United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA Science Advisory Board
1400A
Washington, DC
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009A
September 2002
www.epa.gov/sab
&EIPA
A Framework For Assessing
and Reporting on Ecological
Condition: Executive Summary
-------
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency is a body of independent experts who provide advice to the EPA
Administrator on scientific and engineering issues. The SAB was established in its
present form by the Congress in 1978. The SAB's approximately 100 members and more
than 300 consultants include scientists, engineers, and other specialists drawn from a
broad range of disciplines-physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, engineering, ecology,
economics, social sciences, medicine, and other fields. Members are appointed by the
Administrator for two-year terms. The SAB meets in public session, and its committees
and review panels are designed to include a diverse and technically balanced range of views,
as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The SAB's principal mission is to review the quality and relevance of the scientific infor-
mation being used to support Agency decisions, review research programs and strategies,
and provide broad strategic advice on scientific and technological matters. In addition, the
SAB occasionally conducts special studies at the request of the Administrator to examine
comprehensive issues, such as anticipating future environmental risks and developing new
approaches to analyze and compare risks to human health and the environment.
Cover photo: The Experimental Lakes Area, a research facility in Ontario, Canada where a number of lakes
and watersheds have been set aside for whole-lake manipulation experiments. Photo by C. Gilmour.
-------
A Framework for Assessing and
Reporting on Ecological Condition:
Executive Summary
Terry F. Young and Stephanie Sanzone, Editors
Prepared by the Ecological Reporting Panel
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
EPA Science Advisory Board
Washington, DC 20460
September 2002
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
September 26, 2002
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009A
Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition:
A Science Advisory Board Report
Dear Governor Whitman:
The Environmental Protection Agency, both in the past and under your leadership, has played
a prominent role in informing the nation about the condition of its environment. In order to
assist you with this effort, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) is pleased to provide you with the
attached report, A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition. The purpose
of the report is to offer an organizational tool that will assist the Agency systematically to
develop, assemble, and report on information about the health of ecological systems. The
proposed framework also provides a checklist of ecological attributes that should be considered
when designing ecological risk assessments, setting ecological research priorities, and developing
ecological management objectives for a broad array of Agency programs.
Driven in part by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), much attention
recently has been focused on environmental reporting. At the same time, there is a general desire
to shift from reporting on government activities to reporting on the resulting improvements in
human and ecosystem health. Both your November 13, 2001 memo calling for a "State of the
Environment Report" and the SAB's 2000 report, Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-
making, underscore the need for this shift.
-------
From our point of view, better information about ecological condition is a prerequisite for
better decision-making about ecological resources generally and Agency mandates specifically.
For example, information about an array of ecological characteristics — in addition to the chemi-
cal quality of air, water, and soil—can help the Agency and local groups target the highest prior-
ity problems, rather than targeting those about which the most data have been collected. This
information also can be used by local and state decision-makers to address environmental prob-
lems that affect Agency activities but are outside of its direct purview, such as land use planning
within watersheds. Similarly, information about ecological condition can help the Agency predict
future problems, serving as "leading indicators." The SAB is acutely aware, however, that assess-
ing ecological system health is scientifically complex and difficult to accomplish with limited
resources.
Reporting on ecological system health is equally complex, and few good examples currently are
available. Although hundreds of relevant ecosystem health indicators exist, little guidance is avail-
able for distilling them into a few, credible summary statements for the public. As a result, reports
generally contain a selection of indicators that may be important, but seem disjointed even to a
casual reader and are not representative of the array of characteristics necessary to assess ecologi-
cal health. Another important impediment to good reporting is the current dearth of ecological
condition data. SAB members often have been struck by the lack of ecological data available
outside of a few categories most directly related to the Agency's mandates. Moreover, in a
number of reviews conducted by the SAB's Ecological Processes and Effects Committee over
the past decade, the Committee noted the Agency's lack of a comprehensive and consistent list of
ecological characteristics. This shortcoming has limited the Agency's ability to achieve its program
objectives.
These recurring problems, combined with the challenge of creating useful "report cards,"
provided the impetus for the attached report. A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on
Ecological Condition provides a checklist of essential ecological attributes that can be used as a
guide for designing a system to assess, then report on ecological condition. The list is organized
as a hierarchy that allows the user to judge tradeoffs when all attributes cannot be studied. This
hierarchy also provides a roadmap for synthesizing a large number of indicators into a few, scien-
tifically defensible categories, each of which sums up an important ecological characteristic. These
categories can then be reported on directly or used as the foundation for extracting information
related to particular environmental management goals such as the "number of estuaries with
healthy, sustainable aquatic communities." Because the framework derives from the principles of
ecology and ecological risk assessment, it provides a rigorous basis for collecting and reporting
information that covers the characteristics that are essential for understanding and managing
ecosystems.
iii
-------
The framework has been road-tested on three Agency programs — a public information tool
related to Clean Water Act implementation, a monitoring and assessment research program, and
an EPA-state environmental reporting program — and a monitoring program of the USDA
Forest Service. Further, the report compares the SAB framework to the suites of environmental
indicators recently recommended by the National Research Council and The Heinz Center. The
results of these tests indicate that the SAB framework is comprehensive, that it can be used for a
variety of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem types, and that it can be used as a template for synthe-
sizing information from different programs both within and outside the Agency.
In sum, the SAB framework provides a checklist of ecological attributes that should be
considered when evaluating the health of ecological systems. It also provides an organizational
scheme for assembling hundreds of individual parameters into a few understandable attributes.
We hope that the SAB framework will foster more systematic collection of ecological informa-
tion by the Agency, provide a locus for integrating that information among programs both
within and outside the Agency, and catalyze a trend towards environmental reporting that
addresses the essential attributes of ecological systems.
Ecological systems are complex, and it has proved extremely difficult to answer the holistic
questions that people ask about them — "How healthy is my watershed? Will native species be
here for my children and grandchildren to enjoy?" With this report, we provide a way to inte-
grate scientific data into the information necessary to answer these questions, and ultimately to
foster improved management and protection of ecological systems. We look forward to your
response to this report, and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further
with you as the Agency moves forward with a report on the state of the environment.
Sincerely,
Dr. William H. Glaze, Chair
EPA Science Advisory Board
Dr. Terry Young, Chair
Ecological Reporting Panel
Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee
EPA Science Advisory Board
iv
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory Board, a
public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to provide
balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This report
has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the contents of this report do not
necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of other
agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
Distribution and Availability: This EPA Science Advisory Board report is provided to the EPA
Administrator, senior Agency management, appropriate program staff, interested members of the
public, and is posted on the SAB website (www.epa.gov/sab). Information on its availability is
also provided in the SAB's monthly newsletter (Happenings at the Science Advisory Board).
