis will lorm a companion project to an Aquatic GAP Analysis of the Lower Missouri River Basin tel: 605—688-6121
email: jonathan jenks4 )sdstate. edo
Virginia GA P Analysis will be cond ucted for selected components of the aquatic fauna of the upper ‘lennessec River Paul Angcrmei er,
drainage. Project will seek data layers on geology, physical barriers, and pollution sources from appropriate state tel: 540—231-4501.
and ftdcral agencies (VA. ‘IN. NC. GA). email: hiota@vt.cdu
80
-------
US lnvironntental Protection Agency
Region/OR!) Workshop on Critical Leosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
MoRAP Project will build core datasets br conducting GAP Analysis of rivcrine ecosystems in the Lower Missouri River Scott Sowa.
Basin. Specifically, tabular and geospatial data ill he compiled and developed br Iowa. Kansas & Nebraska to tel: 573-875-5399,
classi ly tliei r ii yen iie ecosystems into distinct A quatic Ecological Ii nits at tool tip! e spatial scales. This is a email: scott _sowa(a usgs.gov
coiripanion proposal to the South l)akota project.
Great lakes GAP Analysis will he conducted for the riverine and coastal systems of the Great Lakes region including new I)onria Myers.
projects in Minnesota. Wisconsin. Illinois. Michigan. Indiana, & New York. as well as integration of existing or tel: 614—430-7715.
completed projects in Ohio and Pennsylvania. An integrated approach will he developed whereby common email: dnmyersä)usgs.gov
methods and protocols s ill he established and results wil I he comparable across the landscape.
Ohio This project is in the third year ofa planned live years ol’ activity. Several activities have been conducted to-date, Alex Covert.
including developing a map ot the Valley Segment Type (VS’l) classification br all perennial streams and rivers in tel: 614-430—7752,
Ohio. producing fish and inacroinvertebrate distribution range maps. and combining 2 data layers to produce the email: sacovert I usgs.gov
Ecoregional I )rainage Units which will serve as the primary assessment units in which this aquatic GAP will he
carried out.
8 !
-------
U .S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Q&A Discussion
Question: The inter-agency needs include the continuation of communicating with USGS
and using USGS data, but give us some additional feedback with respect to
educational outreach.
Response Educational outreach can go beyond educating students; it can be used by
scientists. There is a big impact educating children; e.g , teaching children via the
National Biologic Information Infrastructure (NBII) about topics like riparian
ecosystems. Some EPA work could go into education outreach by USGS.
Question: Regarding the aquatic component, there is the hierarchical stream classification
linking biologic data to stream data. This is a good opportunity for EPA and
USGS to partner/collaborate; e.g., sampling design, indices of biotic integrity
(IBIs). etc.
Comment: Talk to me later, in more detail, about NBII. This is a good place to get
information onto the internet (Prior-Magee).
Karl Hermann: I’d like to note a couple of other items, with respect to cooperation with
USGS. In Region 8. we are working with the USGS Energy team on uranium and coal bed
methane issues. Also, USGS has been hosting a series of very worthwhile workshops that EPA
staff should participate in. Recent workshops that I’ve attended include; the Southwest
Landscape Change; The Mancos Shale workshop, which included discussion on salinity and
selenium stream loadings; and the Salt Cedar (invasive species) workshop.
Brian St. George: The information presented is timely for me and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) as a whole its background is in the Bureau and there have been a few
related initiatives. We need to know science needs and priorities, and we need collaboration.
Background
The BLM administers 262 million acres of America’s public lands, located primarily in
12 western states. BLM sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands
for use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
• Due to limited budgets and a multitude of dynamic resource issues, BLM’s approximate
9000 employees face significant challenges in accomplishing its mission.
82
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agenci,
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
The National Science and Technology Center (NSTC) in Denver supports other BLM
offices by providing a science and technology related services in areas such as physical,
biological and social assessments; mapping science; geographic information systems
applications; architecture and engineering support; library assistance, and publication
services.
Science in the Bureau
• Drafted and published a Bureau-wide Science Strategy that sets forth an overall approach
to science in the Bureau (see http I/www.bI m. gov!nstc/pdf/sci strat. pdf) .
• Engaged in regional efforts to catalog and prioritize science and information needs.
• Focusing on science in high-level strategy documents and through budget initiatives
including the Budget Planning System, Cooperative Conservation Initiative, and the
Applications of Science Initiative. (More information on these initiatives is available
through NSTC).
Assessments in the Bureau
• Assessments area defined within the Bureau’s Science Strategy as one of the types of
science managers need to effectively manage Public Lands.
• BLM needs assessments that are targeted to management issues, timely, and cost
effective.
• Regional, cross-jurisdiction, collaborative, and interagency work is becoming a focal
point for BLM.
• The Secretary and the Director have emphasized a need for collaboration and
partnerships in BLM’s work.
How can BLM benefit oni partnerships with EPA?
• BLM is engaged in a wide variety of land management activities and issues: resource
protection, reclamation, restoration, sensitive species, regional air quality, recreation,
extractive resource development, and community development among others.
• BLM’s limited staff often faces shifting priorities in land management as the dynamics of
issues change: wildiand fires, litigation, NEPA analyses, and resource management plans
can redirect a resource specialist from more traditional functions.
• Field managers and resource specialists are in need of sound science and tools for
management decisions.
• EPA can serve a role as a science provider to managers and specialists as all
organizational levels — a partnership that can be modeled after the successful
arrangement existing between BLM and USGS (USGS is officially designated as the
DOl agencies’ science provider, but the agencies are encouraged to seek other sources as
well).
on
a-,
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 1 7-20, 2002
BLM would benefit from EPA’s assistance in transferring assessment approaches to
western states and the resource values we manage.
1zat must BL! f do’
• BLM must be able to clearly articulate and communicate its science needs and priorities
to any prospective science provider.
• In many cases, BLM’s field managers have built strong relationships with local
communities. The National Science and Technology Center can assist EPA in
connecting with those networks.
O&A Discussion
Question: Don’t you think it would be detrimental for BLM employees to walk into public
meetings with EPA?
Response: While there are differences in agency culture and the way in which the public
perceives the mandate of BLM and EPA, there is still an opportunity for both
agencies and the public to address resource issues in a collaborative fashion.
Question: Is there an opportunity for EPA to assist in the development of EIS and NEPA
regulation?
Response: I am not particularly qualified to speak to NEPA requirements in great detail, but
where NEPA requires the use of best available science there is opportunity for
EPA to assist BLM in locating, analyzing, and interpreting available data or
information.
Related Assessment Work
NSTC is currently conducting an information synthesis for the Colorado Plateau (eastern Utah,
western Colorado — approximately comprising the Four Corners area). We’re assessing the level
of landscape fragmentation: the drivers and agents of change. NSTC is drawing on EPA Region
S for assistance in developing methodologies and analyzing data. The project goal is to develop
a prototype strategy for quickly synthesizing, analyzing and interpreting regional information on
critical resource conditions and trends related to high-priority Public Land management issues.
84
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Nancy Smith: I work as a government relations liaison. Tuesday was very exciting. Many of
our partners are government agencies. We have approximately one million members and have
the largest system of nature preserves around the world. We work in twenty-nine countries. The
foundation’s focus is on planning and sciences. Our mission is not to assess, but to protect.
There are some exciting new approaches by EPA; how is EPA planning on integrating these
approaches? How does this group plan to work internally, outreach, etc.? Can The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) assist?
I would like to hear more about EPA’s plan, primarily from my position as government liaison.
From an ecological standpoint, I have not found a lot of opportunities to work with the Agency.
Two years ago, EPA was involved in a healthy debate with TNC regarding wetland mitigation.
TNC became discouraged; the net loss idea was okay, but there was disagreement.
