New Tools for MonThe original intent of the CleWater Act of 1972—to “restormaintain the chemical, physicand biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”—has yet to brealized. While natural resourand science communities havcontinued to pursue this goaltwo major road blocks have hindered their efforts: 1) a laof useful ecological indicatorfor monitoring, diagnosing, apredicting conditions; and 2) difficulty of choosing relevanbenchmarks against which to compare their own resources

Photo: NOAA, Department o

ASCAtlantic Slope ConsortiumPennsylvania State University

EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR)

 Estuarine and Great Lakes (EaGLe) Program

Direct and indirect effects of human activities have taken a toll on the 

nation’s estuaries, yet few direct linkages have been identifi ed 

between human activities on land and responses in estuarine ecosystems

The Atlantic 

PEEIR

Pacifi c EstuarineEcosystem IndicatorResearch ConsortiumUniversity of California–Davis CEER GOM

Consortium for Estuarine

Ecoindicator Research for the Gulf of Mexico

University of Southern Mississippi

ACE INCAtlantic Coast EnvironmentalIndicators ConsortiumUniversity of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

EaGLe Program HQ

Washington, DC

• Smithsonian Environmental Research Center• Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences• East Carolina University• Environmental Law Institute• FTN Associates

GLEIGreat Lakes Environmental Indicators ProjectUniversity of Minnesota–Duluth

U.S. EPA Offi ce of Research and DevelopmentWashington, DC 20460EPA/600/S-06/002January 2006

U.S. EPA 

Offi ce of Research and Development

National Center for Environmental Research

Barbara Levinson

202-343-9720 

Levinson.Barbara@epa.gov

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/centers/eagles

http://eagle.nrri.umn.edu
A Framework for Indicator Selection

The Type of Question: defining the problemChoosing an indicator begins with the type of question being asked. What is the problem? What is causing it? Is management making a difference? A relevant indicator should give managers the answers to their specific questions, and it should help them communicate the answers to the public in an understandable and pertinent way. The ASC framework (depicted in Table 1) categorizes managerial questions according to the following types.

Condition Assessment: What is the current condition of the resource? Evaluation: Are management actions effective?

Stressor Diagnosis: What is causing the undesirable condition?Communication: What will help decision makers and the public comprehend the problem? Forecast/Restore: What will happen in the future if the problem isn’t corrected? Will restoration efforts be effective?

Table 1. Indicator Selection Framework. This table summarizes the questions that frame the selection of an appropriate ASC indicator. Answers can then be matched with the indicators in Table 2 on pages 6-7.

Indicator Uses Macrobenthic Community Indices in Estuaries (B-IBI, Wvalue)

Type o

foreca

SpatiaTempoContex

Nitrate, Total N and Total P Concentrations in Subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in White Perch

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Shoreline Condition Type o

commSpatiaTempo

assess 

Contex

Source Land Proportion Weighted by Inverse Riparian Buffer Width

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Source-specific Mean Riparian Buffer Width

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Spot Sampled Average Stream Nitrate Concentration

Type o

evalua

SpatiaTempoContex

Stream–Wetland–Riparian (SWR) Index

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Table 2. Continued
Spatial Scale: how exten

Indicators have been developthe scale of the ecological prbeing managed. Is the resouManagers need to define the The ASC indicators were devdecisions in the Mid-Atlantic estuarine segments and smalarea composed of deepwater “small watershed” is equivaleriver banks, wetlands, water bfrom the indicators listed in (for example, a riparian area lower order stream).Temporal Scale: how lonDoes the project in question it need to compare improvemtimescales that managers moand long-term trends. All indwork at other scales. Context: land use and laTo determine the feasibility omanagement or restoration pactivities must be considered with the surrounding land ulandscape. Does the resource lie in a protected forest or in watershed undergoing rapid Does it lie in a coastal plain owith steep hills and valleys? The issue of context leads inecological benchmarks. To semanagement goals, a resourcbe compared to a relevant bein other words, to the best atcondition for the region and landscape. Traditionally, envbenchmarks have been taken systems devoid of human impmost landscapes are manage

Table 2. Ecological Indicators Developed for the Mid-Atlantic Region. All ASC indicators have been categorized according to the factors in the ASC framework. Their applicable uses are shown in the middle column below. A full list of indicators and further information is available at: www.asc.psu.edu.

Indicator Uses by ASC Indicator-selection Framework DescriptionAbundance of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) in Brackish Wetlands of Chesapeake Bay 

Type of Question: Condition assessment Spatial Scale: Wetland and subestuary Temporal Scale: Seasonal to annualContext: Forested, agricultural, urban, and mixed

Correlates the abundance of Common Reed and the nitrate concentrations in leaves with developed land.

