Priority Data Needs and Key Management ...

Heinz Interim Coverlong

4/25/06

9:05 AM

Page 1

Filling the Gaps: Priority Data Needs and Key Management Challenges for National Reporting on Ecosystem Condition

This report is available in full at www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems. Additional printed copies are available free of charge from The Heinz Center. Printed in the United States of America on recycled paper THE HEINZ CENTER

The H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 735 South Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (202) 737-6307 Fax: (202) 737-6410 e-mail: [email protected] www.heinzctr.org

Filling the Gaps Priority Data Needs and Key Management Challenges for National Reporting on Ecosystem Condition

A Report of the Heinz Center’s State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Project May 2006 THE H. JOHN HEINZ III CENTER FOR SCIENCE, ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

THE H. JOHN HEINZ III CENTER FOR SCIENCE, ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

B O A RD O F TR U S T E E S

Rita R. Colwell, Chair Chairman Canon U.S. Life Sciences

Jonathan Lash President World Resources Institute

Teresa Heinz, Vice Chair Chairman Heinz Family Philanthropies

Thomas E. Lovejoy President The Heinz Center

Cabell Brand Chairman Cabell Brand Center for International Resource Studies

William McDonough Principal William McDonough Partners

Jared Cohon President Carnegie Mellon University Bernard J. David Director Zallinger/David Foundation

Shirley M. Malcom Head, Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs American Association for the Advancement of Science

Edward L. Miles Virginia and Prentice Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs University of Washington Timothy O’Brien Vice President, Corporate Relations Ford Motor Company David J. Refkin Director, Sustainable Development Time Inc. Howard Ris President and Chief Executive Officer The New England Aquarium

Jerry M. Melillo Co-Director, The Ecosystems Center Marine Biological Laboratory

Phyllis Wyeth Environmentalist

Thomas E. Lovejoy President

Ariane de Bremond Research Associate

Robin O’Malley Program Director, Environmental Reporting

Anthony Janetos Vice President

Adeela Gaither Receptionist and Office Manager

Ian Carroll Research Assistant

Anne E. Hummer Communications and Development Director, Corporate Secretary

Ed Guerrini Director of Marketing for Engineering Plastics BASF Corporation

H E I N Z C E N T E R ST A F F

Kent Cavender-Bares Senior Research Associate Caroline Cremer Research Assistant Sheila David Program Director, Sustainable Oceans, Coasts, and Waterways

Holly Alyssa MacCormick Research Assistant Anne S. Marsh Research Associate Christine Negra Research Associate

Sharon H. Phenneger Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer Carmen R. Thorndike Executive Assistant Stacia N. VanDyne Communications and Development Assistant Brooks Yeager Visiting Fellow

Heinz Interim Covers FInal.qxd

4/25/06

10:59 AM

Page 1



About The Heinz Center Established in December 1995 in honor of Senator John Heinz, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution dedicated to improving the scientific and economic foundation for environmental policy through multisectoral collaboration. Focusing on issues that are likely to confront policymakers within two to five years, the Center fosters collaboration among industry, environmental organizations, academia, and government in each of its program areas and projects. It uses the best scientific and economic analyses to develop viable options to solving problems, and its findings and recommendations are widely disseminated to public and private sector decision makers, the scientific community, and the public. About the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Project The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems is America’s most comprehensive report on the condition of our lands, waters, and living resources. The report provides essential information to framers of local, state and national environmental policy as well as business leaders and the general public. Its broad nonpartisan support and strong scientific basis allow decision makers to focus on the best course of action—rather than spending time debating the condition of the nation’s environment. The unique strength of this project derives from its focus on ecosystem indicators—agreed upon by hundreds of experts from universities, government agencies, corporations, and environmental organizations—presented without prescriptive recommendations. Funded by the federal government, foundations, and corporations, the report also highlights key gaps in data that must be filled to allow a complete picture of ecosystem conditions. Copyright © 2006 by The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment Printed in the United States of America on recycled paper

The H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 735 South Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (202) 737-6307 Fax: (202) 737-6410 e-mail: [email protected] www.heinzctr.org This report is available in full online at www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Filling the Gaps: Priority Data Needs and Key Management Challenges for National Reporting on Ecosystem Condition This report recommends that urgent attention be given to filling ten key information gaps that prevent effective reporting on key indicators of the condition and use of U.S. ecosystems and thus limit our capacity for informed decision making. These ten gaps have been selected for special attention from the larger set of gaps identified in The Heinz Center’s 2002 report The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems: Managing the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States. Highlighting the existence of these data gaps was seen by many as an important contribution in itself. However, it also posed a challenge: to identify the most critical data gaps, based on the importance of the resulting information and the cost and feasibility of filling them. This report responds to that challenge by identifying ten data gaps that should be filled as a matter of the highest priority. These recommendations are those of the Heinz Center and the committee of senior representatives from federal agencies, businesses, environmental organizations, and academic institutions that guides the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems project.* Estimated costs of filling each gap are also provided. Implementing these recommendations would more than double the number of ecosystem condition indicators that can be reported nationally, from 32 in the 2002 report to 66. Chapters 1 and 2 describe the process and the results of our inquiry and analysis. The ten highest priority data gaps are described succinctly in Chapter 3 and at length in Appendix C. Keep in mind that all the indicators in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report were identified as vital for a broad and comprehensive understanding of conditions and trends in the nation’s ecosystems and thus worthy of future action. Therefore, do not assume that gaps not included here in the highest priority category are irrelevant or unimportant. On the contrary, all the gaps identified in the 2002 report should be filled as resources are available. In the course of developing our recommendations about specific indicators and gaps, we came to recognize that the overall system that provides the nation’s environmental monitoring information also merited attention. That is, we recognized that a sole focus on “filling gaps”— * See the membership list of the project’s Design Committee, on page 7.

STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

1

FILLING THE GAPS: PRIORITY DATA NEEDS AND KEY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

identifying specific data streams for which data must be collected or aggregated—would miss the larger picture. In Chapters 4 and 5 we explain the challenges facing the nation’s distributed (or even fragmented) environmental monitoring infrastructure and suggest that some degree of integration or coordination would help meet these challenges. These challenges and suggestions reflect the views of both the Heinz Center and the multisector committee noted above and of participants in a Heinz Center dialogue involving senior principals in federal and nonfederal monitoring organizations, representatives from the White House, congressional staff, and state government officials.

Fill the Ten Highest Priority Data Gaps Table ES.1 lists the ten data gaps or clusters of closely related data gaps that should be filled as soon as possible; the table also includes—where available—estimates of the cost of filling each gap, provided to us by the relevant agencies or organizations.* Filling these gaps will significantly improve the nation’s ability to report on ecosystem condition and use and to make sound policy and operational decisions. These ten gaps were selected on the basis of their importance for making vital policy decisions, the cost of obtaining the data, and the practicality of doing so.

Additional Funding for Monitoring Is Needed Implementing this report’s recommendations will require increased funding: resources allocated to filling the gaps highlighted here should not be generated by reducing the financial support for existing monitoring and reporting activities. Many of these existing activities have been developed to support important regulatory, management, research, or evaluation programs, which continue to require monitoring information. Until sound mechanisms are in place to assess the relative importance of different monitoring efforts and to evaluate how each one helps achieve national goals, we strongly recommend their continued maintenance, even as we recommend additional resources to fill the gaps described here. In the future, however, a process or institution that is charged with making strategic decisions across many monitoring programs might be able to identify lower priority programs, enabling a reallocation of resources to higher priority needs. Focusing attention on the resources available for monitoring has been made all the more relevant with the September 2005 publication of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identifying federal data sources that will not be able to provide updated data for the second edition of the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report in 2007.† GAO also identified programs with substantial uncertainty about their ability to provide data for 2007 and in the longer term.

* We are aware of a range of potential factors that could reduce the accuracy of these estimates, including uncertain completeness and comparability (estimates were provided by different agencies, each using their own assumptions and cost factors), possible bias in selection of the best monitoring approach, incomplete incorporation of potential new technologies, and others. These factors are described in detail in Chapter 1. Therefore, the estimates should be used for general comparison and scaling, rather than as precise predictions of cost. † U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Environmental Information: Status of Federal Data Programs That Support Ecological Indicators. GAO-05-376.

2

THE HEINZ CENTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TA B L E E S . 1

The Ten Highest Priority Data Gaps

D A T A G A P ( note: these gaps are not listed in priority order)

COSTS

EXTENT/LOCATION Measuring the area of key habitat elements. Areas such as wetlands, coral reefs, and submerged aquatic vegetation are small in overall area, but crucial in ecological terms.

Initial: Full costs not available Ongoing: Full costs not available; individual gaps range from $0 to ~$2 million/year

Analyzing remote sensing land cover data. Landscape patterns such as suburban sprawl and forest pattern and fragmentation can have important effects on ecological condition.

Initial: $2.5–$3.0 million Ongoing: $250,000–$400,000/yeara

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION Measuring chemical contaminants related to human exposure. Contamination in the edible portions of wild fish and fish sold for consumption and in urban soils is a potential source of human exposure.

Initial: Not available Ongoing: Full costs not available: $1.1 million to $8 million minimum per year

Measuring nitrogen flows in rivers. Excess nitrogen can degrade water quality, especially in coastal areas.

Initial: $1.5 million (over 2 years) Ongoing: $6.5 million/year

Measuring carbon storage in ecosystems. Depending on management and other factors, ecosystems can store or release carbon, with implications for ecological productivity and global climate change.

Initial: $2–3 million (over 3 years) Ongoing: $10.45 million/year

SPECIES, COMMUNITIES Reporting on species and communities at risk of extinction or loss. Individual species and ecological communities are the building blocks of ecosystems, and understanding their risk of extinction is important.

Initial: $1.5 million Ongoing: ~$600,000/year

Measuring the extent and impacts of non-native species. Non-native species can have significant effects on human health and ecosystems, and may impose large economic costs.

Initial: $3.2 million minimum Ongoing: Minimum of $14 million to $16 million per year (some costs unavailable).

Assessing the condition of plant and animal communities. Measures of the degree to which ecosystems are degraded or not are important but require additional research.

Initial: Not available Ongoing: $10 million per year (freshwater only; costs for terrestrial and coastal unavailable)

Assessing the condition of riparian areas and stream habitat. Stream and riparian (streamside) habitats are crucial in many ecosystems.

Initial: $10 million Ongoing: $1–2 million/year

HUMAN USES Reporting groundwater levels. It is important to know whether and by how much this valuable resource is being depleted. a

Initial: $4.5–$8 million Ongoing: $0.4–$0.8 million per year

This cost does not include the acquisition of remote sensing data, but rather addresses only the processing of available remote sensing land cover data.


3


Challenges to the Nation’s Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure The Heinz Center has identified five broad issues, concerns, or trends that challenge many of the major programs that now provide national-scale monitoring information: • Expectations about the performance and products of the nation’s environmental monitoring infrastructure are changing, with new requirements being imposed on existing systems. • There is no overall mechanism to determine the most appropriate and highest priority investments in monitoring and reporting capacity. • Important elements in the nation’s ecological data collection and reporting system are operated by nonfederal entities. In many cases, federal support is ad hoc, relatively small, and not coordinated across agencies. • Important elements of the nation’s ecological data collection and reporting system are operated through ad hoc interagency arrangements. • Research and development programs are fundamentally different from operational monitoring programs, and it is important to ensure smooth transitions between the two. These challenges will slow progress toward national reporting on indicators of ecosystem condition and use.

Integration Would Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation’s Monitoring Efforts Increased integration of the nation’s fragmented environmental monitoring efforts would improve the collection, analysis, and reporting of data on a national scale. By integration, we mean both strategic assessment of overall monitoring objectives—What needs to be monitored and which entity (or entities) should undertake which elements of this overall agenda?—and tactical linkages, in which specific tools and techniques can be reconciled to produce data of wider utility. Such improvement would, in turn, enable improved decision making and potentially lower the costs of monitoring efforts. We have identified the potential benefits and risks of increased integration of the nation’s environmental monitoring programs. We propose several key principles that should be considered in designing any such integration efforts, so that the benefits obtained from the system are maximized and potential barriers to integration are reduced or eliminated. Again, it must be emphasized that the work of filling the ten highest priority data gaps should not wait for action on integration. MAJOR BENEFITS OF INCREASED INTEGRATION The benefits of increased integration (both tactical and strategic) are clear and substantial. Key among these benefits is that data can be more usable, across more regions and types of land ownership, if common or consistent methods are employed. Such consistency can allow, for example, one state (or federal agency) to compare its data to another’s, allow data from all states and agencies to be aggregated upward to produce national or regional perspectives on issues that cross state or agency boundaries, and allow extraction of subsets of data to “drill down” on particular places of interest. Potential benefits of strategic integration include reconciliation of the multiple competing demands on the overall system. As it stands, agencies face demands by those requiring man4

THE HEINZ CENTER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

agement information, accountability information, and large-scale national reporting information. Addressing the system in a strategic fashion would provide a means to decide which of these has priority, which can be integrated or combined, or where additional resources are most needed. In addition, broad agreement on the roles to be played by different monitoring entities, or on priorities for enhancement across a range of programs (such as those covered in this report), would allow each program to focus resources on its unique contribution to a larger whole. Such integration would add value to each individual program and help in communicating the importance of programs or program enhancements to decision makers, funders, and other key constituents. A final and perhaps most important contribution of taking a strategic view is that it can enable the entire system to be managed more effectively. At present, there are few loci for addressing questions about whether the appropriate monitoring is being conducted—in other words, are there strategic gaps that should be filled (as recommended by this report), or programs that can be reduced? Likewise, there are few opportunities to consider the appropriate sharing of responsibilities among federal, state, local private, nonprofit entities, or to sort out how to balance on-the-ground, mission-oriented monitoring needs against those required for informing strategic national views. An enterprise as large as the nation’s environmental monitoring infrastructure simply cannot be managed effectively without such a strategic perspective. There is a widely held belief that increased integration is likely to result in significant short- to medium-term cost savings. However, consultations with managers, funders, and those who oversee monitoring programs suggest that such savings may often not be achieved. Coordination and integration are complex tasks that cost money and staff time. They compete for these resources with “actual” monitoring and reporting activities. Cost savings or cost avoidance are possible to achieve, especially if efficiencies can be built into programs at the outset. Thus, longer term savings (or cost avoidance) are possible and likely benefits of a more integrated system. RISKS, OBSTACLES, AND COSTS Human and institutional factors and real fiscal costs impede increased integration, and clearly reduce the willingness of organizations and their key staff to undertake integration. Integration involves personal or institutional costs and risks: • Monitoring program managers may not see integration as helping them do their main job. • Integration of monitoring programs is hard work and is often not visibly supported by agency management over the lengthy time periods involved in such efforts. • Integration can be viewed as a risk to continued attainment of an agency’s statutory mandates or its commitments to key client constituent groups or to maintaining the continuity of data series. • Agencies may fear loss of resources or autonomy through participation in cross-cutting strategic alignment efforts. • There are often significant fiscal costs to undertaking integration activities. • Support and funding for such efforts may be becoming harder to obtain, in part because of strong fiscal pressures on agencies. • It is difficult, if not impossible, to mandate integration if the relevant user/university and science communities and agencies are resistant. STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

5


K E Y PR I N C I P L E S F O R T H E D E S I G N O F I N T E G R A T I O N E F F O R T S Several principles should inform any effort toward either tactical or strategic integration. These principles are listed below, not in order of importance or priority: • Strategic integration efforts in particular should include all “demanders”—those who seek information for particular purposes, such as performance evaluation, program management, or high-level reporting. • Integration must go beyond federal programs. States, industry, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the research community should be involved as priorities are set. • Design and control/oversight of an integrated system need not imply detailed control over the decisions of each element within that system. • Proceed slowly and incrementally—attempting a grand synthesis that addresses all monitoring needs and programs is likely to fail. Some level of strategic overview is useful and important. • Discussions of the importance or benefits of integration should not be interpreted as negating the need for increased resources for monitoring overall. • Both strategic and tactical integration require high-level agency and organization commitment, involvement, and support. • Focus on incentives for modifying programs and behavior. • Early success might best be achieved by focusing on new monitoring efforts, but it is not practical to ignore the mass of legacy programs that could benefit from increased integration.

6

THE HEINZ CENTER

The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Project Design Committee William C. Clark (Chair) Professor, Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Ann M. Bartuska Deputy Chief for Research and Development USDA Forest Service Rosina Bierbaum Dean and Professor School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan Norman L. Christensen, Jr. Professor of Ecology and Founding Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences Duke University Craig Cox Executive Director Soil and Water Conservation Society John H. Dunnigan Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Patrick Leahy Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey

Terry Young Senior Consulting Scientist Environmental Defense

Al Lucier Senior Vice President National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

Agency Liaisons/ Member Representatives

Suzanne Iudicello Martley Independent Marine Conservation Writer Gordon Orians Professor Emeritus, Department of Biology University of Washington Duncan Patten Research Professor Montana State University Peter W. Preuss Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bruce Stein Vice President for Programs NatureServe

Larry F. Greene Executive Director Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Mark Stoler Director, EHS Operations General Electric

Charles G. Groat Professor, Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin

Greg Wandrey Product Stewardship Director Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

Ted Heintz Council on Environmental Quality

Bud Ward Morris A. Ward, Inc.

John L. Knott, Jr. Chief Executive Officer/ President The Noisette Company, LLC

Douglas Wheeler Partner Hogan & Hartson, LLP


Denice Shaw Environmental Protection Agency Richard Guldin Director of Science, Policy, Planning, Inventory and Information USDA Forest Service

PROJECT STAFF Robin O’Malley Program Director Kent Cavender-Bares Senior Research Associate Anne Marsh Research Associate Laura Meyerson Research Associate Christine Negra Research Associate Ian Carroll Research Assistant Caroline Cremer Research Assistant Holly MacCormick Research Assistant

7

Acknowledgments The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment is grateful for the support of the following contributors to the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Project: Bureau of Land Management ChevronTexaco Corporation Cleveland Foundation Special Fund No. 6 John Deere & Company Electric Power Research Institute Exxon Mobil Corporation Federal Emergency Management Agency Foundation for Environmental Research Georgia-Pacific Corporation Vira I. Heinz Endowment Teresa and H. John Heinz III Charitable Fund Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Richard King Mellon Foundation Charles Stewart Mott Foundation National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Science Foundation Office of Naval Research (Grant Administration) David and Lucile Packard Foundation Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Procter & Gamble Company Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Inc. Robert and Patricia Switzer Foundation U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The Center is also grateful for the many contributions of individuals in federal agencies, state government, nonprofit organizations, and elsewhere, without which this report would not be possible. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Ms. Jamie K. Reaser, who served as an editorial consultant on early drafts of this report, and Ms. Jeannette Aspden, who edited and managed the publication of the final report.

8

THE HEINZ CENTER

CONTENTS

Introduction

11

CHAPTER 1

Identifying and Assessing Data Gaps

13

CHAPTER 2

Filling the Highest Priority Data Gaps: What Needs To Be Done and Why

21

CHAPTER 3

The Ten Highest Priority Data Gaps

27

CHAPTER 4

Challenges to the Nation’s Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure

33

CHAPTER 5

Integration of Monitoring Efforts: Benefits, Risks, Obstacles, Costs, and Principles

39

CHAPTER 6

Moving Forward

45

APPENDIX A

Elements Included in Cost Estimates

49

APPENDIX B

Potential Changes to Data Requirements Resulting from Refinements to the 2002 Report’s Indicators

51

APPENDIX C

Full Descriptions of Highest Priority Gaps and Clusters

55

APPENDIX D

Other Data Gaps Identified in 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Report

95


9

Introduction In late 2002, The Heinz Center released the first State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. The volume was intended as the first in a series of nonpartisan, scientifically sound periodic reports on the extent, condition, and use of the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States. The “ecosystem indicators” that form the heart of the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems were selected through a nonpartisan collaboration among government, environmental organizations, the private sector, and the academic community, supported by public and private funds. The indicators thus represent a unique consensus on how the nation’s ecosystems can be described—and their status tracked over time—in a fair and balanced way. The next State of the Nation’s Ecosystem report is due to be completed in 2007, and future reports are expected to appear every five years. Since publication of the first report, the project has been engaged in improving and refining the indicators and calling attention to issues related to the data collection system that supports continued and improved reporting. The current report on data gaps is the first of three interim reports on the results of these activities. The other two—on non-native species and landscape pattern—will also appear in 2006. The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report found that nearly half of the 103 key indicators identified by the Center and its collaborators could not be reported on because of data gaps or other deficiencies. In this current report, we attempt to answer two pressing questions: • Which of these gaps are top priorities and so should be filled first? • How much will it cost to fill these high-priority gaps? Chapters 1 and 2 describe the process and the results of our inquiry and analysis. The ten highest priority data gaps are described succinctly in Chapter 3 and at length in Appendix C. It should be kept in mind that all the indicators in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report were identified as vital to a broad and comprehensive understanding of conditions and trends in the nation’s ecosystems and thus worthy of future action. It would be wrong to assume that gaps not included here in the highest priority category are irrelevant or unimportant. On the contrary, all the gaps identified in the 2002 report represent important elements of the condition or use of U.S. ecosystems and should be filled as resources are available. In the course of developing our recommendations about specific indicators and gaps, we came to recognize that the overall system that provides the nation’s environmental monitoring information also merited attention. We recognized that a sole focus on “filling gaps”—identifying specific data streams for which data needs to be collected or aggregated—would miss the larger picture. In Chapters 4 and 5 we explain the challenges facing the nation’s distributed (or even fragmented) environmental monitoring infrastructure and suggest that some degree of integration or coordination would help meet these challenges.


11

CHAPTER 1

Identifying and Assessing Data Gaps Data Gaps and the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Report The 2002 edition of The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems identified 103 indicators that described ecological conditions in the nation’s coasts and oceans, farmlands, forests, fresh waters, grasslands and shrublands, and urban and suburban areas. The identification of a set of key indicators was the primary purpose of the report, but an important corollary objective was to identify and highlight those cases in which it was not possible, using currently available data, to report on an indicator at the national level. This is in keeping with the project’s overall goal of helping to establish a long-term process for reporting on ecological conditions and changes in those conditions using a set of consistent, nonpartisan, and scientifically sound indicators. This focus on the need for improved monitoring information has been made all the more relevant with the publication, in September 2005, of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identifying data sources that will not be able to provide updated data for the second edition of the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report in 2007.* GAO also identified programs with substantial uncertainty about their ability to provide data for 2007 and in the longer term. In the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report, for only 32 of 103 indicators could all the data required for national reporting be acquired. For 26 indicators, data sources were sufficient to provide an overall national perspective, although some of these indicators still had some significant gaps. See Figure 1. For 31 indicators, data were not aggregated or were so spotty that they were designated as having “inadequate data for national reporting.” Box 1 lists the criteria for inclusion of data sets in the 2002 report. Many more data sets were excluded from the report because of inadequate geographic coverage than for any other reason. Many excellent data sets exist that describe conditions in only a portion of the United States. In other cases, data may be available (for example, from state agencies), but these data have not been aggregated and made consistent to allow national reporting. While these data sets may be quite valuable, and in some cases may provide the basis for future national reporting, The Heinz Center and the project’s guiding Design Committee * U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Environmental Information: Status of Federal Data Programs That Support Ecological Indicators. GAO-05-376.


13


FIGURE 1.

Data Gaps Prevented Full Reporting on Most Indicators in 2002.*

wished to avoid creating a false impression that adequate data were available for consistent, national-scale reporting. A strategy of including “sample” or “illustrative” data sets was employed in the project’s 1999 prototype.† This approach was rejected for the 2002 report, however, because it was clear from reviewers’ reactions that this created the impression, to the quick or casual reader, of far greater data availability than was actually the case. Finally, 14 indicators were identified as “needing further development.” For these indicators, it was possible to identify a target for reporting, but not a specific quantifiable metric. Despite the lack of specific indicator definitions, it is valid to say that most of B O X 1 Criteria for Inclusion of Data these 14 indicators lack the data needed for nationalin the 2002 State of the level reporting. Nation’s Ecosystems Report In all, the 2002 report identified 71 individual data gaps, including those for indicators for which only parIn order to be included in the report, data tial data are available, indicators for which adequate sources had to: national data are not available, and undefined indicators. Be scientifically credible. Based on the Response to the data gaps identified in the State of the professional judgment of the members of each Nation’s Ecosystems came in two forms. The first was a ecosystem work group, data had to meet the recognition of the profound importance of highlighting highest standards of the appropriate discipline; gaps in the infrastructure used as the nation’s “eyes and judgments of the work groups were extensively peer-reviewed. ears” to understand ecological conditions and change. The second was a request for information on the scale of Provide information on a substantial majority of the resource or issue in funding that would be required to fill the gaps, and an question. Only data sources that cover a ordering of priorities—which gaps are most important to majority of states or a significant fraction of fill first? The current report answers these questions. coastline were included. The process leading to the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ensure that measurements will be Ecosystems report did not include consideration of either repeated at regular intervals. Although all cost or priority for filling the data gaps. The goal was to monitoring and reporting programs are subject identify those aspects of the nation’s ecosystems that were to changes in funding and priorities, established most important to track—not simply to report on those programs are clearly different from one-time studies conducted by individual researches or groups. One-time efforts may not be a solid foundation for periodic reporting and were not included. See: State of the Nation’s Ecosystems, 2002. Appendix, page 199.

14

* The numbers in this figure differ slightly from those in Figure 3.2 in the 2002 report, from which it is derived, because one indicator was mistakenly classified in 2002 as having all required data. † The Heinz Center. 1999. Designing a Report on the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems: Selected Measurements for Croplands, Forests, and Coasts & Oceans. Washington, DC.

THE HEINZ CENTER

IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING DATA GAPS

already being monitored. Working groups did eliminate possible indicators for which it appeared technically infeasible to collect data or for which the potential costs were clearly “beyond the pale.” However, our goal was to look to the future, unlimited by existing resource constraints. As we move beyond the 2002 report, we have identified “high priority” data gaps that can be viewed not as isolated entities requiring separate independent monitoring systems, but rather as groups of closely related gaps that can be filled in a coordinated—and thus efficient and cost-effective—manner.

Assessing Priority, Cost, and Feasibility of Filling Data Gaps Since publication of the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems, The Heinz Center has identified ten gaps or clusters of closely related gaps as being of the highest priority for near-term action (see Table 3, page 23). Filling these gaps will significantly improve the nation’s capacity for national-scale reporting on ecosystem conditions and trends and, therefore, our ability to manage our natural resources. Three related caveats apply to the recommendations detailed in Chapter 2 of this report: First, it should not be inferred that gaps not included in the highest priority category are irrelevant or unimportant. On the contrary, all the indicators identified in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report are highly relevant to achieving a broad and comprehensive understanding of the important conditions and trends in the nation’s ecosystems and thus warrant future action. This report simply identifies those that should be addressed with most urgency, based on a set of factors described below. The other data gaps identified in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report are described briefly in Appendix D. Second, the ten gaps recommended here for high-priority attention, and indeed the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report as a whole, focus on national reporting. There are numerous other reasons for collecting environmental data—regulatory compliance assessment, land management planning, and the like. Simply because an environmental parameter is not included in the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report or in this data gaps report does not mean that there are not valid and important reasons for collection of these data. Third, while recommending that the gaps identified here be treated with urgent priority, the Center and the Design Committee believe that funding for existing monitoring programs should not be reduced in order to fill these gaps. Interrupting existing efforts might create data gaps where none exist now (according to the GAO report cited above, this is in fact occurring), and many existing programs provide crucial data for uses other than national reporting. Our priority assessments were based on national reporting needs and assume that the programs relied upon to support national reporting will be continued (Table 1 lists the agencies and programs that provided data for the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report). We did not consider whether data collection for other uses could safely be discontinued, nor did we balance the priority of those other needs against provision of data for national reporting. While we believe that systematic assessment and management of the nation’s environmental monitoring infrastructure can produce efficiencies and potential cost savings (see Chapter 4), until such a large-scale assessment is undertaken, we believe existing programs should be maintained and additional resources provided to fill the critical gaps identified in this report. (It is possible, however, that future development of a process for assessing the relative importance of monitoring programs will enable agreement on the reallocation of resources to higher priority areas.) STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

15


TA B L E 1 .