Additional copies and further information are available from the SAB Staff [US EPA Science
Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; 202-
564-4533].
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee
Ecological Reporting Panel
CHAIR
Dr. Terry F. Young, Environmental Defense, Oakland, CA
Also Member: Executive Committee
SAB MEMBERS
Dr. William J. Adams, Kennecott Utah Copper, Magna, UT
Member: Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Dr. Steven Bartell, Cadmus Group, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN
Also Member: Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Dr. Kenneth Cummins, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA
Member: Executive Committee
Dr. Virginia H. Dale, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Dr. Ivan J. Fernandez, University of Maine, Orono, ME
Dr. Cynthia Gilmour, The Academy of Natural Sciences, St. Leonard, MD
Dr. Lawrence L. Master, NatureServe, Boston, MA
Dr. Charles A. Pittinger, SoBran, Inc., Dayton, OH
Dr. William H. Smith, Professor Emeritus, Yale University
Member: Executive Committee
CONSULTANT
Dr. Frieda B. Taub, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone, EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC
Ms. Mary Winston, EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC
vii
-------
Contents
Introduction 1
Reporting Architecture 3
Essential Ecological Attributes 7
Landscape Condition 10
Biotic Condition 10
Chemical and Physical Characteristics
(Water, Air, Soil, Sediment) 12
Ecological Processes 13
Hydrology and Geomorphology 13
Natural Disturbance Regimes 15
The Role of Stressor Indicators 17
Applying the Framework 19
Example Applications of the Framework 21
Conclusions 23
References 27
IX
-------
INTRODUCTION
A wealth of environmental monitoring
information has been developed since
the nation first turned its collective
attention to improving environmental quality
more than three decades ago. Yet many
scientists, most decision-makers, and nearly
all members of the public still have little
understanding of the "health" or integrity of
the nation's ecological systems. The monitoring
programs tailored to report on the
implementation of environmental laws and
programs — the cleanup of pollutants, the
management of public forests and rangelands,
and so forth — may accomplish the intended
purpose but do not provide the information
required to assess the integrity of ecological
systems in a systematic way across regions.
Recognizing this information gap, much
attention has recently been focused on the
development of concise, understandable, yet
accurate "environmental report cards" that
summarize the condition of ecological systems.
The Environmental Protection Agency has an
important role to play in developing the
missing information on the condition of the
nation's ecosystems for use in such reports.
Better information about ecological condition
also is a prerequisite for better decision-making
within the Agency, on issues ranging from the
development of biocriteria to the formulation
of research strategies. In addition, the Agency
has mandates — as part of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, for
example — to report more effectively on the
state of the nation's environment and the
improvements resulting from Agency
programs.
To accomplish these tasks, the Agency
would benefit from development of a
systematic framework for assessing and
reporting on ecological condition. The
framework would: help assure that the required
information is measured systematically by the
Agency's programs; provide a template for
assembling information across Agency
programs and from other agencies; and provide
an organizing tool for synthesizing large
numbers of indicators into a scientifically
defensible, yet understandable, report on
ecological condition.
The purpose of this report is to provide
the Agency with a sample framework that
may serve as a guide for designing a
system to assess, and then report on,
ecological condition at a local, regional, or
national scale. The sample framework is
intended as an organizing tool that may
help the Agency decide what ecological
attributes to measure and how to
aggregate those measurements into an
understandable picture of ecological
integrity.
Better
information
about
ecological
condition is
a prerequisite
for better
decision-
making. ..
\
-------
Environmental reporting usually draws upon
a range of measures, from those that capture
agency activities to those that provide
information about ecological integrity or
human health. In addition, reports can focus on
economic benefits derived from ecosystems
(such as flows of goods and services), or on the
condition of human health or ecological resources
irrespective of whether quantifiable economic
benefits are produced. In this report, we focus
exclusively on condition measures related to
ecological integrity or because these are a critical
— and largely missing — link in the information
base upon which environmental reporting can be
built.
-------
REPORTING ARCHITECTURE
In order to foster consistent and
comprehensive assessment and reporting on the
condition of ecological resources, the Panel
proposes a framework in which information
about generic ecological characteristics can be
logically assembled, then synthesized into a few,
scientifically defensible categories. Information
from these categories can then be excerpted to
report on a variety of environmental
management goals. This framework for
consolidating information can be used as part of
a reporting system (Figure ES-1) that contains
the following major elements:
Goals and Objectives. Ideally,
environmental management programs begin
with a process to develop goals and objectives
that articulate the desired ecosystem
conditions that will result from the
program (s). Methods to develop and use goals
and objectives for environmental management
have been developed extensively elsewhere
and are not part of this report.
Essential Ecological Attributes. A set of
six Essential Ecological Attributes (EEAs),
along with their subdivisions, are presented in
Table ES-1 and described in detail in Section 3
of the full report. The EEAs and their
component categories and subcategories can
be used as a checklist to help design
environmental management and assessment
programs and as a guide for aggregating and
Goals
Objectives
i
Essential
Ecological Attributes
Ecological Indicators
(Endpoints)
Measures
(Monitoring Data)
Figure ES-1. Proposed Architecture for
Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition
organizing information. The elements of the
table and its hierarchical organization are
derived from a conceptual model of
ecological system pattern and process, and
incorporate ecological structure, composition,
and function at a variety of scales.
Ecological Indicators. Ecological
indicators (also called ecological endpoints)
are measurable characteristics related to the
structure, composition, or functioning of
-------
The Essential
Ecological
Attributes are
independent
of specific
management
objectives.
ecological systems. Multiple indicators may be
associated with each subcategory in the EEA
hierarchy (see Table ES-2).
Measures. The measures are specific
monitoring variables that are measured in the
field and aggregated into one or more
ecological indicators (or endpoints).
The relationship among these components
is relatively straightforward. Measures
(monitoring data) are aggregated into
ecological indicators. Indicators are
aggregated into the subcategories of the
hierarchy of EEAs. In theory, therefore, the
framework provides a mechanism to display
the relationship between monitoring data or
indicators and the overarching conclusions
that can be drawn about the condition of
various important ecological attributes.