Funding is a big issue; one of my primary jobs is to get government funding. In order to
succeed, we need to work in a broad ecosystem scale which is in alignment with TNC. I
encourage you to contact TNC: at the national level, Jan McGoldruff is the government liaison.
TNC’s framework is conservation by design that aims at cultivating a conservative ethic. EPA
has the tools to develop a more ecosystem-based approach within EPA.
TNC has a close relationship with the Nature Serve. Data sharing is a possible next step. If we
do our jobs right, we have good relationships with communities. We work with government and
industry without litigation. EPA can tap into TNC’s relationships at all levels. The carbon
sequestration effort overlaps with EPA.
O&A Discussion
Question: I think you should be flattered that you (TNC) were invited because EPA feels
that TNC does quality work and has quality data. You can insert yourselves in
NEPA projects. Although TMDL is working through aquatic data (biotic), I
would rather not have species involved in that.
Response: We need a super-agency that deals with agencies protecting the environment.
Question: The Midwest National Reserve Meeting Group includes federal partners,
including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), et al. The group gets together three
times a year and has chosen twelve focus areas. Should we bring in TNC to
participate in this effort? Are there other similar groups in the west?
85
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Response: The Southwest Strategy is a similar group (I-Jerrnann).
Question: In the Midwest. we have an extremely effective relationship with TNC in Region
5. TNC prepared documentation that EPA could not afford to do on a highway
through a short grass prairie in Colorado modeled after Barabon Hills.
Comment: TNC, as we did our work in the Midwest (U.S. EPA Region 6), was very helpful.
We are very closely aligned with TNC and we will continue to work with them.
86
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Session VII: SEND-OFF
Patti Tyler (U.S. EPA Region 8) began the closing remarks by noting the significant amount of
planning involved by organizers in making the Workshop a success. The topic for this
workshop, Critical Ecosystem Assessment, was suggested about one and one-half years ago, and
planning for the Workshop commenced in December. Several desired outcomes for the
Workshop expressed by Tyler were to:
• Provide an opportunity for EPA regions, programs, and ORD laboratories to recognize
the importance of including the management of critical ecosystems as a part of EPA’s
environmental tool box.
• Provide the scientific foundation and background information in various ecological
assessment approaches through the presentation of regional and programmatic case
studies, and to demonstrate how the use of these approaches has a connection to EPA’s
mission and regulatory focus.
• Discover existing assessment approaches and discuss the creation of innovative
mechanisms for incorporating assessment results into programmatic decision making.
• Share knowledge concerning what the regions and ORD laboratories are doing with
respect to identifying critical ecosystems so as to integrate a more thorough analysis of
this type of approach throughout the Agency.
• Identify the specific data and tools that are needed to complete an ecosystem assessment.
• Present workshop participants with the appropriate information so that those regions that
have not developed their own ecological assessment could return from the workshop with
a strategy for utilizing a regional ecological assessment approach for various programs
and then start to develop their own specific approach.
• Share and explore new opportunities with these approaches and strengthen the overall
concept of ecological assessment approaches.
• Elevate the ecosystem concept and use this type of framework within EPA.
• Draft a strategic plan as to how we plan to incorporate this approach throughout the
regions in the way EPA does business and identify follow-up activities that continue the
theme of this workshop.
Tyler offered the followirig Lessons Learned:
• Integrate the identification, assessment, and protection of critical ecosystems into EPA’s
Strategic Plan for FY03.
• Through that effort, create a new GPRA goal to make this effort count.
• People, Process, Products.
• Continue working with programs such as:
87
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agenc
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
NEPA
Wetlands
- Protection, restoration, mitigation, and creation
Drinking Water Source Protection
Enforcement (eg., SEPs)
Superfund Removal and Remediation
to demonstrate the link of the assessment approach to programmatic decision-
making
Develop internal and external partnerships
States
Regions
Local communities
Headquarter programmatic offices
ORD Laboratories
Department of Defense (DoD)
Small Land Trusts
FHA
• Regions to lead the WAY
Cross divisional exercise
Get into the mainstream efforts & activities
Do the job better
Do the most to impact and influence those programs where success is most likely
to occur
• TRAINING
• Teach what it means when environmental impacts take place
• Be BOLD, but fight the most appropriate battles
• Recognize the economic benefits
• Get out ofthebox
Follow-up Activities / Products
• Workshop presentations will be posted on the Office of Science Policy Internet Web site:
ht : i/epa gov/osp/re i ons/workshops . htni
• Compile results from breakout sessions
• Develop Workshop proceedings
Session V in the proceedings will include links to supplementary information
A recommendation was made to produce a document (in lieu of proceedings)
where similar tools reference the web site, and a consistent format was used for
each presentation. The framework for the document would:
— Focus on methods and decision rules
88
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
— Show results
— Provide the rationale used
— Describe how results were used, specifically (application)
— Describe the level of funding and time (scope)
— Describe quality assurance procedures
— Provide a list of products and contacts
— List the next steps
The proposed title for the document was “Identifying Critical Ecosystems:
Approaches and Applications”
Suggestions for Next Steps :
• Short-term vs. long-term activities
• Short-term Activities Under the Umbrella of the Critical Ecosystems Steering
Committee:
Integrate the ecological assessment framework as recommended by the Science
Advisory Board (SAB)
— Use general principles
— Develop cohesive description of each assessment example
— Do a better job with communicating the science, results and decisions
Compile a list of decisions that have been made using ecological assessments at
various scales
Develop a customer base (e.g., local, state, within EPA, external)
Address state-specific needs
Identify data and research needs
Further develop collaborative efforts
Steering Committee Feedback
Jerri-Anne Garl (U.S. EPA Region 5) presented a summary of the first Ecosystem Stewardship
Enterprise (ESE) Steering Committee (SC) meeting held on June 19, 2002 in Keystone,
Colorado, and acknowledged the seventeen individuals who signed-up to participate on the
Steering Committee. SC contact names and proposed alternates were listed; additional
representation by the regions is needed. Committee members present at the first meeting were:
Patricia Bradley, Jerri-Anne Garl, Doug Johnson, Mike Mascia, Julie Prior-Magee, John
Perrecone, and Karen Rodriguez.
Comments
• Consolidate message & data to support a nationwide ESE
Leaders I technical staff
89
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
• Be flexible!
• Focus on the doable!
• What do we have to offer that is better than other efforts?
• Framework: present a universe of available approaches, tools, etc., but recommend a core
set!
• Communicate ecological, as well as economic opportunities / benefits. We all have
separate roles to play, but we can do them in concert.
Jobs
Secondary benefits
Value-added industries
Export the vision - help others
• Roles: EPA, NGOs, et al.
Reviewed ESE Phase ii Tasks
• Champions
• Funding (eg.. FTEs and dollars)
• Proceedings, in a usable format
• Framework
• Briefings: Regional I ORD I HQ Managers
Connections:
Programs, SOE, IS, Strategic Plan, IAC, GPRA, SAB, NAS, SPC, Science
Inventory, Watershed Ecological Team
• Work Groups (e.g.. groups that may want to focus on a specific area):
Training, Science / Assessment, Management, Communication
Draft ESE Science Policy
Other
Reviewed ESE Phase III Tasks
• National Partnership Workshop
• Administrator’s Memo
MOU that would describe relationships and commitments
• Comprehensive Evaluation
Connections
Federal / State / Tribal Organization, CESUs / Academia
90
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 7-20. 2002
ESE Objectives: Getting our act together...
Ecosystem Condition Framework:
What is the state of the environment?
How can spatial data be used to enhance our jobs - descriptive I programs?
• Building Support Framework:
Opportunities to influence Programs, SUE, IS, Strategic Plan, IAC, GPRA, SAB,
NAS, SPC, Science Inventory, Watershed Ecological Team, Federal / State I
Tribal Organizations, CESUs / Academia
Identify Benefits
Results Driven - Performance Based
Compile Success Stories
Partnerships
Champions
Resources (5$ I FTE / Data)
Drivers, e.g., Statutes I GPRA / SP
Next Steps
• An ESE Steering Committee (SC) / Strategic Plan Conference Call is scheduled for June
27, 2002.