Many Programs—Both Public and Nonprofit—Contributed Data to the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Report

FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis Census Bureau Centers for Disease Control and Prevention U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Farm Service Agency Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Forest Service, National Survey on Recreation and the Environment National Agricultural Statistics Service Natural Resources Conservation Service National Resources Inventory Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline U.S. Geological Survey, Geographic Analysis and Mapping Program U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Quality Assessment U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Discipline National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service National Ocean Service NONFEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS NatureServe

In setting priorities among the gaps identified in the 2002 report, we considered three factors. Our primary consideration was the utility of the information. Which of the many indicators for which data are not currently available are the most “important”? Clearly, this is a value judgment, and the process we have used, which is described below, reflects input from a broad spectrum of professionals and decision makers. An additional factor was the cost of filling individual gaps. Clearly, we cannot have all that we might want, and some notion of “cost per unit of importance” must enter into any such recommendations. (We did not, however, attempt to quantify or explicitly define such a relationship.) The final factor we considered was feasibility—can this indicator be implemented immediately (given adequate funding), or are other technical or institutional steps required first? I D E N T I F Y I N G PR I O R I T I E S Priorities recommended in this report emerged from a multistage process that included a survey of several hundred individuals and organizations, followed by two levels of review by the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Design Committee. The first step was a survey that asked respondents to rank each gap on a 1–5 scale, with 1 being highest priority and 5 being lowest.* This survey, conducted in 2003, was sent to about 1300 people and organizations, including past and current participants in the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems project, organizations and individuals who had requested copies of the 2002 Report, agencies that had provided data or funding to the project, members of EPA’s * In conducting this survey, our goal was to isolate, as much as was practical, considerations of the importance of the information from those related to the cost of obtaining that information, since more detailed cost information would be considered explicitly in later rounds. However, it is unclear to what extent this somewhat artificial isolation was maintained by respondents. Essentially, we asked respondents to ignore the cost of filling a particular data gap when rating it. However, in order to provide some sense of scale, we provided very rough cost estimates for each gap; costs were described as being modest (“less than $100,000”) or major (“a major addition to a national data monitoring program will be required”).

16

THE HEINZ CENTER


National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, and assorted other contacts maintained by The Heinz Center with an interest in environmental monitoring. The survey was also announced on several relevant listserves (e.g., Ecolog). We received 278 responses, with 45% of respondents from government agencies, 21% from academia, 18% from environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 8% from the business/industry sector, and 8% from people who did not fall into one of these four sectors.* (While the response was relatively thin from the business community, additional levels of review (see below) are believed to have provided sufficient consideration of this sector’s perspectives.) Survey results were then statistically analyzed to assign each gap to one of five priority groups. Thus, the “highest” priority group had more “1” ratings and fewer lower ratings than other groups. This basic ordering of priorities was used as a starting point by the Center and the Design Committee, which is a senior-level committee with membership from businesses, environmental organizations, academic institutions, and government agencies, and which is responsible for guiding the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems project (see page 7). All gaps, with associated cost and priority information, were reviewed, with the goal of identifying a very small number of highest priority gaps or clusters of related gaps. This process consisted of a first round of deliberations by a multisector working group of Design Committee members, with final review and ranking by the entire Design Committee. It is important to note that many individuals and agencies have reviewed this report and provided important comments, clarifications, and corrections, but reviewers were not asked to comment on the priority rankings. ESTIMATING COSTS Cost estimates provided in this report were developed in consultation with a wide range of agencies and individual experts. As is described in detail below, these costs estimates are not definitive and would need to be verified and made more detailed before implementation. However, it is our view that they are sufficiently detailed and sufficiently comparable to one another for the purposes of making overall priority decisions and understanding the scope and scale of recommended investments. An initial review identified agencies or institutions that conduct monitoring activities similar to those required to fill each gap, and these agencies were asked to provide estimates of the cost of undertaking appropriate monitoring to address the specific data needs identified by our report (i.e., to fill the gap). For example, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provided data in the 2002 report on nitrogen yields in major river basins, but data were not available for significant areas of the country (see pages 46–47 of the 2002 report). In this case, USGS was asked to estimate the cost of providing the necessary data. These estimates have been reviewed on several occasions by the agencies or institutions that generated them, as well as by outside reviewers. We are aware of several potential concerns with the cost estimates provided here. These concerns can serve as guidelines for future cost estimation efforts as specific program enhancements are considered. * Respondents were asked to identify themselves in terms of their sector (e.g., academia). In general, Center staff confirmed the accuracy of this information; in very few cases we made adjustments based on our interpretation of the different sectors.


17


Implied and Introduced Biases. By asking agencies that currently collect similar information to provide guidance on how to fill the gaps, we introduced several potential biases. These include an assumption that the method used by the agency we contacted is the “best” (e.g., most appropriate institutionally, least expensive) method. We asked agencies and reviewers to ensure that a broad suite of potential solutions were considered, but additional unexplored options might exist. A second bias is that, by asking federal agencies that conduct major monitoring programs, we imply that a federal solution (i.e., collection by federal agency staff ) is necessarily the most appropriate means for filling the gap. We have attempted to avoid this trap, while recognizing that federal agencies, in many cases, have institutional and technical capabilities that may not be available elsewhere. To counter this bias, in many cases The Heinz Center has outlined a nonfederal approach, primarily involving collection by states or other entities or aggregation of data that are already collected by such entities. It is crucial that the resources and creativity of states and other entities and their substantial interest in data collection for their own purposes be considered in maintaining and enhancing the nation’s overall infrastructure for environmental monitoring. Uncertain Completeness and Comparability. The second significant concern is that estimates may include costs for different components of the “true” cost of undertaking work and thus may be not strictly comparable to each other. We asked agencies and institutions to provide estimates that covered the whole cost of undertaking the work—not, for example, just direct salary or analytical laboratory expenses, but overhead, other support costs, major infrastructure costs (e.g., rental, leasing, and other payments such as for offshore “ship time” to conduct coastal monitoring). An additional consideration is whether estimates included both upfront or initial costs and long-term annual estimates. Appendix A provides information on which cost components are included in each overall estimate, and these components are described separately in the indicator descriptions where they were included separately in the cost estimates. Given the breadth of our examination of gaps and our limited ability to demand consistent accounting procedures from these agencies, it is highly likely that differing assumptions were used in these estimates. Such differences can create substantial inconsistencies in estimates, but we are nevertheless confident that the estimates are useful for the purposes of this effort. A related issue is whether the cost estimates include all the major elements required to collect, manage, and process environmental data. In general terms, this chain requires data collection, data archiving and distribution, and data processing and analysis. In some cases, additional methods may need to be developed or tested before implementing a collection regime. Most estimates provided by agencies dealt explicitly with one or two of these categories of activities (see Appendix A). This implies that other activities—commonly archiving and distribution, but sometimes including data collection or processing—were assumed to be undertaken using existing agency or organization channels (e.g., data archives or collection mechanisms) and that the new activity did not overtax these resources or require additional funding. This assumption should be carefully reviewed as programs are implemented. Piecemeal Estimates. The estimates provided here are for independent implementation of the activities required to address each data gap. In most cases, we believe, agencies provided marginal costs for expanding their efforts in order to fill a gap. However, as is discussed in Chapter 3, it is possible, if not likely, that additional efficiencies might be realized if, for exam18

THE HEINZ CENTER


ple, the multiple federal field-based survey programs were more closely coordinated or if remote sensing data acquisition and processing were strategically integrated. Available Technology. The estimates provided here are based largely on currently available technology. New techniques and methods, ranging from improved remote sensing to miniaturization of sampling technology linked with GPS and satellite telecommunications, have the potential to decrease the cost or increase the scope, quality, and reliability of available data. It is, however, difficult to predict such advances or their effects on costs. Best Technical Approaches. The estimates are based on technical approaches identified through preliminary consultations with experts inside and outside government. We have not conducted in-depth reviews of the details of exactly what methods and protocols should be used for data collection and assessment. It will be important to conduct such analyses, with the relevant operational personnel and subject matter experts, to refine the methodology for any such effort. These estimates are not intended to serve as the basis for immediate implementation. Rather, they are intended to suggest the magnitude of resources required to address gaps. We are confident that these estimates are sufficiently accurate to distinguish between very low cost and very high cost initiatives and to provide rough, order-of-magnitude information useful for placing the recommendations in context. A S S E S S I N G FE A S I B I L I T Y Using the input from agencies and organizations that provided cost and technical solutions information, the Center generated an initial feasibility rating for each gap: • Highly and immediately feasible gaps are those for which sufficient funding is the primary obstacle—the technical approaches are well developed, and there is clear institutional capability to undertake the work, given adequate resources. • Moderately feasible gaps are those for which there are either technical or institutional issues that require resolution: funding is not the only obstacle to implementation. For these gaps, however, the impediments are not major or substantial. • Challenging gaps are ones for which technological development is needed (e.g., which method works best for monitoring seagrasses in turbid waters), for which substantial uncertainty exists about the coverage and comparability of data collected by many disparate entities (primarily states), or for which it is not obvious that there is any institution with the mandate and institutional capability to undertake the work. (This last concern is especially relevant to gaps related to urban and suburban areas. There are few instances in which data are collected so as to be able to identify conditions in urban and suburban areas, and few institutions have the geographic, legal, and institutional capability to conduct much of the recommended monitoring.)

How the Evolution of the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Project Will Affect These Priorities The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report was the first in what is intended to be a longrunning series of scientifically sound, nonpartisan reports on the condition and use of U.S. STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

19


ecosystems. The next edition is currently in development, with an expected release during 2007. The 2002 report was intended to be an initial statement about the suite of key indicators that should be tracked through time, with each successive version of the report reflecting continued refinement of that suite. Thus, a number of indicators are being revised and improved as the process evolves toward producing another report in 2007. As a general matter, the indicator refinements currently under way will not substantially change the requirements for data, methods, and processing capabilities that are described as gaps in this report. Clearly, the ways in which specific indicators are calculated or reported may change, but even if they do, in many cases the underlying data requirements are similar if not identical. The work under way now will likely identify some additional gaps, although at this time they do not appear to be large in relation to the priorities identified here. (For more detail on the specific areas in which refinement is currently under way and the extent of changes to data requirements, see Appendix B.)

20

THE HEINZ CENTER

CHAPTER 2

Filling the Highest Priority Data Gaps: What Needs To Be Done and Why The Highest Priority Data Gaps The Heinz Center and the Design Committee for the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems project recommend that ten data gaps or clusters of closely related gaps be filled as a matter of urgent priority: • Extent of Specific Key Habitat Elements. Areas such as wetlands, coral reefs, and submerged aquatic vegetation are small in overall area, but crucial in ecological terms. • Landscape Pattern/Remote Sensing Analysis. Landscape patterns such as suburban sprawl and forest pattern and fragmentation can have important effects on ecological condition. • Contaminants Related to Human Exposure. Contamination in the edible portions of wild fish and fish sold for consumption and in urban soils is a potential source of human exposure. • Nitrogen Yield and Load in Rivers. Excess nitrogen can degrade water quality, especially in coastal areas. • Carbon Storage/Soil Organic Matter. Depending on management and other factors, ecosystems can store or release carbon, a key concern in terms of climate change. • At-Risk Species and Communities. Individual species are the building blocks of ecosystems, and understanding their risk of extinction is important. • Non-native Species. Non-native species can have significant effects on human health and ecosystems, and may impose large economic costs. • Biological Community Condition. Measures of the degree to which ecosystems are degraded or not are important but require additional research. • Stream and Riparian Condition. Stream and riparian (streamside) habitats are crucial in many ecosystems. • Groundwater Levels. It is important to know whether and by how much this valuable resource is being depleted. Filling these data gaps will have a profound effect on the nation’s ability to report on ecosystem use and condition, with important implications for policy and management. Once the ten gaps are filled, the number of indicators that could be reported nationally rises dramatically (Figure 2), and these expanded reporting capabilities extend across all major ecosystem types (Table 2). The gaps, and the costs of filling them, are described more fully in Chapter 3. STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

21


FIGURE 2.

Implementing This Report’s Recommendations Would Dramatically Improve Overall Reporting Capability.

Recommended Investments To Fill Key Data Gaps In addressing these needs, two general strategies might be considered—increased funding and reprioritized funding. We are keenly aware of the overall fiscal climate, in which increases in domestic discretionary spending outside homeland security–related needs face particularly high hurdles. The “high-priority” data gaps may be viewed not as isolated entities requiring separate independent monitoring systems, but rather as groups of closely related gaps whose filling might be accomplished in a coordinated—and thus efficient—manner. As a general matter, we believe that efficiencies might be created through more coordinated management TA B L E 2 .

Implementing This Report’s Recommendations Would Dramatically Improve Reporting in All Ecosystems INDICATORS WITH FULL NATIONAL DATA

Ecosystem

2002

With Highest Priority Data Gaps Filled

Core Nationala

2

6

Coasts & Oceans

2

6

Farmlands

9

14

Forests

7

12

Fresh Waters

3

10

Grasslands & Shrublands

4

9

Urban & Suburban Areas

5

9

T O TA L

32

66

a

22

The numbers in Table 2 differ slightly those in the 2002 report, because one core national indicator was mistakenly classified in 2002 as having all required data.

THE HEINZ CENTER

FILLING THE HIGHEST PRIORITY DATA GAPS: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND WHY

TA B L E 3 . Initial Estimates Are Available of the New Funding Needed for Initial and Ongoing Costs and of Implementation Feasibility

DATA GAP/CLUSTER

INITIAL/ STARTUP COSTSa

ONGOING COSTS

FEASIBILITY

Extent/Location (Primarily Remote Sensing) Extent of Specific Key Habitat Elements

Not available

Full costs not available; 4 gaps: highly and individual gaps range immediately feasible from $0 to ~$2 million/year 3 gaps: moderately feasible 1 gap: challenging

Landscape Pattern/Remote Sensing Analysis

$2.5–$3 million

$250,000–$400,000 per year, assuming availability of remote sensing data

All elements: highly and immediately feasible

Chemical Composition (Field Survey) Contaminants Related to Human Exposure

Not available

$1.1 million to $8 million minimum per year (some costs unavailable)

1 gap: highly and immediately feasible 2 gaps: moderately feasible 1 gap: challenging

Nitrogen Loading in Rivers, Nitrogen Yield

$1.5 million (over 2 years)

$6.5 million/year

Highly and immediately feasible (USGS) or challenging (state-based)

$10.45 million/year

2 gaps: highly and immediately feasible 1 gap: moderately feasible

~$600,000/year

7 gaps: highly and immediately feasible 3 gaps: moderately feasible

Carbon Storage in Ecosystems $2–3 million (over 3 years) (including soil organic matter)

Species, Communities (Primarily Field Survey) At-risk Species and Communities

$1.5 million

Non-native Species

Depends on choices about program implementation

1 gap: highly and immediately feasible 1 gap: moderately feasible All others: challenging

~$3 million

~$15 million

Biological Community Condition

Not available

$10 million per year (freshwater only; costs for terrestrial and coastal unavailable)

Moderately feasible to challenging

Stream and Riparian Habitat Condition

$10 million

$1–2 million/year

Challenging

$4.5–$8 million

$400,000–$800,000/year

Moderately feasible

Human Uses (Field Survey) Groundwater Levels a

These are one-time costs for each effort. In some cases, project funding would begin in the first year, so it is not appropriate to assume that these one-time costs are the only costs in the first year(s) of a project.


23


TA B L E 4 . A Variety of Activities Are Required to Fill Data Gaps

DATA GAP

AGGREGATION OF EXISTING DATA FROM DISPARATE SOURCES

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING (AGGREGATED) DATA

COLLECTION OF NEW DATAa

RESEARCH INTO METHODS

Extent/Location (Primarily Remote Sensing) Extent of Specific Key Habitat Elements

✓b

✓

Landscape Pattern/Remote Sensing Analysis

✓c

✓

At-Risk Species and Communities (remote sensing component)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Non-native Species (remote sensing component) Chemical Composition (Field Survey) Contaminants Related to Human Exposure

✓

✓

Nitrogen Yield and Load in Rivers

✓d

✓

Carbon Storage/Soil Organic Matter

✓e

✓

Species, Communities (Primarily Field Survey) At-Risk Species and Communities (field component)

✓

✓

✓

Non-native Species (field component)

✓

✓


✓

✓

✓

Stream and Riparian Condition

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Human Uses (Field Survey) Groundwater Levels a

As a general matter, for remote sensing applications we have assumed that sufficient raw data are collected—in that there is a fairly large array of sensors that gather large quantities of data on a regular basis. This does not ignore, for example, the real costs associated with deploying a new Landsat imaging system. Rather, it assumes that the overall earth imaging system—managed and funded independently— will provide raw input data adequate for the purposes described here, rather than requiring novel new systems for this application alone. b In some cases, data may be available from existing, field-based sources (federal agencies, state agencies, research institutions). It may be possible to make early progress and provide important field verification of remote sensing information by aggregating these data. c USGS indicates that development of a national in situ plot database for calibration, validation, and research would facilitate and enhance land cover mapping. See the Appendix C entry for Landscape Pattern—Analysis of Remote Sensing Data. d Data for this indicator are currently provided by USGS, and estimates provided in this report are based on reestablishment of USGS sampling networks that were eliminated in response to past budget reductions. It might be possible to provide some of these data using existing state networks. e Data on carbon storage/soil organic matter are collected, but not on a large scale or systematic basis, by many entities—for example, by agricultural interests. It might be possible to integrate these data into a larger network that provides broad coverage.

24

THE HEINZ CENTER

FILLING THE HIGHEST PRIORITY DATA GAPS: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND WHY

TA B L E 5 .

Key Data Gaps Affect All Ecosystems P R I M A R Y E C O S Y S T E M TY P E S A F F E C T E D

DATA GAP

Core Coasts & National Oceans Farmlands Forests

Grasslands & Urban & Freshwater Shrublands Suburban

Extent/Location (Primarily Remote Sensing) Extent of Specific Key Habitat Elementsa Landscape Pattern/Remote Sensing Analysis

✓

✓

a

a

✓

a

✓

✓b

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

c

c

Chemical Composition (Field Survey) Contaminants Related to Human Exposure

✓

✓

Nitrogen Yield and Load in Rivers

✓

c

Carbon Storage/Soil Organic Matter ✓

✓ c

c

✓

✓

c

✓

Species, Communities (Primarily Field Survey) At-Risk Species and Communities

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Non-native Species

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓


✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Stream and Riparian Condition Human Uses (Field Survey) Groundwater Levels

✓

a

This indicator includes total impervious area, which was reported in 2002 as an “urban/suburban” feature. However, the 2007 report is likely to report on the overall extent of such surfaces, which occur in all ecosystems. b The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report did not include an indicator of coastal landscape pattern, but the 2007 report will probably include such an indicator and it is likely that filling this gap will provide the capability to process data needed to enable reporting on it. c This indicator is reported as a “core national indicator,” but it addresses freshwater flows, coastal discharges, and the source of these flows/ discharges (regardless of ecosystem type).

of the nation’s overall environmental monitoring infrastructure (see Chapters 4 and 5). The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems identified a large number of key data gaps for national reporting alone, and it is likely that many similar gaps exist for other monitoring purposes, such as regulatory compliance and land management. Thus, while we believe that reducing efficiencies through more integrated management of the overall environmental monitoring enterprise is wise, because it optimizes the amount of data collected with available funds, in the absence of such an integrated capability for assessment and priority setting, it would be inappropriate to reduce funding for other existing monitoring programs. Table 3, which summarizes these-high priority gaps and the estimated cost and feasibility of filling them, identifies both the general nature of the gaps—e.g., whether the gap is related to extent of ecosystems, or chemical composition, for example—and the manner in which the data are likely to be collected. This latter distinction is important because—as is discussed in greater detail in Chapters 4 and 5—greater integration of the management of data collection STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

25


systems with similar technologies and data collection endpoints could yield important benefits for the overall national monitoring “system.” In most cases, collection of new data or aggregation of existing data is required to fill the gaps. However, several gaps require additional research—development of technical methods for monitoring or definition of specific metrics to be monitored. These gaps are considered very high priority, even though the path to their implementation may be longer and less clear. Tables 4 and 5 break down the high-priority data gaps by the kind of activities required to fill them and by ecosystem. Chapter 3 offers more detail on the gaps themselves (for further information on the gaps, see Appendix C).

26

THE HEINZ CENTER

CHAPTER 3

The Ten Highest Priority Data Gaps The data gaps identified in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report prevent effective reporting on key indicators of the condition and use of U.S. ecosystems. This chapter briefly summarizes the ten data gaps and gap clusters that warrant highest priority attention and provides estimates of the cost of filling them. (Please note that three gaps—non-native species, riparian area condition, and at-risk communities and species—appear in more than one category, so there are thirteen separate entries below; see Appendix C for more details on the ten gaps and gap clusters.) Filling these gaps would more than double the number of indicators that could be reported nationally, from 32 in the 2002 report to 66, significantly improving the nation’s ability to understand and manage its ecosystems.

Extent and Location of Ecosystem/Landscape Elements The area of key ecosystem elements, such as wetlands, coral reefs, impervious surfaces, biological communities, and lands highly affected by non-native species provides fundamental information about the composition of the nation’s ecosystems and can provide important clues to its condition. Knowing how individual components are intermingled can provide important information about the functioning of specific ecosystem types. For example, contiguous forest and forests with housing or farmlands intermingled may offer habitat to different species, and farmland areas with higher levels of suburban development may not support a robust agricultural economy. EXTENT OF KEY HABITAT ELEMENTS Reporting on the area of habitat components that are relatively small in area, but high in ecological significance, including coastal wetlands, coral reefs, seagrasses, impounded and channelized streams, altered wetlands, stream bank vegetation, and impervious surfaces. The full costs for this group of gaps are not available. Individual items range from little or no cost to about $2 million per year. In some cases, data may be available from existing, fieldbased sources (federal agencies, state agencies, research institutions). It may be possible to make early progress and provide important field verification of remote sensing information by aggregating these data. Some aspects of filling this gap would be highly and immediately feasible, others would be moderately feasible, and one is considered challenging; both new data collection and aggregation of existing data would be required. STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

27


L A N D S C A P E PA T T E R N / R E M O T E S E N S I N G A N A L Y S I S Reporting on the extent and arrangement of land cover, requiring improvements to and analysis and processing of remote sensing data. These data would support indicators dealing with farmlands and residential development, forest and grassland/shrubland fragmentation and related patterns, land use change at the suburban/rural fringe, vegetation along streams and lakeshores, and extent of impervious surfaces. This gap would require about $2.5–$3 million in initial costs and between $250,000 and $400,000 per year to support dedicated analysis staff to produce the desired indicators. Some costs were unavailable, so these should be seen as minimum costs. Filling this gap is highly and immediately feasible; doing so requires analysis of existing data (but see the caveat below). A very important caveat is that the estimates here presume the availability, at little or no cost, of the underlying land cover data. There have been technical issues related to the sensors from which these data (Landsat) are derived, and costs for resolving these issues and completing the basic processing of the sensor data are not included here. These are non-trivial costs and there are significant issues under discussion among the relevant agencies and users regarding the institutional arrangements and timing of production of the basic land cover data set (National Landcover Data Set, or NLCD). See Chapter 4. Landscape pattern and remote sensing analyses could provide important information for identifying at-risk ecological communities, extent of non-native plant invasion, and condition of riparian areas. Therefore, the remote-sensing aspects of these gaps are highlighted immediately below, in addition to their full entry further below. AT-RISK COMMUNITIES (also part of larger At-Risk Species and Communities gap, page 30) Reporting on at-risk community types. Two specific items identified in the 2002 report are reporting on declining forest community types and at-risk riparian and wetland communities. Costs for development of classification systems and initial methods are provided below (see full At-Risk Species and Communities entry). Remote sensing should be utilized to the maximum extent possible to provide data on an ongoing basis. Filling this gap would be moderately feasible: methods development, reconciliation of multiple data sources, and new data collection are all likely to be required. NO N - N A T I V E SP E C I E S (also part of larger Non-native Species gap, page 30) Reporting on non-native plant cover. This is an important priority in many ecosystems. In some systems, primarily grasslands and shrublands and potentially in farmland areas, it is possible to gather data on the extent of invasion using remote sensing. Costs are provided in the full Non-native Species entry below for field-survey-based approaches, but it is likely that future development of remote sensing can provide important contributions. Filling this gap would be challenging; methods development and either analysis of existing data or acquisition of new data are required. RIPARIAN AREA CONDITION (also part of larger Stream and Riparian Area Condition gap, page 30) Reporting on the condition of riparian (streamside) areas. Techniques are being developed and tested that would allow monitoring of key riparian area characteristics from remote sensing. 28

THE HEINZ CENTER

THE TEN HIGHEST PRIORITY DATA GAPS

See full entry below. Filling this gap would be challenging; methods development and acquisition of new data are needed.

Chemical Composition of Various Ecosystem Elements Three aspects of the chemical makeup of the environment merit high-priority attention: contaminants in fish and in urban soils, because of their potential for human contact; the amount of nitrogen discharged to coastal waters, because such discharges have been implicated in significant ecological damage (e.g., dead zones); and the amount of carbon stored in U.S. ecosystems, which is important because carbon (as soil organic matter) is a critical determinant of ecosystem productivity and because the amount of carbon stored in ecosystems has particular relevance to the mitigation of global climate change. C O N T A M I N A N T S R E L A T E D T O HU M A N E X P O S U R E Reporting on levels of contaminants found in the edible portions of freshwater and saltwater fish and in fish sold for human consumption. The cost for assessing contamination in the edible portions of fish is between $1.1 million and $8 million per year; costs for assessing fish sold for human consumption or for determining levels in urban/suburban soils are not available. Some aspects of filling this gap would be highly and immediately feasible, whereas others would be moderately feasible (collection of new data required) or challenging (both collection systems design and development of institutional capacity are required). NI T R O G E N Y I E L D A N D L O A D S Reporting on the amount of nitrogen released per square mile of land, and the total resulting load in major rivers. Costs are estimated at $6.5 million per year. Filling this gap would be highly and immediately feasible if a federal data collection effort were used (new data collection); a state-based/distributed effort would be challenging; this would probably require both new data collection and analysis of existing data. C A R B O N ST O R A G E / S O I L O R G A N I C M A T T E R Reporting on the amounts of carbon stored in forests and grasslands/shrublands (including above- and below-ground portions), and as soil organic matter in farmland areas. Filling these gaps is estimated to require approximately $2–3 million in start-up costs and $10.5 million per year. Some aspects of filling this gap would be highly and immediately feasible, whereas others would be moderately feasible; new data collection would be required, although some existing data may also be incorporated into a new system.

The Condition of Species and Biological Communities The condition of species and biological communities is a crucial and central element to understanding the condition of the nation’s ecosystems. The indicator gaps here focus on those elements of the nation’s biological wealth that are most at risk of being lost, on nonnative species, which are believed to be changing the nation’s biological landscape in dramatic ways, and on broader techniques to assess the degree of change of overall biological communities. STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

29


A T - R I S K SP E C I E S A N D C O M M U N I T I E S Reporting on at-risk plants for specific ecosystems, coastal and marine plants and animals, incorporating data on population trends into all at-risk reporting, distinguishing between naturally rare and declining species, and improving reporting on at-risk community types. Costs are estimated at about $1.5 million initially and about $600,000 per year thereafter. Some aspects of filling this gap would be highly and immediately feasible, whereas others would be moderately feasible; analysis of existing data, research into methods, reconciliation of existing data sources, and collection of new data are required. Remote sensing should be utilized to the maximum extent possible to provide data on an ongoing basis. NO N - N A T I V E SP E C I E S Reporting on non-native plant cover in forests, grasslands/shrublands, and farmlands, and on a wide array of species in freshwater and coastal systems. Start-up costs are estimated at about $3 million, with annual costs around $15 million. There is a reasonable likelihood that future advances in remote sensing technology will increase the amount and coverage of non-native plant cover data. Most of the activities required to fill this gap are challenging, although some elements are highly and immediately feasible or moderately feasible; collection of new data and aggregation of existing data are required. See detailed descriptions in Appendix B. (The Heinz Center is currently reviewing the suite of non-native species indicators to be included in the 2007 report. The revised suite will likely have different data requirements from those specifically outlined here, but the need for non-native species data is nonetheless considered high priority.) BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY CONDITION Reporting on the overall condition of the suites of species that inhabit and are adapted to specific geographic areas and ecosystem types. Techniques for freshwater assessment are well known and are increasingly being implemented by states in cooperation with EPA. EPA provided estimates of as much as $50 million per year for full implementation (through its Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, EMAP) of a statistically valid sampling design, but this does not appear to account for state contributions, efficiencies that might be realized by combining this work with other ongoing state activities, or the potential to spread the required work over a multiyear period. (For this report, we have assumed that the $50 million in costs would be spread over five years.) Techniques for terrestrial (forests, grasslands, etc.) and marine systems* require additional development. Filling the freshwater portion of this gap would be either challenging (state based, requiring both collection of new data and aggregation and reconciliation of existing data) or moderately feasible (federal, requiring collection of new data). Filling the terrestrial gap would be challenging, requiring both methods development and data collection. ST R E A M A N D R I P A R I A N A R E A C O N D I T I O N Reporting on the condition of in-stream habitat in freshwater streams and the condition of riparian (streamside) areas. There are multiple approaches for such assessment (especially for * Techniques for assessing the condition of benthic communities (bottom-dwelling worms, clams, snails, and shrimplike animals) are available (and were reported in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report). However, these approaches assess only a small fraction of marine communities.

30

THE HEINZ CENTER

THE TEN HIGHEST PRIORITY DATA GAPS

stream habitat), but none has been widely adopted. Reconciliation of methods so that consistent data can be collected in many areas and development of efficient riparian area assessment techniques are required. Filling this gap would be challenging; methods development, aggregation of existing data, and collection of new data are required. See detailed descriptions in Appendix B.