Figure ES-1 shows a clear separation
between goals and objectives in the upper half
and EEAs, indicators, and measures in the
lower half, to emphasize that EEAs are a
function of the ecological systems of interest
and are not derived from the goals and
objectives. The EEAs are designed to apply
generically — that is, to most aquatic and
terrestrial systems at the local, regional, or
national scale. The independence of the EEA
hierarchy from specific management
objectives is what makes it amenable to
consistent application across many different
regions and types of programs. This
independence does not mean that the EEAs
and objectives are unrelated, however.
The EEAs provide an organized body of
information from which one can assess a
program's success in meeting any set of
objectives relating to ecological condition. In
other words, a performance measure related
to a specific objective of an environmental
program will draw information from a unique
subset of the EEAs.
-------
Table ES-1. Essential Ecological Attributes and
Reporting Categories
Landscape Condition
• Extent of Ecological System/Habitat Types
• Landscape Composition
• Landscape Pattern and Structure
Biotic Condition
• Ecosystems and Communities
- Community Extent
- Community Composition
- Trophic Structure
- Community Dynamics
- Physical Structure
• Species and Populations
- Population Size
- Genetic Diversity
- Population Structure
- Population Dynamics
- Habitat Suitability
• Organism Condition
- Physiological Status
- Symptoms of Disease or Trauma
- Signs of Disease
Chemical and Physical Characteristics
(Water, Air, Soil, and Sediment)
• Nutrient Concentrations
- Nitrogen
- Phosphorus
- Other Nutrients
• Trace Inorganic and Organic Chemicals
- Metals
- Other Trace Elements
- Organic Compounds
• Other Chemical Parameters
PH
- Dissolved Oxygen
- Salinity
- Organic Matter
-Other
• Physical Parameters
Ecological Processes
• Energy Flow
- Primary Production
- Net Ecosystem Production
- Growth Efficiency
• Material Flow
- Organic Carbon Cycling
- Nitrogen and Phosphorus Cycling
- Other Nutrient Cycling
Hydrology and Geomorphology
• Surface and Groundwater Flows
- Pattern of Surface Flows
- Hydrodynamics
- Pattern of Groundwater Flows
- Salinity Patterns
- Water Storage
• Dynamic Structural Characteristics
- Channel/Shoreline Morphology,
Complexity
- Distribution/Extent of Connected
Floodplain
- Aquatic Physical Habitat
Complexity
• Sediment and Material Transport
- Sediment Supply/Movement
- Particle Size Distribution Patterns
- Other Material Flux
Natural Disturbance Regimes
• Frequency
• Intensity
• Extent
• Duration
-------
ESSENTIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
The EEAs — Landscape Condition,
Biotic Condition, Chemical and Physical
Characteristics, Ecological Processes,
Hydrology and Geomorphology, and
Natural Disturbance Regimes — divide up
the universe of information that describes the
state of an ecological system in a logical
manner that is solidly grounded in current
scientific understanding. The EEAs include
three ecological attributes that are primarily
"patterns" (Landscape Condition, Biotic
Condition, and Chemical/Physical
Characteristics) and three that are primarily
"processes" (Hydrology/ Geomorphology,
Ecological Processes, and Natural
Disturbance). Describing ecological systems
in terms of pattern and process has a long
history in ecological science and has been a
useful construct for many years. In a nutshell,
the processes create and maintain patterns,
which consist of the elements in the system
and the way they are arranged; these patterns
in turn affect how processes are expressed
(e.g., a riparian forest's effect on river flow
and velocity).
In order to subdivide pattern and process
into EEAs, the Panel elected to highlight
ecological characteristics that often are
overlooked by the Agency and by members
of the public (such as landscape structure,
natural disturbance, and ecological processes).
For ease of use, the Panel grouped
characteristics that generally are measured
together. The EEAs and their component
categories and subcategories are summarized
in Table ES-2, and described in detail in the
full report.
ECOLOGICAL
Landscape
Condition
Natural
Disturbance
Chemical/
Physical
Hydrology/
Geomorphology
Ecological
Processes
;
Figure ES-2.
-------
Table ES-2. Summary of Essential Ecological Attribute Categories and Subcategories, With Example Indicators and Measures
LANDSCAPE CONDITION
Category
Extent of Each Ecological
System/Habitat Type
Landscape Composition
Landscape Pattern/Structure
Subcategory
Example Indicators and Measures
e.g., area; perimeter-to-area ratio; core area; elongation
e.g., number of habitat types; number of patches of each habitat; size of large patch; presence/absence of native plant
communities; measures of topographic relief, slope, and aspect
e.g., dominance; contagion; fractal dimension; distance between patches; longitudinal and lateral connectivity; juxtaposition
of patch types or serial stages; width of habitat adjacent to wetlands
BIOTIC CONDITION
Ecosystems and Communities
Species and Populations
Organism Condition
Community Extent
Community Composition
Trophic Structure
Community Dynamics
Physical Structure
Population Size
Genetic Diversity
Population Structure
Population Dynamics
Habitat Suitability (Focal Species)
Physiological Status
Symptoms of Disease
or Trauma
Signs of Disease
e.g., extent of native ecological communities; extent of successional states
e.g., species inventory; total species diversity; native species diversity; relative abundance of species; % non-native species;
presence/abundance of focal or special interest species (e.g., commonness/rarity); species/taxa richness; number of species
in ataxonomic group (e.g., fishes); evenness/dominance across species ortaxa
e.g., food web complexity; presence/absence of top predators or dominant herbivores; functional feeding groups or guilds
e.g., predation rate; succession; pollination rate; herbivory; seed dispersal
e.g., vertical stand structure (stratification or layering in forest communities); tree canopy height; presence of snags in forest
systems; life form composition of plant communities; successional state
e.g., number of individuals in the population; size of breeding population; population distribution; number of individuals
per habitat area (density)
e.g., degree of heterozygosity within a population; presence of specific genetic stocks within or among populations
e.g., population age structure
e.g., birth and death rates; reproductive or recruitment rates; dispersal and other movements
measures of habitat attributes important to focal species
e.g., glycogen stores and blood chemistry for animals; carbohydrate
stores, nutrients, and polyamines for plants; hormone levels; enzyme levels
e.g., gross morphology (size, weight, limb structure); behavior and
responsiveness; sores, lesions and tumors; defoliation
e.g., presence of parasites or pathogens (e.g., nematodes in fish); tissue burdens of xenobiotic chemicals
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (WATER, AIR, SOIL, SEDIMENT)
Nutrient Concentrations
Trace Inorganic and Organic
Chemicals
Other Chemical Parameters