• An ESE SC Conference Call is scheduled for July 9, 2002
• Keystone Workshop - Debrief
• ESESCMeeting#1
• Strategic Plan - Debrief
• ESE SC Organization
Discussion
Comment: The SAB framework is just one part of the process.
Comment: We need to be able to tell our story - communicate effectively. The fact that a
representative was sent here by the Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Policy, Economics and Innovation says that the Administrator considers ecologic
assessment an innovative strategy.
Comment: The Science Policy Council might be a good forum to take this forward.
Comment: Use of 2 and 3”’ party data is described in the Data Guidelines and everyone in
this room should read them and know them.
Comment: Ecosystems are integral to achieving core goal objectives.
91
-------
U. S Environmental Protection Agency
RegioniORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
Comment: People need to include this information in their work plans on an annual basis.
Comment: Another thing that Tom DeMoss. . .there are some large-scale efforts, e.g., the
Chesapeake Bay Program, that were not here. Existing geographically-based
programs - those folks need to be included.
Comment: We need to start extending the framework, establishing standards, and using a
common vocabulary.
Comment: We are not trying to add to risk assessment, nor change existing policy.
Comment: Champions are the regional offices (ROs) and program offices (POs), but I am
thinking about the long term. We need to have champions that will stick around.
Deputy Regional Administrators (DRAs) are usually the longest lasting.
Comment: Another next step would be to hold another workshop.
Comment: We need another Federal Geographic Data Committee, more Census Bureau data
and more USGS data. The Cooperative Ecosystem Study Unit (CESU) links the
Federal government with academia. EPA has a representative on CESU.
Comment: We need a standard briefing packet and a communication plan or strategy.
Comment: We could establish a communications strategies ad-hoc group that would
implement and become an avenue to the program offices and external partners.
Comment: Communication should be one message, tailored to the special interests of
customers. The document is the avenue for documenting the various assessment
approaches. This is an informal structure; we need to prioritize both targets and
efforts.
Comment: Customer involvement is important. Once there is a general, somewhat
standardized approach, key customers should be immediately identified and
invited to participate in the initial planning effort to develop the product.
Comment: Regarding second-term development, we still need a core set of data used
throughout for improved national consistency.
Comment: Building partnerships is also key — invite Tom Hoctor from Florida, and The
Nature Conservancy.
92
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20. 2002
Comment: We could schedule regular conference calls, and take minutes of the discussions.
Once the calls are up and running, then the states can be involved. This would be
a flexible, ad-hoc style committee.
Comment: We should give some thought to including the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) (Feldman).
Comment: Doug Johnson has an e-mail list with everyone in it. The Internet web site will
include the proceedings and presentations.
Comment: We have an external server in MAIA that is password-protected.
Question: Can we have someone from the group manage an external server site?
Comment: I suggest establishing a focus workgroup to focus on core data.
Comment: People can sit in on the meetings, but I suggest that those who drop out be
required to read the history.
Comment: Perhaps we could have a rotating Chair — someone who is committed to the
Steering Committee.
Comment: We need a core group of people who can devote 20 percent of their time to the
Steering Committee — 50 percent of them dedicated throughout the long
marketing process.
Comment: I suggest that Doug Johnson take the lead.
Comment: Do people have a sense of time and support from management? Perhaps we
could have a tn-chair.
Comment: Organization will be a key upcoming agenda item for the Steering Committee.
93
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Region!ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 7-20, 2002
Flip Chart Notes
Data Gaps
• Air effects on eco-receptors
• Tie into innovative strategy
• Tie to HQ Programmatic offices
• How to reach out to all regions?
• Build specific program relations [ with?] OAR, enforcement, NEPA
• Document methodology for assessments
• Next workshop:
Must address values
Federal geographic data / USGS
— Census data (new)
— Cooperative ecosystem study units
• Another conference soon
• Standards / common vocabulary
• Not trying to “change,” but rather to “improve” assessments
• Champions with “staying power”
• Standardized communication plan / strategy
• Steering Committee with subcommittees
• Marketing strategy
• Tailor message to targeted customer needs
• Document this early on
• There are many places to take this - will need to prioritize efforts
• Shape information to meet needs of end-users
• Ensure tools that are developed will be utilized
• People on Steering Committee to remain involved as they can
• Flexible approach for Steering Committee
• Look to OCFO
• Link Steering Committee intranet [ web site to??]; an external Domino Server to be
created
• Inter-Agency core data
• Workgroup to focus just on core data, Karl Hermann to lead this effort
• Non Steering Committee members can join the calls
• Formal pledge of allegiance from Steering Committee members
• Set up Steering Committee web site
• Rotating Chair on Steering Committee
• Need core group of dedicated people more than 20% of the time; chair, approximately
50% of the time
• Travel $
94
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
• Resources
• Time
• Effort
• Need core of dedicated people
• Agenda item for first conference call
Organization
Identification of chairs?
Doug Johnson ± July 10 a
95
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystem Assessment June 17-20, 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
96
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
APPENDIX A: Agenda
REGION/ORD WORKSHOP ON CRITICAL ECOSYSTEMS
Keystone Conference Center, Keystone, Colorado
June 17-20, 2002
TUNE 17th - EVENING
Optional Field Trip: Colorado Critical Ecosystem Tour: Visiting both extremes of the
ecological condition spectrum and observing human development
patterns.