Bio-optical Model for Determining Habitat Suitability for Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) in Estuarine Segments of Chesapeake Bay

Type of Question: Condition assessment; communication; 

forecast/restore

Spatial Scale: Estuarine segmentTemporal Scale: Seasonal to annualContext: Land-use decisions in coastal zone

Determines the level of suspended solids that allows SAV survival; gives level in relationship to land use.

Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Abundance 

Type of Question: Condition assessment; communicationSpatial Scale: Shoreline segment, watershed, and regional levelTemporal Scale: SeasonalContext: All land covers

Correlates juvenile crab abundance with shoreline wetlands, forested watersheds, and subestuaries with average salinity. 

Fish Community Index (FCI) for Estuaries

Type of Question: Condition assessment; communication; 

forecast/restore

Spatial Scale: Site to small watershed Temporal Scale: Days to years Context: Low-slope forested, agricultural, urban

Biotic integrity index for fish communities for application in the nearshore estuarine environment.

Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity (IMBCI)

Type of Question: Community integrity assessment; stressor 

diagnosis; communication

Spatial Scale: Marsh to subestuary Temporal Scale: Years to decadesContext: Marshes within any land-cover context

Scores for marsh birds are compared to wetland habitat and land use to identify wetland stressors.

Index of Waterbird Community Integrity (IWCI)

Type of Question: Community integrity assessment; stressor 

diagnosis; communication 

Spatial Scale: SubestuaryTemporal Scale: Years to decadesContext: Subestuaries and associated watersheds with any land cover

Scores for waterbird communities in subestuaries are compared to indicators of estuarine condition to identify stressors and their pathways.

Inverse-distance Weighted Cropland

Type of Question: Condition assessment; stressor diagnosisSpatial Scale: Reach to watershed Temporal Scale: Seasons to decadesContext: Agricultural, urban, and mixed watersheds

Watershed measure that gives greater weight to croplands closer to water bodies while including effect of more distant croplands.

Inverse

distance 

Type of Question: Condition assessment; stressor diagnosis

Watershed measure that 
Putting the Framework to Work

Once users have answered the questions in the ASC framework, they can select appropriate indicators from the list of ASC indicators in Table 2 (pages 6-7). The table is provided to simplify the initial selection process. Further information on each indicator can then be obtained from the Atlantic Slope Consortium website, www.asc.psu.edu. The following hypothetical scenarios illustrate how managers can use the ASC framework (Table 1) and the table of indicators (Table 2) to select indicators best suited for the resource question at hand.

Situation #1: Professional and recreational fishers have reported declines of 

fish in an estuary in a county in Maryland. The county has undergone rapid urbanization of agricultural and forested land for the past five years. Resource managers want to learn if and what land use changes may be affecting nearshore estuarine fish communities. They need to convey their findings to interested environmental and fishing groups and local decision makers. 

In this situation the managers want to answer the following types of questions. What is the 

relative biological integrity of the nearshore environment? How will future development affect fish communities? Can this indicator clarify environmental connections to the public? These questions fit into the categories of condition assessment, futures forecast/restore, and communication with the public, respectively. Looking at the list of ASC indicators in Table 2, the most applicable indicator is the Fish Community Index for Estuaries, since it can be used to address all three of these questions. It also appears that the spatial scale of the Fish 

Community Index—site to small watershed—

nearshore estuarine environment (< 2m depth). The FCI incorporates measures of fish community integrity, such as taxonomic richness and diversity, trophic composition, and nursery function. When the FCI was compared with measures of habitat conditions, such as shoreline alteration and subtidal structures, FCI scores were lowest in areas with highly altered shoreline conditions and minimal subtidal habitat. In addition, FCI scores were lower in developed and agriculture watersheds than in watersheds dominated by forests. In other words, biotic responses correlated with habitat condition measures in nearshore, shoreline, and watershed environments.

Situation #2: The setting is a 

rapidly developing semi-urban 

county through which two large, 

brackish rivers fl ow. Public 

groups and environmental 

managers are concerned with 

declining aquatic conditions, 

and the county is considering 

various shoreline restoration 

efforts. Project managers want 

to determine which efforts would 

most improve habitat condition. 

Not only could the informmanagers in this situation it also could help them coIndices is just one layer oan ecosystem approach instressors. 

Pho

Samples for the Macrobenth

Indices are collected with rel

When the Fish Community Index was compared with measures of habitat conditions, the index scores were poorest in areas with highly altered shoreline conditions and minimal subtidal habitat. 