Physical Parameters
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Other Nutrients
Metals
Other Trace Elements
Organic Compounds
pH
Dissolved Oxygen/
Redox Potential
Salinity
Organic Matter
Other
Soil/Sediment
Air/Water
e.g., concentrations of total N; NH|, NO3; organic N, NOx; C/N ratio for forest floor
e.g., concentrations of total P; ortho-P; particulate P; organic P
e.g., concentrations of calcium, potassium, and silicon
e.g., copper and zinc in sediments and suspended particulates
e.g., concentrations of selenium in waters, soils, and sediments
e.g., methylmercury selenomethionine
e.g., pH in surface waters and soil
e.g., dissolved oxygen in streams; soil redox potential
e.g., conductivity
e.g., soil organic matter; pore water organic matter concentrations
e.g., buffering capacity; cation exchange capacity
e.g., temperature; texture; porosity; soil bulk density; profile morphology; mineralogy; water retention
e.g., temperature; wind velocity; relative humidity; UV-B PAR; concentrations of particulates; turbidity
-------
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Energy Flow
Material Flow
Primary Production
Net Ecosystem Production
Growth Efficiency
Organic Carbon Cycling
N and P Cycling
Other Nutrient Cycling
(e.g., K, S, Si, Fe)
e.g., production capacity (total chlorophyll per unit area); net primary production (plant production per unit area per year);
tree growth or crop production (terrestrial systems); trophic status (lakes); 14-CO2 fixation rate (aquatic systems)
e.g., net ecosystem organic carbon storage (forests); diel changes in O2 and CO2 fluxes (aquatic systems); CO2 flux from all
ecosystems
e.g., comparison of primary production with net ecosystem production; transfer of carbon through the food web
e.g., input/output budgets (source identification-stable C isotopes); internal cycling measures (food web structure; rate and
efficiency of microbial decomposition; carbon storage); organic matter quality and character
e.g., input/output budgets (source identification, landscape runoff or yield); internal recycling (N2-fixation capacity;
soil/sediment nutrient assimilation capacity; identification of growth-limiting factors; identification of dominant pathways)
e.g., input/output budgets (source identification, landscape yield); internal recycling (identification of
growth-limiting factors; storage capacity; identification of key microbial terminal electron acceptors)
HYDROLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY
Surface and Groundwater Flows
Dynamic Structural
Characteristics
Sediment and
Material Transport
Pattern of Surface Flows
(rivers, lakes, wetlands,
and estuaries)
Hydrodynamics
Pattern of Groundwater Flows
Spatial and Temporal Salinity
Patterns (estuaries and wetlands)
Water Storage
Channel Morphology;
Shoreline Characteristics;
Channel Complexity
Distribution and Extent of
Connected Floodplain (rivers)
Aquatic Physical Habitat
Complexity
Sediment Supply and
Movement
Particle Size Distribution
Patterns
Other Material Flux
e.g., flow magnitude and variability, including frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change;
water level fluctuations in wetlands and lakes
e.g., water movement; vertical and horizontal mixing; stratification; hydraulic residence time; replacement time
e.g., groundwater accretion to surface waters; within-groundwater flow rates and direction; net recharge or withdrawals;
depth to groundwater
e.g., horizontal (surface) salinity gradients; depth of pycnocline; salt wedge
e.g., water level fluctuations for lakes and wetlands; aquifer capacity
e.g., mean width of meander corridor or alternative measure of the length of river allowed to migrate;
stream braidedness; presence of off-channel pools (rivers); linear distance of marsh channels per unit marsh area;
lithology; length of natural shoreline
e.g., distribution of plants that are tolerant to flooding; presence of floodplain spawning fish;
area flooded by 2-year and 10-year floods
e.g., pool-to-riffle ratio (rivers); aquatic shaded riparian habitat (rivers and lakes); presence of large woody debris
(rivers and lakes)
e.g., sediment deposition, sediment residence time and flushing
e.g., distribution patterns of different grain/particle sizes in aquatic or coastal environments
e.g., transport of large woody debris in rivers
NATURAL DISTURBANCE REGIMES
Example 1 : Fire Regime
in a forest
Example 2: Flood Regime
Example 3: Insect Infestation
Frequency
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Frequency
Intensity
Extent
Duration
Frequency
Intensity
Extent
Duration
e.g., recurrence interval for fires
e.g., occurrence of low intensity (forest litter fire) to high intensity (crown fire) fires
e.g., spatial extent in hectares
e.g., length of fire events (from hours to weeks)
e.g., recurrence interval of extreme flood events
e.g., number of standard deviations from 30-year mean
e.g., number of stream orders (and largest order) affected
e.g., number of days, percent of water year (October 1- September 30)
e.g., recurrence interval for insect infestation outbreaks
e.g., density (number per area) of insect pests in an area
e.g., spatial extent of infested area
e.g., length of infestation outbreak
-------
The Clinch River in Tennessee, seen as part of a landscape that includes
forest, riparian, and open field habitats. Photo by V. Dale.
Managing
entire
landscapes,
not just
individual
habitat types,
is important
for maintaining
native
biodiversity.
Landscape Condition
A landscape is an area composed of a
mosaic of interacting ecosystems, or habitat
patches. Habitat condition may reflect both
abiotic features (e.g., elevation, proximity to
water) and biotic features (e.g., dominant
species, presence of predators). A change in
the size and number of natural habitat patches,
or a change in connectivity between habitat
patches, affects the probability of local
extinction and loss of diversity of native
species and can affect regional species
persistence. Patch heterogeneity also affects
both biotic and abiotic landscape processes
(e.g., extent of insect infestation, surface water
flows). Thus, there is empirical justification
for managing entire landscapes, not just
individual habitat types, in order to insure that
native plant and animal diversity is
maintained. The Panel recommends that
landscape indicators be reported in the
following three categories:
Extent. The areal extent of each habitat type
within a landscape is important because a
decrease in the total area of habitat available
often is correlated with species decline. Extent
may be reported for broad land cover classes,
for finer subunits, or both.
Landscape Composition. Landscape
composition can be measured by several
metrics, including the number of
landcover/habitat types, the number of
patches of each habitat, and size of the largest
patch (because populations are unlikely to
persist in landscapes where the largest patch is
smaller than that species' home range).
Landscape Pattern/Structure. The spatial
pattern of habitat affects population viability
of native species. Recent advances in remote
sensing and geographic information systems
(GIS) allow indices of pattern to be applied
over large areas.