6:00 PM Workshop Reception in the Arapahoe Room - Light Food, Refreshments and Posters
(see attachment for list of posters)
JUNE 18th -
Ten Mile Room
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM Welcome and Introduction
8:00 Welcome - Patti Tyler (U.S. EPA Region 8)
8:05 Opening Remarks from OR.D - Rochelle Araujo, Acting Associate Director for Ecology
(U.S. EPA ORD/NERL)
8:10 Opening Remarks from Region 8 - Carol Campbell, (U.S. EPA Region 8)
8:15 AM - 10:15 AM Session I: The Importance of Developing a Regional Critical
Ecosystems Approach
Co-chairs: Barbara Levinson (U.S. EPA ORD/NCER) and Doug Norton (U.S. EPA
OW/O WOW)
8: 15 Lessons in Critical Eco. ysteni Protection. The Role of Science in Management Decisions
aiLake Tahoe: Charles Goldman (University of California - Davis)
9:00 An Approach to Regional Ecosystem Protection: The Southeastern Ecological
Framework: Cory Berish (U.S. EPA Region 4)
A-i
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
9:30 Canaan Valley Institute’s Experience in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands: Randy Pomponio
(The Canaan Valley Institute - CVI)
10:00 Session Wrap-up - Doug Norton (U.S. EPA OW/OWOW)
10:15 BREAK
10:30 AM - 2:30 PM Session II: An Ecosystem Approach to Assessment; Goals and
Objectives, Endpoints and Measures
Co-chairs: Betsy Smith (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL), Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5),
Karen Rodriguez (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office), Chuck Maurice
(U.S. EPA Region 5)
10:30 Introduction - Chuck Maurice (U.S. EPA Region 5)
10:35 A Bi-National Assessment: What We’re Measuring iii the Great Lakes Basin: Duane
Fleaton (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office)
10:45 if Everything is Important, What’s Critical?: Chuck Maurice (U.S. EPA Region 5)
10:55 EPA Region 8’s Approach to Ecological Assessment: Karl A. Hermann (U.S. EPA
Region 8)
11:05 Building a Regional Integrated Assessment Program: The Mid-A i/antic Integrated
Assessment ( ‘MAJA): Patricia Bradley (U.S. EPA ORD/NI-IEERL)
11:15 What are the Good Areas?: The Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF) Approach:
Neil Burns (U.S. EPA Region 4)
11:25 Q & A and Panel Discussion
12:00 LUNCH (on-site) - Arapahoe Room
Ecoregional Planning and the Southern Rocky Mountains Ecoregional Assessment and
( onservatio!1 Blueprint: Betsy Neely (The Nature Conservancy of Colorado), invited
A-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
JUNE 18th -AFTERNOON
Ten Mile Room
1:30 Setting Priorities/or Conservation Opportunity Areas: D fferent Targets Result in
Different Answers: David D. Diamond (University of Missouri)
2:00 Q&A and Panel Discussion
2:30 BREAK
2:45 PM - (Evening) Session III: Assessing the Criticality of Places
Co-chairs: Betsy Smith (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL), Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5),
Karen Rodriguez (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office), and Chuck Maurice
(U.S. EPA Region 5)
2:45 Introduction - Betsy Smith (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL)
2:50 Biodiversity im’estnzeni Areas: Ranking CriticalAreas in the Great Lakes Basin: Karen
Rodriguez (U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office)
3:00 You Think Ii’s Critical? Now Prove it.’: Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5)
3:10 ralzies: Doug Johnson (U.S. EPA Region 8)
3:20 What Makes an Ecosystem “critical”?: Betsy Smith (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL)
3:30 Characterization and Prioritization of the Southeastern Ecological Framework: Tom
Hoctor (University of Florida)
3:40 Q&A and Panel Discussion
4:15 BREAK
4:30 Irreversibility and the Collective Good: Managing Risk Under Competing Priorities:
Lisa Wainger (University of Maryland)
5:00 Q&A and Discussion
A fl
fI -3
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20, 2002
JUNE 18th EVENING
Ten Mile Room
7:00 Workshop Dinner and Guest Speaker - Arapahoe Room
A Science Advisory Board Report: A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on
Ecological Condition: Virginia Dale (U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board)
JUNE 19 1 - MORNiNG
Ten Mile Room
8:00 AM - 12:00 PM Session IV: Issues with Assessment Data and Tools
Co-chairs: Rick Durbrow (U.S. EPA Region 4) and Bill Fisher (U.S. EPA
ORD/NHEERL)
8:00 Welcome and Introduction to the Session: Rick Durbrow (U.S. EPA Region 4) and Bill
Fisher (U.S. EPA ORD/NHEERL)
8:05 The Western E 1AP Approach to Assessment of Coastal Ecological Condition: Walt
Nelson (US EPA ORD/NT-WERL)
8:25 Landscape Assessments of Ecological Condition: Daniel Heggem (U S. EPA
ORD/NERL)
8:30 Essential Ecological Attributes for the Southeastern Ecological Framework: John
Richardson (U.S. EPA Region 4)
9:00 Landscape Level Ideuu1 fica1iouu of Ecologically Significant Areas in the Upper Midwest:
Mary White (U.S. EPA Region 5)
9:30 Statistical Geo-Spatiai Modeling and Analysis of the Oak Resource in Minneapolis/St.
Paul and Forest Health Monitoring Overview: Maria Downing (USFS)
10:00 BREAK
10:30 Four facilitated breakout sessions to identif j data needs that support the SAB Framework
11:30 The Case for Connectivity: Tom Hoctor (University of Florida)
12:00 PM LUNCH (on-site) - Arapahoe Room
A-4
-------
U. S Environmental Protection Agency
Region/OR.D Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 7-20, 2002
EPA ‘s 21st Century Ecosystem Assessment Enteiprise- A “Strawmcin” Proposal: Doug
Johnson (U.S. EPA Region 8)
JUNE 19th -AFTERNOON
Ten Mile Room
1:30 PM - 5:30 PM Session V: Integration of Assessment Results to EPA Goals
Co-chairs: Brenda Groskinsky (U.S. EPA Region 7) and Tom Barnwell (U.S. EPA
ORD/NCER)
1:30 Integration of Assessment Results to EPA Goals: Anne Sergeant (U.S. EPA
ORD/NCEA)
2:00 New lark Cur’s Waler Supply Protection Program and Results of a Landscape Analysis:
Anne Neale (U.S. EPA ORD/NERL)
2:30 Synoptic Model to Rank Wetland Ecosystems/or 404 Permitting: Brenda Groskinsky
(U.S. EPA Region 7)
3:00 EPA Region 6 GIS Screening Tool (GISST,): Applications to critical Ecosystem
Eva hi ation: Sharon Osowski (U.S. EPA Region 6)
3:30 BREAK
4:00 Seven Lessons Learned from the Mid-A i/antic Integrated Assessment “MAIA) Experience:
Tom DeMoss (The Canaan Valley Institute)
4:30 Panel Discussion: Lessons Learned
Anne Sergeant (U.S. EPA ORD/NCEA)
Tom DeMoss (CVI)
Corv Berish (U.S. EPA Region 4)
John Perrecone (U.S. EPA Region 5)
Doug Norton (U.S. EPA OW/O WOW)
5:30 DINNER (on your own)
A-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
JUNE 2OUhI - MORNING
Ten Mile Room
8:00 - 11:00 AM Session VI: Perspectives from EPA Programs and other Federal Agencies
Co-chairs: Karl Hermann (U.S. EPA Region 8) and Karen Klima (U.S. EPA
OW/OWOW)
8:00 Panel A: Taking Home What We Learned
Charles Spooner (U.S. EPA Office of Water)
Jerry Ellis (U.S. EPA Office of Pesticides)
Richard Haeuber (U.S. EPA Office of Air)
9:15 BREAK
9:45 Panel B: Feedback from other Agencies
Maria Downing (USFS)
Julie Prior-Magee (USGS)
Charisse Sydoriak (BLM)
Nancy Smith (TNC), invited
11:00 AM - 12:00 PM Session VI: Send-off
I 1:00 Review Workshop list of questions
Identify opportunities of consensus and ratification
Identif ’ follow-up activities
Next steps
Optional Field Trip: ‘The Rocky Mountain High Tour’
From Keystone, travel over Loveland Pass down to Idaho Springs and up to Mt. Evans
and then to Denver.