Photo: Donna Marie Bilkovic
Putting the Framework to Work

Once users have answered the questions in the ASC framework, they can select appropriate indicators from the list of ASC indicators in Table 2 (pages 6-7). The table is provided to simplify the initial selection process. Further information on each indicator can then be obtained from the Atlantic Slope Consortium website, www.asc.psu.edu. The following hypothetical scenarios illustrate how managers can use the ASC framework (Table 1) and the table of indicators (Table 2) to select indicators best suited for the resource question at hand.

Situation #1: Professional and recreational fishers have reported declines of 

fish in an estuary in a county in Maryland. The county has undergone rapid urbanization of agricultural and forested land for the past five years. Resource managers want to learn if and what land use changes may be affecting nearshore estuarine fish communities. They need to convey their findings to interested environmental and fishing groups and local decision makers. 

In this situation the managers want to answer the following types of questions. What is the 

relative biological integrity of the nearshore environment? How will future development affect fish communities? Can this indicator clarify environmental connections to the public? These questions fit into the categories of condition assessment, futures forecast/restore, and communication with the public, respectively. Looking at the list of ASC indicators in Table 2, the most applicable indicator is the Fish Community Index for Estuaries, since it can be used to address all three of these questions. It also appears that the spatial scale of the Fish 

Community Index—site to small watershed—

nearshore estuarine environment (< 2m depth). The FCI incorporates measures of fish community integrity, such as taxonomic richness and diversity, trophic composition, and nursery function. When the FCI was compared with measures of habitat conditions, such as shoreline alteration and subtidal structures, FCI scores were lowest in areas with highly altered shoreline conditions and minimal subtidal habitat. In addition, FCI scores were lower in developed and agriculture watersheds than in watersheds dominated by forests. In other words, biotic responses correlated with habitat condition measures in nearshore, shoreline, and watershed environments.

Situation #2: The setting is a 

rapidly developing semi-urban 

county through which two large, 

brackish rivers fl ow. Public 

groups and environmental 

managers are concerned with 

declining aquatic conditions, 

and the county is considering 

various shoreline restoration 

efforts. Project managers want 

to determine which efforts would 

most improve habitat condition. 

Not only could the informmanagers in this situation it also could help them coIndices is just one layer oan ecosystem approach instressors. 

Pho

Samples for the Macrobenth

Indices are collected with rel

When the Fish Community Index was compared with measures of habitat conditions, the index scores were poorest in areas with highly altered shoreline conditions and minimal subtidal habitat. 

Photo: Donna Marie Bilkovic
Spatial Scale: how exten

Indicators have been developthe scale of the ecological prbeing managed. Is the resouManagers need to define the The ASC indicators were devdecisions in the Mid-Atlantic estuarine segments and smalarea composed of deepwater “small watershed” is equivaleriver banks, wetlands, water bfrom the indicators listed in (for example, a riparian area lower order stream).Temporal Scale: how lonDoes the project in question it need to compare improvemtimescales that managers moand long-term trends. All indwork at other scales. Context: land use and laTo determine the feasibility omanagement or restoration pactivities must be considered with the surrounding land ulandscape. Does the resource lie in a protected forest or in watershed undergoing rapid Does it lie in a coastal plain owith steep hills and valleys? The issue of context leads inecological benchmarks. To semanagement goals, a resourcbe compared to a relevant bein other words, to the best atcondition for the region and landscape. Traditionally, envbenchmarks have been taken systems devoid of human impmost landscapes are manage

Table 2. Ecological Indicators Developed for the Mid-Atlantic Region. All ASC indicators have been categorized according to the factors in the ASC framework. Their applicable uses are shown in the middle column below. A full list of indicators and further information is available at: www.asc.psu.edu.

Indicator Uses by ASC Indicator-selection Framework DescriptionAbundance of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) in Brackish Wetlands of Chesapeake Bay 

Type of Question: Condition assessment Spatial Scale: Wetland and subestuary Temporal Scale: Seasonal to annualContext: Forested, agricultural, urban, and mixed

Correlates the abundance of Common Reed and the nitrate concentrations in leaves with developed land.

Bio-optical Model for Determining Habitat Suitability for Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) in Estuarine Segments of Chesapeake Bay

Type of Question: Condition assessment; communication; 

forecast/restore

Spatial Scale: Estuarine segmentTemporal Scale: Seasonal to annualContext: Land-use decisions in coastal zone

Determines the level of suspended solids that allows SAV survival; gives level in relationship to land use.

Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Abundance 

Type of Question: Condition assessment; communicationSpatial Scale: Shoreline segment, watershed, and regional levelTemporal Scale: SeasonalContext: All land covers

Correlates juvenile crab abundance with shoreline wetlands, forested watersheds, and subestuaries with average salinity. 