Human Uses of Ecosystems Use of water for such activities as agriculture, domestic use, power generation, and industry is one of the most direct human uses of ecosystems. While there are many anecdotal reports describing declining aquifer levels in response to human use, there is no overall assessment of the degree to which the amount of water stored in deep regional aquifers is changing over time. GR O U N D W A T E R L E V E L S Reporting on the fraction of the nation’s major regional (drinking water) aquifers in which water levels are declining, increasing, or stable. Initial costs are estimated at $4.5–$8 million, with annual costs of about $0.4–$0.8 million. Filling this gap is considered moderately feasible; collection of new data and/or aggregation of existing data are required.

Implications for the Overall Monitoring System In the course of developing these recommendations about specific high-priority indicators and gaps, we came to recognize that there were important aspects of the overall system that provides environmental monitoring information that merited attention. The next two chapters deal with the challenges facing the existing environmental monitoring infrastructure and the benefits, risks, and costs of integrating monitoring efforts.


31

CHAPTER 4

Challenges to the Nation’s Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure As we worked to identify the highest priority data gaps, described in the preceding chapters, we came to understand that filling these gaps—identifying specific data streams for which data must be collected or aggregated—was not the only aspect of the nation’s environmental monitoring effort that needed attention. The monitoring infrastructure itself faces considerable challenges. The United States has a large, highly professional, but also highly distributed (even fragmented), “system” for collecting and reporting environmental data. Individual agencies and organizations collect data according to their mandates, missions, interests, and resources, using the monitoring and data management techniques and strategies that suit their own needs. Key actors include a number of federal agencies, nonprofit entities such as NatureServe, and states. Our society increasingly demands information—and the monitoring agencies and organizations are struggling to respond to these demands. Systems built to provide information at the scale needed for local decision making are being asked to provide data to assess national trends, and for assessment of program effectiveness (the converse is true as well—programs designed for national-level assessment are being used to measure the effectiveness of local efforts, for example). One consequence of this highly distributed system is that there are few mechanisms by which overall priorities can be assessed—whether to identify areas for new investment, to allocate or reallocate existing resources, or to foster and encourage integration of methods so that data are comparable across agencies and geographic areas.* In addition, the lack of a central focus means that key factors that affect multiple programs may not be addressed. An example is the transition of monitoring programs from research and development to fully operational data systems (“operational” refers to the guaranteed, routine, and sustained delivery of established suites of monitoring data†—as is characteristic of the delivery of weather data from satellites). * The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), a 19-member interagency committee composed of representatives from the Executive Office of the President and cabinet-level and independent agencies, is developing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) in cooperation with organizations from state, local and tribal governments, the academic community, and the private sector. See www.fgdc.gov. † This definition is derived from the report of the First Annual Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Development Plan, a report of the National Ocean Leadership Council (December 2004, prepared by Ocean.US).


33


The Heinz Center is not the first to recognize these challenges. The observations and recommendations offered in this chapter and the one that follows are intended to complement and advance the many other attempts* to improve the quality of the information available for use in managing the nation’s environment. In this chapter, we identify five broad issues, concerns, or trends that challenge many of the major programs that now provide national-scale monitoring information. Chapter 5 then offers a set of recommendations for integrating or coordinating the many disparate programs to meet these challenges and thus improve the quality and utility of the resulting data. It should, of course, be remembered that action to fill the high-priority data gaps highlighted in this report need not—and indeed must not—wait for the challenges listed below to be addressed.

Expectations about the Performance and Products of the Nation’s Environmental Monitoring Infrastructure Are Changing, with New Requirements Being Imposed on Existing Systems. Data collection and reporting systems have been developed for many reasons, including regulatory compliance and land management. These systems have been designed to achieve specific goals, with levels of geographic coverage, targets for where and what should be monitored, targeted levels of accuracy, and other parameters appropriate for their intended uses. Monitoring and data collection efforts have been designed to provide information needed for regulatory or management priority setting and decision making and for describing the implementation of programmatic activities (e.g., numbers of permits issued or compliance with mandated conditions). A newer set of expectations has arisen over the past fifteen years or so. These are based on an increased emphasis on program assessment and accountability and on a desire for broad national, regional, and sectoral efforts to assess overall progress (or lack thereof ) toward societal goals. Program accountability measures are exemplified by the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act, OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and similar state programs. Broad-scale national reporting is exemplified by The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems project and by efforts such as the sustainable resource roundtables,† which describe broad trends in resource condition. Clearly, there are many cases in which the systems now in place were not designed to answer this newer set of questions. If these assets were not designed for these purposes, it is unrealistic to expect them to achieve these goals, or to do so effectively or efficiently.

* For example, the Clinton Administration convened an interagency effort, the National Environmental Monitoring Initiative, which was aimed at overall improvement, through synthesis and coordination, of the nation’s monitoring capabilities. See http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/ (archive site). The Federal Geographic Data Committee (see note above) is another large-scale example. Others have been smaller scale—interagency working groups to, for example, reconcile definitions of forest and rangeland, or to develop overall strategies for rangeland monitoring. † Roundtable on Sustainable Forests: http://www.sustainableforests.net/; Sustainable Minerals Roundtable: http://www.unr. edu/mines/smr/; Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable: http://sustainablerangelands.cnr.colostate.edu/; Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable: http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/swrr.

34

THE HEINZ CENTER

CHALLENGES TO THE NATION’S ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFRASTRUCTURE

There Is No Overall Mechanism To Determine the Most Appropriate and Highest Priority Investments in Monitoring and Reporting Capacity. Environmental monitoring and reporting programs have been developed in response to information needs in a wide variety of agencies and programs. Numerous federal agencies collect environmental data, as do states, sometimes with federal funding or under federal guidance. Each federal program is funded within its agency’s overall budget, which means that investments in monitoring are considered in conjunction with all other issues facing that specific agency. Thus, investments in USDA Forest Service monitoring are considered not only in light of the Service’s own monitoring needs, but also side by side with competing demands from programs dealing with wildland fire management, operations of the national parks, and education for native Americans, to name a few. While this balancing and priority setting is clearly appropriate (and not likely to go away), it addresses issues in an incomplete fashion. There is no mechanism for determining what investments are of highest priority, across a range of monitoring needs (e.g., compliance, national assessment, management) and across different agencies. Obviously, such cross-agency tradeoffs and priority considerations should not override agency-specific priorities, but they are often not even a part of the current decision-making mix. A variety of mechanisms have been used to address topical issues that cross agency (and appropriations bill) lines. These include longstanding formal efforts such as the Global Change Research Program (now the Climate Change Science Program) and OMB “budget cross-cuts,” which describe the fiscal profile of all programs within a specific topical area.

Important Elements in the Nation’s Ecological Data Collection and Reporting System Are Operated by Nonfederal Entities. In Many Cases, Federal Support Is Ad Hoc, Relatively Small, and Not Coordinated across Agencies. States and local governments collect large amounts of environmental monitoring data. Some of these activities result from delegated or mandated federal programs, but many are state-initiated and often state-specific. In some cases, as with air quality monitoring by state, local, and tribal entities under EPA guidance, the resulting information is generally viewed as useful* and broadly comparable nationwide. In other cases, as with water quality monitoring, the consensus is that the existing system does not provide the kinds of data needed for decision making.† State Natural Heritage programs‡ are another case in which there is a consensus that the data are far more comprehensive, comparable, and unbiased than any existing alternative and * This does not mean that improvements to this system are not possible. For example, most air quality monitoring is focused on urban and suburban areas (where most people live), and data on air quality in other areas are not as rich. † Recent Government Accountability Office reports highlight these challenges. These include GAO-02-186: Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation’s Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters and GAO-00-54: Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. ‡ State Natural Heritage programs collect, analyze, and distribute data on rare and declining species and ecological communities. Natural Heritage programs are generally operated by state agencies and supported with state funds. However, the coordination, technical support, and national-scale data integration for this monitoring system is carried out by a not-for-profit entity, NatureServe.


35


that the data are important for a wide range of uses.* However, despite the recognition that these data represent an important national asset, federal support remains limited to projects in which agencies seek data or analyses for specific purposes. These ad hoc arrangements do not provide support for core maintenance and enhancement of the overall monitoring and data management enterprise, are not predictable from year to year, are not coordinated by the originating agencies, and do not support state-based data collection, which provides the majority of the program’s data. (We note that the Administration’s FY07 budget includes a proposal to provide some core funding to NatureServe.)

Important Elements of the Nation’s Ecological Data Collection and Reporting System Are Operated through Ad Hoc Interagency Arrangements. Important assets of enduring utility should be managed and planned for in ways that are commensurate with their value and designed to ensure their periodic production and long-term continuity. Failure to do so makes multiyear program planning difficult and leaves important choices to the vagaries of year-by-year funding. Stability is increased through statutory authorization, acknowledgment in appropriations, long-term program planning, and the like. The National Land Cover Data program, which produces the National Land Cover Data Set (NLCD),† is a case in which an ad hoc entrepreneurial initiative has not evolved into a more structured program, although there are promising signs that this will change. NLCD’s institutional setting is both an enormous strength and a potentially major weakness. NLCD was developed by an interagency consortium (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics, MRLC), whose members include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). EPA and USGS share administration of the consortium. This consortium was initiated in 1992 in response to the escalating costs of acquiring satellite images, and it produced both significant savings for each agency and a highly valued data set. NLCD users are legion, with many eagerly anticipating the 2000–2001 data set, because it has the potential to provide the most fine-grained, two-time-period view of the nation’s landscape ever available. Entrepreneurial development of this effort was crucial to its success, but its relative lack of formal structure and its funding strategy—which relies upon contributions from a number of offices in different agencies, often on an annual basis—mean that the program cannot plan for the long term, may not be able to meet expectations in a timely fashion, and may have to defer key elements of the effort. For example, USGS has announced that the completion of * A wide range of organizations rely on Natural Heritage data. These include the industry-initiated Sustainable Forestry Initiative; the Forest Stewardship Council (a forest certification effort with origins in the environmental community); EPA, in its Draft Report on the Environment 2003 and in management decisions such as those involving pesticides; The Heinz Center, in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report; other federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department of Transportation, and hundreds if not thousands of local governments, state government agencies, conservation groups, businesses, and consulting firms. † This data set is a product of Landsat-based observations and provides information on land cover across the United States. A full NLCD for the lower 48 states was produced for the early 1990s, and a second is in preparation for 2000/2001. See: http://landcover.usgs.gov/natllandcover.asp.

36

THE HEINZ CENTER

CHALLENGES TO THE NATION’S ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING INFRASTRUCTURE

the second round of the NLCD data set for the lower 48 states—using 2000/2001 data—will not be completed until late 2007,* greatly compromising their utility. In addition, there have been concerns that funding would not be available to make the 2000–2001 data set directly comparable with the early 1990s data set, which further limits the potential uses of the product. USGS has stated that the program needs to be placed on an operational footing, with a fiveyear data production cycle, and interagency discussions have begun recently to develop a plan to do so.

Research and Development Programs Are Fundamentally Different from Operational Monitoring Programs, and It Is Important To Ensure Smooth Transitions between the Two. Research and development (R&D) monitoring programs undertake exploratory scientific research and design monitoring tools and methods. Operational programs have as their main goal the guaranteed, routine, and sustained delivery of established suites of monitoring data.† The two types of program have different management, design, and cost structures. It is important to transform proven R&D programs into effective long-term operational monitoring assets. For example, EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) has pioneered the introduction of statistically based approaches for monitoring ecological conditions over large areas and has designed both specific indicators and overall assessment strategies. But EMAP is not an operational program, having neither the field capabilities nor the resources for ongoing nationwide monitoring efforts. Rather, EMAP strategies must be adopted by other EPA programs, states, and so on, leaving EMAP to focus on its R&D mission, while agencies with an operational mandate manage ongoing efforts. For example, EMAP developed monitoring strategies now being tested for potential nationwide implementation under the aegis of the Clean Water Act; if these strategies are widely adopted by states, this would be a successful transition. The EMAP-initiated National Coastal Condition report faces a similar challenge. Simply put, there is no established mechanism to identify the most promising R&D products and craft strategies to transition these efforts into operational mode.‡ Such strategies might include identifying funding and institutional locations, devising incentives for adoption, and the like. A challenge facing the management of the nation’s monitoring infrastructure is to move promising and important elements toward a situation in which the data the nation seeks is collected periodically, with full national coverage, and by an institution whose management and orientation are operational in nature. * This includes land cover, impervious surface, and percent tree canopy. Data for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico will be completed in 2008. In addition, accuracy assessments for each of these data sets will not be available for 1–2 years after the dates noted here. † This definition is derived from the report of the First Annual Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Development Plan, a report of the National Ocean Leadership Council (December 2004, prepared by Ocean.US). ‡ There are examples of the successful transition of R&D products into operational use. USGS’s National Water Quality Assessment, for example, has developed and implemented new monitoring techniques for contaminant monitoring. Such examples, however, are different from the programmatic transition, in which it is an overall program, rather than specific methods within a program, that is converted from R&D to operational status.


37

Increasing Breadth of Coverage, Regularity


Operational

Research/Ad hoc

Increasing Structure, Predictability

FIGURE 3.

Monitoring Programs Should Be Managed through a Predictable Developmental Cycle.

Figure 3 illustrates a generic pathway through which important and successful monitoring reporting programs should progress. Different programs described here may be located in different regions of this graph, but the movement should be toward the upper right. For example, the National Streamwater Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN), which provided much of the data for the nitrogen yield and load in rivers indicator from the 2002 report, is an established, operational program. However, as is noted in this report, additional spatial coverage is needed. Thus, NASQAN might be viewed as being located in the right-hand side of the figure, near the middle (because it already has significant, but not full, spatial coverage), with a goal of moving into the upper right corner. In fact, as was noted in a recent GAO report,* NASQAN’s ability to provide broad spatial coverage is being reduced.

* U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Environmental Information: Status of Federal Data Programs That Support Ecological Indicators. GAO-05-376.

38

THE HEINZ CENTER

CHAPTER 5

Integration of Monitoring Efforts: Benefits, Risks, Obstacles, Costs, and Principles As suggested in the preceding chapter, integration of the nation’s fragmented environmental monitoring efforts would improve the collection, analysis, and reporting of data on a national scale. By integration, we mean both strategic assessment of overall monitoring objectives— What needs to be monitored and which entity should undertake which elements of this overall agenda?—and tactical linkages, in which specific tools and techniques can be reconciled to produce data of wider utility. Such improvement would, in turn, lead to improved decision making. This chapter deals with the potential benefits and costs of increased integration of the nation’s environmental monitoring programs, and identifies several key principles that should be considered in designing any such integration efforts. Again, it must be emphasized that the work of filling the ten high-priority data gaps should not wait for action on integration. The observations and recommendations in this chapter are largely derived from a dialogue convened by The Heinz Center in May 2005; participants included senior principals in federal and nonfederal monitoring organizations, representatives from the White House,* congressional staff, and state government officials. The starting point for discussions was the set of challenges outlined in Chapter 4, and the goal was to identify risks of, obstacles to, and costs of increased program integration, and to identify principles that should inform any such integration efforts.† The United States has many programs and entities that monitor environmental conditions, but these efforts generally operate independently of one another, and they have many different missions and mandates. Improved integration—increasing the degree to which these programs provide consistent, comparable information on environmental conditions, and ensuring that monitoring is targeted at scales and environmental features of the highest priority— has the potential to improve the nation’s return on its investment in these programs, but it is not without cost or risk. There are two broad and distinct types of integration—“tactical” and “strategic”—that can be achieved, and they require different management strategies, different resources, and * Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Council on Environmental Quality. † This chapter is a modified version of the summary of this dialogue, which was provided to all participants for review in draft form. The dialogue summary, which also includes a meeting agenda and list of attendees, is available at http://www.heinzctr. org/ecosystems/MeetingSummary05_27.pdf.


39


involvement by different levels within the involved agencies. Both strategic and tactical integration should be fostered as part of an overall monitoring improvement strategy. Tactical integration involves ensuring and enhancing the consistency and compatibility of data, collection and reporting methods, definitions, and similar technical matters. These activities are both time- and human-resource-intensive, and, while generally undertaken at the operational level within organizations, require endorsement and support from higher levels. Strategic integration, on the other hand, involves making choices about what should be monitored, who should undertake the work, what scale and intensity are appropriate, and how programs should be linked together (both in operational terms and as programs are presented to the public and decision makers). This type of activity is generally undertaken at a management level within organizations and often directly involves external customers and constituents.

Caveats Regarding Cost Savings There is a reasonably common perception that increased integration of monitoring programs will result in significant short- to medium-term cost savings (often thought of as “freeing up” funds to expand monitoring into new areas). However, consultations with managers, funders, and those who oversee monitoring programs suggest that this perception is misplaced. Coordination and integration are real tasks that cost money and staff time and that compete for these resources with “actual” monitoring and reporting activities. Cost savings or cost avoidance are not impossible to achieve, but the examples we uncovered applied generally to efficiencies designed into programs at the outset. For example, the NatureServe/Natural Heritage program case provides an example in which centralized development of data standards, methods, software, and other common elements—elements that were built into the program from the beginning—resulted in real cost savings (avoidance) for state programs that would otherwise have had to undertake these tasks individually. In contrast, integrating field methods for multiple monitoring programs requires significant work by program experts to design new, merged approaches, understand the implications for consistency with legacy data, consult with partners and users of the data to ensure that the new methods will be as useful as previous approaches, and the like. Given that large changes in large programs cannot be made quickly—the analogy of turning a supertanker around is not inappropriate for major ongoing programs—it is clear that integration costs money for the near- to medium-term future. Even though short-term cost savings are unlikely, however, integration will produce major benefits for the nation’s environmental monitoring, reporting, and policymaking enterprise. It is possible, however, that future development of a process for assessing the relative importance of monitoring program will enable agreement on the reallocation of resources to higher priority areas.

Major Benefits from Increased Integration While short-term fiscal efficiency may not be a strong argument for integration, such efforts, if driven by clear goals related to improvement of data or program management, can be quite valuable in other ways. In such cases, the benefits of increased integration (both tactical and strategic) are clear and substantial: 40

THE HEINZ CENTER

INTEGRATION OF MONITORING EFFORTS

• Data can be more usable, across more regions and types of land ownership, if common or consistent methods are employed. Such consistency can allow, for example, one state (or federal agency) to compare its data to another’s, allow data from all states and agencies to be aggregated upward to produce national or regional perspectives on issues that cross state or agency boundaries, and allow extraction of subsets of data to “drill down” on particular places of interest. • Competing demands can be reconciled. As it stands, agencies face demands by those requiring management information, accountability information, and large-scale, national reporting information. Addressing the system in a strategic fashion could provide a means to decide which of these has priority, which can be integrated or combined, or where additional resources are most needed. • Programs can focus on—and more effectively communicate—their unique contributions to a larger whole. Broad agreement on the roles to be played by different monitoring entities, or on priorities for enhancement across a range of programs (such as those covered in this report), can allow each program to focus resources on its unique contribution to a larger whole. Such integration would add value to each individual program and help in communicating the importance of programs or program enhancements to decision makers, funders, and other key constituents. • The overall system can be managed more effectively. At present, there are few loci for addressing questions about whether the appropriate monitoring is being conducted, whether it is being done by the appropriate entities (federal, state, private, nonprofit), how to balance on-the-ground, mission-oriented monitoring needs against those required for informing strategic national views, and whether gaps need to be filled or conflicts reconciled. An enterprise as large as the nation’s environmental monitoring infrastructure simply cannot be managed effectively without such a strategic perspective.

Risks, Obstacles, and Costs Human and institutional factors and real fiscal costs are key impediments to increased integration and clearly affect the willingness of organizations and their key staff to undertake the effort in light of personal or institutional costs and risks: • Monitoring program managers may not see integration as helping them do their main job. For example, state agencies may obtain adequate data for their own needs, whether or not those data are comparable to their neighbors’ or are able to be aggregated nationally. Unless there are obvious benefits to the state or agency, integration is often assigned a low priority. • Integration of monitoring programs is hard work and is often not visibly supported by agency management over the lengthy time periods involved in such efforts. Coordination and integration are challenging processes, involving large institutions, complex activities, and multiple users and constituents. Change occurs on the scale of years, not months. However, integration activities compete directly with other tasks with shorter time horizons. Accordingly, lengthy and time-consuming integration work is vulnerable to changing priorities. In at least one case,* a major effort was undertaken to move * An interagency effort to resolve long-standing differences over the definition of the terms forest and rangeland as they are applied in monitoring programs.


41


•

• • •

•

toward resolution of a long-standing definitional issue that hinders data comparability, but the effort was abandoned because of inability to gain the attention of senior management. Integration can be viewed as a risk to continued meeting of an agency’s statutory mandates or its commitments to key client constituent groups or to maintaining the continuity of data series. Clearly, these are important goals, but they need not be absolute bars to integration. There may be multiple ways of achieving these goals, and it may be useful to view these as criteria for evaluating any integration, rather than as reasons for not undertaking the effort in the first place. For example, the language of statutory authorizations is often quite broad, and it could be consistent with a wide range of technical monitoring approaches. In addition, the use of sophisticated data management software can assist in “cross-walking” or “translating” data from one format to another (perhaps to meet the needs and expectations of different constituent groups). Nonetheless, agencies can face significant resistance from their user and supporter communities to proposals for change in program structure or methods. These communities may perceive integration costs as lost opportunities for expanding within current program boundaries. Agencies may fear loss of resources or autonomy through participation in cross-cutting strategic alignment efforts. Some agencies feel that the playing field in such efforts is not level and that their mandates may be sacrificed or their resources reallocated. There are real and often significant fiscal costs to undertaking integration activities. These are in addition to the competition for staff and management attention and the risk of not meeting core mandates. It is difficult, if not impossible, to mandate integration, if the relevant user/university and science communities and agencies are resistant. Successful efforts involve commitment to the integration by the user/research communities, the implementing agencies, and executive offices like OMB and OSTP. Major resistance (even of the passive variety) by any of these can seriously undermine integration efforts. It is becoming more difficult to obtain funding for coordination efforts. There have been instances in which the federal government has staffed and funded interagency coordination efforts (especially multiagency coordination offices such as the Climate Change Science Program mentioned previously). However, our consultations led us to believe that support and funding for such efforts are becoming harder to obtain, for a variety of reasons, including strong fiscal pressures on agencies.

Design Principles for Integration Efforts Several principles should inform any efforts toward either tactical or strategic integration. These principles are listed below, not in order of importance or priority. • Strategic integration efforts in particular should include all “demanders”—those who seek information for particular purposes, such as performance evaluation, program management, or high-level reporting. Otherwise, key needs could be ignored or compromised, and it is often the competing demands from multiple sectors and users that should be at the heart of such efforts. • This should not be a federal-only affair: states, industry, NGOs, and the research community should be involved as priorities are set. Parties outside the federal circle are 42

THE HEINZ CENTER

INTEGRATION OF MONITORING EFFORTS

•

•

•

•

•

•

often major users or providers of monitoring data and should be full partners. This is a nontrivial challenge, even for readily identifiable groups such as states. Design and control/oversight of an integrated system need not imply detailed control over the decisions of each element within that system. Resistance to integration efforts often includes a measure of fear of loss of program control. While there is no doubt that working within a larger framework implies some loss of autonomy, it should be possible to find a balance between the degree of control needed to ensure that “the pieces fit together” and the need for tactical autonomy and flexibility to address constituent needs. Proceed slowly and partially at first. Attempting a grand synthesis that addresses all monitoring needs and programs is likely to fail. Nonetheless, progress could be made on integration of component elements, while also providing valuable lessons on how to undertake this work. A corollary principle is that some level of strategic overview is useful and important. Integration is not an all-or-nothing affair, nor is it a one-time affair. Our consultations led to the conclusion that developing even the beginnings of a guiding vision and committing to improve it over time is a desirable and useful starting point. According to a participant in the Heinz Center dialogue*: “Experience has shown that when a credible organization creates (formulates) an architecture and guidelines for integration and publishes it (with opportunities for feedback to refine and evolve the architecture and guidelines) the community will begin to adopt/adapt the architecture and guidelines . . . as a matter of course.” Discussions of the importance or benefits of integration should not be interpreted as negating the need for increased resources for monitoring overall. New data needs remain and should not be ignored as integration is pursued. (This report recommends investments in improved data collection and analysis, but not at the expense of existing monitoring programs.) Both strategic and tactical integration require high-level agency and organization commitment, involvement, and support. The complexities associated with data integration necessitate a concerted, systematic, and stable commitment over time. Currently, no entity has the responsibility, authority, or resources to accomplish this task single-handedly. Agency commitment from the highest levels is essential to provide the foundation for such an initiative. Focus on incentives for modifying programs and behavior. Many of the obstacles to increased integration are human and institutional, and a clear view of what motivates entities to participate or shy away from such efforts is required. Factors such as shared benefits, clear (and shared) roles and responsibilities, and appropriate credit for contributions are potential incentives. Early success might best be achieved by focusing on new monitoring efforts, but it is not practical to ignore the mass of legacy programs that could benefit from increased integration. New programs, lacking entrenched histories, cultures, and constituencies, are likely to be easier to mold and shape into more coherent systems. However, given the relative lack of new programs and funding, most opportunities for improvement lie with existing programs.

* A “ground rule” for the May 2005 dialogue was that participants’ statements would not be directly attributed.


43

CHAPTER 6

Moving Forward Throughout this report, we have recommended many actions that should be taken to improve the collection and reporting of data on the state of the nation’s ecosystems, but in most instances we do not recommend which entity should take the action. In particular, we do not specify which agencies should undertake the work necessary to fill our recommended ten key data gaps (or whether the work should be undertaken by federal, state, or private entities or some combination thereof ). We have deliberately left this part of the prescription blank, because decisions about which entity should undertake these activities involve such issues as state–federal relations; agency missions, mandates, and responsibilities to other programs and constituents; and budgets. Some of these decisions are political decisions, not technical ones, involving judgments about appropriate spheres of action and allocation of resources and responsibilities. Our expertise lies in identifying the need to fill the gaps and in identifying which gaps should be filled first.

Whose Court Is the Ball in? The nation’s environmental monitoring infrastructure is highly decentralized, and therefore responsibilities for addressing inadequacies are also highly decentralized. We do not, in this report, recommend the creation of a single “czar” or coordinating body; this degree of centralization should be undertaken only after much thought and deliberation, if at all. That said, we have made a number of recommendations about how smaller, targeted efforts could reduce the fragmented nature of the current system. Many of the actions recommended in this report can be undertaken within the normal channels of agency program management, budgeting, and priority setting. Individual agencies can assess their potential to assist in filling various gaps and move toward implementation. We encourage all agencies (and organizations) to look at these recommendations and address those portions they believe are within their ambit. Agencies should also undertake and support integration and coordination efforts wherever possible. Entities with direct budgetary oversight—specifically, the Office of Management and Budget and congressional appropriations committees—can be helpful in addressing issues that are limited to one agency, but can also play a key role in encouraging agencies to address cross-agency issues, supporting the activities needed to achieve greater coordination (and greater utility of the resulting information). STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

45


Entities with oversight roles—congressional authorizing committees, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Council on Environmental Quality—can use the various tools at their disposal (e.g., interagency initiatives, oversight hearings and questions) to encourage the development and implementation of solutions that address both the specific gaps identified as high priorities in this report and the broader issues of coordination and integration. Given the potential importance of state governments and nongovernmental organizations in collecting and managing the data for many of these gaps, we believe that states and NGOs should participate as fully as is practical, given their own budgetary situations and programmatic demands, in efforts to improve the consistency and coordination of monitoring and reporting. Federal agencies should engage states and NGOs as vigorously as possible in addressing these issues. An example of this type of activity—requiring the concerted actions of many different entities—is the creation of a coastal water quality monitoring network design, which was called for by President Bush in response to the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.* This network, for which a preliminary design has been completed, would be based on and would integrate the expertise and resources of several federal agencies and the states to provide better information about the sources of water pollution in our nation’s coastal areas. The design of this type of network is a challenge in itself, because it requires consideration of changes to the current practices of many states and agencies. The implementation—and especially the funding—of such an effort is likewise complex, because it requires many entities with authorizing, oversight, budgetary, and implementation roles to consider the implications of their actions for entities outside their “normal” sphere of action. Funding for this plan would probably have to move through multiple appropriations subcommittees and be incorporated into several appropriations bills and flow to (and likely be augmented by) multiple states. Unless each one of these actors is motivated by a larger purpose, and unless their efforts are placed within the context of an overall design, such an effort can easily fail. However, the integrated and collaborative development of this initiative increases the potential for such a larger vision to drive the process.

Meeting the Challenge This report recommends filling specific gaps to provide data for key indicators of ecosystem condition and use, and it identifies key challenges and possible strategies for increasing the integration of the nation’s monitoring and reporting capabilities. Meeting these challenges will require action by many independent entities. We recognize the historic challenge posed by these recommendations, and the real obstacles to success. Nevertheless, we believe such actions are crucial if the nation is to obtain, in an effective and efficient manner, the information needed to understand the status of and trends in our nation’s natural resource base.

* This effort and its genesis are described at http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/monitoring/network/ceq_proposal.html.