Biotic Condition
For this reporting framework, the Panel
defines biotic condition to include structural and
compositional aspects of the biota below the
landscape level (i.e., for ecosystems or
communities, species/populations, individual
10
-------
organisms, and genes). Within these biological
levels of organization, measures of composition
(e.g., the presence or absence of important
elements, and diversity) and structural elements
that relate directly to functional integrity (such as
trophic status or structural diversity within
habitats) are considered.
Ecosystem or Community Measures.
An ecological community is the assemblage
of species that inhabit an area and are tied
together by similar ecological processes (e.g.,
fire, hydrology), underlying environmental
features (e.g., soils, geology) or environmental
gradients (e.g., elevation, temperature), and
form a cohesive, distinguishable unit. In this
framework, community measures are divided
into subcategories that are consistent with the
concept of "biotic integrity" as defined by
Agency guidance on biological assessment
and biological criteria.
Species or Population Level Measures.
Measures of the condition or viability of
populations of species in an area are
important indicators, yet monitoring the
status of all species is impossible from a
practical standpoint. To address this problem,
a higher taxonomic level can be used, or a
subset of species called focal species can be
monitored. Focal species are selected because
they exert a disproportionately important
influence on ecosystem condition or provide
information about the ability of the system to
support other species. In addition, some
species (such as endangered, rare, sensitive,
1.) Mixed tropical forest stand in Central Mexico. Photo by G. Keith Douce,
University of Georgia. Image 1673020. http://www.forestryimages.org
2.) Leaf blister on poplar leaves is a symptom of foliage disease caused by
the fungi Taphrina populina. Photo by T.D. Leninger, USDA Forest
Service. Image 3046084. http://www.forestryimages.org/
3.) Bumble bees and other natural pollinators play a critical role in an
ecological community. Photo by David L. Green, Copyright (2001), used
with permission. http://www.pollinator.com/gallery/bumblebee_azalea.htm
4.) Heron feeding in a salt marsh. Photo by S.C. Delaney U.S. EPA.
11
-------
Focal species
provide
information
on the
condition of
ecological
communities.
and game species) require attention because
they relate to biodiversity or because they are
of direct interest to society for other reasons.
Individual Organism Measures. Whereas
the preceding categories of biotic condition
are concerned largely with system,
community, or population level measures,
there are instances when the health of
particular individuals (e.g., for focal species
or for species imperiled or vulnerable to
extinction or extirpation from an area) may
be of interest. In addition, the health of
individuals may presage an effect on a
population or related ecological process
(e.g., the presence of life-threatening birth
defects in an animal population, or symptoms
of disease in a forest).
Chemical and Physical Characteristics
(of Air, Water, Soil, and Sediment)
The characteristics included here are
measures of chemical substances that are
naturally present in the environment and
physical parameters (such as temperature and
soil texture). These environmental attributes
have received substantial public attention and
monitoring because they are the subject of
pollution control laws (e.g., the Clean Air
Act, the Clean Water Act). The categories
listed below may be reported separately for
air, for water, and so forth. Alternatively,
categories can be used to display integrated
information from all environmental
compartments (air, water, soil, and
sediment) at once.
Nutrient concentrations. Nutrients are
those elements required for growth of
autotrophic organisms, whose ability to
produce organic matter from inorganic
constituents forms the ultimate base of food
webs. Concentrations of nutrients, including
phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium, and
micronutrients (e.g., copper, zinc, and
selenium) may be limiting if available in too
small a quantity or may lead to undesirable
consequences if present in too great a
quantity.
Trace inorganic and organic chemicals.
Baseline information about concentrations of
metals and organic chemicals (whether or not
their concentrations are altered by pollutant
discharges) provides a foundation for
assessing their ecological significance.
Other chemical parameters. Other
chemical parameters that should be reported
will differ depending on the environmental
compartment (water, air, soil, and/or
sediment) being assessed. In soils and
sediments, for example, measures such as total
organic matter, cation exchange capacity, and
pH will be important.
Physical parameters. Physical measures,
such as air and water temperature, wind
velocity, water turbidity, and soil bulk density,
complement the measures of physical habitat
contained in other EEAs.
12
-------
Ecological Processes
For this reporting framework, the Panel
defines ecological processes as the metabolic
functions of ecosystems — energy flow,
elemental cycling, and the production,
consumption and decomposition of organic
matter. Biotic processes (which are included
under biotic condition for convenience) also
could be included here. Many of the ecological
process indicators are taken from Ecological
Indicators for the Nation, recently published
by the National Research Council (NRC).
The Panel stresses, as did NRC, that adequate
indicators are not yet available for all of the
key attributes of energy and material flows in
ecosystems.
Energy Flow. The most basic ecosystem
attribute, fundamental to life on earth, is
ecosystem productivity, or the ability to
capture sunlight and convert it to high energy
organic matter (biomass), which then
supports the non-photosynthetic trophic
levels, including grazers, predators, and
decomposers. The balance among production,
consumption, and decomposition defines the
efficiency of an ecosystem and its ability to
provide the goods and services upon which
society depends.
Material Flow. Biogeochemical cycles that
are key to ecosystem function include cycling
of organic matter and inorganic nutrients (e.g.,
nitrogen, phosphorous, and micronutrients
such as selenium and zinc). Material and
energy flow are linked processes and many
indicators provide information on both.
Water lilies in the Florida Everglades. Photo by C. Gilmour.
Hydrology and Geomorphology
The hydrology and geomorphology of
ecological systems reflect the dynamic
interplay of water flow and landforms. In
river systems, for example, water flow
patterns and the physical interaction among a
river, its riverbed, and the surrounding land
determine whether a naturally diverse array
of habitats and native species are maintained.
Sediment transport partially determines
which habitats occur where (both above the
water and below it). The dynamic structural
characteristics — the biotic and abiotic
components of the water-related habitats —
are created and maintained by both water and
sediment flows.
13
The quantity
and
variability of
water flows
control the
creation and
succession
of many
habitats.
-------
1.) Channel complexity in marshes and river floodplains provides a variety
of habitats for fish and wildlife. Photo by S.C. Delaney U.S. EPA.
2.) Large woody debris and gravel bars provide physical structure and
habitat diversity along the Dungeness River in Washington State.
Photo by F. Taub.
3.) A meandering stream with riparian forest at Fort Benning, GA provides
habitat complexity, with a variety of water depths, flow velocities, and
depositional environments. Photo by V. Dale.
Water Flow. Surface and groundwater
flows determine which habitats are wet or
dry and when, and water flows transport
nutrients, salts, contaminants, and sediments.