A-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems
June 17-20. 2002
APPENDIX B: List of Participants
EPA Regional Offices
Robert Beltran (Attendee)
U.S. EPA RegionS (P-19J)
Metcalf Federal Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: 312-353-0826
r’
rax: ..,i -i- .’-+ .,.,
E-mail: beltran.robert epa.gov
Amy Bergstedt (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 8 (EPR-N)
999 - 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: 303-312-6647
Fax: 303-312-6897
E-mail: bergstedt.amy@epa.gov
Cory Berish, Ph.D. (Speaker)
U.S. EPA Region 4 (PAB)
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street. SW.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 404-562-8276
Fax: 404-562-8269
E-mail: berish.cory epa.gov
Neil Burns, Ph.D. (Speaker)
U.S. EPA Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 404-562-8289
Fax: 404-562-8269
E-mail: burns.neil@epa.gov
Thomas DeMoss (Speaker)
Canaan Valley Institute (IPA from EPA)
Environmental Science Center (3ESOO)
701 Mapes Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755-53 50
Tel: 410-305-2739
Fax: 410-305-3097
E-mail: demoss.tom epa.gov
Rick Durbrow, MSPP (Organizer)
U.S. EPA Region 4 (14th Floor)
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
611 Forsyth Street, SW.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 404-562-8286
Fax: 404-562-8269
E-mail: durbrow.rick epa.gov
B-i
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems
June 17-20. 2002
Gina Ferreira (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway 25th Floor
New York City, NY 10007
Tel: 212-637-3768
Fax: 212-637-3771
E-mail: ferreira.gina@epa.gov
Jerri Garl (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 5 B-19J)
Metcalf Federal Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IlL 60604
Tel: 312-353-1441
Fax: 312-353-1120
E-mail: garl jerri epa.gov
Kris Goschen, REM (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 7 (RA/ECO)
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: 913-551-7027
Fax: 913-551-9027
E-mail: goschen.kris@epa.gov
Brenda Groskinsky (Organizer)
U.S. EPA Region 7 (DISO)
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: 913-551-7188
Fax: 913-551-9188
E-mail: groskinsky.brenda@epa.gov
James Gulliford (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 7 (RGAD)
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: 913-551-7006
Fax: 913-551-7976
E-mail: gulliford .j ames@epa.gov
Karen Hamilton (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 8 (EPR-EP)
999 - 18th St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Tel: 303-312-6236
Fax: 303-312-6897
E-mail: hamilton.karen epa.gov
Greg Hargreaves (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 8 (EPR-F)
999 - 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: 303-312-6661
Fax: 303-312-6067
E-mail: hargreaves.greg@epa.gov
Greg Ilellyer (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region I (ECA)
11 Technology Drive
North Chelmsford, MA 01863
Tel: 617-918-8677
Fax: 617-918-8417
E-mail: hellyer.greg@epa.gov
13-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems
June 17-20. 2002
Karl Hermann (Speaker)
U.S. EPA Region 8 (8EPR-EP)
Denver Place
999 - 18th St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: 303-312-6628
Fax: 303-312-7554
E-mail: hermann.karl epa.gov
Robert huger (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region I (RAA)
One Congress St
Boston, MA 02203
Tel: 617-918-1071
Fax: 617-918-1029
E-mail: hillger.robert epa.gov
U. Gale Hutton (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 7
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: 913-551-7307
Fax: 913-551-8752
E-mail: hutton.gale@epamail.epa.gov
Douglas Johnson (Speaker)
U.S. EPA Region 8 (8EPR-EP)
999 - 18th Street (Suite 300)
Denver, CO 80202-2466
n fin fl..
Tel: .,Oi-i1 2 - 68 . 4
Fax: 303-312-6071
E-mail: johnson.douglas@epa.gov
Ronald Landy, \TMID, Ph.D (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 3
Environmental Science Center
701 Mapes Road
Ft. Meade, MD 21797
Tel: 410-305-2757
Fax: 410-305-3095
E-mail: landy.ronald@epa.gov
Christine Lehnertz (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 8 (8P-HW)
999 - 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: 303-312-6649
Fax: 303-312-6064
E-mail: lehnertz.christine epa.gov
Charles Maurice, Ph.D. (Organizer)
U.S. EPA Region 5 (T-19J)
Metcalf Federal Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: 312-886-6635
Fax: 312-886-9697
E-mail: maurice.charles epa.gov
Amy Mysz (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 5 (DT-8J)
Metcalf Federal Building
77W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: 312-886-0224
Fax: 312-353-4788
E-mail: mysz.amy@epa.gov
B-3
-------
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems
June 17-20. 2002
Sharon Osowski, Ph.D. (Speaker)
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6EN-XP)
1445 Ross Ave
Dallas, TX 75202
Tel: 214-665-7506
Fax: 214-665-7446
E-mail: osowski.sharon epa.gov
John Perrecone (Speaker)
U.S. EPA Region 5 (T-13J)
Metcalf Federal Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: 312-353-1149
Fax: 312-886-9697
E-mail: perrecone.john epa.gov
John Richardson, Ph. D. (Speaker)
U.S. EPA Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 4045628290
Fax: 4045628269
E-mail: richardson.john epa.gov
Tony Selle (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 8 (8EPR-PS)
999 - 18th St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: 303-312-6774
Fax: 303-312-6065
E-mail: selle.tony epa.gov
Bobbye (Barbara M.) Smith, Ph.D.
(Organizer)
U.S. EPA Region 9 (PMD-1)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415-972-3735
Fax: 415-947-8025
E-mail: smith.bobbye epa.gov
Patti Tyler (Organizer)
U.S. EPA Region 8 (8TMS-QA)
999 - 18th St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Tel: 303-312-6081
Fax: 303-312-7828
E-mail: tyler.patti epa.gov
Roberta Vogel (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 7 (RA/OEP)
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 64101
Tel: 913-551-7072
Fax: 913-551-9072
E-mail: vogel .roberta epa.gov
Steve Wharton (Attendee)
U.S. EPA Region 8 (8P-HW)
999 - 18th St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: 303-312-6935
Fax: 303-312-6044
E-mail: wharton.steve epa.gov
B -4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/O _Workshop on Critical Ecosystems
June 17-20, 2002
Mary White, Ph.D. (Organizer)
U.S. EPA Region 5 (T-13J)
Metcalf Federal Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard
g 60604
Fax: 312-886-9697
E-mail: white.mary epa.gov
Office of Research and
Development (ORD )
Rochelle Araujo (Attendee)
U.S. EPA ORD/NERL (D305-O1)
109 T.W. Alexander Dr
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-4109
Fax: 919-541-3615
E-mail: araujo.rochelle epa.gov
Tom Barnwell (Organizer)
U.S. EPA ORD/NCER (8723R)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 2025640824
Fax: 202 565 2448
E-mail: barnwell .thomas epa.gov
Patricia Bradley (Speaker)
U.S. EPA ORD/NIIEERL (3ES20)
Environmental Science Center
701 Mapes Road
Ft. Meade, MD 20755-53 50
Tel: 410-305-2744
Fax: 410-305-3095
E-mail: bradley.patricia epa.gov
Bart Faulkner (Attendee)
U.S. EPA ORD/NRMRL
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Tel: 580-436-8530
Fax: 580-436-8703
E-mail: faulkner.bart epa.gov
William Fisher, Ph.D. (Organizer)
U.S. EPA ORD/NHEERL
I Sabine Island Drive
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
Tel: 850-934-9394
Fax: 850-934-2402
E-mail: fisher.william@epa.gov
Daniel Heggem (Speaker)
U.S. EPA ORD/NERL (LEB)
944 East Harmon Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89193
Tel: 702-798-2278
Fax: 702-798-2692
E-mail: heggem.daniel epa.gov
B-5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionJORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems
June 17-20 . 2002
John Johnston, Ph.D. (Attendee)
US. EPA ORD/NERL
960 College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30605
Tel: 706-355-8153
Fax: 706-355-8104
E-mail: j ohnston.j ohnm epa.gov
David Klauder, Ph.D. (Organizer)
U.S. EPA ORD/OSP (8104)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-6496
Fax: 202-565-2915
E-mail: klauder.david@epa.gov
Barbara Levinson (Organizer)
US. EPA ORD/NCER (8723R)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-6911
Fax: 202-565-2444
E-mail: I evinson .barbara epa.gov
Anne Neale (Speaker)
U.S. EPA ORD/NERL
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89 193-3478
Tel: 702-798-2347
Fax: 702-798-2692
E-mail: neale.anne epa.gov
Walt Nelson, Ph.D. (Speaker)