46

THE HEINZ CENTER

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

Elements Included in Cost Estimates Table A.1 (see next page) shows the elements of data reporting that were included by the agency or institution making the estimate, as well as whether the estimate is for start-up costs, ongoing monitoring, or both. Agencies and experts familiar with the requirements for filling the gaps described in this report provided estimates of the costs to report these data completely. The table shows which elements of data reporting the agencies included in the estimate they provided to The Heinz Center. The ✓ or ✕ in the first two columns indicates whether the estimate included start-up costs for a new data reporting effort and/or yearly estimates for ongoing reporting. The next four columns describe how the estimate incorporated costs for development and testing of methods, data collection, data archiving and distribution, and data processing and analysis.


49

TA B L E A . 1

Elements Included in Cost Estimates Does estimate include both start-up and ongoing (long-term) costs?

Does estimate cover all major elements of monitoring/reporting?a

Initial/Start-up Ongoing

Methods Development

Data Collection

Archiving & Distribution

Processing & Analysis

✓ ✓ ✓ partial

✓ ✓ ✓ partial

NN NN NN NN

A A A A

A A A A

I I I I

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

NN NN NN

A A A

A A A

I I I

✓ ✕ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ ✓

I NN I NN NN — NN

I I I NN I — A

A A I NN A — A

I I I I (partial) I — I

✕

✓

NN

I

A

I

✕

✓

NN

I

A

I

✕

✕

—

—

—

—

✕

✕

—

—

—

—

✓

✓

NN

I

A

I

✓ ✓ ✓

I I I

I I I

A A A

I I I

✓

✓

NN

NN

I

I

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

NN I

A A

I A

I I

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

NN I NN NN

A A A A

I A A A

I I I I

✕ ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕

✕ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕

— I I NN —

— I I I —

— A A A —

— I I I —

✕

✕

—

—

—

—

✕

✓

—

I

A

I

Stream Habitat and Riparian Condition Farmlands Stream habitat quality Fresh Waters Stream habitat quality Grass/Shrublands Riparian condition

✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓

I I I

I I I

A A A

I I I

Groundwater Levels

✓

✓

I

I

A

I

DATA GAP Landscape Pattern (remote sensing analysis) Core National Landscape pattern Farmland Fragmentation by development Forests Forest pattern & fragmentation Fresh Waters, Riparian vegetation Urban/Suburban Grass/Shrublands Area and size of patches Urban/Suburban Suburban/rural land use change Urban/Suburban Total impervious area Extent of Specific Habitat Elements Coasts & Oceans Coastal wetlands (west coast) Coasts & Oceans Coral reef extent Coasts & Oceans Seagrass extent Fresh Waters Impounded stream area Fresh Waters Altered wetlands Fresh Waters Channelized or leveed streams Urban/Suburban Total impervious area Contaminants Related to Human Exposure Core National Chemical contaminants (freshwater fish, edible) Core National Chemical contaminants (saltwater, edible) Coasts & Oceans Selected contaminants in fish and shellfish (for human consumption) Urban/Suburban Contaminated soils Nitrogen Loading in Major Rivers, Nitrogen Yield

Carbon Storage in Ecosystems (including soil organic matter) Farmlands Soil organic matter ✓ Forests Forest carbon storage ✕ Grass/Shrublands Grass/shrub carbon storage ✓ At-Risk Species and Communities Core National At-risk species (overarching gaps) Forests At-risk forest plants Forests Forest communities— significantly reduced area Fresh Waters At-risk plants Fresh Waters At-risk riparian communities Grass/Shrublands At-risk grass/shrub plants Coasts & Oceans At-risk plants and animals Non-native Species Forests Grass/Shrublands Farmland Fresh Waters Coasts & Oceans

Non-native plant cover Non-native plant cover Non-native vegetation Non-native freshwater species Non-native species

Biological Community Condition Core National Condition of plant and animal communities Fresh Waters Status of animal communities

a NN, not needed; A, assumed to be covered by established channels and not requiring additional funds; I, included explicitly in the cost estimate; —, further development of indicator needed.

50

THE HEINZ CENTER

APPENDIX B

Potential Changes to Data Requirements Resulting from Refinements to the 2002 Report’s Indicators CORE NATIONAL INDICATORS

The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report included ten “core national indicators”—a set intended to describe large-scale trends affecting all lands and waters in the United States, as contrasted with the larger number of ecosystem-specific indicators in the other chapters of the report (coasts and oceans, farmlands, forests, fresh waters, grasslands and shrublands, and urban and suburban areas). Refinement of the core national indicators is a high priority as we prepare for the 2007 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. None of the refinements to the core national indicators is expected to change the nature of the improvements to data collection and reporting methods recommended in this report. LANDSCAPE PATTERN INDICATORS AND GAPS

The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report included seven indicators describing various aspects of landscape pattern—a broad term that includes issues such as fragmentation of natural habitat, the degree to which different land types are intermingled, and expansion of development, often referred to as “sprawl.” While many of these indicators described similar features, overall they were challenging to explain to our intended audience and were not consistent or comparable across ecosystem types, and some were undefined or “in need of further development.” The Heinz Center is currently working to reduce the differences in the way this important ecosystem characteristic is reported. A Task Group, chaired by Norman Christensen of Duke University, is in the final stages of identifying a suite of revised indicators. The Heinz Center expects to issue the Task Group’s report in early 2006. The landscape pattern data gaps described in this report generally highlight the need for • Adequately funded capacity for processing existing, available land cover data, generally focusing on the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). This applies to the gaps for the core national indicator, farmland, forest, grassland/shrubland, and urban/suburban indicators. The revised indicators will not change the need for this capacity. They may identify additional analyses that would utilize such capability (see paragraphs immediately below), but this is not expected to have a material effect on the resources required. STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

51


The work of the Task Group has emphasized the need for credible comparisons between multiple time points using the NLCD data. While this has been an implicit data need, we were unaware of the particular demands that such change analyses place on the NLCD data program. We understand that efforts are under way to reconcile the 1992 NLCD with the 2001 NLCD for some regions, but it is unclear if such a reconciliation process is fully funded for the entire data set. In addition, the new suite of indicators is likely to highlight the need to identify housing locations near farmland areas. The NLCD currently identifies an estimated 50% of the housing in these areas, and since low-density housing/suburban development is a significant concern, one of the new indicators will focus on the proximity of housing to farm fields. In 2007, this indicator will likely be reported using NLCD data, but finer scale data would be desirable. Data on our nation’s road network are very likely to be necessary for one or more revised indicators (to be combined with land cover data), and we are anticipating a data gap dealing with the road network databases. Specifically, these databases have not been set up from a monitoring perspective, with one result being that data are not included that would enable distinctions to be made between newly constructed roads and those that had been in the database for years. An associated problem would be distinguishing a newly constructed road from an older road that was just recently added to the database. Because this data need has recently emerged, we are unable to predict the cost to fill this data gap; we surmise, however, based on limited contact with this database, that this cost might be substantial. USGS, in collaboration with the Census Bureau, and other federal, state, and local government partners, is developing a national seamless geodatabase on roads as one of the primary (framework) data layers for The National Map.* The objective of this effort is to keep these data as accurate and current as possible by working with partners to integrate data into the national holdings. The data model for this database does allow for some tracking of changes to the database—for example, to distinguish newly constructed roads from those that had been previously shown in the database. • Improvements to the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) by reconciling this data set with others that describe the location of dams (primarily the Army Corps of Engineers’ national dam data set), and periodic comparisons of the NHD with the National Land Cover Dataset. The revised indicators reinforce the need for this reconciliation. They will likely identify the need for analyses of the reconciled NHD dam database (NHD data reconciled with Corps of Engineers’ data, plus probably other sources), which would utilize capabilities similar to those identified above. It is important to note, however, that even when this reconciliation is complete, substantial analysis and processing will be required to produce useful indicators. This work would require analytical capacity similar to that described above. Presumably, once this capacity is provided, the analyses described here could be undertaken without incurring major costs. • Identification of “total impervious area”—lands covered by pavement, buildings, and similar surfaces through which water cannot percolate. The revised indicators will not change the need for these data. • Identification of vegetation on stream banks (riparian vegetation). The National Land Cover Dataset, when combined with the National Hydrography Dataset, can provide estimates of the fraction of streams with vegetation (or development or agriculture) on and around stream banks. The revised indicators do not change the need for these data. * The National Map is a collaborative effort, organized primarily by the U.S. Geological Survey, to provide a framework and process for organizing and making available in a consistent format large amounts of geographic information. See http://nationalmap.gov.

52

THE HEINZ CENTER

APPENDIX B: REFINEMENTS TO 2002 INDICATORS

• Finer scale data on stream bank vegetation for urban and suburban areas. In these areas, where streams may be closely intermingled among developed areas, the resolution of the NHD is insufficient to track whether the stream bank and the riparian area immediately adjacent to the stream bank (i.e., within several feet to tens or at most one hundred feet from the water’s edge) is vegetated. The revised indicators do not change the need for these data. NON-NATIVE SPECIES INDICATORS AND GAPS

As with landscape pattern, the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report included multiple indicators describing various aspects of the extent and distribution of non-native species. While many of these indicators described similar features, they were not consistent or comparable across ecosystem types, and one was undefined or “in need of further development.” The Heinz Center is currently working to reduce the differences in the way this important ecosystem characteristic is reported. A Task Group chaired by Ann Bartuska of the USDA Forest Service has identified a suite of revised indicators. The non-native species data gaps described in this report generally highlight the need for • Identification of the degree of non-native plant cover in multiple ecosystems (forests, grasslands/ shrublands, farmlands) • Identification of the occurrence of non-native species in freshwater watersheds (number of species in each watershed) In addition, there is an undefined indicator for coastal and ocean areas that would likely require information on both the number of species and the areas occupied. Because it is undefined, no cost estimates can be provided. The revised indicators now under consideration focus on overall invasion levels (percent of species that are non-native), number of new invasions per unit time, non-native plant cover, degree of damage from non-native plant pathogens and pests, and extent of non-native diseases of animals. We expect that the 2007 report will identify one of these foci for each of the six major ecosystems and one as a core national indicator. While the specifics of these choices are unclear at this time, it is important to improve the information base on the extent, distribution, and impacts of non-native species, both for national reporting and for on-theground management. Commitments to increased monitoring capability should not be delayed.


53

APPENDIX C

Full Descriptions of Highest Priority Gaps and Clusters Appendixes C and D provide further information on all the data gaps identified in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. Appendix C offers detail on the high-priority gaps identified in the body of this report—those that demand action in the near term. For each gap or cluster of gaps, a summary is followed by detailed descriptions of such individual elements as cost, feasibility rating, and options for filling the gap. It should be kept in mind that all the indicators in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report were identified as vital to a broad and comprehensive understanding of conditions and trends in the nation’s ecosystems and thus worthy of future action. Clearly, it would be wrong to assume that gaps not included here in the highest priority category are irrelevant or unimportant. On the contrary, all the gaps identified in the 2002 report represent important elements of the condition or use of U.S. ecosystems and thus should be filled as resources are available. E X T E N T A N D L O C AT I O N

Extent of Specific Habitat Elements, 57 Coasts and Oceans Coastal wetlands (West Coast), 58 Coasts and Oceans Coral reef extent, 59 Coasts and Oceans Seagrass extent, 60 Fresh Waters Impounded stream area, 61 Fresh Waters Altered wetlands, 61 Fresh Waters Channelized or leveed streams, 62 Urban/Suburban Riparian/stream bank vegetation (also included in Landscape Pattern cluster, p. 67), 63 Urban/Suburban Total impervious area (urban/suburban) (also included in Landscape Pattern cluster, p. 68), 63 Landscape Pattern—Analysis of Remote Sensing Data, 63 Core National Landscape pattern, 64 Farmlands Farmland fragmentation by development, 65 Forests Forest pattern and fragmentation, 66 Grasslands/Shrublands Area and size of grassland and shrubland patches, 66 Urban/Suburban Suburban/rural land use change, 67 Fresh Waters Riparian vegetation (Altered lake and pond shoreline), 67 Urban/Suburban Riparian vegetation (Stream bank vegetation), 67 Urban/Suburban Total impervious area (also included in the Habitat Extent cluster, p. 63), 68 STATE OF THE NATION’S ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT

55


CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Chemical Contaminants Related to Human Exposure, 69 Core National Chemical contaminants (freshwater fish, edible), 70 Core National Chemical contaminants (saltwater fish, edible), 71 Coasts and Oceans Selected contaminants in fish and shellfish (for human consumption), 72 Urban/Suburban Contaminated soils, 73 Nitrogen Loading in Rivers, Nitrogen Yield, 73 Core National Movement of nitrogen, 74 Carbon Storage in Ecosystems (Including Soil Organic Matter), 74 Farmlands Soil organic matter, 75 Forests Forest carbon storage, 76 Grasslands/Shrublands Grassland/shrubland carbon storage, 77 CONDITION OF SPECIES AND BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES

At-Risk Species and Communities, 77 Core National At-risk native species (overarching data gaps: actual trends versus threats, naturally rare versus declining trend data), 78 Coasts and Oceans At-risk native marine animals, 80 Forests At-risk native forest plants, 81 Forests Forest communities—significantly reduced area, 82 Fresh Waters At-risk native freshwater and wetland plants, 82 Fresh Waters At-risk riparian communities, 83 Grasslands/Shrublands At-risk grassland/shrubland plants, 84 Non-native Species, 84 Coasts and Oceans Non-native species, 86 Forests Forest non-native plant cover, 86 Grasslands/Shrublands Grass/shrub non-native plant cover, 86 Farmlands Native vegetation in farmland areas, 87 Fresh Waters Non-native freshwater species, 88 Biological Community Condition Measurements, 89 Core National Condition of plant and animal communities, 89 Fresh Waters Status of freshwater animal communities, 89 Stream and Riparian Habitat Condition, 91 Farmlands Stream habitat quality, 91 Fresh Waters Stream habitat quality, 91 Grasslands/Shrublands Riparian condition, 91 HUMAN USES OF ECOSYSTEMS

Groundwater Levels, 92 Fresh Waters

56

Groundwater levels, 92

THE HEINZ CENTER

APPENDIX C: FULL DESCRIPTIONS OF HIGHEST PRIORITY GAPS AND CLUSTERS

E X T E N T A N D L O C AT I O N Extent of Specific Habitat Elements Gap or Cluster Definition This gap consists of a number of individual gaps, each of which requires the extent or area of specific habitat elements. With one exception, all are aquatic habitat components (and the exception, total impervious area, is of concern largely because of its effect on aquatic systems). • Coastal wetlands (West Coast only) • Coral reef extent • Seagrass extent • Impounded stream area • Altered wetlands area

• Channelized or leveed streams (miles) • Stream bank vegetation (width and length) (in both urban/ suburban areas and nationwide) • Total impervious area (in both urban/suburban areas and nationwide) Costs To Fill This Gap This cluster contains a number of disparate elements, cost estimates for many of which are not available. Individual costs range from nominal or zero to about $2 million per year. See the table below. Feasibility Rating Most of these gaps are “highly and immediately feasible” or “moderately feasible.” Only one, identification of the area of channelized or leveed streams, is considered “challenging.”

Extent of Specific Habitiat Elements GAP DESCRIPTION

FEASIBILITY

INITIAL COST

ANNUAL COSTS

COMMENTS

Highly and immediately

Unknown

$0 (NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program)

Data would be inconsistent with freshwater wetlands data and would not distinguish coastal from other wetlands

$250,000 (FWS)

$10,000–100,000/year (USFWS National Wetlands Inventory)

Lower costs are for sampling; higher costs are for full mapping Currently funded until 2007

COASTAL ELEMENTS Coastal wetlands West Coast only)

Coral reef extent


Unknown

$1.0 million per year

Seagrass extent

Moderately

Existing sources $250,000 (assessment of sources)

Costs not available until assessment complete

New federal program $3.0 million (pilot study)

$18 million per 10-year cycle, or $1.8 million per year

FRESHWATER ELEMENTS Impounded stream area


$750,000 to $1 million minimum

Not available

Altered wetlands area

Moderately

Not available

Not available

Channelized or leveed streams (miles)

Challenging

Not available

Not available

Stream bank vegetation (width and length) (in both urban/suburban areas and nationwide)

Moderately

Not available

Not available


$525,000 to $650,000 (current cycle)

$0 to $1.65 million per reporting cycle (future cycles)

OTHER Total impervious area (in both urban/suburban areas and nationwide)


Uncertainties result from lack of ability to predict agency contributions to project

57


About the Gaps Coasts and Oceans Coasts and Oceans Coasts and Oceans Fresh Waters Fresh Waters Fresh Waters Urban/Suburban Urban/Suburban

Coastal wetlands (West Coast) Coral reef extent Seagrass extent Impounded stream area Altered wetlands Channelized or leveed streams Total impervious area (urban/suburban) (also included in Landscape Pattern cluster, p. 68) Riparian/stream bank vegetation

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Coastal living habitats (coral reefs, wetlands, seagrasses, and shellfish beds) DATA GAP Data for wetlands on the West Coast Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap—Options National Wetlands $1.0 million every analysis Inventory: full mapping period (e.g., 10 years) (West Coast) National Wetlands $250,000 to establish Inventory: status and baseline trends estimate $75,000 every analysis period (e.g., 10 years) NOAA C-CAP No additional cost

Indicator The overall indicator reports the acreage over time of coastal habitats whose defining feature is that they are composed of living organisms (seagrasses, mangrove forests, and coastal wetlands) or are built by them (coral reefs, shellfish beds). The Data Gap Data for coastal wetlands from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (FWS, NWI) excluded the Pacific coast, where coastal wetlands are “patchily distributed.” The NWI methodology (see below) could not capture statistically valid information on this wetland type in areas with such patchy distribution. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because there are two existing programs with the capability of providing large-scale (i.e., regional, national) data on wetlands extent. These are the NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory. There would be developmental issues in designing a program to report on this gap, but these are judged to be well within the capabilities of these agencies. Options for Filling This Data Gap There are four potential methods for filling this data gap. The first involves a NOAA program (Coastal Change Analysis Program) that identifies land cover (including wetlands) in the coastal zone. The second and third are based on existing or improved methods used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory. The fourth

58

involves amalgamation and perhaps enhancement of available state data on coastal wetlands. Coastal Change Analysis Program NOAA is conducting a land cover and land cover change inventory of the whole U.S. coastal zone through the Coastal Change Analysis Program. The inventory is based on analysis of remotely sensed data in conjunction with other spatial data such as elevation, hydrology, infrastructure, and National Wetland Inventory (where available). C-CAP products report the presence, location, and acreage of land cover categories, including freshwater and estuarine wetlands. The relative scale of C-CAP data makes it most suitable to broad-area or regional analyses. The NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program can provide data on wetland occurrence within certain distances of the coast (these data do not distinguish between coastal and other wetland types, although these distinctions can sometimes be inferred from location). The inland extent of C-CAP coverage includes the U.S. coastal zone, as well as significant estuarine drainage areas. Acreage calculations can be made from various distances away from the shoreline, but any such limitation is arbitrary, and will likely include some freshwater wetlands in some areas and miss some coastal wetlands in others. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory is charged with providing comprehensive data on national status and trends, including coastal wetlands, on a 10-year cycle. At present, combining FWS-NWI and C-CAP data is challenging, because of significant differences in methodologies, and there have been few comparisons of the results of the two methods (or those used by state or federal regulatory agencies). Wetlands estimates for the U.S. coastal zone could be provided by C-CAP with no additional funding. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory The National Wetlands Inventory has two primary products—maps identifying the location and type of wetlands in the United States and “status and trend” reports prepared every 10 years in response to congressional mandate. So far, NWI has mapped 90% of the lower 48 states and 34% of Alaska. About 44% of the lower 48 states and 13% of Alaska is digitized. NWI is currently bringing together all digitally mapped wetlands data for the United States and would be able to produce reports summarizing the type and extent of wetlands based on existing map data.* However, the information in the digital maps is dated—much of it was created

* This may require digitizing some additional maps, but this is believed to be minimal.

THE HEINZ CENTER


with aerial photography from the 1980s. Thus, this approach would be useful only if resources were available to update the maps. NWI estimates that periodic updates of the wetlands maps for the West Coast would cost approximately $1 million per update (these would be undertaken perhaps once a decade). It is important to note that this approach would produce very high-quality results—since they are based on a census, not statistical sampling. However, since the estimates of wetlands trends for the East and Gulf coasts are from statistical sampling programs (see below), the results would not be strictly comparable. NWI “status and trends” methodology relies on permanent, randomly selected 4-square-mile plots that serve as the basis for periodic estimates of wetland area and change.* This methodology is not sufficient to derive statistically sound estimates for certain wetlands types in certain ecological settings, including coastal wetlands on the West Coast. NWI estimates that a new and independent sampling design could be implemented, at a cost of approximately $250,000 for an initial baseline survey and an additional $75,000 per assessment cycle (currently every ten years) in order to determine trends. These data would be directly comparable with the data for the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, as reported in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. State Wetland Data States have active wetland conservation, management, and regulatory programs, and many states have gathered data on wetlands extent and change. We contacted the four West Coast states (California, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska) and received a response from Oregon, indicating that the state has conducted a statewide coastal wetlands survey, including change estimates. However, this survey used the “full census” approach noted in the NWI discussion above and was in fact conducted by NWI staff. In addition, the study (using 2002 data and comparing them to mid-1980s reference photos) is a one-time-only study; costs for updating are not currently programmed by the state. Thus, this method does not appear to provide an alternative approach for filling this gap.

* The NWI methodology uses a permanent study design, based initially on stratification of the 48 conterminous states by state boundaries and 35 physiographic subdivisions. Within these subdivisions are 4375 randomly selected 4-square-mile (2560 acres) sample plots. These plots were examined with the use of aerial imagery, ranging in scale and type; most were 1:40,000 scale, color infrared, from the National Aerial Photography Program.

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Coastal living habitats (coral reefs, wetlands, seagrasses, and shellfish beds) DATA GAP Lack of data on the extent of coral reefs Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Baseline mapping Funded if current allocations continue to 2007 Updates Up to $1.0 million per year

Indicator The overall indicator reports the acreage over time of coastal habitats whose defining feature is that they are composed of living organisms (such as seagrasses, mangrove forests, and coastal wetlands) or are built by them (such as coral reefs or shellfish beds). The Data Gap Most coral reefs in U.S. waters, especially those in the Pacific Ocean, have not been accurately mapped with modern techniques and at a scale relevant to emerging conservation issues. However, in March 2000 the federal interagency Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) released a plan of action (http://coralreef.gov/CRTFAxnPlan9.PDF) committing the agencies to produce comprehensive digital maps of all coral reefs in the United States and trust territories. This interagency effort will produce maps at both low and high resolutions that address locally identified conservation and management needs. NOAA estimates that, with continuation of existing funding, all shallow coral reefs (those in water less than about 100 feet, or 30 meters, deep) will be mapped by 2009. However, we are unaware of any funds currently programmed for updates of this mapping. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because a program has been put in place to accomplish the baseline mapping for this task, and a formal structure created for continuing coordination of monitoring activities. The CRTF is conducting baseline mapping, and Executive Order 13089 provides for interagency and intergovernmental coordination of monitoring. The methods for collecting these data, except for deep-water reefs, are reasonably well developed. Options for Filling This Data Gap NOAA estimates that approximately $1 million annually would be required to fund satellite-based monitoring to detect changes in the extent of coral reefs on a semi-annual basis with a 4-m resolution. Costs would presumably be lower if data were collected less frequently. USGS and other agencies also fund related efforts and coordination between these multiple elements, and a focus on critical areas defined by state and local entities, would be quite useful.


59


SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Coastal living habitats (coral reefs, wetlands, seagrasses, and shellfish beds) DATA GAP Seagrasses: adequate geographic coverage and aggregation of existing data Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Assessment of potential of $250,000 existing data sources Pilot study for new program $3.0 million New inventory program $18 million/10 years, or $1.8 million/year Filling gaps in Estimate requires assessexisting sources ment of existing sources

Indicator The overall indicator reports the acreage over time of coastal habitats whose defining feature is that they are composed of living organisms (seagrasses, mangrove forests, and coastal wetlands) or are built by them (coral reefs, shellfish beds). The Data Gap Data for seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation are available for many, but not all, areas. Available data have not been aggregated to determine their feasibility for synthesis to produce national estimates. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “moderately feasible.” There are some uncertainties about the extent, quality, and timeliness of existing data, and there is no well-developed mechanism for assessing these data and institutional linkages for obtaining these data on a consistent basis. In addition, the methods for assessing seagrass extent are not well established, and a moderately scaled pilot study would be required to address technology, basic survey design, and other issues. However, these factors were judged to be manageable, with adequate funding. Options for Filling This Data Gap There are two basic approaches to filling this data gap. The first is to develop a new inventory program focused on statistically valid estimates of seagrass and other submerged aquatic vegetation. The second is to utilize existing data collection efforts undertaken by federal agencies, states, local governments, academic institutions, and the like to develop such estimates. If the second option is chosen, it may be necessary to augment existing efforts, resulting in a hybrid of existing and new efforts. New Inventory Program It would be possible to develop a periodic national survey of seagrasses and submerged aquatic vegetation. Such a program might rely on aerial photogrammetry and acoustic surveys and could have a minimum mapping unit of

60

roughly 0.25 acres. Each iteration of such a survey would require several years to complete, so it might be appropriate to report every five or ten years.* An initial estimate is that such a program would cost about $18 million per 10-year inventory cycle, or about $1.8 million per year. There are a host of design considerations, and NOAA recommends that a pilot study, costing approximately $3 million, be undertaken to enable more informed decision making. Issues to be addressed in such a pilot study include • The definition of vegetation to be covered. Submerged aquatic vegetation includes some species of seagrasses and kelp that exist in relatively clear water, and can thus be surveyed by relatively low-cost optical methods. Other types of submerged habitats, including both deepwater areas and turbid brackish waters, may require more costly (and less accurate) acoustic remote sensing methods. • Advances in technology that might improve results or lower costs. Current remote sensing practices point towards photogrammetry as the principal means of data collection. However, the capabilities of digital photography and multispectral imaging are improving greatly, and they will likely become methods of choice within the next 5 to 10 years. Another focus of the pilot study would be a rigorous examination of the accuracy of acoustic devices, such as side-scan sonar, for delineating seagrass and other submerged vegetation. • Basic design issues such as whether a statistical sampling program could be employed or whether comprehensive coverage is required. This aspect of the study could build on existing partner networks, most notably Chesapeake Bay (Virginia and Maryland), Great Bay (New Hampshire), and Tampa Bay (Florida). • Data demand and delivery issues. The data from such a program would have many collateral uses and would be in high demand by resource agencies, academia, and the private sector. The best ways to meet the demands for this imagery would have to be explored to ensure maximum value is obtained from the overall effort. Use of Existing/Expanded Data Sources The ecological importance of submerged aquatic vegetation has been increasingly recognized in recent years, with a concomitant growth in efforts to understand how extensive these resources are, what factors affect their persistence or decline, how they can be restored, and so on. These studies * However, many large-scale surveys are moving to a continuous inventory approach, where sampling is conducted at a lower level of effort continuously, rather than during a concentrated inventory period. The USDA Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis Program and the NRCS National Resources Inventory are both moving in this direction.

THE HEINZ CENTER


have been undertaken by a wide range of federal, state, local, academic, and other institutions. An assessment of the feasibility of relying upon these existing distributed efforts would require investigation of their scope and methods. The goal would be to determine whether the geographic coverage and sampling strategies are appropriate for use in developing statistically valid estimates and whether the data from different programs are sufficiently similar that they can be combined. If coverage or comparability issues are identified, the assessment would have to explore the feasibility and costs of expanding or restructuring these efforts to address these concerns. Finally, the assessment would have to address institutional issues to ascertain the likely prospect of such a program providing consistent data over the foreseeable future. We estimate the cost of such an investigation at approximately $250,000. A pilot survey to determine the availability and utility of existing data would provide an estimate of the degree to which these sources could be used as a basis for reporting on this indicator.

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Altered freshwater ecosystems DATA GAP Stream/river miles impounded behind dams Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Improvements to National $750,000 to $1.0 million Hydrography Dataset (one time) (also required for the pond/lake shoreline element) Linkage to digital Not available at this time elevation data Assessment of upstream Not available at this time extent of inundation

Indicator This gap is one element of a larger indicator that reports on several freshwater ecosystem components, including • Impounded streams: the percentage of stream and river miles that have been impounded behind a dam • Altered wetlands: wetland acres that have been excavated, impounded, diked, partially drained, or farmed • Leveed or channelized streams: the percentage of stream and river miles that have been leveed or channelized • Riparian vegetation: streams/rivers and naturally occurring pond and lake shoreline-miles that have agricultural or urban/suburban land cover within about 100 feet of the water’s edge (reservoirs and constructed lakes are excluded) This note concerns impounded streams. (Descriptions of the altered wetlands and leveed/channelized streams components follow immediately below, while the riparian vegetation component is described in the Landscape Pattern cluster, p. 67)

The Data Gap The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains a database of the locations of dams (and thus the downstream end of impoundments). However, this database has not been cross-linked with databases providing stream locations and channels and digital elevation, which would be required to identify the upstream extent and length of impounded areas. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because there are several agencies (USGS, EPA) with both broad familiarity with the required data sets and the capabilities to manipulate and combine these data sets. Options for Filling This Data Gap Filling this data gap would require two steps. The first would be to link the Corps of Engineers database with the existing National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and with related digital elevation data. The second would entail an analysis of the upstream extent of inundation (based on dam height and upstream elevation). Upgrading the National Hydrography Dataset by crosslinking with the Corps of Engineers’ national data base of dam locations could be done simply (and less accurately) a one-time cost of between $200,000 and $1.0 million, according to USGS. However, the NHD contains errors of both commission and omission in the identification of water bodies (some NHD water bodies do not exist in nature, and some actual water bodies are not shown). EPA estimates that remedying these errors (through the use of archival imagery), cross-referencing the Corps data set, and procuring limited amounts of new imagery or photographs to resolve any remaining areas of uncertainty would cost about between $750,000 and $1.0 million. (Note that these costs are also required to address two elements of this indicator’s data gap—the assessment of the degree of shoreline alteration in ponds and lakes, as measured by reporting on riparian vegetation.) Costs for linking this database with appropriate digital elevation data and for the analysis of upstream extent of inundation are not available at this time.