It is less widely recognized, however, that the
variability of water flows (in addition to their
timing and magnitude) exerts a controlling
influence on the creation and succession of
habitat conditions.
Dynamic structural characteristics.
Structural characteristics in streambeds (or
lakebeds or bottom terrain of estuaries) and
banks (or shoreline) are maintained by water
flows and sediment movement. Accordingly,
measures of dynamic structural characteristics
reflect the integrity of these processes and
provide direct information about the quality
and diversity of habitats. Characteristics
included in this category include channel
morphology and shoreline characteristics,
channel complexity, distribution and extent of
connected floodplain, and aquatic physical
habitat complexity.
Sediment and other material transport.
A wide variety of underwater, riparian, and
wetland habitats are maintained by the
pattern of sediment and debris movement.
Native species have adapted accordingly; for
example, many anadromous fish require clean
gravels for spawning, and invertebrates
choose particular particle sizes for attachment
or burrowing.
14
-------
Natural Disturbance Regimes
All ecological systems are dynamic, due in
part to discrete and recurrent disturbances that
may be physical, chemical, or biological in
nature. Examples of natural disturbances
include wind and ice storms, wildfires, floods,
drought, insect outbreaks, microbial or disease
epidemics, invasions of nonnative species,
volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and avalanches.
The frequency, intensity, extent, and duration
of the events taken together are referred to as
the " disturbance regime." Each of the
disturbance regimes that is relevant to the
ecological system should be included in the
assessment.
1.) Wildfire in forested systems contributes to the maintenance of
species diversity by allowing for the growth of understory grasses
and forbs and release of seeds from some cone-bearing trees.
Photo by W. Ostrofsky, University of Maine.
2.) Ice storm damage to trees contributes to downed woody debris on
the forest floor and the formation of debris dams in adjacent streams.
Photo by Billy Humphries, Forest Resource Consultants, Inc. Image
1450036. http://www.forestryimages.org.
15
-------
THE ROLE OF STRESSOR INDICATORS
In practice, reports about ecological
condition often indiscriminately mix
condition indicators with indicators of
stressors such as pollution. The framework
presented here distinguishes between
ecological condition indicators and indicators
of anthropogenic stressors, and the EEAs
relate only to condition. This approach is
consistent with that of the National Research
Council (2000) and The Heinz Center (1999).
Other environmental reporting schemes
incorporate both condition and stressor
indicators, but are careful to distinguish the
two. The internationally recognized "Pressure-
State-Response" model of environmental
indicators developed by the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD, 1998) distinguishes pressures (i.e.,
stressors) from state (i.e., condition) variables.
The ecological assessment scheme for the
Great Lakes (Environment Canada and U.S.
EPA, 1999) follows the OECD format.
Distinguishing between condition
indicators and stressor indicators is important
because the correlation is not one-to-one:
many stressors affect more than one
condition attribute, and many condition
attributes are affected by more than one
stressor (Figure ES-3). Assessment of
ecological condition, therefore, shows the
effects of multiple stressors acting at once and
can highlight unforeseen effects. Assessing the
full array of condition indicators in parallel
with an array of stressor indicators also aids
elucidation of causal mechanisms underlying
compromised ecosystem conditions. A third
reason for distinguishing between condition
and stressor indicators is to avoid relying
exclusively on available data — which
generally focuses on anthropogenic stressors
targeted by regulations — and thereby
overlooking important characteristics relating
to ecological condition (such as habitat
changes or changes in water flow patterns).
The full array of condition information can
help the Agency focus its efforts on the most
significant problems, rather than those about
which the most data have been collected.
In short, even when the goal of an
environmental program relates to the
management of stressors, it may well be
necessary to assess both ecological condition
and stressors, and then assess the relationship
between the two. The SAB framework can be
adapted to incorporate parallel information
about stressors for this purpose (see Section 4
of the full report). In addition, the array of
ecological attributes shown in Table ES-1 can
be used as a checklist to identify components
that should be addressed in stressor-focused
ecological risk assessments.
Stressor
indicators
provide
information on
underlying
causes of
compromised
ecological
condition.
17
-------
Hydrologic alteration
Habitat conversion
Habitat fragmentation
Climate change
Invasive non-native species
Turbidity/sedimentation
Pesticides
Disease/pest outbreaks
Nutrient pulses
Metals
Dissolved oxygen depletion
Ozone (tropospheric)
Hydrologic alteration
0-3 Habitat conversion
5^ Habitat fragmentation
0-3 Climate change
tq Over-harvesting of vegetation
f5 Large-scale invasive
°~ species introductions
\ Large-scale disease/pest outbreaks
Biotic
Condition
Natural
Disturbance
Hydrologic alteration
Habitat conversion K,
Climate change O
Over-h awe sting of vegetation jgj
Disease/pest outbreaks g
Altered fire regime 0-3
Altered flood regime
Hydrologic alteration
Habitat conversion
Climate change
Turbidity/sedimentation
Pesticides
Nutrient pulses
Metals
Dissolved oxygen depletion
Ozone (tropospheric)
Nitrogen oxides
Hydrology/
Geomorphology ^_
Hydrologic alteration
0-3 Habitat conversion
5^ Climate change
0-3 Pesticides
tq Disease/pest outbreaks
^ Nutrient pulses
°^ Dissolved oxygen depletion
\ Nitrogen oxides
Hydrologic alteration
Habitat conversion c<
Habitat fragmentation O
Climate change ^
Turbidity/sedimentation g
Figure ES-3. Ecological stressors affect multiple aspects of condition.
18
-------
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK
Designing an Ecological Condition
Assessment
One purpose of the EEA hierarchy (Table
ES-1) is to provide organizational structure
for the process of selecting ecological system
characteristics that will be assessed. Once the
purpose and scope of the assessment have
been determined (as described in Section 5 of
the full report), the EEA list can be applied.
The Panel recommends beginning with a
rebuttable presumption that all of the entries
in Table ES-1 will be included. A "thought
experiment" can then be conducted to
eliminate the subcategories and categories
that are not relevant to the assessment.
When resources are limiting, the Panel
generally recommends limiting the number
of subcategories for which data are collected,
rather than eliminating an entire category.
Similarly, it may be preferable to limit the
number of categories assessed rather than
eliminating an entire EEA.
Following the initial selection of EEA
categories and subcategories, a series of
checks should be undertaken to assure that
the selections accomplish the intended goals
and are scientifically defensible. For example,
the list should be analyzed to assure that its
components are sufficient to address any
goals and objectives that have been developed
for management of the ecological system.