Pacific Coastal Ecology Branch
U.S. EPA ORD/NHEERL
2111 S.E. Marine Science Dr.
Newport, OR 97365
Tel: 541-867-4041
Fax: 541-867-4049
E-mail: nelson.walt epa.gov
Anne Sergeant (Speaker)
U.S. EPA 01W (8623D)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Aye, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-3249
Fax: 202-565-0076
E-mail: sergeant.anne epa.gov
Betsy Smith, Ph.D. (Organizer)
U.S. EPA ORD/NERL (E243-05)
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919-541-0620
Fax: 919-541-1138
E-mail: smith.betsy epa.gov
Joe Williams (Attendee)
U.S. EPA ORD/NRMRL
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Tel: 580-436-8608
Fax: 580-436-8703
E-mail: williams.joe epa.gov
B-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems
June 17-20 . 2002
EPA Program Offices
Jerry Ellis (Attendee)
U.S. EPA OPPTS/OPP (7507C)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 703-605-0648
Fax: 703-305-6309
E-mail: ellis.jerry epa.gov
Richard Haeuber (Speaker)
U.S. EPA OARJOAP (6204N)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington. DC 20460
Tel: 202-564-2667
Fax: 202-565-2140
E-mail: haeuber.richard@epa.gov
Duane Heaton (Attendee)
U.S. EPA GLNPO (G-17J)
Metcalf Federal Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: 312-886-6399
Fax: 312-353-2018
E-mail: heaton.duane@epa.gov
1 Iike Mascia (Attendee)
U.S. EPA OAIOPEI (1807T)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-2176
Fax: 202-566-2200
E-mail: mascia. michael epa.gov
Douglas Norton (Organizer)
U.S. EPA OW/OWOW (4503T)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202-566-1221
Fax: 202-566-1333
E-mail: norton.douglas@epa.gov
Karen Rodriguez (Speaker)
U.S. EPA GLNPO (G-17J)
Metcalf Federal Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: 312-353-2690
Fax: 312-353-2018
E-mail: rodriguez.karen epa. gov
Stephanie Sanzone (Attendee)
U.S. EPA OA/SAB (1400A)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 24060
Tel: 202-564-4561
Fax: 202-501-0582
E-mail: sanzone.stephanie@epa.gov
Charles Spooner
U.S. EPA OW/OWOW (4503T)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 24060
Tel: 202-566-1174
E-mail: spooner.charles epa.gov
B-7
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
RethonIORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems
June 17-20, 2002
Invited Guests
Virginia Dale (Speaker)
U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008 (MS6036)
Oak Ridge, TN 38731-6036
Tel: 865-576-8043
Fax: 865-576-8543
E-mail: dalevh@ornl.gov
David Diamond, Ph.D. (Speaker)
University of Missouri
4200 New Haven Road
Columbia, MO 65203
Tel: 573-876-1862
Fax: 573-876-1896
E-mail: david_diamond usgs. gov
Maria Downing (Speaker)
Forest Service, State and Private Forestry
Bldg A, Suite 331
2150 Centre Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Tel: 970-295-5843
Fax: 970-295-5815
E-mail: mdowning fs.fed.us
Charles Goldman (Speaker)
University of California - Davis
Environmental Science and Policy
Department
3 104D Wickson Hall
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Tel: 530-752-1557
E-mail: crgoldman@ucdavis.edu
Thomas Hoctor (Speaker)
University of Florida
5631 NW 34th Street
Gainesville, FL 32653
Tel: 352-392-5037
Fax: 352-392-3308
E-mail: tomh geoplan.uf1.edu
Betsy Neely (Speaker)
The Nature Conservancy of Colorado
2424 Spruce Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Tel: 303-444-2950
Fax: 303-444-2986
E-mail: bneely@tnc.org
Randy Pomponio (Speaker)
The Canaan Valley Institute
P .O. Box 964
Valley Forge, PA 19482-0964
Tel: 610-917-2138
E-mail: jpomponio aol.com
Julie Prior-Magee (Speaker)
USGS/Biological Resources
Di scipli ne/Center for Biological Informati cs
New Mexico State University
P.O. Box 30003, MSC 4901
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Tel: 505-646-1084
Fax: 505-646-1281
E-mail: jpmagee nmsu.edu
B-S
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20, 2002
Brian St. George (Attendee)
Bureau of Land Management
Building 50, Denver Federal Center
P0 Box 25047 (ST-131)
Denver, CO 80225-0047
Tel: 303-236-1930
Fax: 303-236-3508
E-mail: bri an_st_george blm .gov
Lisa Wainger, Ph.D. (Speaker)
University of Maryland, Center for
Environmental Science
I Williams Street
P0. Box 38
Solomons, MID 20688
Tel: 410-326-7401
Fax: 410-326-7419
E-mail: wainger@cbl.umces.edu
8-9
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
B-b
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20, 2002
APPENDIX C: Slides from Presentations and Poster Session
These slides can be found at
http : //epa t ov/osp/re ñ ons/workshops htrn
• Lessons in Critical Ecosystem Protection. The Role of Science Charles Goldman
in Management Decisions at Lake Tahoe
• An Approach to Regional Ecosystem Protection: The Cory Berish
Southeastern Ecological Framework
• An Approach to Regional Ecosystem Protection. c’anaan Randy Pomponio
J alley Institute Experience in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands
• Session II Introduction Charles Maurice
• A Binational Assessment: What We ‘re Measuring in the Great Duane Heaton
Lakes
• IfEveiything is Important, What ‘s Critical? Charles Maurice
• EPA Region 8 Approach to Ecological Assessment Karl A. Hermann
• Building a Regional Integrated Assessment Program: The Patricia Bradley
Mid-Atlantic Experience
• Where are the Good Areas? The Southeastern Ecological Neil Burns
Framework (SEF) Approach
• Ecoregional Planning and the Southern Rocky Mountains Betsy Neely
Ecoregiônal Assessment and Conservation Blueprint
• Setting Priorities for Conservation Opportunity Areas: David D. Diamond
Different Targets Result in Different Answers
• Biodiversity investment Areas: Ranking Critical Areas in the Karen Rodriguez
Great Lakes Basin
• You Think Ii ‘s (‘rizical? Now Prove It! Mary White
C-I
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20, 2002
• Values Douglas Johnson
• What Makes an Ecosystem Critical? Betsy Smith
• C’haracterizatio,i and Prioritization of the Southeastern Tom Hocto r
Ecological Framework
• Irreversibility and the Collective Good Managing Risk Under Lisa Wainger
Competing Priorities
• A Science Advisory Board Report: A Framework for Assessing Virginia Dale
and Reporting on Ecological Condition
• The Western EL vIA P Approach to Assessment of Coastal Walt Nelson
Ecological Condition
• Essential Ecological A tirE buies for the Southeastern John Richardson
Ecological Framework
• Landscape Level Identification o/Ecologically Significant Mary White
Areas in the Upper Midwest
• Statistical Geo-Spatial Modeling and Analysis of the Oak Maria Downing
Resource in Minneapolis Si. Paul
• The (ease for omtectiviiy Tom Hoctor
• EPA ‘s 2P t Century Ecosystem Assessment Enterprise - A Douglas Johnson
“Srrawman Proposal’
• Integration ofAssessment Results to EPA Goals Anne Sergeant
• New York City ‘s Water Supply Protection Program and Anne Neale
Results 0/a Landscape Analysis
• Synoptic Model to Rank Wetland Ecosystems for 404 Brenda ‘Groskinsky
Permitting
• EPA Region 6 GIS Screening Tool (GISST,): Applications to Sharon Osowski
Critical Ecosvsteni Evaluation
• Seven Lessons Learned from the Mid-A tlantic bite grated Tom DeMoss and
Assessment (MAIA) Evperience Patricia Bradley
C-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
APPENDIX D: Flip Chart Notes
Breakout Session: Identifying Data Needs that Support the SAB Framework (Day 2)
Four concurrent breakout groups met with a common purpose:
To identify data needs to support the SAB framework in six major areas: 1) Landscape
Condition, 2) Biotic Condition, 3) Chemical and Physical Characteristics, 4) Ecological
Processes, 5) Hydrology/Geomorphology, and 6) Natural Disturbance Regimes.
Identified data needs are listed by breakout group below.
Breakout Group # 1 (Red)
Facilitator: Rick Durbrow, Region 4
Attendees:
Araujo, Rochelle ORD/NERL
Beltran, Robert Region 5
Crawford, Tiffany Region 3
Faulkner, Bart ORDINRM1RL
Goldman, Charles University of California - Davis
Goschen, Kris Region 7
Hargreaves, Greg Region 8
Heggem, Daniel ORD/NERL
Hiliger, Robert Region 1
Lehnertz. Christine Region 8
Levinson, Barbara ORD/NCER
Neely, Betsy The Nature Conservancy of Colorado
Norton, Douglas OW/O WOW
Osowski, Sharon Region 6
Prior-Magee, Julie United States Geological Survey
Selle, Tony Region 8
Smith, Betsy ORD/NERL
Wharton, Steve Region 8
* Names in bold were listed on the preliminary sign-up sheet, but not on the actual sign-in sheet.