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Altered freshwater ecosystems DATA GAP Altered wetlands Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Complete baseline inventory $5–7 million over 3 years of altered wetlands Periodic resurvey to Up to $15 million per year determine trends (10-year cycle)


61


Indicator This gap is one element of a larger indicator that reports on several freshwater ecosystem components, including • Impounded streams: the percentage of stream and river miles that have been impounded behind a dam • Altered wetlands: wetland acres that have been excavated, impounded, diked, partially drained, or farmed • Leveed or channelized streams: the percentage of stream and river miles that have been leveed or channelized • Riparian vegetation: streams/rivers and naturally occurring pond and lake shoreline-miles that have agricultural or urban/suburban land cover within about 100 feet of the water’s edge (reservoirs and constructed lakes are excluded) This note concerns altered wetlands. (The impounded streams component is described above, and leveed/channelized streams immediately below. The riparian vegetation component is described in the Landscape Pattern cluster, p. 67) The Data Gap The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory includes identification of “altered wetlands”— those that are excavated, impounded, diked, partially drained, or farmed. However, only some of the NWI data are available in a digital database format that would support national reporting (the rest are essentially in paper form). In addition, the NWI data are moderately to highly dated (some are from the 1980s), and there is no program in place or in design that would resurvey the nation’s wetlands to provide more recent data and to support continuing reporting in the future. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “moderately feasible” because while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the capability to undertake the required data collection and reporting, fully implementing this indicator would require conversion of the program to one capable of updating the information (either in whole or by statistical sampling) periodically, which has never been done. FWS did not provide estimates of the cost of this program evolution, but consultations with experts familiar with the program believe a cost of $150 million for a 10-year cycle ($15 million per year) is a reasonable initial estimate, which should be refined. Options for Filling This Data Gap This gap might be filled in two ways. The first would involve completion of the digitizing of the National Wetlands Inventory (about half the area of the lower 48 states is as yet undone). This would cost between $5 and $7 million and require about 3 years. (Estimates for mapping the remaining 5% of wetlands in the lower 48 and all wetlands in Alaska and Hawaii are not available.)

62

This step would provide only a one-time snapshot of wetland condition (and one with data that are significantly out of date in some cases). Periodic remapping of the entire United States basis would be a fairly large undertaking, and would provide benefits far beyond this indicator. FWS did not provide estimates for the cost of this step, but we estimate that this might require $150 million per mapping period (approximately 10 years), or about $15 million per year. The second approach would be to combine data collection on wetland condition with the periodic (every 10 years) wetland change surveys conducted under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. No estimates of the cost of this approach are available.

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Altered freshwater ecosystems DATA GAP Channelized or leveed rivers and streams Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Estimates not available; methods for data collection not defined.

Indicator This gap is one element of a larger indicator that reports on several freshwater ecosystem components, including • Impounded streams: the percentage of stream and river miles that have been impounded behind a dam • Altered wetlands: wetland acres that have been excavated, impounded, diked, partially drained, or farmed • Leveed or channelized streams: the percentage of stream and river miles that have been leveed or channelized • Riparian vegetation: streams/rivers and naturally occurring pond and lake shoreline-miles that have agricultural or urban/suburban land cover within about 100 feet of the water’s edge (reservoirs and constructed lakes are excluded) This note concerns leveed/channelized streams. (The impounded streams and altered wetlands components are described above. The riparian vegetation component is described in Landscape Pattern, p. 67) The Data Gap No known data source exists that would support either a baseline assessment of the number of channelized or leveed river/stream miles or periodic assessment of increases or decreases in river alteration. Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “challenging” because we are aware of no entity that collects this kind of data on anything but a small-area or project-by-project basis. Protocols for either centralized or decentralized data collection would

THE HEINZ CENTER


need to be developed, as would field capabilities, reporting methods, and so on. Options for Filling This Data Gap No cost estimates are available for this gap.

SYSTEM Fresh Waters, Urban/Suburban INDICATOR Riparian vegetation (streams/rivers and lakes) DATA GAP Riparian vegetation (streams/rivers and lakes) See p. 67 (Landscape Pattern cluster) for a full description of this gap. Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Coarse-resolution national reporting Improvements to National $0.75 to $1.0 million Hydrography Dataset (one time) Periodic comparison with $30,000 to $50,000 land cover Urban/suburban reporting Cost estimates not available

SYSTEM Urban and Suburban Areas INDICATOR Total impervious area DATA GAP Geographic extent, data collection and integration See p. 68 (Landscape Pattern cluster) for a full description of this gap. Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap To complete mapping for $525,000 to $650,000 current period (2001 data) Future mapping costs $0 to $1.65 million per cycle

Landscape Pattern—Analysis of Remote Sensing Data Gap or Cluster Definition This cluster consists of eight gaps related to reporting on the extent and arrangement of land cover. Overall, the gap involves the processing of large amounts of remote sensing– based land cover data and/or the merging of these data with related data (stream locations). • Five of these gaps relate to reporting on various aspects of landscape pattern: farmland fragmentation by development, forest pattern and fragmentation, area and size of grassland and shrubland patches, suburban and rural land use change, and a national-scale landscape pattern indicator. These gaps require processing of an existing land cover data set (National Land Cover Dataset). • Two gaps relate to reporting on natural vegetation along stream and river banks and naturally occurring ponds and lake shores. For coarse-scale, marginally acceptable national reporting, improvements are needed to the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) to enable distinctions to be made between natural lands and ponds and those created by dams, plus the integration of lake/pond and stream/river data (NHD) and land cover data (NLCD). For urban and suburban reporting, finer-resolution land cover data are required. • One gap relates to the extent of impervious cover and would require detailed analyses of existing land cover data. (This gap is also included in “Habitat Elements”; see above.) A Heinz Center review of all landscape pattern indicators, now under way, will likely result in modifications to the 2007 indicator set, but the scale or nature of the work needed is not expected to change substantially. It should also be noted that the indicators described here are intended to describe complex ecological phenomena and are often difficult to interpret as unambiguously “positive”

Landscape Pattern—Analysis of Remote Sensing Data GAP DESCRIPTION

INITIAL COSTS

ONGOING COSTS

Landscape pattern (national, farmlands, forests, grass/shrub, urban/suburban land use)


$1.0 million per reporting cycle (10 years)

• Coarse resolution (currently most cost-effective/practical)

$750,000 to $1.0 million

$30,000 to $50,000 per reporting cycle

• Fine scale (needed for urban/suburban reporting)

Not available

Not available

Urban/suburban impervious area

$525,000–$650,00

$0–$1.65 million per reporting cycle

National In Situ Plot Database for Calibration, Validation, and Research (see text below)

$300,000

$1.5 million/10 years

TO T A L

$2.5–$3 million

$2.5–4.2 million per reporting cycle

Riparian (stream and lakeside) vegetation

N O T E : Assumes a 10-year reporting cycle, based on historic land cover data acquisition schedules.


63


or “negative.” Continuing research into thresholds at which changes in landscape pattern result in changes in other ecological functions or properties is required. Costs To Fill This Gap Estimates provided by USGS and a group of land cover data experts suggest that initial investments of as much as $1.0 million and ongoing annual costs of about $100,000 or less would be required to fill some portions of this gap. Including riparian vegetation and impervious area reporting would incur additional costs. However, these estimates presume continuing, basically cost-free availability of coarse-scale (30-meter) remote-sensing information that has been processed to appropriate land cover classes. The National Land Cover Dataset is one such data set, and many of the analyses in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report relied upon it. However, this data set has been developed through a relatively ad hoc interagency collaboration, and funding and management are not assured. There are significant costs associated with production of this data set, and there are discussions under way among the relevant agencies and users concerning the timing of production of additional rounds of national land cover data. Finally, significant problems have been identified in the continuity of the basic stream of Landsat (or equivalent) data on which these analyses are based. In addition, USGS indicates that development of an national in situ plot database for calibration, validation and research would facilitate and enhance land cover mapping. Thus, it is quite clear that the figures reported here do not represent the full cost of this type of reporting. National In Situ Plot Database for Calibrations, Validation, and Research This element is included as a proposal from USGS to enhance the utility and facilitate the development of land cover and related data. USGS provided the following description: A formal, consistent plot/site database is critical to the development of land cover, and cover change and a suite of other biogeophysical datasets that are critical inputs to the assessment and monitoring of the Nation’s resources. Plot data are needed to calibrate and validate remote sensing-based analysis of land cover and land use as well as a suite of biogeophysical data. This plot database initiative would require the development of a sampling design, guidelines for plot data acquisition, and database management, database design and construction, and the development of translation protocols. The development of a Web plot database would represent a significant advancement to science, enabling a wide array of users to both access and input plot data in a geographical information systems (GIS) format using remote sensing imagery and thematic maps as contextual back-

64

ground. Such a development would provide the means to manage and distribute these data using Web server technology. USGS estimates that this effort would cost $300,000 in the first year for database design, construction and the development of translation protocols, as well as for “data ingestion.” This would fall to $150,000 per year as an operational cost. This element is included as a complement to the specific actions needed for the individual gaps described below. Feasibility Rating All these gaps (including the in situ database) are rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the required analyses are relatively straightforward.

About the Gaps Core National Farmland Forest Grasslands/Shrublands Urban/Suburban Fresh Waters Urban/Suburban Urban/Suburban

Landscape pattern Farmland fragmentation by development Forest pattern and fragmentation Area and size of grassland and shrubland patches Suburban/rural land use change Riparian vegetation (altered lake and pond shoreline) Riparian vegetation (stream bank vegetation) Total impervious area (also included in the Habitat Extent cluster, p. 63)

All the estimates below are based on the costs of processing available remote sensing imagery that has been classified to an appropriate land cover scheme. Thus, these costs do not represent the full cost of acquiring and processing the basic remote sensing data; they are s marginal costs, dependent upon funding for the base land cover data. These indicators are currently under review by a group of experts convened by The Heinz Center to improve the full suite of landscape pattern indicators presented in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. Early indications are that this Task Group will recommend significant changes to this suite (see Appendix B). Such changes might require other or additional data. SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR Landscape pattern DATA GAP Analysis of existing data (indicator definition required) Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $1.05 million (over 3 years; covers Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/ Shrublands, Urban/Suburban) Ongoing costs $1.0 million per 10-year reporting cycle (covers Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/Shrublands, Urban/Suburban)

THE HEINZ CENTER


This indicator was undefined in the 2002 report, and work is under way to provide a definition and data source evaluation. It is likely that costs will be consistent with the above estimate, however.

Note that that this indicator is expected to change substantially for the 2007 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report; any data gaps associated with this new indicator will have to be evaluated at a later date.

Indicator Undefined in 2002. Will be defined by ongoing effort.

Indicator This indicator would report the degree to which suburban development and other built-up areas break up (fragment) the farmland landscape (croplands plus intermingled “natural” areas such as forests, wetlands, and grasslands and shrublands). Areas with a mosaic of cropland and intermingled natural areas—but little or no development—would be rated as “low” on the “fragmentation index” used for this indicator, while those in which small patches of cropland are mixed into a backdrop of suburban development would be rated as “high.” These data would be presented nationally and by region for the most current year.

The Data Gap The satellite land cover data that will almost certainly form the basis for this indicator are available, but the data have not yet been analyzed. Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the data for this indicator are likely to be available from a single, central location (the National Land Cover Dataset) and relatively small amounts of resources are required to undertake the required analyses. If additional data sources are needed (e.g., roads), they are available and there are staff in several agencies with the capability of working with both data sets. Options for Filling This Data Gap This indicator is currently under review by a group of experts convened by The Heinz Center to improve the full suite of landscape pattern indicators across all the ecosystems presented in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. Early indications are that this Task Group will recommend significant changes to this indicator. Such changes would produce a new set of data requirements for other or additional data. USGS estimates that producing the indicators as described in the 2002 report would require approximately $350,000 per year for 3 years, and approximately $100,000 per year thereafter. These costs would address five indicators listed here (Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/ Shrublands, Urban/Suburban). While there are numerous ongoing programs that deal with land cover analysis, the funding here would support dedicated analysis of the specific types of indicators described in this report.

SYSTEM Farmlands INDICATOR Fragmentation of farmland landscapes by development DATA GAP Analysis of existing data Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $1.05 million (over 3 years; covers Core National, Farmland, Forest Grasslands/ Shrublands, Urban/Suburban) Ongoing costs $1.0 million per 10-year reporting cycle (covers Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/Shrublands, Urban/ Suburban)

The Data Gap The satellite land cover data necessary to report this index are available, but the data have not yet been analyzed. At the time of production of the 2002 report, the technical approaches for analyzing the available land cover data were not well developed. We believe that these obstacles are no longer relevant. Calculating this index requires digital data and specialized software designed to analyze landscape spatial patterns. The most commonly used software for analyzing landscape spatial patterns (Fragstats) is not capable of processing the very large file sizes that would be required to calculate this index for the entire nation. It may be possible to carry out this analysis using a statistical sampling technique, analytical approaches relying on GIS software, or other analytical approaches; however, the details of this were not resolved in time for the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the data for this indicator are likely to be available from a single, central location (the National Land Cover Dataset), and relatively small amounts of resources are required to undertake the required analyses. Options for Filling This Data Gap This indicator is currently under review by a group of experts convened by The Heinz Center to improve the full suite of landscape pattern indicators across all of the ecosystems presented in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. Early indications are that this Task Group will recommend significant changes to this indicator (see Appendix B). Such changes would produce a new set of data requirements for other or additional data. USGS estimates that producing the indicators as described in the 2002 report would require approximately $350,000 per year for 3 years, and approximately $100,000 per year thereafter. These costs would address five indicators


65


listed here (Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/ Shrublands, Urban/Suburban). While there are numerous ongoing programs that deal with land cover analysis, the funding here would support dedicated analysis of the specific types of indicators described in this report.

SYSTEM Forests INDICATOR Forest pattern and fragmentation DATA GAP Coverage for linear features (roads, railroads) and other small nonforest elements Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $1.05 million (over 3 years; covers Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/ Shrublands, Urban/Suburban) Ongoing costs $1.0 million per 10-year reporting cycle (covers Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/Shrublands, Urban/Suburban) This indicator is expected to change substantially for the 2007 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report; any data gaps associated with this new indicator will have to be evaluated at a later date.

Indicator This indicator describes a tree’s local neighborhood according to the degree of forest cover within various distances. Thus, the “immediate neighborhood” of a particular tree is everything within about 250 feet in all directions. This immediate neighborhood is “mostly forest” if the land is at least 90% forested. A tree’s “local neighborhood” extends about ¼ mile in all directions, and its “larger neighborhood” extends to about 2½ miles. This analysis relies upon computer analyses of satellite data on millions of individual pixels. The Data Gap The satellite data used for this indicator in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report identify features that are at least 100 feet on a side (10,000 square feet), but does not distinguish smaller or narrower features such as roads, power lines, and residential development in otherwise wooded areas. Future analyses would include these smaller features by using satellite data that can discern smaller nonforest areas, or by using ancillary information, such as mapped databases showing the location of these smaller features. This analysis also treats all nonforest land uses similarly, whether they are clumped together, spread evenly across a landscape, or strung together in a line (e.g., a road or power line). Different types of breaks in forest cover may affect forests in different ways—concentrations of nonforest cover may have major impacts on local habitat suitability, while linear features such as roads can act as barriers to species movement. Future analyses might weigh some nonforest

66

areas or patterns more than others, although the specific methods for doing this have not been developed. Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible.” The primary data for this indicator are likely to be readily available (the National Land Cover Dataset), and ancillary information (such as roads data) is also reasonably available. Options for Filling This Data Gap This indicator is currently under review by a group of experts, with the goal of improving the full suite of landscape pattern indicators presented in the 2002 The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. Early indications are that this Task Group will recommend significant changes to this indicator, probably changing the data requirements. However, based on the published 2002 indicator, USGS estimates that producing the indicators as described in the 2002 report would require approximately $350,000 per year for 3 years, and approximately $100,000 per year thereafter. These costs would address five indicators listed here (Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/Shrublands, Urban/ Suburban). While there are numerous ongoing programs that deal with land cover analysis, the funding here would support dedicated analysis of the specific types of indicators described in this report.

SYSTEM Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR Area and size of grassland and shrubland patches DATA GAP Data processing Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $1.05 million (over 3 years; covers Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/ Shrublands, Urban/Suburban) Ongoing costs $1.0 million per reporting cycle (covers Core National, Farmland, Forest Grassland/ Shrubland, Urban / Suburban) This indicator is expected to change substantially for the 2007 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report; any data gaps associated with this new indicator will have to be evaluated at a later date.

Indicator This measure would report the percentage of grasslands and shrublands in patches of different sizes. Patch sizes and percentages would be reported separately for grasslands and shrublands. The total area occupied by patches of a certain size will be reported as a percentage of the total area of either grasslands or shrublands. The patch sizes for this indicator are as follows: less than 10 acres, 10–99 acres, 100–999 acres, 1000–9999 acres, and 10,000 acres or greater.

THE HEINZ CENTER


The Data Gap Calculating this index requires digital data and specialized software designed to analyze landscape spatial patterns. The most commonly used software for analyzing landscape spatial patterns (Fragstats) is not capable of processing the very large file sizes that would be required to calculate this index for the entire nation. It may be possible to carry out this analysis using a statistical sampling technique, analytical approaches relying on GIS software, or other analytical approaches; however, the details of this were not resolved in time for the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report.

The Data Gap The satellite land cover data that will almost certainly form the basis for this indicator are available, but they have not yet been analyzed.

Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the data for this indicator are likely to be available from a single, central location (the National Land Cover Dataset) and relatively small amounts of resources are required to undertake the required analyses.

Options for Filling This Data Gap This indicator is currently under review by a group of experts convened by The Heinz Center to improve the full suite of landscape pattern indicators across all the ecosystems presented in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. Early indications are that this Task Group will recommend significant changes to this indicator. Such a change would present a new set of data requirements that may require other or additional data. USGS estimates that producing the indicators as described in the 2002 report would require approximately $350,000 per year for 3 years and approximately $100,000 per year thereafter. These costs would address five indicators listed here (Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/ Shrublands, Urban/Suburban). While there are numerous ongoing programs that deal with land cover analysis, the funding here would support dedicated analysis of the specific types of indicators described in this report.

Options for Filling This Data Gap This indicator is currently under review by a group of experts convened by The Heinz Center to improve the full suite of landscape pattern indicators across all of the ecosystems presented in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. Early indications are that this Task Group will recommend significant changes to this indicator. Such a change would produce a new set of data requirements that might require other or additional data. USGS estimates that producing the indicators as described in the 2002 report would require approximately $350,000 per year for each of three years, and approximately $100,000 per year thereafter. These costs would address five indicators listed here (Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/ Shrublands, Urban/Suburban). While there are numerous ongoing programs that deal with land cover analysis, the funding here would support dedicated analysis of the specific types of indicators described in this report.

SYSTEM Urban/Suburban INDICATOR Suburban/rural land use change DATA GAP Analysis of existing data (indicator definition required) Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $1.05 million (over 3 years; covers Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/ Shrublands, Urban/Suburban) Ongoing costs $1.0 million per reporting cycle covers Core National, Farmland, Forest, Grasslands/Shrublands, Urban/Suburban) This indicator was undefined in the 2002 report, and work is under way to provide a definition and data source evaluation. It is likely that costs will be consistent with the above estimate.

Indicator Undefined in 2002. Will be defined by ongoing effort.

Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the data for this indicator are likely to be available from a single, central location (the National Land Cover Dataset) and relatively small amounts of resources are required to undertake the require analyses.

SYSTEM Fresh Waters, Urban/Suburban INDICATOR Riparian vegetation (streams/rivers and lakes) DATA GAP Riparian vegetation (streams/rivers and lakes) Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Coarse-resolution national reporting Improvements to National $0.75 to $1.0 million Hydrography Dataset (one time) Periodic comparison $30,000 to $50,000 with land cover Urban/suburban reporting Cost estimates not available

Indicator This gap is related to two indicators. One would describe the percentage of both stream/river miles and shoreline miles in naturally occurring lakes and ponds that are lined with trees, shrubs, and other plants. The other would report on stream/river miles in urban/suburban areas only. The Data Gap There are two components to this data gap: • It is not currently possible to identify naturally occurring lake and pond shorelines. No national database distin-


67


guishes impounded water bodies from natural ones, or identifies which natural lakes are dammed at their outlets. Thus, while it is possible to identify which water bodies have significantly altered land cover along their shores, it is not possible to distinguish those where alteration would be an expected consequence of construction or management (e.g., reservoirs) and those where natural/ semi-natural land cover would normally occur. Addressing this gap would require improvements to the linkage between the National Hydrography Dataset and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ dam data set. • Coarse-resolution (30-meter pixel) land cover data are available and were reported in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. These are, however, only marginally satisfactory for this purpose on a nationwide scale and are not satisfactory at all for effective reporting at the scale of a few feet to tens of feet that is required for urban/suburban reporting. Locally generated data (e.g., municipal surveys) are not believed to be available over a sufficiently large area to support adequate reporting, would likely be inconsistent from area to area, and are expensive to obtain. Higher resolution land cover data are available but are more costly than the 30-meter data in wide-scale use. Feasibility Rating Providing coarse-resolution national-scale assessment of the extent of vegetated shorelines of streams/rivers and naturally occurring lakes is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the data for this indicator are likely to be available from a single, central location (the National Land Cover Dataset and the National Hydrography Dataset), the work required to enhance the NHD is relatively straightforward (and is, in fact, being undertaken by USGS, albeit without sufficient funding to complete the work in a timely fashion), and, once these enhancements are completed, relatively small amounts of resources would be required to undertake the required analyses. Providing a finer-grained urban/suburban reporting capability is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the primary apparent obstacle is the cost of finer-resolution land cover data. Options for Filling This Data Gap Identifying Natural Lakes and Ponds This would require remedying limitations in the existing NHD to enable distinctions to be made between natural water bodies and those that are created or dammed. Upgrading the National Hydrography Dataset would require cross-referencing the NHD, which identifies water bodies, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ national database of dam locations. A simple, although less accurate approach would entail cross-referencing of the NHD with

68

the Corps data set; USGS estimates this one-time cost as between $200,000 and $1.0 million. However, the NHD contains errors of both commission and omission in the identification of water bodies (some NHD water bodies do not exist in nature, and some actual water bodies are not shown). EPA estimates that remedying these errors (through the use of archival imagery), cross-referencing the Corps data set, and procuring limited amounts of new imagery or photographs to resolve any remaining areas of uncertainty would cost between $750,000 and $1.0 million. Reconciliation of the NHD and dam data sets is also required to address the gap relating to reporting on the amount of stream/river miles impounded behind dams. See “Extent of Specific Habitat Elements,” page 57. Coarse-Scale Nationwide Assessment This would require integration of the NHD with remote sensing imagery, such as the National Land Cover Dataset. Periodic comparisons of the NHD and land cover from remote sensing would be relatively inexpensive (perhaps $30,000–$50,000 per time). However, EPA has conducted similar analyses without charge for the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems project. This approach, used in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report, would continue to provide marginally acceptable nationwide estimates, but these would not be useful for urban/suburban areas (see below). Urban/Suburban Assessment We were not able to obtain cost estimates for providing finer-resolution land cover data. (These data are available at resolutions down to 1 meter, and perhaps even finer.)

SYSTEM Urban and Suburban Areas INDICATOR Total impervious area DATA GAP Geographic extent, data collection and integration Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap To complete mapping for $525,000 to $650,000 current period (2001 data) Future mapping costs $0 to $1.65 million per reporting cycle

The Indicator The extent of impervious surface is a direct measure of the degree of urbanization, and it strongly affects both water quality in urban and suburban areas and replenishment of groundwater. This indicator classifies urban and suburban areas according to the percentage of impervious surface— roads, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, rooftops, and the like—they contain. The indicator uses several thresholds: less than 10% impervious surface in the region, at least 10%, at least 20%, and at least 30%.

THE HEINZ CENTER


The Data Gap At the time the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems was being completed, geographic coverage was incomplete for data collected on total impervious area, and existing data had not been compiled regionally or nationally. Further, no standard methods for estimating the amount of impervious surface had been established, and the methods available were not adequate to distinguish small features such as driveways and sidewalks. (This is in large part because existing broadly available satellite data are too coarse to resolve these objects.) Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the technology for doing so has been developed and is being implemented (albeit not for the entire United States) by the U.S. Geological Survey. Funding is neither complete nor certain, however. Options for Filling This Data Gap The U.S. Geological Survey has provided an estimate of the cost of assessing impervious surface area, based on a relatively new data analysis protocol. Estimates of impervious surface will be based on a combination of existing 30-meter remote sensing land cover data and high-resolution digital orthophotos and will cover all urban and suburban areas in the lower 48 states and Hawaii. The Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium (of which USGS is a member) is developing the 2001 National Landcover Dataset (NLCD 2001). As a part of NLCD 2001, “imperviousness” is being determined for 66 mapping zones across the conterminous United States. For NLCD 2001, imperviousness was chosen in an effort to improve the precision of the urban intensity classification used in the original NLCD 1992. As of April 2004, 40–45 of the 66 zones in the conterminous U.S. plus Hawaii were either funded or pledged to be funded by USGS, USDA Forest Service, EPA, or NOAA.* The USGS estimates that it costs approximately $25,000 per mapping zone, suggesting that it will cost approximately $525,000 to $650,000 (21 to 26 mapping zones) to complete this project.

Development of both NLCD 1992 and NLCD 2001 and related products such as the impervious surface work described here can be characterized as ad hoc in terms of funding. Multiple agencies contribute funds, in a more or less “pass the hat” approach. This is illustrated by the status of the urban impervious area mapping—several agencies have funded work in portions of the country of specific interest to them, leaving a gap that precludes national characterization. Thus, the estimated unmet need for conducting this work in the future is between zero (all 66 analysis units are paid for by partner agencies) and $1.65 million (all 66 analysis units require funding). It is important to note that these estimates assume that the basic data layer for future NLCD efforts is funded as well.

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION Chemical Contaminants Related to Human Exposure Gap or Cluster Definition This cluster of four gaps relates to reporting on contaminant exposure associated with human health. It includes data on concentration of contaminants in the edible portion of freshwater and saltwater fish, as well as information on specific high-concern contaminants (DDT, PCBs, mercury) in fish and shellfish sold for human consumption. Finally, it addresses a gap in data on contaminants in soils in urban/suburban areas. Costs To Fill This Gap EPA and USGS estimated the cost of reporting on contaminants in the edible portion of fish; for freshwater fish, costs depend upon the reporting level—it is much less costly to provide information at the national level than to provide state-by-state estimates.

Chemical Contaminants Related to Human Exposure GAP DESCRIPTION

INITIAL COSTS

ONGOING COSTS

Freshwater fish: national estimates (USGS)

Not available

$600,000 to $1.0 million/year

Freshwater fish: state national estimates (EPA)

Not available

$5 million/year

Saltwater fish (EPA)

Not available

$500,000 to $2.7 million/year

DDT, PCBs, mercury in marketed fish

Not available

Not available

Contaminants in urban/suburban soil

Not available

Not available

* See http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k_imperviousness_status.asp for a map of the mapping zones.


69


FDA was asked to provide estimates on the targeted “sold for consumption” gap but did not reply, and no agency commented on the costs for reporting on urban/suburban soils. Feasibility Rating Filling the freshwater and saltwater fish tissue gaps is considered to be “highly and immediately feasible,” because the agencies involved (USGS, EPA) currently manage programs of similar scope and focus. Reporting on contaminant levels in marketed fish is rated as “moderately feasible.” The Food and Drug Administration has similar programs, but filling this gap would require development of new protocols, sampling design, coordination with state health and environmental authorities, and so on. The urban/suburban soils gap is rated as “challenging” to fill, because there is no clear agency lead and we are unaware of similar large-scale programs to use as a basis for design of the new effort.