Fish Community Index (FCI) for Estuaries

Type of Question: Condition assessment; communication; 

forecast/restore

Spatial Scale: Site to small watershed Temporal Scale: Days to years Context: Low-slope forested, agricultural, urban

Biotic integrity index for fish communities for application in the nearshore estuarine environment.

Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity (IMBCI)

Type of Question: Community integrity assessment; stressor 

diagnosis; communication

Spatial Scale: Marsh to subestuary Temporal Scale: Years to decadesContext: Marshes within any land-cover context

Scores for marsh birds are compared to wetland habitat and land use to identify wetland stressors.

Index of Waterbird Community Integrity (IWCI)

Type of Question: Community integrity assessment; stressor 

diagnosis; communication 

Spatial Scale: SubestuaryTemporal Scale: Years to decadesContext: Subestuaries and associated watersheds with any land cover

Scores for waterbird communities in subestuaries are compared to indicators of estuarine condition to identify stressors and their pathways.

Inverse-distance Weighted Cropland

Type of Question: Condition assessment; stressor diagnosisSpatial Scale: Reach to watershed Temporal Scale: Seasons to decadesContext: Agricultural, urban, and mixed watersheds

Watershed measure that gives greater weight to croplands closer to water bodies while including effect of more distant croplands.

Inverse

distance 

Type of Question: Condition assessment; stressor diagnosis

Watershed measure that 
A Framework for Indicator Selection

The Type of Question: defining the problemChoosing an indicator begins with the type of question being asked. What is the problem? What is causing it? Is management making a difference? A relevant indicator should give managers the answers to their specific questions, and it should help them communicate the answers to the public in an understandable and pertinent way. The ASC framework (depicted in Table 1) categorizes managerial questions according to the following types.

Condition Assessment: What is the current condition of the resource? Evaluation: Are management actions effective?

Stressor Diagnosis: What is causing the undesirable condition?Communication: What will help decision makers and the public comprehend the problem? Forecast/Restore: What will happen in the future if the problem isn’t corrected? Will restoration efforts be effective?

Table 1. Indicator Selection Framework. This table summarizes the questions that frame the selection of an appropriate ASC indicator. Answers can then be matched with the indicators in Table 2 on pages 6-7.

Indicator Uses Macrobenthic Community Indices in Estuaries (B-IBI, Wvalue)

Type o

foreca

SpatiaTempoContex

Nitrate, Total N and Total P Concentrations in Subestuaries of Chesapeake Bay

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in White Perch

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Shoreline Condition Type o

commSpatiaTempo

assess 

Contex

Source Land Proportion Weighted by Inverse Riparian Buffer Width

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Source-specific Mean Riparian Buffer Width

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Spot Sampled Average Stream Nitrate Concentration

Type o

evalua

SpatiaTempoContex

Stream–Wetland–Riparian (SWR) Index

Type oSpatiaTempoContex

Table 2. Continued
New Tools for MonThe original intent of the CleWater Act of 1972—to “restormaintain the chemical, physicand biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”—has yet to brealized. While natural resourand science communities havcontinued to pursue this goaltwo major road blocks have hindered their efforts: 1) a laof useful ecological indicatorfor monitoring, diagnosing, apredicting conditions; and 2) difficulty of choosing relevanbenchmarks against which to compare their own resources

Photo: NOAA, Department o

ASCAtlantic Slope ConsortiumPennsylvania State University

EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR)

 Estuarine and Great Lakes (EaGLe) Program

Direct and indirect effects of human activities have taken a toll on the 

nation’s estuaries, yet few direct linkages have been identifi ed 

between human activities on land and responses in estuarine ecosystems

The Atlantic 

PEEIR

Pacifi c EstuarineEcosystem IndicatorResearch ConsortiumUniversity of California–Davis CEER GOM

Consortium for Estuarine

Ecoindicator Research for the Gulf of Mexico

University of Southern Mississippi

ACE INCAtlantic Coast EnvironmentalIndicators ConsortiumUniversity of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

EaGLe Program HQ

Washington, DC

• Smithsonian Environmental Research Center• Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences• East Carolina University• Environmental Law Institute• FTN Associates

GLEIGreat Lakes Environmental Indicators ProjectUniversity of Minnesota–Duluth

U.S. EPA Offi ce of Research and DevelopmentWashington, DC 20460EPA/600/S-06/002January 2006

U.S. EPA 

Offi ce of Research and Development

National Center for Environmental Research

Barbara Levinson

202-343-9720 

Levinson.Barbara@epa.gov

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/centers/eagles

http://eagle.nrri.umn.edu