D-1
-------
U. S Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20, 2002
Flip-Chart I Discussion Notes
Comment: Regions 3 and 4 are fairly far along with the process of identifying data
needs that support the SAB Framework. Through this process, EPA intends
to provide some of the tools needed for the next steps (Rick Durbrow).
Comment: The SAB report is being used because it includes the Heinz report.
Comment: Breakout group discussion will be compiled and distributed in two weeks
(Rick Dz,rbrow).
Comment: We are creating a national data atlas.
Question: Has this been done before (Barbara Let’inson)?
Response: We have many national data layers on servers in Las Vegas. We can provide
data on CD-ROMs by state, including metadata. Each of the western regions
8, 9, and 10 has their data located on servers within their region. We have
regional landscape data, but is there more data at the national level? Can we
get GAP analysis data for a region (Heggen )?
Comment: The data that you need depends on the question, “Where are the critical
ecosystems?’ Making a list is harmless.
Landscape Condition
Wickham and Bitter’s landscape type for the U.S. (one application of this):
Composition of land cover
Represents degree of fragmentation (screening level)
Variable grain size - patch
Resides in RTP
Not a good tool for forests
Has a moving window to classify
Good for quick look at the degree of fragmentation nationally
Two-degree magnitudes smaller than MLRC
• MLRCINALC
• Water Database (U.S. EPA OW)
National hydrography
Georeference 303(d) sets
Designated use, 305(b) monitoring
STORET data
AIRS (database)
D-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/O Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
GAP:
is starting to do things regionally in the Southwest
In the Southeast, there is not a lot of data - work is still in progress
People are reluctant to share data, opportunity to get more funding
Important to build relationships with partners
Funded by the Federal government
The operations office in Idaho needs to be informed of quality issues
Perhaps ORD could work out an MOU with the national GAP office
Question: How is stuff worked out with the Nature Conservancy?
Response: Use National Heritage data and spin off.
• National Heritage
USDA: trying to redo SERGO data to be used Nationally
• NAWQA
• NI-ID - National Hydrography dataset (USGS). This is line data from streams.
Comment: In Kansas City, I heard they are going to be redoing the National Hydrography
Database and the National Elevation Database to make corrections and improve
them Tom DeWalt is the lead on this at headquarter’s.
• Flood forecasting - need two square miles
• Spending two million in NC. on LIDAR?
• Small Watersheds (NSGS, NRCS) - multiple agencies working together
Comment: Getting the latest update of a national database would be a good activity.
Question: Are there any national groundwater maps?
• National Wetlands Inventory (NW!)
• Landscape atlas (Las Vegas)
• BASINS
Regulated facilities
Dams
• Assessment Remediation Communities (ARCs)
Contaminated sediments
•
• Brooks AFB - DoD
• NA.DP - National Atmospheric Deposition Program (acid deposition)
D-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
Biotic Conditions
• Breeding birds
• Endangered species
• Heritage Program
• TNC - critical habitat
• EMAP - fish IBIs
• GAP
• FHIM - Forest Health Map
• Forest Types Map, SAF - Society of American Foresters
• Potential Natural Vegetation - Kuchier
• Coastal biota data - NOAA
Chemical and Physical
• Waters
303(d) and 305(b)
• EMAP
• NAWQA
• Soils
• Geology
• Climate data - NOAA
• NPDES
• STORET
Ecological Processes
• NDVI from AVHRR
• Nutrient flow
• Carbon sequestration (GCRP - Global Change Research Program)
Comment: I would like to see an A-Z on ecological processes.
Hvdrol ogv/Geomorphol ogy
• NHD - National Hydrography Data
• STATSCO/SSRUGO
• Digital Elevation Map (DEM)
• Waters/Basins/REACH
• Gauging Stations (USGS WRD)
• Geologic maps: surficial, aquifers
• Sedimentation (not National)
ORD worthy on methodology for
• Erosion potential - USDA (county level)
• Dams
• Source water protection / wellhead protection
D-4
-------
U_S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/O Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
Disturbance Regimes
• Fires - National Fire Information Center (Dwight Atkinson - OW)
• Floods
• Storms
• Climate change
D-5
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
Breakout GrouD # 2 (Blue)
Attendees:
Barnwell, Tom ORD/NCER
Bergstedt, Amy Region 8
DeMoss, Thomas Canaan Valley Institute - IPA from EPA
Durbrow, Rick Region 4
Fisher. William ORD/NHEERL
Groskinsky, Brenda Region 7
Hellyer, Greg Region I
Hoctor, Thomas University of Florida
Hutton, U. Gale Region 7
Johnston, John ORD/NERL
Mascia. Mike OAIOPEI
Maurice, Charles Region 5
Perrecone, John Region 5
Rodriguez, Karen GLNPO
Smith. Bobbye Region 9
Spooner. Charles OW/O WOW
St. George. Brian Bureau of Land Management
White. Mary Region 5
* Names in bold were listed on the preliminary sign-up sheet, but not on the actual sign-in sheet.
Natural Disturbance
• BLM
• “NIFC” - “National Inter-Agency Fire Center”
• FEMA Flood Plain Maps
• SEA WIFS
D-6
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20, 2002
Biotic Condition - Analyses
• Natural Heritage
• GAP
• Water Management Districts
• DoD Management Plans
• TNC - Landscapes of Biological Significance for Great Plains, Great Lakes
• NAQWA - states
Fish
• Bird data
Hvdro/Geomorpholo v
• USGS stream gauge
• USDA - NRI (National Resource Inventory)
Land resources, pesticide use, soil, crops produced
• N}ID - National Hydrography Database (streams)
• NOAA climate records - National Climate Data Center
• ACOE - DAMS database
• NOAA -env. Canada - ‘hardened shoreline’
Chemical/Physical
• EMAP
• Water Quality Data - federal, tribes, states
(STORET) -> (ElMS?) states
• Superfund - State Superfund/DOD/RCRA
• “State of Environment” Report
• NOAA Status and trends
• OW - fish toxicity/fish advirsory
• contaminated sediments inventory
• NAWQA
• Statsgo - states soils - USDA
• OPP - toxics model
• USGS - EDC effects
Ecologic Processes
• (none listed)
Landscape Conditions
• NLCD - Analysis
Type
Patch size
Edge effects
Density analysis
D-7
-------
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
RegionJORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
LANDSAT
Biotic condition
Species models
Conservation lands
NWL refuges
• States
• Sagebrush
• “Sage map” USGS
• OMERNIK/BAILEY
• Region 5 - wetlands database
• Kuchier coverage (nationwide)
• Tyler 2000 - (4x4 Jeep trails) - but miss 40-80% roads
• DEM - original evaluation model
• Nation Wetlands inventory (USGS) - “NW!”
• “Dinamap” - road data
• Census data
Data Gap
• NLCD 2000
Links to databases
D-8
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20, 2002
Group #3 (Orange)
Attendees:
Berish, Cory Region 4
Bradley, Patricia ORD/NHEERL
Dale, Virginia U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board
Diamond, David University of Missouri
Ferreira, Gina Region 2
Gulliford, James Region 7
Haeuber, Richard OAR/OAF
Helvig, John Region 7
Johnson, Douglas Region 8
Klauder, David ORD/OSP
McGraw, Jack Region 8
Neale, Anne ORD/NERL
Richardson, John Region 4
Sanzone, Stephanie OAISAB
Sydoriak, Charisse Bureau of Land Management
Tyler, Patti Region 8
Williams, Joe ORD! NRMRL
* Names in bold were listed on the preliminary sign-up sheet, but not on the actual sign-in sheet.