About the Gaps Core National Chemical contaminants (freshwater fish, edible) Core National Chemical contaminants (saltwater fish, edible) Coasts and Oceans Selected contaminants in fish and shellfish (for human consumption) Urban/Suburban Contaminated soils

SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR Chemical contamination DATA GAP Freshwater fish tissue (edible portion) Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap USGS (NAWQA) $0.6 million to $1.0 million/year 5-year reporting cycle National-level estimates only EPA (EMAP) $5 million/year 5-year reporting cycle National and state-level estimates

Indicator The overall indicator reports on contaminants* found in streams, groundwater, sediment, and fish tissue. Two types of reporting are done for this indicator: the frequency of detection (i.e., percentage of sampled sites in which contaminants are detected) of contaminants† and the frequency with which these occurrences exceed established human health standards and guidelines and aquatic life guidelines.

* Pesticides, selected degradation products, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds, other industrial contaminants, trace elements, nitrate, and ammonium. † Nitrate, ammonium, and trace elements such as cadmium and chromium occur naturally and thus are not included in the occurrence graphs.

70

The Data Gap Data are not available to compare contamination of the edible portion of freshwater fish tissue to human health standards and guidelines because the entire fish, rather than the edible portion, has been analyzed by the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, which provided contaminant data for other components of the core national indicator. There are additional needs to fully assess chemical contamination in fish tissue, although these additional needs are somewhat beyond the scope of “filling data gaps.” For many contaminants, there are no standards or guidelines defining safe exposure levels for humans or aquatic organisms. For example, drinking water standards and guidelines do not exist for 33 of 76 pesticides analyzed in fresh waters, and there are no aquatic life guidelines for 48 of these 76 pesticides.‡ Current standards and guidelines do not account for mixtures of chemicals or for seasonal occurrences of very high concentrations. In addition, potential effects on reproductive, nervous, and immune systems, as well as on particularly sensitive people, are not well understood. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because there are two existing programs with a history of conducting large-scale (i.e., national-scale) monitoring and reporting of data on ecosystem parameters that include freshwater tissue contamination levels, and there is an existing infrastructure for survey design, collection, and analysis. These programs are the EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment program (NAWQA). To a large degree, EMAP is a research and development program, not an operational monitoring program, while NAWQA has more of an operational character, although it too retains some aspects of a research program. The techniques and methods for collecting and analyzing these data are well known. Options for Filling This Data Gap Two agencies provided estimates of the cost of filling this data gap, using different assumptions about the number of sites needed to provide adequate data for national estimation as well as different per-site costs. NAWQA The U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water-Quality Assessment estimated that approximately 200 sites would be required to provide sufficient data for a national estimate of edible-portion fish contamination. Providing comparable data over time requires a high degree of regional/national

‡

Data were provided by USGS and were current as of the 2002 report.

THE HEINZ CENTER


consistency in terms of target fish species and age class and sex of target organisms. The higher the need for consistency of approach, the more personnel time is needed in the field to obtain sufficient numbers of the target individuals for analysis. Given this requirement, and assuming analysis of fish fillets for a broad suite of organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, dioxin, mercury, and other trace elements, per-site costs might range from $15,000 to $25,000. Thus, an overall estimate would be from $3.0 million to $5.0 million. These costs would be incurred over a multiyear reporting cycle—if estimates were desired every 5 years, then annual costs would be $0.6 million to $1.0 million. (Note that the USGS estimates did not specifically contemplate a 5-year period, but rather estimated costs for the overall activity, which potentially could be completed in 1–2 years. These costs were spread over 5 years by The Heinz Center, for comparative purposes, and because it is unlikely that reporting would be conducted every year or two. Additional discussion of program design and timing is needed.) The USGS program would provide national-level estimates only (as contrasted with EPA’s state-level and nationallevel estimates) and that the USGS estimates would not be probability based.

Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Continuing costs (per $2.5 million ($500,000/year) to 5-year assessment cycle) $13.5 million ($2.7 million/year)

EMAP EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program is a research and development program that is being considered for expansion and transition to an operational monitoring program. EMAP’s estimates for filling this data gap call for a larger number of sites overall, so as to be able to provide probability-based, statistically significant estimates at both the national and state levels. Thus EPA recommends approximately 50 sites per state, or 2500 sites in total. EMAP per-site costs are $10,000, for a total of $25 million per reporting cycle, or about $5 million per year for a 5-year cycle. However, the per-site costs noted here would support sampling for a broader range of parameters, and thus the EPA program would provide data other than fish tissue contamination. Our current understanding of the data gap for contaminants in fish tissue in the Great Lakes is incomplete and will require further investigation. As part of its estimate for filling the data gap for contaminants in saltwater fish (whole fish and the edible portion, see immediately below), EPA estimated that it would cost approximately $4 million per assessment cycle to do a similar analysis for the Great Lakes. This was based on approximately 50 sampling sites for each of the eight Great Lakes states.

The Data Gap Data were not available to report on saltwater fish tissue, either for frequency of detection or for comparison with human health standards (edible portion) or wildlife consumption/ aquatic life guidelines (whole fish). There are additional needs to fully assess chemical contamination in fish tissue, although these additional needs are somewhat beyond the scope of “filling data gaps.” For many contaminants, there are no standards or guidelines defining safe exposure levels for humans or aquatic organisms. For example, as of 2002, were no aquatic life guidelines for 48 of 76 pesticides used in the freshwater contaminants analyses (we are aware of no comparable estimate for the contaminants in saltwater fish, but it is reasonable to assume that a similar situation exists for these as well.‡ In addition, current standards and guidelines do not account for mixtures of chemicals. In addition, potential effects on reproductive, nervous, and immune systems and on particularly sensitive people are not well understood.

SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR Chemical contamination DATA GAP Saltwater fish (whole and edible portion)

This estimate covers all costs necessary to implement the program, which includes data collection on a range of indicators in addition to this one. Start-up cost estimates not provided.

Indicator The overall indicator reports on contaminants* found in streams, groundwater, sediment, and fish tissue. Two types of reporting are done for this indicator: the frequency of detection (i.e., percentage of sampled sites in which contaminants are detected) of contaminants† and the frequency with which these occurrences exceed established human health standards and guidelines and aquatic life guidelines. (Note: NOAA operates a “Mussel Watch” program as part of its National Status and Trends Program. Mussel Watch provides annual data from approximately 250 sites nationwide. However, in order to provide consistency between freshwater and saltwater portions of this indicator, a decision was made to recommend fish-based reporting, and since the NOAA program’s fish oriented data collection has been discontinued, this program was not considered.)

* Pesticides, selected degradation products, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds, other industrial contaminants, trace elements, nitrate, and ammonium. † Nitrate, ammonium, and trace elements such as cadmium and chromium occur naturally and thus are not included in the assessments of frequency of detection. ‡ Data were provided by USGS and were current as of the 2002 report.


71


Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “moderately feasible” because, while there are several programs with significant experience in this area (see below), the application of a program such as this to the area of coastal waters envisioned would be larger in scope than such programs have been in the past. Additional feasibility studies would be needed to assess the most appropriate methods. EPA has a significant history of developing the tools and field procedures for this type of sampling: EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), and a successor program, the National Coastal Assessment (NCA), which has focused on fish tissue. In addition, NOAA’s National Status and Trends program (NS&T), which has focused on both mussel and fish tissue contamination,* has a similar base of experience in large-scale toxicity sampling and reporting. The techniques and methods for collecting and analyzing these data are well known. Options for Filling This Data Gap EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program is a research and development effort that pioneered the collection of broad-scale probability-based ecological monitoring data. A follow-on operational program for coastal areas—the National Coastal Assessment program—would collect data for this indicator, as well as many others. NCA is not currently funded. EPA has developed estimates for the implementation of the National Coastal Assessment. The relevant part of this program involves the collection of data for a suite of indicators/parameters, using a sampling design that provides estimates at a state and regional level. In addition to data on contamination in both edible portion and whole fish for all U.S. waters (both estuarine and coastal ocean) except Alaska, these parameters include contamination in estuary sediments and benthic community condition EPA’s estimates do not distinguish between costs that are attributable to specific indicators, so the estimates provided below are for the entire program, not just the benthic community condition elements. EPA estimates that it will cost approximately $13.5 million per cycle† for all U.S. waters except those off Alaska. The EPA estimates are based on the following factors: • There are 23 coastal states and 5 island territories. • Each state and island territory would require approximately 50 sampling sites to provide adequate coverage. (Note that sampling in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey would overlap in the Delaware River estuary, presenting an opportunity for cost savings. Therefore, the total number of states was reduced to 22 for calculation purposes.) * Fish tissue analyses have been discontinued. † We have assumed a 5-year reporting cycle for the EPA approach.

72

• Each sampling site would cost approximately $10,000 per reporting cycle. An independent expert provided an initial estimate of the cost of conducting analyses for fish tissue contamination only (i.e., not for the other items included in EPA’s NCA estimate). These estimates indicate that this effort would require approximately $500,000 per year. The estimates include • Logistical support for obtaining fish samples in the field: Ordering supplies and equipment for sampling; preparatory staging of field sampling activities; getting collection permits; arranging transfer of equipment, supplies, and personnel to and from sampling locations; field preservation of samples and shipping of samples to labs for analysis, etc. • Field sampling: Covering the use, for collection of fish, of relatively small boats with 2–3 person crews that can be moved about by trailer as is done by EPA’s EMAP/ Estuaries program. The fish contaminant component of NOAA’s National Status and Trends Program used larger NOAA coastal vessels, but it is likely that smaller boats could have been used. Using the larger vessels like the NOAA vessels would be substantially more expensive. • Laboratory analysis: Includes analysis for the same chemicals analyzed in the NOAA Mussel Watch Project and the EPA Coastal EMAP. Included are metals (about 12), chlorinated pesticides, PAHs, PCBs, and butyl-tins. Dioxins/furans are specifically not included as they are usually at very low concentrations and require a separate expensive analysis. Estimates also include the vital expense of 20–25% of the laboratory costs being for chemical analysis QA/QC (blanks, spikes, lab intercomparisons, standards, etc.). • Data management: This includes establishment and maintenance of a database system, entry of data into the system, and data quality control. These estimates are based on an assumption of a 5-year cycle with about 250 collection sites around the U.S. marine coasts (i.e., on average sampling 50 sites a year).

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Selected contaminants in fish and shellfish DATA GAP No national reporting program on contaminant concentrations Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap No estimates are available at this time.

Indicator This indicator measures the concentration of PCBs, mercury, and DDT in the edible tissue of seafood from U.S. coastal waters. For comparison, the graphs would also include

THE HEINZ CENTER


information on the levels at which the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration recommend that action (such as consumption advisories) be taken. The Data Gap The FDA, EPA, and state governments have a variety of monitoring and reporting programs in place, but these programs do not provide the basis for national reporting on contaminant concentrations. Several factors contribute to the inability to aggregate existing databases. States collect data for different purposes, not all sampling strategies are based on a random sample, different techniques are used to sample fish and do not adhere to the same standards for assimilating composite samples, and different analytical methods are used to measure the total concentration of contaminants in fish, potentially resulting in different outcomes. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “moderately feasible.” Two factors were considered. The first is that many agencies (the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey) have experience with sampling and/or analysis of fish (including edible portions) for contaminants. Thus, collectively, there is experience with both market-based assessments and analytical techniques. That said, however, there is no such program in existence, and any new program of this type would be subject to high levels of public scrutiny by consumer organizations, environmental interests, fishers, and others engaged in marketing and selling fish. Options for Filling This Data Gap No estimates are available at this time.

SYSTEM Urban and Suburban Areas INDICATOR Chemical contamination DATA GAP Soils Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap No estimates are available at this time.

Indicator This indicator reports on contaminants found in urban and suburban streams and soils. The Data Gap Data are not currently available to report in a consistent manner on chemical contamination in urban and suburban soils. The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report included data on contaminant levels in urban and suburban streams.

Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “challenging” because doing so would require additional consultation to develop a detailed indicator design, there are only a few cities/metro areas with the infrastructure in place to collect this information, and there is no federal agency that has a complementary mandate or a history of collecting these types of data to undertake or coordinate the required activities. Options for Filling This Data Gap Neither USGS nor EPA provided estimates of the cost of collecting data on urban soil contamination or on the extent of and potential for reliance upon existing data collection by states, local governments, and others for reporting on this indicator.

Nitrogen Loading in Rivers, Nitrogen Yield Gap or Cluster Definition This gap relates to the need to provide nitrogen loading and yield data in areas for which data are not currently available. Costs To Fill This Gap One option for filling this gap would be to reestablish the 130 long-term monitoring sites eliminated from the USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network, at a cost of approximately $6.5 million per year, with start-up costs of $1.5 million (spread over two years). It may be possible to use data from a variety of other sources to fill in at least some of the gap identified in the 2002 report. This might involve using data from the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (many study sites are located in areas where 2002 data were not available) and from states and other monitoring sources. No cost estimates are available for this approach.

GAP DESCRIPTION

INITIAL COSTS

ONGOING COSTS

Reestablish stream monitoring sites


$6.5 million/year

Use alternative data sources

Not available

Not available

Feasibility Rating Filling this gap by reestablishing the 130 National Stream Quality Accounting Network sites is considered to be “highly and immediately feasible,” because USGS operates many such sites and has the capability and procedures for maintaining them. The feasibility of filling this gap with


73


data from alternative sources depends upon the option. If NAWQA sites are used, there should be relatively little integration involved, and thus is likely to be “highly and immediately feasible.” Use of disparate federal, state, and other data sources would require development of new datasharing networks, assessment of consistency of data, and the like, and is considered to be “challenging.” In fact, there is considerable information that outlines the degree of challenge associated with states’ use of different methods and approaches. Recent Government Accountability Office Reports highlight these challenges.* In addition, as of summer 2005, federal agencies were working to develop a coordinated proposal to address this issue, spurred in part by the recent Ocean Commission report and policy responses to it. The results of this interagency effort may provide additional insight into the best approach to addressing this problem. About the Gap Core National

Movement of nitrogen

SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR The Movement of Nitrogen DATA GAP Geographic coverage Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap

GAP DESCRIPTION

START-UP COSTS

ONGOING COSTS

Reestablish National Stream Quality Accounting Network sites


$6.5 million/year

Indicator This indicator reports the yield of nitrogen from major watersheds: pounds of nitrogen per square mile of watershed area that drains into rivers and streams through discharges, runoff, and other sources. It also reports the load of nitrate, a common form of nitrogen, from major rivers: tons of nitrate carried to the ocean each year by the four largest U.S. rivers. The Data Gap There is incomplete geographic coverage for this indicator because of insufficient USGS data to calculate the loads for substantial portions of the nation (see map on p. 46 of the 2002 report). * These include GAO-02-186: Water Quality: Inconsistent State Approaches Complicate Nation’s Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted Waters and GAO-00-54: Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data.

74

Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because USGS maintains the capability for collecting water quality data through its existing network of stations (National Stream Quality Accounting Network) and filling this gap would simply require reestablishment of sites eliminated during the 1990s because of budget constraints. The techniques and methods for collecting and analyzing these data are well known. Options for Filling This Data Gap USGS believes that data collection could be undertaken by reestablishing the 130 long-term monitoring sites that were eliminated from the National Stream Quality Accounting Network program in 1995. Sampling these sites 18 times per year (monthly and during periods of high flow) would cost approximately $50,000 per site per year, for a total of roughly $6.5 million dollars per year. Start-up costs are estimated at $1.5 million, based on estimates that approximately 50% of these sites will require new instrumentation and equipment, at approximately $25,000 per site. These costs would be spread over two years for logistical purposes. Data collection by state entities and other federal agencies (e.g., USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management) might complement or supplant the USGS effort. However, this would require a mechanism (including training) for ensuring consistency, standardization, and quality in field and laboratory protocols and ensuring that funding was sufficient. A distributed effort would likely require significant start-up funds. Much attention has been paid recently to the challenges facing the nation’s water quality monitoring network. For example, two GAO reports suggest both that the current system of collection and aggregation of data by states under EPA guidance does not produce an accurate picture of water quality conditions nationwide and that interagency and intergovernmental coordination is insufficient to provide the data needed.†

Carbon Storage in Ecosystems (Including Soil Organic Matter) Gap or Cluster Definition This cluster consists of gaps for reporting carbon stored in both forest and grassland/shrubland ecosystems and for reporting farmland soil organic matter, which can also be reported as amounts of carbon stored. The forest gap is for †

GAO. March 2000. Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. United States General Accounting Office (GAO). GAO/RCED-00-54. GAO. June 2004. Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection Efforts Needed to Support Key Decisions. United States General Accounting Office (GAO). GAO-04-382.

THE HEINZ CENTER


Carbon Storage in Ecosystems (Including Soil Organic Matter) GAP DESCRIPTION

INITIAL COSTS

ONGOING COSTS

Farmlands soil organic matter

$500,000 to $1 million

$1.0 million/year

Forest carbon storage—forests

Covered in agency budgets

Forest carbon storage—urban forests

$3.2 million/year

Forest carbon storage—products

$2 million/year

Grasslands/shrublands carbon storage


$4.25 million/year

TO T A L

$2–3 million (over 3 years)

$10.45 million/year

below-ground storage; above-ground carbon is already adequately reported by the Forest Service. The grassland/ shrubland gap covers both above- and below-ground carbon. Costs To Fill This Gap We have been informed that one important element of this gap—storage of carbon below ground in forests—will be addressed in the next several years using existing programmatic resources in the Forest Service. Additional costs are estimated for urban forests (about 10% of the nation’s forests may be considered “urban”) and for the fate of carbon incorporated into products. Taken together, the forest, grassland/shrubland, and farmland estimates are approximately $10 million per year. An alternative approach to obtaining cropland organic matter estimates may be to make use of existing data collected by public and private soil analysis laboratories. Issues of data coverage and consistency and access to data on private lands would need to be addressed in a feasibility study before this option could be fully evaluated. Feasibility Rating Filling the forest and farmland gaps is considered to be “highly and immediately feasible,” because the relevant agencies [Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)] already have programs in place to collect these or similar data. Filling the grassland/shrubland gap is considered to be “moderately feasible” because doing so would require development of survey mechanisms on federal rangelands (the estimates here are based on expansion of the NRCS National Resources Inventory onto these lands.)

About the Gaps Farmlands Forests Grasslands/Shrublands

Soil organic matter Forest carbon storage Grassland/shrubland carbon storage

SYSTEM Farmlands INDICATOR Soil organic matter DATA GAP National-level monitoring of soil organic matter

Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Existing data (augmented as needed) Initial assessment of $500,000 to $1.0 million existing data sources Additional monitoring, Estimated during data aggregation, etc. initial assessment National Resources Inventory $1,006,500/year

Indicator This indicator reports how much organic matter there is in the top 4–6 inches of cropland soil. This will be reported nationally over time, and by region for the most recent year of data. The Data Gap While there are baseline estimates of the amount of organic matter in soils across the United States, there is no mechanism for systematic monitoring of changes in these amounts. Efforts are under way, however, to develop techniques to use satellite data to estimate organic matter in surface soils. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because there is an existing program (NCRS National Resources Inventory) that maintains a sampling frame and statistical reporting infrastructure. Additional field resources are the primary constraint on filling this gap. Reliance upon existing data (augmented as needed) would be considered a “moderately feasible” option because the coverage, quality, and timing of existing data are not known at this time, and thus the processes for aggregating them cannot be developed and the nature of the program needed to augment them cannot be determined. Options for Filling This Data Gap There are two options for filling this gap. Existing Data (Augmented As Needed) Soil organic matter measurements are often included in routine soil tests, but there is no unified effort in place to collect and analyze the results over appropriate regions. Thus, one option would be to identify the potential sources of aggregate soil testing information (major soil testing labs, state departments of agriculture, and the like) and to


75


assess the ability to use existing data for national and regional reporting. This assessment would include the ability and practicality of accessing the data (it is assumed that permission would have to be obtained from individual landowners), the spatial coverage of existing data, methodological consistency, and so on. This assessment would identify whether additional sampling was needed or whether any changes were needed to ensure comparability of data from different labs or regions. Other considerations might involve defraying additional costs to labs for reporting, and the costs and methods for organizing a national data aggregation effort. This would be a significant feasibility study, costs for which are estimated at $500,000 to $1.0 million. National Resources Inventory The second option would rely upon the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s National Resources Inventory, a national program that reports on a variety of characteristics and trends for the nation’s nonfederal lands (primarily rural lands). NRCS has estimated the cost for providing a nationally consistent, statistically valid estimate of soil organic matter, through on-site measurements at sites used for the NRI program. This would provide annual estimates (after a three-year start-up phase) for cultivated and noncultivated cropland, Conservation Program (CRP) land, and both irrigated and nonirrigated pasturelands. The program would be based on sampling at about 3500 locations (7000 sample points altogether) per year. Cost estimates have been provided by NRCS: Laboratory costs $574,000 Statistical support and services 100,000 Field staff 262,500 Equipment 70,000 Total $1,006,500/year

NRCS believes these are “high-end” estimates and that costs could probably be reduced. For example, salary costs might be lowered by using trained technicians or properly trained students. Other Important Considerations Other Desirable Data Soil organic matter is heavily influenced by land use and management practices. Data describing dominant soils, cropping patterns, and, particularly, water management practices such as irrigation and drainage would enhance the utility of the basic monitoring data described here. These ancillary data are not currently collected by the NRI but are being collected by a newly established NRI initiative, the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), which was established to quantify the environmental benefits of conservation programs. There is a potential to link the monitoring of organic matter to the same sub-sample

76

of NRI points being used for the CEAP effort, enabling linkage of use and management data to observed onsite soil properties. While not necessary for reporting on soil organic matter conditions and trends, such a linkage would enable research to help explain observed conditions in terms of soil properties and land use/management decisions. Links to Other Indicators Obtaining access permissions and getting to actual locations are significant cost drivers for any field monitoring program. Data for other indicators from the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report, such as soil salinity and soil biological condition, as well as other relevant data, could be collected once a sampling strategy and scientifically defensible procedures and protocols have been developed. Using site visits for multiple purposes could reduce costs and improve data quality.

SYSTEM Forests INDICATOR Carbon storage DATA GAP Carbon in soils, forest floors, wood products, and on nontimberlands Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Carbon storage in No additional funding required nonurban forests Carbon storage in $3.2 million/year urban forests Carbon storage in $2.0 million/year wood products, landfills Total $5.2 million/year The Forest Service did not provide “initial” or “start-up” cost estimates.

Indicator The overall indicator reports how much carbon is stored in forests, including trees, soil, and plant litter on the forest floor, and in wood products (e.g., wood used in housing, newspapers). The Data Gap Data are available only for wood (standing trees) on timberlands* but do not include estimates for wood on nontimberlands. Data are not currently available for forest soils, forest floors (including leaf litter) and down woody debris, or wood products (including wood in use, wood in landfills, wood burned for energy, and wood burned or wood that decomposes without being used for energy). * “Timberlands” is a USDA Forest Service designation for lands that grow at least 20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year, which is considered to be sufficient to support commercial harvest under current economic conditions. Lands on which harvest is prohibited by statute are not included as timberlands.

THE HEINZ CENTER


Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible.” The USDA Forest Service has plans in place to collect the required data for nonurban soil carbon, forest floor litter, and down woody debris. Initial estimates and plans have been developed for urban forest monitoring, but no such plans are in place for carbon stored in products and landfills. Options for Filling This Data Gap The required data for reporting on change in carbon in nonurban forest soils, forest floors and down woody debris, and nontimberland forests will be available at no additional cost in about 10 years (reporting on baseline amounts of carbon in any one of these pools may begin before that time, but it will take 10 years to have adequate data to report changes). This is based on the assumption that current funding levels will be sufficient and that no new funds are required. Gradual improvements in methods for estimating carbon in wood products should sufficiently improve the quality of these data, and it is expected that no new funds will be necessary. Urban forests represent 5–10% of the nation’s forests, but the program noted above will not address carbon storage in these areas, nor will it provide consistent tracking of wood incorporated into products, like paper and dimensional lumber. Different products “store” their carbon for different periods (e.g., paper may be used once, then disposed of in a landfill, where it may contribute to methane generation). USDA estimates the cost of addressing these two areas at $3.2 million and $2.0 million per year, respectively.

(there are two sites in New Mexico). Such sites could provide substantial validation for more widely dispersed measurements. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “moderately feasible.” USDA has developed the general outlines of a program to collect these data (see below), but no mechanisms are in place to undertake the required work. Options for Filling This Data Gap The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service provided estimates of the likely costs of utilizing the National Resources Inventory (NRI) program to obtain nationally consistent, statistically valid estimates of carbon storage in grasslands and shrublands. This approach would provide annual estimates, after a 3-year start-up phase. The program would be based on sampling at about 7000 locations per year. These estimates assume that NRI sampling, currently limited to private rangelands, is expanded to included rangelands in federal and other ownerships, which would constitute a significant expansion of the operational scope of the NRI program. Cost estimates provided by NRCS are shown below: Start-up costs Ongoing costs Laboratory costs Statistical support and services Field staff Equipment Total First 3 years Succeeding years

$1,500,000 (one time; spread over 3 years) $1,148,000 $200,000/year $2,625,500/year $280,000/year $4,753,500/year $4,253,500/year

CONDITION OF SPECIES AND BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES SYSTEM Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR Carbon storage DATA GAP Nationwide monitoring of carbon in soil and vegetation Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap First 3 years $4.75 million/year Each succeeding year $4.25 million/year

Indicator This indicator will report the total amount of carbon stored in soil and plants in grasslands and shrublands. The Data Gap Data are not currently available to provide systematic monitoring and reporting of soil and vegetation carbon. The minimum data that are required for this indicator are percentage soil organic matter (SOM) in surface soil layers and carbon stored in plant material, estimated on an area basis. Intensive, long-term data are available from the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites, including those in Alaska, Michigan, Minnesota, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico

At-Risk Species and Communities Gap or Cluster Definition This cluster consists of gaps related to rare or declining (“at risk”) species or communities. • Three gaps involve the need to report on plants that are strongly associated with particular ecosystems (fresh waters, grasslands/shrublands, and forests). The 2002 report included information on animals that are strongly associated with these systems, but additional funding was required to process the data on the larger number of plant species. • Two gaps involve reporting on coastal a- risk species, including both plants (macroalgae) and animals. These species are not well represented in Natural Heritage data. • Three gaps reflect the need to incorporate trend data into the reporting on at-risk species. This would enable reporting on population trends, enable users to distinguish between species that are naturally rare and those that are in decline, and distinguish actual trends and projected threats.


77


At-Risk Species and Communities

GAP DESCRIPTION

INITIAL COSTS

ONGOING COSTS (PER 5-YEAR CYCLE)

Reporting on plants by ecosystem

$ 277,000

$ 106,000

Reporting on coastal species

300,000

111,500

Improved trends reporting

661,000

2,875,250

Community types Forest

55,000

25,000

165,000

50,000

$1,458,000

$3,167,750

Riparian TO T A L

• Two gaps would address at-risk communities. One would support reporting on the area of forest community types that have been significantly reduced in overall area (more than 70% reduction from presettlement area), and the other would support reporting on at-risk riparian plant communities Costs To Address This Gap Based on estimates provided by NatureServe, it appears that approximately $1.5 million in initial costs and about $600,000 per year in ongoing costs would address this gap. These estimates cover the analysis and reporting of data collected by Natural Heritage programs and integrated by NatureServe. Thus, they represent additional, marginal costs to report on these indicators, not the full costs that would be required to duplicate this service in another institution. Feasibility Rating NatureServe and the state-based network of Natural Heritage programs are a longstanding operational monitoring and reporting program. The data required for most of these analyses (except coastal) are generally available or are being collected by the network, and NatureServe has the capacity to undertake these analyses. The gaps related to at-risk species are considered “highly and immediately feasible,” although the coastal gap is considered “moderately feasible.” The riparian and forest communities gaps are considered “moderately feasible”: in the former case, there is no existing national classification system for riparian areas (and one is needed to enable this gap to be filled), while the latter involves reconciliation of data from at least two sources. About the Gaps Core National

Coasts and Oceans Forest Forest

78

At-risk species (data gaps common to multiple at-risk species indicators: trend data, actual trends versus threats, naturally rare versus declining) At-risk plants and animals At-risk forest plants Forest communities—significantly reduced area

Fresh Waters At-risk freshwater and wetland plants Fresh Waters At-risk riparian communities Grasslands/Shrublands At-risk grassland/shrubland plants

SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR At-risk native species DATA GAP (Data gaps common to multiple at-risk species indicators) Distinguishing between naturally rare and declining species Distinguishing between actual recent trends and presumed threats Establishing trends in the number of species of a given status rank These three data gaps are relevant to both the Core National Indicator of At-Risk Native Species and the four ecosystemspecific at-risk species indicators (At-Risk Native Marine Species, Forest Species, Freshwater Species, and Grassland and Shrubland Species). The improvements described here are applicable across the Natural Heritage/NatureServe* data system and are not broken out by ecosystem type and thus are not provided as part of the estimates for the ecosystem-specific at-risk species indicators. Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $661,150 Ongoing costs $2,875,250 maximum per assessment cycle† (some costs may be covered; see note at end)

The Indicator The at-risk native species indicators in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report describe the relative risk of * The NatureServe Network is a group of more than 50 natural heritage programs, primarily housed in and funded by state governments, that collects data on a variety of species and ecological community attributes. The network is coordinated by NatureServe, a nonprofit organization. † We assume that this work would be undertaken to accommodate a roughly 5-year assessment cycle.