Similarly, components of the list should be
sufficient to address questions of known
public interest (such as the preservation of
economically valuable species or the
sustainability of patches of old-growth
forest). If the list falls short, then additional
indicators may be added. The final product of
the design process should not only describe
the assessment and reporting scheme, but also
transparently record the decision tree and
professional judgments used to develop it.
Creating a Report
Effective reporting on ecological condition
requires policy judgments and scientific
understanding (to determine what to report),
and it requires communications expertise (to
determine how to report it). Here, the Panel
addresses only the scientific issues.
The SAB framework provides a
scientifically derived scheme for combining
hundreds of different indicators into a few
ecologically related categories for reporting.
Using Table 1 as a guide, the information
from an array of indicators can be grouped
into a single subcategory and — if desired —
collapsed into a single quantitative or
qualitative entry. The information within
subcategories can then be aggregated into a
19
-------
single category, and so forth. The discovery
that some categories lack data also is
important information for both decision-
makers and the public.
Depending on the level of interest and
expertise of the audience, reports can be
issued at the level of individual indicators,
subcategories, categories, EEAs, or the
ecological system as a whole. Many reports
combine several levels of reporting. If the
objective of the report is to provide
information on ecosystem integrity and
sustainability, then the EEAs can be used as
reporting units (i.e., a "score" or qualitative
assessment would be presented for each
EEA). The concepts behind the EEAs are
fairly straightforward; for non-technical
audiences, the presentation would benefit
from conversion into lay language. For
example, hydrology and geomorphology
might become a description of "water flows
and riverbanks" for a river basin report.
Alternatively, the information that has
been aggregated into EEAs and categories can
be extracted in order to report on a particular
management objective. For example, an
objective such as "protect functional habitat
types throughout the watershed" might use
the extent category of Landscape Condition
to report directly on the amount of each
habitat currently in existence. In addition, a
consolidated "indicator" that incorporates the
Hydrology/Geomorphology, Disturbance,
Ecological Processes, and Landscape
Condition EEAs might be used to report
whether these habitats are functional and
likely to be maintained into the future.
The process of aggregating information
from multiple indicators into a single entry
for reporting — even following the template
in Table ES-1 — involves nontrivial scientific
judgments. An expansive scientific literature
is available to determine appropriate methods
for creating indices and aggregating measures
into endpoints, endpoints into categories, and
so forth.
Interpreting Indicator Values
To make the proposed reporting
framework operational, reference conditions
should be defined against which measured
values for indicators can be compared.
The reference conditions are helpful for
interpreting results and are required in order
to determine how results can be normalized
(qualitatively or quantitatively) for aggregation.
This normalization procedure allows various
indicators to be collapsed into one result, and
it allows results from different regions to be
compared. The Panel recommends that the
Agency support current efforts to develop
reference conditions for this purpose.
20
-------
EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK
To illustrate the proposed framework's
application to programs at different geographic
scales and with different objectives, as well as
to check the completeness of the framework,
the Panel selected four environmental reporting
programs as case examples: an Office of
Research and Development program designed
to assess condition of ecological systems; a
USDA Forest Service program designed to
assess forest condition nationwide; the Office
of Water's Index of Watershed Indicators
(IWI), designed to convey information to the
public about watershed condition; and a joint
EPA-state reporting program designed to track
progress meeting environmental goals. The
Panel, along with representatives of the
programs, reviewed these case studies to
determine whether components should be
added to the framework, whether the
framework provided a useful checklist for the
program, and whether the framework provided
a reasonable way to organize and report on the
program's indicators. The Panel appreciates the
assistance and cooperation of the programs'
representatives for these road tests.
The Office of Research and Development's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) includes a pilot project that
will assess aquatic resources within streams,
landscapes, and estuaries in a twelve-state
region of the western U.S. Comparison of the
EMAP-West indicators with the SAB
framework indicates that all of the EMAP-
West components can be nested within the
SAB framework, but that several of the
categories included in the SAB framework are
omitted from EMAP-West. Landscape
condition, disturbance regimes (i.e., fire, flood,
drought, volcanic activity), and ecological
processes were notably lacking in coverage.
These omissions may make it more difficult
for EMAP-West to accomplish its intended
purpose. In this example, therefore, it appears
that use of the EEA hierarchy as a checklist
provides valuable insight that might be
incorporated as the program evolves. In
addition, the EEA hierarchy could be
employed to organize EMAP-West data into
data systems for local groups, thereby creating
a structure into which information from other
monitoring programs could be integrated.
The USDA's Forest Health Monitoring
(FHM) Program assesses the condition and
health of both public and private forests
nationwide. The program focuses on
sustainability of forest system integrity and the
effects of stressors thereon. Despite its initial
focus on stressors, however, the FHM metrics
fit within the proposed EEA categories.
Conversely, the FHM measures provide fairly
complete coverage of the EEA hierarchy with
the exception of hydrology/geomorphology
21
-------
Using the SAB reporting framework to
organize and describe the FHM indicators,
therefore, helps reinforce the value of both
because they are so consistent in content.
Moreover, the EEA hierarchy provides an
organization scheme that could be used to
combine FHM information with monitoring
data from other agencies because it can be
adapted for use in different ecosystem types at
a variety of scales.
The Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI)
displays information on the EPA web site
about the "condition and vulnerability" of
watersheds. The Panel found that the IWI
indicators are predominantly stressor
indicators and that the condition indicators
that are included are notably lacking in
coverage, with the exception of the traditional
Agency territory of physical and chemical
parameters. Although this is understandable
given the Agency's history, it is not the
overview of watershed condition that the web
site advertises nor what the public expects to
find. On the other hand, there is no reason that
additional parameters cannot be added in the
future in order to provide a more balanced
picture of watershed condition. The SAB
framework would provide a method to choose
additional indicators, and it would provide a
scientific and logical justification for the IWI s
composite indices and maps.
The National Environmental
Performance Partnership System (NEPPS)
uses "core performance measures" to track
the states' progress towards meeting
environmental goals. The current array of
ecosystem-related core performance measures
tracks only chemical and physical
characteristics and a small subset of biotic
condition. Examination of a sample state
NEPPS report, however, shows far more
complete coverage than the generic core
performance measures imply. The EEA
hierarchy can be used profitably by the
NEPPS program to determine how ecosystem
condition (or a subset such as biotic condition)
can be assessed, and it offers a method to
organize and consolidate information about a
variety of ecosystem types. The reporting
categories of the SAB framework appear
awkward for the NEPPS core performance
measures at the present time, however, because
the measures primarily are focused on
reporting about changes in pollutant levels
resulting from particular legislated mandates.