Role of Statistics - statistical significance
• Some components of the framework is not happening at a national scale
• National -> Regional -> Local
• What attributes fit at what scale?
• How to report at an individual scale?
At a national scale?
• SOE/Regional scale
• SAB framework to SOE report
D-9
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 7-20. 2002
Landscape Assessment Modeling
FHM has national disturbance data
Historic vs. current fire vulnerability
Goal: To look at data available for EEA and identify where gaps are
• Overlap of measures between EEA
• Range in water quality data is quite variable; large data set over large area
• Dependent upon your design
Chemical/Physical Characteristics
• Decide upon the scale we want to work with
• Adjust design - stratified random, probability based
• State scale 9 - delegated authority to collect the data
• Assessment scale vs. monitoring scale and implementation scale
State — regional
Nested Design
• Scale is a function of the issue and then questions
• Look at multiple scales and identifiv gaps
• Fine scale vs. course scale
• Can do future scale work with coarse scale data
• Importance of knowing your data and understanding scale
• We don’t have fine scale nationally
Data Interpretation
Are there interpretive processes that could be standardized?
• Interpretive variations based on ecoregion
• How to you effectively interpret:
Landscape metrics
Key work for ORD
• Abundance of data is key
• Limitation of EMAP - one-time event
Better reliability with USGS low flow loading and landscape metrics
Better off with more temporal data regarding landscape data
• All data is not equal
• What do we need to understand about the data
BAD - Best Available Data
• KYD
• Assessment scale
• Implementation scale
• Regional assessments are realistically utilizing existing data
D-IO
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
Vision - we want SW/Mon. prog. national partners
Define model
States rule for monitoring
Go from site - SPCC — holistic
FGDC, connections
National infrastructure - budgetary connections among Federal Agencies
• We have historically done the site specific physical/chemical data
Two types of Monitoring
• Baseline and Health vs. tracking compliance (point source work)
• CWA regulations
Provide recommendations here!
• What are the Critical Measures ?
• AIR - critical monitoring
• USGS - national map
Update of 1970 map, digitized
• Census Bureau update of spatial data for 2010
• What is the lowest scale?
SEF can be shown to 30 m.
At the local level you can overlay with finer level details
Tools to be able to work at any scale - REVA
• Scale is influenced by assessment goal
• Need to get down to local scale land use decisions
• Uniformity in approaches
• Can we see the SAB framework at the various scale and recommend measures at those
scales?
D-11
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
Group # 4 (Yellow)
Attendees:
Burns, Neil Region 4
Downing, Maria United States Forest Service
E11i5, Jeny OPPTS/OPP
Gari. Jerri Region 5
Hamilton, Karen Region 8
Heaton, Duane GLNPO
Hermann, Karl Region 8
Klima, Karen OW/OWOW
Landy, Ronald Region 3
Mysz, Amy Region 5
Nelson, Walt ORD/NHEERL
Pomponio, Randy Canaan Valley Institute
Roybal, Art Region 8
Sergeant, Anne ORD/NCEA
Vogel, Roberta Region 7
Wainger, Lisa University of Maryland
* Names in bold were listed on the preliminary sign-up sheet, but not on the actual sign-in sheet.
Flip Chart/Discussion Notes
Comment: Look at the six different data categories and come up with National Level Data to
fail into them.
Question: Can we come up with others?
Response: I think it would be easier to find the level data sets to fill into this, than to
identify gaps.
D-12
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
Comment: A lot is available, people also know a lot. Maybe we should identif ’ holes; i.e.,
could not find ecological process data or what would we measure.
Comment: Also things coming out on how we should identify; i.e., asking Mary White why
she didn’t include species, she said not available but in two-years USGS is
coming on.
Comment: Some are also of a scale that is not useable; we looked at some data, but we
couldn’t use it or it was inconsistently available.
Comment: We should expand beyond EPA databases and mark those.
Comment: I agree about last night - SAB is good, lots of reasons to endorse, but I agree that
a lot of categories are not ones in which EPA has the primary responsibility for
collecting data.
Comment: I think we can use some things, but we can identify what we can’t do.
Comment: There are round tables that are identifying those.
Question: Should we start on holes?
Comment: It seems that the focus of this meeting is to describe ecosystems that the SAB
conceived in the real world, but for monitoring.
Question: Should we identify what large scale?
Response: Maybe you need something in other categories
Comment: We should identify what data sets are available/valuable for characterizing or
identifying critical ecosystems - region-wide assessment.
Question: What is monitoring good for?
Response: It is not good for identifying data gaps; there is no such thing as natural habitat
classification system.
Question: Should we prioritize?
Response: I’m not sure.
D-Il 3
-------
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20, 2002
Question: How do they feed in stressors/anthropogenic disturbance, i.e. road density?
Response: Need data that is scalable.
Question: Biotic condition, do we have any consistency?
Response: Not across U.S. agency scalability.
Stressors
“What data do we need for characterizing or identifying critical ecosystems?”
• Road density
• Land use - impervious surfaces (natural and anthropogenic)
• Invasive/non-indigenous/non-native species
Locations (USGS)?
Treatments - Need process information
• Darns
• Proximity to agriculture
Each of these has an impact but concentrate on stressors
Ecological Processes
• Carbon sequestration
• 1-degree productivity - greenness - N
• Water purification (process for N2)
• Water Supply
• Weather/climate
Indicator for biotic diversity - what resources are available to the ecosystem
Sunlight/temperature, precipitation available to ecosystem
• Ecosystem resilience
Natural Disturbance
• Fire-USFS?
• Flood-FEMA
• Drought - USGS, USDA
• Weather extremes (NOAA)/variability
Hurricanes, tornado, fluctuations, ice, wind, el nino/la nina, temperature
• Earthquake/fault zones
• Insect-borne diseases
• Erosion/mudslides
• Volcano
D-14
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20, 2002
Other Needs
• Monitoring consistency
Within EPA
Between Federal agencies
States
• Complete coverage
• Rapid assessment indicators
• Scale hierarchy
Local, state, regional, global
• Support (from management) for collaboration
D-1 5
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
D-16
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region/ORD Workshop on Critical Ecosystems June 17-20. 2002
APPENDIX E: Critical Ecosystems Workshop Participant Evaluation
Summary
According to Workshop evaluation comments, most participants found the information presented
at the workshop to be of significant interest and use, especially the opportunity to learn more
about the variety of approaches used by different EPA regions and outside organizations (e.g.,
other Federal agencies and non-profit groups) to identify and assess critical ecosystems. In
general, attendees would like to have heard more discussion on the potential uses of critical
ecosystem assessment approaches to prioritize enforcement actions, and more emphasis on
incorporation and implementation of strategy and new approaches to ecosystem management,
primarily in the long-term.
Participants affirmed that the presentations were effective in communicating regional issues and
ORD science to address those issues, and that the presentations were sufficiently tailored to suit
their information needs. Most participants felt that there was not enough time allotted to
breakout sessions, this made it difficult for them to fully explore the topics using the information
learned. It was agreed that posters were effective in presenting information related to critical
ecosystems.
Many participants liked the discussions related to integration of the approach(es) into
mainstream EPA program activities and thought that the creation of a Steering Committee to
work on this and related workshop follow-up activities (see below) was a good idea. Other
follow-up activities suggested included the formation of partnerships with other Federal agencies
and interested states, coordination with the EPA Science Policy Council, cross-regional
“teaming” to advance the use of specific approach(es), conducting quarterly conference calls,
establishing an interactive web site and/or list server, and conducting additional workshops on a
regional and national scale. Overall, the meeting was considered useful and successful, with
much praise given to the organizers.
E-1
------- |