THE HEINZ CENTER


extinction of native plant and animal species. Species are ranked according to their risk of extinction, and the percentage of species in each risk class is reported. Degrees of risk range from very high (“critically imperiled” species are often found in five or fewer places or have experienced very steep declines) to moderate (“vulnerable” species are often found in fewer than 80 places or have recently experienced widespread declines). Species ranked “secure” or “apparently secure” are not reported. The Data Gaps Distinguishing between Species that are Naturally Rare and Those that are Rare as a Result of Population Decline NatureServe and its Natural Heritage partners use an 11factor protocol for assessing risk.* Elevated risk levels for a particular species may be due to historical or recent population declines, or they may reflect natural rarity; biologists often consider very rare species to be at risk even in the absence of recent declines or current threats. Even though population declines may be considered in the ranking process, these data are not consistently gathered, currently making it impossible to distinguish comprehensively between species for which population decline is a significant factor in their overall ranking and those that are naturally rare. Distinguishing between Recent Trends and Presumed Threats In some cases, changes in NatureServe’s species rankings can be attributed to actual changes in population, while other changes in rank were made because of the existence of presumed threats to individual species and the presumed implication for future short-term population trends. As with the previous gap, there are both limitations on the availability of recent trend data for many species and limitations on the ability of the NatureServe/Heritage data to support distinctions between species ranks in which presumed threats play a major role and those for which actual recent population trends are predominant. Trends in the Number of Species of a Given Status Rank The system of gathering and managing data on species status used by NatureServe and its Natural Heritage program partners does not have a standardized, periodic process for review and update of the status ranks of species. Therefore, it is not appropriate to compare the number of species in any given status rank with the number in that status rank in any other time period. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because there is in place a state-based network of programs to collect the relevant data (state-based Natural Heritage * See http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm for a description of the conservation status ranking system.

programs) and a centralized organization with the mission of providing consistency of methods and integration of data across individual programs (NatureServe). Designing a program to report on this gap would require some new development, but this is likely to be within the network’s capabilities. Options for Filling This Data Gap The primary need for these gaps is to gather and incorporate adequate information into the ranking system on shortand long-term population trends for at-risk species (i.e., those ranked as having an increased risk of extinction). NatureServe has developed estimates of the costs to undertake these activities, which are outlined in the table below. Up-front costs to fill all the identified data gaps would be about $661,150, and costs incurred at every major update (e.g., every 5 years) would be about $2,875,250 (see notes below). INITIAL COSTS Applicable Data Gap

Description

Rare/decline distinction; trends in species rank

Establish short- and long-term trend data for Vertebrates (650 species) Selected invertebrates (300 species) Vascular plants (4700 species)

Recent trends/presumed threat distinction

Ability to distinguish between actual recent trends and projected short-term trends, which are based on presumed threats.

TOTAL INITIAL COSTS

Cost

$ 66,000 14,850 569,300 11,000

$661,150

ONGOING COSTS (PER 5-YEAR CYCLE) Applicable Data Gap

Description

Trends in species rank

Periodically update status data Vertebrates (650 species) Selected invertebrates (300 species) Vascular plants (5500 species)

TO T A L O N G O I N G C O S T S

Cost

$ 634,250 866,000 1,375,000 $2,875,250

Note on “Initial Costs” This write-up provides cost estimates for establishing shortand long-term trend data only for species that are at “elevated risk” of extinction (those ranked G1 through G3 in


79


the Heritage system). This means that trend data will not be established for other species, including those not at “elevated risk” but which may be declining and, therefore, approaching an at-risk classification. NatureServe estimates additional costs of $191,400 for vertebrates, and $30,250 for selected invertebrates in order to be able to provide trend data on species not currently at risk; a similar estimate for vascular plants was not provided. Note on “Ongoing Costs” The costs above assume review and update of all vertebrate and invertebrate species and each at-risk plant species at least once during this 5-year period. NatureServe anticipates that some of the funds needed to update data on the at-risk status of species (and thus provide sound trends in the number of species of different ranks) will be secured from current funding partners. Thus, the figure cited here should be considered a maximum.

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR At-risk native marine species* DATA GAP Marine animals (mollusks, corals, fishes) and plants (seagrasses, macroalgae) This write-up describes activities and costs needed to allow assessment of the status of coastal plant and animal species. However, these costs should be considered in conjunction with the costs and activities described above, for the Core National Indicator at-risk species data gaps, which address activities needed to improve the quality of the information provided and to update these data on a regular basis. Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $300,000 Ongoing costs $111,500 (every 5 years)

Indicator This indicator will report on the relative risk of extinction of native marine species, both plants and animals. The risk categories are based on such factors as the number and condition of individuals and populations, the area occupied by the species, population trends, and known threats. Degrees of risk to be reported here range from very high (“critically imperiled” species are often found in five or fewer places or have experienced very steep declines) to moderate (“vulnerable” species are often found in fewer than 80 places or have recently experienced widespread declines). Species ranked as “secure” or “apparently secure” would not be reported. The data would also be presented on a regional basis for estuaries and coastal waters out to 200 miles. This indicator is designed to be consistent with the risk rankings used in the state-based Natural Heritage network, * This gap is relevant for both the coasts and oceans section of the report (for which references are provided above) and the Core National Indicator, At-Risk Native Species (p. 78).

80

which generally has relatively sparse information on marine species at present, but whose coverage is expanding in this area. Other “at-risk species” indicators in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report utilize the Heritage data and methods. The Data Gap No aggregated source of data exists on the risk of extinction for a broad spectrum of marine species. The primary exceptions are species that are commercially harvested or listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “moderately feasible” because, although there is in place a state-based network of programs to collect the relevant data (Heritage programs) and a centralized organization with the mission of providing consistency of methods and integration of data across individual programs (NatureServe), extending this network’s coverage to include a significant new arena (marine species) would require considerable program development. Options for Filling This Data Gap NatureServe, the nongovernmental organization that manages the Natural Heritage network in collaboration with

O N E - TI M E C O S T S Animals (corals, mollusks, and fish)

$273,500

Plants (vascular plants, kelp, and other macroalgae) Ecosystem group taxonomy

†

22,660 6,875

TOTAL ONE-TIME COSTS

$303,035

O N G O I N G C O S T S (per 5-year cycle) Animals Plants TO T A L O N G O I N G C O S T S

†

$105,000 6,500 $111,500

This cost represents a portion of the cost of development of a system of “major ecosystem groups”—a set of approximately 50 broad habitat types—midrange between “forests” or “coastal waters” and the very specific plant community associations (of which there are several thousand) currently used by NatureServe. This important intermediate step is required to allow aggregation of association-level data to the four major “natural or semi-natural” ecosystem types used in the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report (forests, grasslands/shrublands, freshwater, and coasts and oceans). We have included one-fourth of this cost (overall cost $27,500) because there are four major systems that would be covered.

THE HEINZ CENTER


state-based Heritage programs, estimates that providing the data for this indicator would cost approximately $300,000 in up-front costs and about $112,000 to update the listings every 5 years. This work would involve initial and ongoing assessment of the status of approximately 6500 mollusk species, 400 coral species, 2500 marine fish species, 20 vascular plant species, and over 100 species of kelp and other macroalgae. Most of the work would be conducted by biologists employed in state Heritage programs.

SYSTEM Forests INDICATOR At-risk native species DATA GAP Forest plants This write-up describes activities and costs needed to allow assessment of the status of forest plant species. However, these costs should be considered in conjunction with the costs and activities described above, for the Core National Indicator at-risk species data gaps, which address activities needed to improve the quality of the information provided about individual species and to update these data on a regular basis. Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $89,895 Ongoing costs $35,333 (every 5 years)

Indicator This indicator reports on the relative risk of extinction of native forest species. The risk categories are based on such factors as the number and condition of individuals and populations, the area occupied by the species, population trends, and known threats. Degrees of risk reported here range from very high (“critically imperiled” species are often found in five or fewer places or have experienced very steep declines) to moderate (“vulnerable” species are often found in fewer than 80 places or have recently experienced widespread declines). In all cases, a wide variety of factors contribute to the overall ratings. The Data Gap The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report included data on the overall status of vascular plants, but cost and time constraints made it impossible to report on the status of plants that occur primarily in forest settings, freshwater settings, or grasslands and shrublands. In order to do so, it is necessary to identify those species that are found primarily in one habitat type, and are not broad generalists. These data could be derived from expert reviews of data in the NatureServe/Natural Heritage program database. Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the basic data needed are already available and NatureServe has the capability to undertake the required analyses.

Options for Filling This Data Gap The costs provided here are from NatureServe and presume that the work described here would be done through the Heritage network. NatureServe, the nongovernmental organization that manages the Natural Heritage network in collaboration with state-based Heritage programs, estimates that providing the data for this data gap would cost approximately $90,000 in up-front costs and a minor amount for recurrent costs necessary to update taxonomies. Estimated costs are detailed in the table below. Note that NatureServe provided a single, combined estimate for forests, grasslands/shrublands, and fresh waters (total of $276,560 initially, and $106,000 ongoing); one-third of these costs has been attributed to this indicator.

O N E - TI M E C O S T S Ecosystem group taxonomy* Attribute plants to major ecosystem groups† TO T A L O N E - T I M E C O S T S

$ 6,875 83,020 $89,895

O N G O I N G C O S T S (per 5-yer cycle) Maintain plant data and attribute to major ecosystem groups‡

$35,333


$35,333

* This cost represents a portion of the cost of development of a system of “major ecosystem groups”—a set of approximately 50 broad habitat types—midrange between “forests” or “coastal waters” and the very specific plant community associations (of which there are several thousand) currently used by NatureServe. This important intermediate step is required to allow aggregation of association-level data to the four major “natural or semi-natural” ecosystem types used in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report (forests, grasslands/shrublands, fresh waters, and coasts and oceans). We have included one-fourth of this cost (overall cost $27,500) because there are four major systems that would be covered by such a system. † This cost represents a portion of the total to attribute plants to the major ecosystem groups, the total of which should be partitioned among the major ecosystem types (forests, fresh waters, and grasslands/shrublands)—we have simply divided the total into thirds; because of the minimal number of higher plant taxa in marine systems, it does not seem fair to partition any of this cost to the data gap for marine species. The same logic applies to ongoing costs, which include costs related to maintaining these plant data. ‡ This cost represents updating of taxonomy and similar reviews on an ongoing basis. Initial updating of taxonomy ($18,333 for each of the three ecosystem types, or $55,000 for all three) is included within the “one-time costs.”


81


SYSTEM Forests INDICATOR Forest community types with significantly reduced area DATA GAP Historic and current area of forest types Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $55,000 Ongoing costs $25,000 (every 5 years)

Indicator This indicator would report whether those forest community types that cover significantly fewer acres than they did in presettlement times are increasing or decreasing in area, and by how much. It would also report the total area occupied by these much-reduced forest community types— those that have been reduced by 70% or more in area. In this context, the term “community types” is intended to represent a classification level that is finer in resolution than would be the case with “SAF forest types” or “FIA types.” These classifications (developed or used by the Society of American Foresters and the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis program) are fairly coarse scale, with approximately 18 groupings in the FIA system for the entire United States, including Alaska); it is these “forest types” that are used in the 2002 report’s “forest area” indicator. At the other end of the spectrum, the Natural Heritage programs employ a very fine-scale classification— “associations.” The objective of the “forest community types with significantly reduced area” indicator is to rely upon a system that is midway between these two extremes. This probably will be something like NatureServe’s set of “ecological systems.” See http://www.natureserve.org/publications/ usEcologicalsystems.jsp. The Data Gap Data on historic and current area of many forest community types are not available. NatureServe and the FIA program are collaborating on development of methods to estimate the area of forest type from existing FIA data. It is also possible to estimate historic area, but this has not been done on a comprehensive basis. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “moderately feasible” because it would involve development of new methods and the crosslinking of data sets from a variety of sources. Options for Filling This Data Gap NatureServe, the nongovernmental organization that manages the Natural Heritage network in collaboration with state-based Heritage programs, estimates that providing the data for their share of the collaborative project with the Forest Service to fill this data gap will cost approximately $55,000 in up-front costs and $25,000 every 5 years to

82

provide updated data. They propose a two-stage collaborative process. First, Kuchler potential vegetation maps would be used to approximate forest/savanna community type and area circa 1600. Error bounds would be calculated using presettlement vegetation maps from several states and local jurisdictions. Kuchler types (~70) will then be cross-walked to the Forest Service’s FIA types circa 1963. This would provide a 1600-to-1963 trend data set and would enable identification of FIA types with 70% loss. Second, FIA would then be linked to NatureServe Ecological Systems classifications and the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) cover types. FIA data would carry forward, providing acreage trends for forest/savanna ecological systems (70% reduced area for about 60 types) through 1990. Both FIA and NLCD acreages would provide estimates circa 1990.

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR At-risk native freshwater species DATA GAP Freshwater and wetland plants This write-up describes activities and costs that would allow assessment of the status of freshwater plant species. However, these costs should be considered in conjunction with the costs and activities described above, for the Core National Indicator at-risk species data gaps, which address activities needed to improve the quality of the information provided about individual species and to update these data on a regular basis. Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $89,895 Ongoing costs $35,333 (every 5 years)

Indicator This indicator reports on the relative risk of extinction of native freshwater species. The risk categories are based on such factors as the number and condition of individuals and populations, the area occupied by the species, population trends, and known threats. Degrees of risk reported here range from very high (“critically imperiled” species often are found in five or fewer places or have experienced very steep declines) to moderate (“vulnerable” species often are found in fewer than 80 places or have recently experienced widespread declines). In all cases, a wide variety of factors contribute to the overall ratings. The Data Gap The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report included data on the overall status of vascular plants, but cost and time constraints made it impossible to report on the status of plants that occur primarily in forest settings, freshwater settings, or grasslands and shrublands. In order to do so, it is necessary to identify those species that are found primarily in one habitat type and are not broad generalists. These data could be derived from expert reviews of data in the NatureServe/Natural Heritage program database.

THE HEINZ CENTER


Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the basic data needed are already available and NatureServe has the capability to undertake the required analyses. Options for Filling This Data Gap NatureServe, the nongovernmental organization that manages the Natural Heritage network in collaboration with state-based Heritage programs, estimates that providing the data for this data gap would cost approximately $90,000 in up-front costs and a minor amount for recurrent costs necessary to update taxonomies. Estimated costs are detailed in the table below. Note that NatureServe provided a single, combined estimate for forests, grasslands/shrublands, and fresh waters ($276,560 initially and $106,000 ongoing); onethird of these costs have been attributed to this indicator. O N E - TI M E C O S T S Ecosystem group taxonomy* Attribute plants to major ecosystem groups† TO T A L O N E - T I M E C O S T S

$ 6,875 83,020 $89,895

O N G O I N G C O S T S (per 5-year cycle) Attribute plants to major ecosystem groups‡

$35,333


$35,333

* This cost represents a portion of the cost of development of a system of “major ecosystem groups”—a set of approximately 50 broad habitat types—midrange between “forests” or “coastal waters” and the very specific plant community associations (of which there are several thousand) currently used by NatureServe. This important intermediate step is required to allow aggregation of association-level data to the four major “natural or semi-natural” ecosystem types used in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report (forests, grasslands/shrublands, fresh waters, and coasts and oceans). We have included one-fourth of this cost (overall cost $27,500) because there are four major systems that would be covered by such a system. † This cost represents a portion of the total to attribute plants to the major ecosystem groups, the total of which should be partitioned among the major ecosystem types (forests, fresh waters, and grasslands/shrublands)—we have simply divided the total into thirds; because of the minimal number of higher plant taxa in marine systems, it does not seem fair to partition any of this cost to the data gap for marine species. The same logic applies to ongoing costs, which include costs related to maintaining these plant data. ‡ This cost represents updating of taxonomy and similar reviews on an ongoing basis. Initial updating of taxonomy ($18,333 for each of the three ecosystem types, or $55,000 for all three) is included within the “one-time costs.”

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR At-risk freshwater plant communities DATA GAP Riparian communities Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $165,000 Ongoing costs $50,000 (every 5 years)

Indicator This indicator reports on the percentage of wetland and riparian plant communities that are at different degrees of risk of extinction. These status ranks are based on such factors as the remaining number and condition of occurrences of the community, the remaining acreage, and the severity of threats to the community type. Degrees of risk reported here range from very high (“critically imperiled” communities often are found in five or fewer places or have experienced very steep declines) to moderate (“vulnerable” communities often are found in 80 or fewer places or have experienced widespread declines). Communities ranked as “secure” or “apparently secure” are not listed. In all cases, a wide variety of factors contribute to overall ratings. The Data Gap No classification system exists for riparian systems in the U.S. National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), the federal standard for vegetation information, which is used by NatureServe. Therefore, NatureServe does not yet assess riparian systems. Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “moderately feasible” because it appears that the required analyses are relatively straightforward, and because NatureServe has the capability to undertake these analyses and an existing network to report the data regularly. Options for Filling This Data Gap NatureServe, the nongovernmental organization that manages the Natural Heritage network in collaboration with state-based Heritage programs, estimates that approximately $165,000 would be necessary in order to complete the classification for all U.S. riparian and wetland plant communities, including those found in Alaska, which account for nearly 50% of all wetland communities. This estimate includes $55,000 needed to distinguish between naturally rare community types and those that are experiencing recent declines. Ongoing costs, which would be incurred at the time of each major update of the data (e.g., every 5 years), would be about $50,000.


83


SYSTEM Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR At-risk native grassland and shrubland species DATA GAP Grassland and shrubland plants This write-up describes activities and costs needed to allow assessment of the status of grassland and shrubland plant species. However, these costs should be considered in conjunction with the costs and activities described above, for the Core National Indicator at-risk species data gaps, which address activities needed to improve the quality of the information provided and to update these data on a regular basis.

rent costs necessary to update taxonomies. Estimated costs are detailed in the table below. Note that NatureServe provided a single, combined estimate for forests, grasslands/ shrublands, and fresh waters (total of $276,560 initially, and $106,000 ongoing); one-third of these costs have been allocated to this indicator.

O N E - TI M E C O S T S Ecosystem group taxonomy*

$ 6,875

Attribute plants to major ecosystem groups

Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial costs $89,895 Ongoing costs $35,333 (every 5 years)

TO T A L O N E - T I M E C O S T S

Indicator This indicator reports on the relative risk of extinction of native grassland and shrubland species. These status ranks are based on multiple factors: the number and condition of individuals and populations, the area occupied by the species, population trends, and known threats. Degrees of risk reported here range from very high (“critically imperiled” species often are found in five or fewer places or have experienced very steep declines) to moderate (“vulnerable” species often are found in fewer than 80 places or have recently experienced widespread declines). In all cases, a wide variety of factors contribute to overall ratings.

O N G O I N G C O S T S (per 5-year cycle)

The Data Gap The 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report included data on the overall status of vascular plants, but cost and time constraints made it impossible to report on the status of plants that occur primarily in forest settings, freshwater settings, or grasslands and shrublands. In order to do so, it is necessary to identify those species that are found primarily in one habitat type and are not broad generalists. These data could be derived from expert reviews of data in the NatureServe/Natural Heritage program database. Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the basic data are available and NatureServe has the capability to undertake the required analyses. Options for Filling This Data Gap The costs provided here are from NatureServe and assume that the work described here would be done through the Heritage network. NatureServe, the nongovernmental organization that manages the Natural Heritage network in collaboration with state-based Heritage programs, estimates that providing the data for this data gap would cost approximately $90,000 in up-front costs and a minor amount for recur-

84

†

83,020 $89,895

Attribute plants to major ecosystem groups‡

$35,333


$35,333

Non-native Species Gap or Cluster Definition Gaps in this cluster relate to reporting on non-native plant cover in forest, grassland/shrubland, and farmland systems, and to the occurrence of non-native species in freshwater and coastal systems.

* This cost represents a portion of the cost of development of a system of “major ecosystem groups”—a set of approximately 50 broad habitat types—midrange between “forests” or “coastal waters” and the very specific plant community associations (of which there are several thousand) currently used by NatureServe. This important intermediate step is required to allow aggregation of association-level data to the four major “natural or semi-natural” ecosystem types used in the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report (forests, grasslands/shrublands, fresh waters, and coasts and oceans). We have included one-fourth of this cost (overall cost $27,500) because there are four major systems that would be covered. † This cost represents a portion of the total to attribute plants to the major ecosystem groups, the total of which should be partitioned between the major ecosystem types (forests, fresh waters, and grasslands-shrublands)—we have simply divided the total into thirds; because of the minimal number of higher plant taxa in marine systems, it does not seem fair to partition any of this cost to the data gap for marine species. The same logic applies to Ongoing Costs. ‡ This cost is relatively low because $18,333 ($55,000 across all ecosystem types) was added to the estimate for “attributing plants to major ecosystem groups”; it is for updating the taxonomy initially rather than on an ongoing basis.

THE HEINZ CENTER


A review, now under way, of all non-native species indicators is likely to result in significant changes to the 2002 indicator definitions. The work described here is nevertheless viewed as an important priority. Costs To Fill This Gap There are substantial uncertainties about the costs to fill this gap: • Methods for collecting data on non-native plant cover in forests are being developed by the Forest Service, but funding is uncertain. We have been provided with an estimate, but we have not been able to ascertain whether this represents funds already available or whether all or part of it is a currently unfunded shortfall. • USDA (NRCS) estimated the cost of a national program to collect data on non-native plant cover on the nation’s grasslands and shrublands at approximately $2.5 million per year. Alternatively, it might be possible to rely upon efforts of federal, state, nonprofit, academic, and other institutions, but determining whether this is possible requires study of data coverage and consistency issues and development of a mechanism for ensuring consistent collection and regular reporting. Finally, improved remote sensing methods may become available, but it is not possible to estimate their cost at present. • Based on the USDA estimates for grasslands and shrublands, we believe a federal program to collect data on

non-native plants on farmlands would cost about $1.2 million per year. However, farmland data collection poses the same set of choices (evaluate existing data, remote sensing, national program) as does grasslands and shrublands. • Freshwater non-native species are currently reported based on a program that relies upon museum and published reports, not field surveys. Expanding this coverage would require about $250,000 per year and about $700,000 in start-up costs; developing a field-based program would cost $2.5 million, and implementing it as much as $10–12 million per year. • Costs for the coastal portion of this gap are not available at this time. Feasibility Rating Filling the forest data gap is considered “highly and immediately feasible,” because the Forest Service is already testing the field protocols and has experience and infrastructure that can support this work. The freshwater museum/published reports option is considered to be “moderately feasible,” because it would involve expansion of an existing network of collaborators to cover a significantly larger set of species. All other gaps are considered to be “challenging” because they would involve establishment of new field programs, testing and development of new protocols, development of data management capacity, and the like.

Non-native Species GAP DESCRIPTION

INITIAL COSTS

ONGOING COSTS

COASTS AND OCEANS

Not available

Not available

FOREST PLANT COVER*

Not available

Not available

$500,000

Unknown

GRASSLAND AND SHRUBLAND PLANT COVER Existing data sources—feasibility study New federal/national program

Not provided

$2.5 million/year

Remote sensing-based approach

Unknown

Unknown

$500,000

Unknown

FARMLAND PLANT COVER Existing data sources—feasibility study New federal/national program

Not provided

$1.25 million /year

Remote sensing-based approach

Unknown

Unknown

Museum/publications

$680,000

$240,000

Field data collection

$2.5 million

FRESHWATER

TO T A L

$10–12 million/year Depends upon options chosen

* The Forest Service has indicated that as much as $20 million might be needed to accomplish this work, but we have not been able to determine whether these are one-time or annual costs or a combination of the two.


85


About the Gaps Coasts and Oceans Forest Grasslands/Shrublands Farmland Fresh Waters

Non-native species Forest non-native plant cover Grassland/shrubland non-native plant cover Native vegetation in farmland areas Non-native freshwater species

A review of all non-native species indicators, now under way, is likely to result in significant changes to the 2002 indicator definitions. SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Non-native species DATA GAP Indicator definition required Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Not available. This indicator was undefined in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. A multi-ecosystem task group is now working to define and recommend an indicator and to assess data needs.

SYSTEM Forests INDICATOR Area covered by non-native plants DATA GAP Coverage in overstory and understory Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap  Initial costs Unknown—up to $20 million  Ongoing costs 

As much as $20 million will be necessary for the Forest Service to perform the necessary data collection for this data gap, but we are uncertain whether • This is represents funds currently programmed for this activity, or whether all or part represents a currently unfunded shortfall • These are one-time or ongoing costs, or what the split might be between these two categories Indicator This indicator describes the degree to which non-native plants are found in U.S. forests. It will report the percentage of the total area that is made up of non-native plants. This will be broken down by the percentages that are covered by non-natives in the overstory (large trees that form the canopy) and understory (shrubs, ground plants, and smaller trees). The Data Gap A standardized approach for reporting on the area of nonnative plants at the national level is not available. However, development and testing of protocols for reporting nonnative plant cover is currently under way by the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. This indicator is currently being revised by a Heinz Center task group charged with evaluating the full suite of non-native species indicators in the 2002 State of the

86

Nation’s Ecosystems report. Thus, it is very likely that a new indicator will be proposed that may have somewhat different implications in terms of data needs. Feasibility Rating Filling this data gap is rated as “highly and immediately feasible” because the USDA Forest Service already has developed the plans to collect the required data, and maintains an infrastructure for plot identification, field data collection, and so on. Options for Filling this Data Gap The Forest Service has developed the technical methods for implementing a monitoring program that identifies all species of vegetation—both native and non-native—on a subset of all FIA plots. This effort would support the indicator described here, but there is conflicting information about whether the resources (as much as $20 million per year) are available to support the effort.

SYSTEM Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR Non-native plant cover DATA GAP Geographic coverage and aggregation of existing data Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Option 1: Utilize data from existing programs Feasibility study Preliminary assessment under way. Additional funding ($500,000) will be required. Ongoing costs Unknown Option 2: New national program Initial costs No start-up cost estimates provided Ongoing costs $2.48 million/year Option 3: Remote sensing Speculative

Indicator This indicator will report the percentage of plant cover in grasslands and shrublands that is made up of non-native species and will include data for both invasive non-native species and all non-native species. The Data Gap Existing data on non-native plants from many state and federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and universities have not been integrated to provide consistent information over large areas. Further, there is no single program that has the authority or mission to collect these data from field sampling. Options for Filling This Data Gap There are three options for filling this data gap. The first is to rely upon existing programs in federal, state, and local agencies that that collect these data and to develop mecha-

THE HEINZ CENTER


nisms to ensure consistency in data collection and reporting and a central mechanism to aggregate the data. The second option would be to develop a standardized survey and sampling approach that would provide national and regionallevel data, and the third would rely on not-yet-developed (or not widely available) remote sensing methodologies. There are a number of existing programs that collect data on non-native species in grasslands, with different programs collecting different data on different scales and with different methods. Data from these various sources must be evaluated to determine their suitability for aggregation to provide regional and national estimates of the area occupied by non-native plant species. The Heinz Center is currently undertaking a preliminary feasibility study to identify data sources that might be used to report on this indicator. Because this survey is collecting general data about a wide range of data sources and topics, some additional funding might be needed to explore in more detail the candidate data sources that might be useful for this indicator. This preliminary study will help determine the extent and coverage of the data collected by existing programs and determine its suitability for reporting on plant cover. Additional work will be needed to quantify the need for additional collection, and assess the feasibility of ensuring consistency in data collection and reporting methods. Such a study would also have to determine the nature and scale of a central reporting effort (i.e., to collect the data from multiple sources, address methodological differences, prepare reports, and the like). We estimate this cost at approximately $500,000. The second option would be to implement a nationally consistent effort to collect these data. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, which operates the National Resources Inventory (NRI), provided the estimates shown here. Costs of a new national program (start-up costs not provided) Personnel

$1,050,000

Imagery and maps

770,000

Photography interpretation

262,500

Statistical support TOTAL

400,000 $2,482,500/year

These estimates assume that monitoring would take place within the National Resources Inventory framework and would include both private and federal rangelands. NRI sampling and statistical criteria, protocols, and methodologies would be adopted. To cover both public and private lands adequately would require sampling 14,000 primary sampling units (PSUs) each year. (This approach would produce a statistically valid national estimate after the third year, and then every year thereafter.) The revisit

cycle for any specific point would likely be every 5 years. According to NRCS, high-quality NRI imagery and photo interpretation are also necessary for locating each PSU. NRCS also recommends that ancillary data on land use and management should be gathered in order to link sampled properties to trends observed in the data. Further, since sampling costs include obtaining permissions and travel to sites, data collection opportunities should be optimized by sampling for multiple purposes, as is allowed within the NRI framework. The above cost estimates are somewhat conservative, and sample size may need to be increased to provide adequate coverage (e.g., NRI grazed forest lands and pasturelands are not included now). However, personnel costs could be decreased if trained technicians or students conduct the sampling. The third option involves remote sensing methodologies that are likely to be developed in the near term and that will be able to identify many common/widespread non-native species. It is not now possible to predict the cost of these approaches. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “challenging.” There are two options for filling this gap, both of which require development of new institutional arrangements (and in one case, a field data collection program). Reliance upon the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s National Resources Inventory would require expansion of the NRI program onto federal lands, which has not been done before, and development of field protocols and practices, training of staff, etc. Reliance upon existing data would require completion of a feasibility study to decide whether these data are in fact sufficient; to identify an institution to gather, analyze, and synthesize the data from a potentially very large number of sources on a regular basis; and to outline any additional data collection needs. Other Notes This indicator is currently under review by a group of experts, with the goal of improving the full suite of nonnative species indicators presented in 2002 The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. Early indications are that this Task Group will continue to recommend areal coverage by non-native species as an important indicator.