Measures of other attributes — such as
landscape condition, biotic condition, and
hydrology that are included in the sample state
report — could be grouped into EEAs for
reporting. This approach might help to convey
to the public the ecological significance of the
collection of measures.
22
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The framework presented here provides a
valuable tool for assessing the condition of
ecological systems. In every example
program tested by the Panel, the list of
Essential Ecological Attributes and associated
subdivisions proved useful. In all cases, use
of the EEA hierarchy as a checklist
highlighted missing elements — elements
representing ecological system characteristics
broad enough in scope and importance to
affect the achievement of the programs'
objectives. Recognizing that resources are
always limited and that expanding a program
is often infeasible, the EEA checklist
provides a method to analyze the tradeoffs
inherent in choosing which characteristics to
address. The fact that the checklist is
organized hierarchically allows the user to
determine whether major characteristics (e.g.,
the entire array of hydrology and
geomorphology characteristics) are being
eliminated from consideration in favor of a
cluster of closely-related attributes (e.g.,
every subcategory and indicator of biotic
condition at the community level).
In most cases, the elements that were
omitted by Agency programs were those
outside the realm of biotic condition and
chemical and physical characteristics. This
pattern has been noted by the SAB in the
past and it is an understandable outgrowth of
the issues targeted by the Agency's legal
mandates. A more complete look at
ecological characteristics is key, however, to
allow the Agency to: analyze correctly the
causes of environmental degradation;
effectively target corrective actions; and help
address environmental problems across large
geographic areas such as watersheds.
The framework can be applied to a
variety of aquatic and terrestrial systems
at local, regional, and national scales.
The programs that were analyzed included
both aquatic and terrestrial systems at a
variety of geographic scales. For all of these
examples, the SAB framework and EEA
hierarchy provided a reasonable way to
organize a broad array of indicators. After
each example was tested, the Panel was able
to fine-tune the organizational scheme by
grouping characteristics into slightly different
bundles at the subcategory level. Presumably
this fine-tuning will still be necessary as the
SAB framework is applied to additional
programs. In no case, however, did the Panel
find that important elements of condition
were missing from the framework.
23
-------
The Essential Ecological Attributes and
their subdivisions provide a logical
method for grouping ecologically related
elements across system types (such as
forests, rangelands, and aquatic systems)
and/or across programs that have
different legal mandates.
This feature can be used when the Agency
addresses problems that span different
"media" (i.e., water, air and land) in order to
provide environmental protection for
watersheds and other geographic units. It
also can be used as a unifying framework on
which to map various types of ecological
assessment activities within the Agency.
There is clear justification for a variety of
different programs with different purposes to
exist within the Agency, among other federal
agencies, and in the private sector for the
purpose of assessing ecological condition.
This diversity brings strength and depth to
our understanding. It does not, by itself,
insure that efficiencies among programs are
realized, that deficiencies in programs are
addressed, or that the information from one
assessment is used to enhance the
understanding gained from other studies. The
SAB framework provides a template that
potentially could be used to foster greater
integration, a higher quality of ecological
assessment, and increased efficiency among
Agency programs. It also could be used to
assist the Agency to become a locus for
integrating information from different
government agencies.
The Essential Ecological Attributes and
their subdivisions can be used to
organize and consolidate a large number
of indicators into a few, conceptually
clear categories for reporting.
One major purpose of this framework and
EEA list (Table ES-1) is to help avoid
common reporting problems. For example,
report authors often discover that there are
numerous relevant ecological indicators, yet
there is little guidance available about how
they should be distilled into a few
scientifically credible indicators for the
public. Moreover, most of the easily
accessible information (e.g., water quality
data regarding chemical contaminants) may
be related to past problems and reflects only
part of the information required to predict
future problems or manage the ecosystem.
The framework presented here can help
avoid these problems by providing a
roadmap for grouping monitoring data and
indicators into scientifically defensible
categories that directly relate to important
characteristics of ecological condition. These
categories are straightforward, and they can
therefore be explained to decision-makers,
legislators, and the public. The language used
by the Panel would not, however, be suitable
for this purpose. Translation into lay
language would be required.
24
-------
This framework can provide the
foundation for reporting on a variety
of independently-derived goals and
objectives, including those mandated by
legislation or public policy.
When the purpose of a report is to address
questions of particular interest to the public
or address goals embodied in legislation or
regulation, the SAB framework provides a
way to organize information that can then be
extracted for reporting. For example, a
"report card" entry on the health of native
habitats, plants, and animals would draw
from the information aggregated into the
landscape condition and biotic condition
EEAs. A companion report card entry on the
ability of the ecosystem to sustain healthy
plants and animals into the future would add
information from each of the remaining
EEAs. In some cases, however, the SAB
framework provides the requisite
information but does not work well for
organizing indicators into a report. One
example would be a regional water quality
report for which data will be drawn from
monitoring programs designed specifically
for that purpose. In this example, the SAB
framework is better used as an analytical tool
than a report outline.
In sum, the Panel finds that the proposed
framework accomplishes its intended
purpose. The framework provides a checklist
that can help identify the ecological attributes
that are important to assess in order to
evaluate the health or integrity of ecological
systems. It also provides an organizational
scheme for assembling hundreds of individual
parameters into a few understandable
attributes. Ecological systems are complex,
and it has proved extremely difficult to
answer the holistic questions that people ask
about them — "How healthy is my
watershed? Will native species be here for my
children and grandchildren to enjoy?" With
this report, we provide a way to integrate
scientific data into the information necessary
to answer these questions, and ultimately to
foster improved management and protection
of ecological systems.
25
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1999. State of the Great
Lakes. EPA 905-R-99-008. EPA Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/.
National Research Council. 2000. Ecological
Indicators for the Nation. Committee to
Evaluate Indicators for Monitoring Aquatic
and Terrestrial Environments, Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology [and]
Water Science and Technology Board.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). 1998. Towards
Sustainable Development: Environmental
Indicators.
The Heinz Center. 1999. Designing a Report on
the State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Selected
Measurements for Croplands, Forests and
Coasts and Oceans. The H. John Heinz III
Center, Washington, DC. www.us-
ecosystems.org.
27
-------
The full report to this Executive Summary, A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on
Ecological Condition: An SAB Report (EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009) is available on the EPA
Science Advisory Board website at www.epa.gov/sab or by contacting:
Committee Evaluation and Support Staff (1400A)
EPA Science Advisory Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC. 20460
-------
------- |