SYSTEM Farmlands INDICATOR Non-native vegetation DATA GAP Non-native vegetation in farmland areas Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap The following estimates are based on the options outlined in the previous description (non-native plant cover, grasslands and shrublands), adjusted for the smaller amount of land to be covered.


87


Option 1: Utilize data from existing programs Feasibility study Preliminary assessment under way. Additional funding ($500,000) will be required. (This is the same study as described in the grassland/shrubland estimate above and should not be double counted.) Ongoing costs Unknown Option 2: New national program Initial costs No start-up cost estimates provided Ongoing costs $1.24 million/year Option 3: Remote sensing Speculative

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Non-native species DATA GAP Aquatic animals and plants Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Option 1: Literature/ $680,000 start-up museum-based surveys $240,000/year Option 2: Field surveys Fish and invertebrates, $2.5 million (start-up) 1–2-year cycle $10–12 million/year Plants or nonfish Not available vertebrates (e.g., amphibians, mammals)

Indicator This indicator reports the percentage of all hydrologic units having one of several ranges of established non-native (introduced) species. Introduced species are those that are not native to the watershed in which they are found. These species may be from outside North America, or they may be from another part of this continent. Established species are those that have established persistent breeding colonies. The Data Gap USGS maintains the Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database. NAS data for fish were used in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report, but the database managers did not believe that data on other aquatic vertebrates, invertebrates, or plants were of sufficient quality for national reporting purposes. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “moderately feasible” because it would require expansion and enhancement of the existing mechanisms for reporting on non-native species. These currently involve reports from an extended but informal network of observers in federal, state, local, and nongovernmental entities, supplemented by literature reviews, and organized by USGS. Thus, this gap would require a planning effort to develop the field protocols and possibly the federal–state institutional arrangements to undertake the work on a nationally consistent basis.

88

Options for Filling This Data Gap There are two options for filling this data gap. The first is to report on the distribution of non-native aquatic plants and animals (except fish, for which data are available) by using information from existing literature and museum collections. The second option would be to augment these data with field survey work. The costs shown for the literature and museum-based option would make the information on taxonomic groups other than fish comparable to that which currently exists for non-native fishes (and thus suitable for national reporting). The higher costs for the field surveys reflect the lack of sufficient existing expertise and manpower within USGS. According to USGS, augmenting literature and museumbased information with field data could be accomplished through an effort involving both existing programs, such as the USGS Biomonitoring Environmental Status and Trends (BEST), combined with a reporting network involving states and other parties. USGS believes this effort should, if established, include fish, in addition to other taxonomic groups, even though some data are already available on non-native fish distributions. (Expanding to field surveys would greatly improve the quality and timeliness of fish data, when compared to the existing literature-based data.) USGS believes that a program that provides data on a 1–2-year cycle (important because of the rapid expansion of many non-native species) and that includes invertebrates and fish (but not other vertebrates or plants) would cost approximately $2.5 million to start and about $10–12 million per year to operate. Finally, it should be noted that any estimates for field surveys are dependent upon the spatial extent of the sampling, the resolution, and the level of confidence desired.

OPTIONS LITERATURE/ MUSEUM

INITIAL/ START-UP COSTS

ONGOING (ANNUAL) COSTS

$180,000 (animals) $ 90,000 (animals) 500,000 (plants)

150,000 (plants)

$680,000

$240,000

$2.5 million

$10–12 million

FIELD SURVEYS Fish, invertebrates

Plants, Not available nonfish vertebrates

Not available

This indicator is currently under review by a group of experts, with the goal of improving the full suite of nonnative species indicators presented in 2002 The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. It is likely that this Task Group will recommend changes in the basic indicator described here, which may increase the cost of reporting.

THE HEINZ CENTER


Biological Community Condition Measurements Gap or Cluster Definition This gap includes expansion and increased consistency among measures of the condition of biological communities in fresh waters, and data collection for the as-yet undefined core national indicator of the “condition of plant and animal communities” (which may include the freshwater indicator). Costs To Fill This Gap Information provided here is for the freshwater portion of this gap only. No cost estimates are possible without further definition of the core national indicator. Filling this gap could be accomplished through ensuring consistent implementation of data collection programs at the state level, or through a national (federal) program. Most states are developing or have implemented programs to measure biological integrity, but an assessment would be required to determine the comparability of these state programs and either develop means to use information from different programs or estimate the costs and feasibility of having states move toward a common, comparable standard. EPA estimated that a nationally consistent program would cost $50 million per year ($25 million for streams/ wadeable rivers and $25 million for lakes). This program would provide data on a number of parameters in addition to biological integrity, including water chemistry, clarity, fish tissue contaminants, riparian/shoreline characteristics, and watershed characteristics. EPA was not able to provide information on whether this program could be implemented on a longer time scale (e.g., providing estimates every 5 years instead of annually), but we have assumed that this would be possible and that reporting would occur every 5 years, thus reducing the annual costs.

OPTIONS FOR FILLING GAP

INITIAL COSTS

ONGOING COSTS

State-based program

Study required

Not available

Federal program

Not available

$10 million/year

Feasibility Rating Filling this gap through a state-based program is considered to be “challenging,” because ensuring consistency among a large number of programs, some of which have been in place for some time, is always difficult. Filling the gap through a federal program is considered “moderately feasible,” because EPA has developed the general framework for implementing such programs. Implementation as an operational program would require additional planning, but this

is achievable. However, measuring biological condition in lakes is not as well developed as for flowing waters, and this portion would require more time and research to implement fully.

About the Gaps Core National Fresh Waters

Condition of plant and animal communities Status of freshwater animal communities

SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR Condition of plant and animal communities (undefined indicator) DATA GAP Indicator definition required Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Estimates not available.

Indicator This indicator, as it was described in the 2002 report, would report on the percentage of land area and stream and coastline length according to the level of disturbance, management, or physical alteration. The indicator was listed as “undefined” because there were substantial uncertainties about several aspects. The Data Gap Work is currently under way to define this indicator for the 2007 report, but it is not yet possible to provide either a description of the indicator or an assessment of potential data sources. Feasibility Rating See above. Options for Filling This Data Gap See above.

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Status of freshwater animal communities: fish and bottom-dwelling animals DATA GAP Consistent nationwide criteria and implementation Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Existing data Costs unavailable at this time sources National program Streams/wadeable $25 million/year rivers Lakes/reservoirs $25 million/year Larger rivers Costs unavailable at this time

Indicator This indicator reports on “biological integrity”—the degree to which the suite of fish and bottom-dwelling animals in a


89


lake or stream resembles what one might find in a relatively undisturbed lake or stream in the same region. Tests assess the number of different species, the number and condition of individuals, and food chain interactions for fish and bottom-dwelling (or benthic) animals, which include insects, worms, mollusks, and crustaceans. High scores indicate close resemblance to “natural” conditions, and low scores indicate significant deviation from them. The Data Gap While biological integrity is measured in many places, there are important gaps in geographic coverage, and there are important impediments to use of data that are collected. These impediments include, first, the fact that current techniques are generally applicable to streams and wadeable rivers; those for larger rivers and lakes are not well developed. Second, different states and agencies (including EPA) use different methods. Differences include whether comparisons are made to “average” sites or to “minimally impaired” sites and how quantitative rankings are used [e.g., EPA uses an index of biological integrity (IBI) scaled to 100, while some state programs use a scale of 1 to 60]. There are currently no national criteria for assessing biological integrity, but EPA has published guidelines for the development of such criteria, and methods and criteria for several regions and states are under development. In order to develop a nationally consistent set of observations, there must be consistency in key aspects of the monitoring in different states. Without a common reference condition, IBI rankings will not be comparable from state to state. In addition, comparing testing results from different places requires some consistency in scoring methods. Finally, it is important that sampling be sufficiently intensive to obtain sound estimates of the “true” condition of a water body or a region. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated “challenging” because, while there are a large number of states that have begun to employ the required “indices of biological integrity,” these developments have occurred without any overall consistency. Implementing this indicator on a more consistent basis would therefore probably require some states to modify their existing practice. Alternatively, if a nationally consistent, centrally implemented program were chosen for implementation, both USGS and EPA have experience in conducting largescale water-related monitoring, and this experience could be used in developing a new program. Options for Filling This Data Gap There are two options for filling this gap. The first would involve reliance upon the extensive efforts of states and other entities already collecting biological integrity data; the second would involve establishment of a nationally

90

consistent program to provide state and national-level estimates of biological integrity. Existing Data Sources Reliance upon existing data collection sources would require • Establishment of nationally consistent methods for collecting and interpreting data. This step would require completion of the methods development currently under way (for lakes and larger rivers) and negotiation of a consensus among all states on the use of consistent methods or development of cross-walking approaches that enable data from different states to be aggregated in a statistically responsible fashion. These methods should include consistent approaches for streams/wadeable rivers, larger rivers, and lakes, and should provide guidance on the statistical selection of sampling sites. • Assessment of the current geographic coverage of monitoring. • Augmentation of monitoring where needed to ensure the statistical soundness of any estimates or to address other gaps. Development of nationally consistent monitoring approaches among the 50 states, particularly when many states are implementing methods that might need to be changed, is a non-trivial challenge. EPA has developed technical guidance for assessing biological integrity, but a significant effort would be required to ensure consistent state implementation. State resources for both methods development and monitoring are limited, and states often develop methods that are tailored for their own specific needs. Achieving consistent state implementation will require attention to the incentives for states to modify their approaches (and spend money) and to the appropriate allocation of financial responsibility for water quality monitoring. Implementing this approach would probably require a significant initiative on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency to complete the technical methods development and enter into negotiations with states to implement statistically sound, methodologically consistent assessment approaches. Identification of unmet monitoring needs and resource requirements would have to be undertaken as part of this activity. Nationally Consistent, Centrally Implemented Program EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program has developed estimates of the cost of implementing a statistically based random sampling approach to assessing multiple water quality parameters on a nationwide basis. This approach would cover streams/wadeable rivers and lakes (larger rivers would not be covered by the estimates described here), and would provide estimates of condition that are valid at both the state and national level. EPA estimates that this monitoring program would cost $25 million a year for the streams/wadeable rivers portion,

THE HEINZ CENTER


and $25 million a year for the lakes/reservoirs portion. This program would monitor multiple parameters in addition to biological integrity. Several aspects of this estimate have not been clarified by EPA. Importantly, they involve whether this monitoring must be done annually or whether it could be spread over a 5-year reporting period (thus substantially reducing costs); the number of lakes to be sampled is also unclear, which has large cost implications. Thus, these estimates may be higher than warranted.

Stream and Riparian Habitat Condition Gap or Cluster Definition This cluster includes two overlapping gaps—stream habitat quality generally (freshwater indicator) and stream habitat quality in farmlands areas (farmlands indicator). The third, closely related, gap is riparian area condition in grasslands and shrublands. All three indicators were described as “needing development” in the 2002 report; that is, no specific metrics were identified. Stream habitat condition is described largely, although not exclusively, in terms of in-stream characteristics (ripples/pools, sediment, large woody debris, bank stability). Riparian condition includes such factors as water flows, streambed physical condition, riparian vegetation composition, structure, and use by different species. Costs To Fill This Gap Without clear definitions of the specific metrics that might be used, and in particular the degree to which they might be measurable using remote sensing, identifying costs is quite difficult. A very rough estimate is that a effort of as much as $10 million, over several years, would be required to develop and test the indicator parameters. Actual reporting, based on 1- or 5-meter remote sensing imagery across the entire country, could cost as much as $10 million per 5or 10-year reporting cycle. GAP DESCRIPTION

INITIAL COSTS

Indicator design

$10 million

Indicator monitoring and reporting

ONGOING COSTS

$1–2 million/year

Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is considered to be “challenging.” The specific metrics have not been identified (including whether a remote sensing–based indicator is feasible), and no agency or network of agencies currently manages data collection that is focused on the same or similar characteristics and habitat factors on an operational basis. It would clearly be several years before this indicator could be made operational.

About the Gaps Farmlands Fresh Waters Grasslands and Shrublands

Stream habitat quality Stream habitat quality Riparian condition

SYSTEM

Farmlands, Fresh Waters, Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR Stream habitat quality, riparian area condition DATA GAP Undefined indicators Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Initial cost $10 million Ongoing costs $1–2 million These are very rough estimates, based on the assumption that it is possible to obtain sufficient data to report on these indicators using high resolution remote sensing imagery.

Indicator: Stream Habitat Quality This indicator, as described in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report, would describe stream habitat quality by comparing the habitat in any given stream segment against the habitat that would be found in a relatively undisturbed stream in the same region. The index used for comparison would incorporate the presence of riffles and pools, the size of streambed sediments and the degree to which larger gravel and cobbles are buried in silt, the presence of branches, tree trunks, and other large woody pieces, and the stability of the bank. Indicator: Riparian Condition This indicator would describe the condition of riparian (streamside) areas. The condition of these areas will be rated using an index that combines key factors such as water flows, streambed physical condition, riparian vegetation composition and structure, and use by various species. The Data Gap Both of these indicators were listed as “needing development” in the 2002 report because there are multiple methods, each apparently with its own strengths and weaknesses, for assessing stream habitat quality and riparian condition. In the absence of some approach to reconciling these methods or choosing one as a primary method, the project team decided not to select one specific method. In addition, methods for using high resolution (i.e., 1- or 5-meter) are still under development. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “challenging,” for several reasons. The first is that there needs to be a “shaking out”—based on testing multiple methods across a range of ecosystem conditions—to determine the “best” method, or to develop approaches to combining data from different methods. Second, this method (or these methods) needs to be applied in a manner that will support valid statements about the overall condition of the nation’s stream habitat. One method


91


for doing so would be to collect a fairly large number of field samples, distributed throughout the United States, to support regional and land cover (e.g., farmland) estimates. A second method, currently being researched, would use high-resolution remote sensing imagery, combined with ground truthing. Options for Filling This Data Gap There are several major options for filling this gap. For field programs, it would be possible to develop a unified, probably federal, program to collect these data on a sufficiently broad scale to support the needed reporting. Alternatively, it would be possible to employ a distributed data collection approach in which states, federal agencies, and perhaps others collect the data where it is needed, using consistent protocols. Presumably, standards and incentives could be employed to encourage participation. Reporting on this indicator using remote sensing would require one or multiple entities to acquire the required data and conduct appropriate analyses and reporting.

HUMAN USES OF ECOSYSTEMS Groundwater Levels Gap or Cluster Definition This gap relates to the availability of information on the fraction of the nation’s major regional aquifers in which water levels are declining, increasing, or stable. Costs To Fill This Gap Filling this gap would require an assessment of the coverage and comparability of existing data and development of methods for comparing results from different aquifers. Because USGS believes that existing data collection is not adequate, we have assumed that costs would be incurred to implement monitoring in perhaps 30 regional systems for which data are not currently adequate. Finally, data collection from multiple federal, state, and local sources would require funding, but estimates are not available for this element.

Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is considered “moderately feasible.” Many of the elements are in place— many aquifers are monitored, and USGS has field and analytical capabilities that are clearly adequate for this task. Complicating factors include the need to develop the procedures to aggregate data from many different sources (including reconciliation of dissimilar data) and to develop the mechanisms to gather data from many sources and provide integrated reporting.

About the Gap

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Groundwater levels DATA GAP Geographic coverage and data aggregation Estimated Cost To Fill Data Gap Feasibility study (years 1–3) $500,000 to $1.0 million (total) New data collection for 30 major aquifer systems First time (5 years) $4–6 million total ($0.8 to $1.2 million/year) Continuing $0.4–0.8 million/year Data aggregation Estimate not available and reporting at this time

Indicator This indicator would describe changes in water levels in major regional aquifers by reporting the fraction of the total area of regional aquifers that declined, increased, or remained stable in comparison to a previous period, and would be reported every 5 years. The Data Gap Despite the availability of groundwater level data in many states and for portions of many major aquifer systems, there are significant gaps in monitoring of water levels, and the data that are available have not been aggregated to provide national, regional, or often even aquiferwide assessments. USGS recently outlined the steps necessary to develop such an indicator program, in response to a request from

Groundwater Levels GAP DESCRIPTION

INITIAL COSTS

Assessment of existing data

$0.5 to $2 million

First-time data collection (filling gaps)

$4–6 million (over 5 years)

Ongoing data collection

$0.4–0.8 million/year

Data aggregation and reporting TO T A L

92

ONGOING COSTS

Not available $4.5–$8 million

$0.4–$0.8 million/year

THE HEINZ CENTER


Congress. This outline indicated that a year or more would be required to conduct a survey to identify existing data relevant to groundwater indicators and to determine appropriate ways to synthesize these data. Specific indicators and data reporting processes (i.e., national, regional, and sectoral) could then be developed. To ensure national coverage, the following points must be addressed: • Data must be collected from areas that represent the full range of topographic, hydrogeologic, climatic, and land use environments within the major aquifers. • Data must be collected using standardized methods from monitoring wells or other wells not affected by local pumping. There must also be consistency regarding the timing of measurements so that the status of major aquifers in a region or in the entire country can be presented as a snapshot in time. Finally, there must be agreement on methods for comparing results from different aquifers— consistent definitions for aggregate categories such as “significant increase,” “significant decrease,” and “no significant change” are required. • Plans must be in place to ensure long-term viability of observation-well networks and data collection programs, including plans for a combination of data collection at longterm monitoring wells and periodic synoptic measurements. • There must be agreement among the agencies or other sources of data on electronic data storage, access, and dissemination. The agencies that will be responsible for leadership in compiling and publishing the data must be identified. Feasibility Rating Filling this gap is rated as “moderately feasible” because the U.S. Geological Survey has the expertise to undertake the required assessments or to provide consistency to assessments undertaken by other federal, state, or local entities.

However, there are no established mechanisms for conducting these assessments on a regular basis, and it may be that additional data will need to be collected or research conducted to enable reporting on specific aquifers. Options for Filling This Data Gap Filling this data gap will require three separate steps. The first is an assessment of the availability, quality, coverage, and consistency/comparability of existing water-level data. This information will form the basis for detailed planning to fill key gaps, for the identification of the need for and feasibility of changes in existing practice needed to provide consistent data and of the cost of those changes, and for the design of a system for data aggregation and reporting. We estimate the cost of this feasibility study at between $500,000 and $1.0 million; it will require approximately 2–3 years. The second step would involve the implementation of monitoring in major areas for which data are not presently collected. USGS believes it is reasonable (as an initial estimate) to plan on such monitoring in approximately 30 major aquifer systems, at a first-time cost of $4 million to $6 million and a continuing cost of $2 million to $4 million. These costs would begin after the assessment of data availability and would be spread so as to provide national estimates every five years. Thus, costs would be as follows: Years 1–3 Years 4–8 Years 9 onward

$500,000 to $1.0 million in total— data availability assessment $0.8 to $1.2 million/year— initial data collection for new areas $0.4 to $0.8 million/year— ongoing data collection

The third step would involve the aggregation and reporting of data from both new and existing data sources on a continuing basis. No estimate of additional costs (beyond those for the 30 major systems, outlined above) is available.


93

APPENDIX D

Other Data Gaps Identified in 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems Report In this appendix, the remaining data gaps are listed, by ecosystem, and the indicator and data gap briefly described. As the 2002 report makes clear, and as emphasized above, these gaps are not insignificant or trivial—on the contrary, all the gaps identified in the 2002 report represent important elements of the condition or use of U.S. ecosystems and thus should be filled as resources are available. Core National Indicators SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR Ecosystem extent DATA GAP Extent of brackish waters

The Indicator The indicator uses the extent of brackish waters as an ecologically based definition of the scope of the nation’s “coastal waters.” The overall indicator presents the area of the four major land-based ecosystem types covered in this report (forests, farmlands, grasslands and shrublands, and urban and suburban areas) as a percentage of the total U.S. land area. It also reports on a key component of freshwater ecosystems (freshwater wetlands). The Data Gap Some data on salinity are collected on a local or regional basis; however, these data are not compiled into a single, easily accessible source.

SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR Chemical contamination DATA GAP Saltwater fish (whole)

Indicator The overall indicator reports on contaminants found in streams, groundwater, sediment, and fish tissue. Two types

of reporting are done for this indicator: the frequency of detection (i.e., percentage of sampled sites in which contaminants are detected) of contaminants and the frequency with which these occurrences exceed established human health standards and guidelines and aquatic life guidelines. The Data Gap Data were not available to report on saltwater fish tissue, either for frequency of detection or for comparison with human health standards (edible portion) or wildlife consumption/aquatic life guidelines (whole fish). The human health standards gap, which generally requires analysis of the edible portion of fish, is rated as high priority (see pp. 29 and 69–73).

SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR Outdoor recreation DATA GAP Data on running and jogging; distinction between freshwater and saltwater activities

Indicator The core national indicator reports the number of times Americans over the age of 15 took part in a variety of outdoor recreational activities. (Each time someone took part in an activity is counted: if the activity took place over multiple days, each day counts as a separate event, and if a person took part in several activities on a single day, each activity is counted as a separate event.)


95


The Data Gap The USDA Forest Service’s National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), which collects data on the public’s participation in outdoor activities, does not provide data on running and jogging. In addition, it does not distinguish between salt water and fresh water for the majority of water-related activities (i.e., all those other than fishing), thus also making it impossible to report on freshwaterrelated activities.

SYSTEM Core National Indicators, Fresh Waters INDICATOR Outdoor recreation (Core National Indicator) DATA GAP Participation in freshwater recreational activities

Indicator The core national indicator reports the number of times Americans over the age of 15 took part in a variety of outdoor recreational activities. (Each time someone took part in an activity is counted: if the activity took place over multiple days, each day counts as a separate event, and if a person took part in several activities on a single day, each activity is counted as a separate event.) The freshwater indicator reports on the number of times Americans took part in a variety of water-related activities (e.g., swimming, boating, hunting, fishing). The Data Gap The USDA Forest Service’s National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, which collects data on the public’s participation in outdoor activities, does not provide data on running and jogging. In addition, it does not distinguish between saltwater or freshwater for the majority of water-related activities (i.e., all those other than fishing), thus also making it impossible to report on freshwater related activities.

SYSTEM Core National Indicators INDICATOR Natural ecosystem services DATA GAP Indicator requires further development

Indicator This indicator would report on the levels of key services provided by “natural” ecosystems—forests, grasslands and shrublands, fresh waters, and coasts and oceans. The goods, or products, these ecosystems provide—such as fish, wood products, and food—can be counted, and a monetary value often placed upon them. Some services, such as recreation, are also fairly easily quantified. But many of the services provided by natural ecosystems are less tangible and more difficult to quantify, including such vital processes as purifi-

96

cation of air and water, detoxification and recycling of wastes, regulation of climate through storage of carbon dioxide, regeneration of soil fertility, and maintenance of the earth’s startling variety of plants and animals, which we use to sustain ourselves, but which we also enjoy for their own sake. Natural ecosystem processes reduce the severity of floods, promote pollination of crops and natural vegetation, ensure dispersal of seeds, control agricultural pests, and protect coasts and hillsides from erosion. However, this indicator is not sufficiently defined to permit identification of specific data gaps.

Coasts and Oceans SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Coastal living habitats (coral reefs, wetlands, seagrasses, and shellfish beds) DATA GAP Lack of data on extent of shellfish beds

Indicator The overall indicator reports the acreage over time of coastal habitats whose defining feature is that they are composed of living organisms (such as seagrasses, mangrove forests, and coastal wetlands) or are built by them (such as coral reefs or shellfish beds). The Data Gap Data are not available to describe and track the extent of shellfish beds. The only potentially related national information is from the NOAA-produced National Shellfish Register of Classified Growing Waters. The Register has been produced every 5 years since 1966; the most recent is the 1995 Register, released in 1997 (http://spo.nos.noaa.gov/ projects/95register/). The Register summarizes the number and area of shellfish beds in estuarine and nonestuarine commercial shellfish-growing waters, which are classified as such according to sanitary guidelines administered by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC). States have been encouraged to monitor as broad a range of shellfishgrowing areas within their waters as possible, in order to protect public health. However, this source does not provide data on noncommercial shellfish beds and relict beds, which can still provide habitat for other species. Furthermore, the area of beds reported can change because of a change in the area being monitored, rather than an actual change in area of shellfish beds.

THE HEINZ CENTER

APPENDIX D: OTHER DATA GAPS

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Shoreline types DATA GAP Lack of data for certain regions; lack of regularly repeated monitoring

Indicator The overall indicator reports the miles of coastline in several categories, including beach; mud or sand flats; steep sand, rock, or clay cliffs; wetlands; and coastline “armored” with bulkhead or riprap. The coastline includes oceanfront areas and the shoreline of estuaries and bays. The Data Gap Data are not currently available for six of nine coastal regions (North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Hawaii).

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Areas with depleted oxygen DATA GAP Adequate monitoring coverage, consistent data collection, aggregation of data

Indicator This indicator will report, for estuaries and coastal waters 25 miles out to sea, the percentage of area where the lowest oxygen levels fall within specified concentration ranges for at least 1 month: anoxic (no oxygen present), hypoxic (up to 2 parts per million, or ppm), low (between 2 and 4 ppm), and adequate (more than 4 ppm). The Data Gap There are a large number of measurements of dissolved oxygen taken in estuaries and open waters of the ocean by state, federal, academic, and other programs. However, two problems remain. The first is that there is no mechanism in place to assess the spatial and temporal coverage and precision of these efforts to determine where sampling is adequate for reporting on this indicator and to assemble and report those data. The second is that there are believed to be significant areas in which existing sampling is inadequate because it is too infrequent, too widely scattered, insufficiently precise, and so on.

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Contamination in bottom sediments DATA GAP Lack of data for certain estuary areas; lack of data for nonestuary areas within 25 miles of shore (Note: depending upon funding, this gap may extend to all estuary data. See text below.)

Indicator This indicator reports the percentage of sediments that exceed federal guidelines for concentrations of four major classes of contaminants––pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals. The indicator reports on estuaries and ocean waters within 25 miles of the coast that have bottom sediments with varying degrees of contamination, the lowest indicating possible effects on fish and other aquatic organisms from 1 to 4 contaminants and the highest indicating probable effects from at least one contaminant. The 2002 report provided data for estuaries in the MidAtlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf Coast regions, while the 2003 Web update provided data for estuaries in the North Atlantic, Southern California, and Pacific Northwest. The Data Gap No program exists to provide nationally consistent data on sediment contamination in ocean waters (i.e., outside of estuaries) along the coast. In addition, even though the 2002 report and 2003 Web update included data for estuarine areas for this indicator, there is considerable uncertainty about EPA’s ability to provide these data in the future. These data were provided by EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), but it is highly likely that EMAP will not continue to provide these data in the future. EMAP is a research and development program, and according to EPA, production of these data on an ongoing operational basis is dependent upon implementation of a “national coastal assessment,” a program for which the future funding picture is unclear. Thus, while data are available now for the nation’s continental coastline, for the future this entire indicator may be considered a “data gap.”

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Coastal erosion DATA GAP Lack of consistent data collection and lack of aggregation of existing data

Indicator This indicator will report how much of the U.S. coast is managed in an attempt to control erosion and how much remains in a “natural” state, with no erosion control. For “managed” areas, the indicator reports what fraction is armored or nourished. For unmanaged areas, the indicator reports what fraction is eroding, accreting (gaining land area), or stable. The Data Gap Shoreline stability assessments are now conducted as shortterm or single-purpose projects, primarily at the local level. Data collection methods and analysis protocols of local


97


assessments often differ, making comparison of site-specific reports and data compilation for regional or national reporting difficult. Such comparisons are also hindered by the lack of standard methods (e.g., what level of vertical change qualifies an area as “eroding,” and for how long after a sand engineering project is completed should an area be considered “nourished”?).

The Data Gap There are no nationwide monitoring or reporting programs for harmful algal blooms. In addition, a broadly applicable indicator system would require some scale on which to compare and aggregate blooms of different species, sizes, and durations. There are no currently accepted standards for defining blooms in this way.

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Unusual marine mortalities DATA GAP Sea turtles; seabirds, fish, and shellfish

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Benthic conditions in open waters/condition of bottom-dwelling animals DATA GAP Lack of continuing data production for estuaries and near-coastal waters (within 25 miles of shore)

Indicator This indicator reports the occurrence of “unusual” mortalities of marine animals. Unusual mortality events (UME) are characterized by an abnormal number of dead animals or by the appearance of dead animals in locations or at times of the year that are not typical for that species. For larger animals like whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, sea otters, manatees, and sea turtles, where a small number of deaths is significant, the indicator will report the actual number of dead individuals. For smaller, more abundant, animals (seabirds, fish, and shellfish), the indicator will report the number of mortality events, rather than number of individual deaths. The Data Gap There is no program for seabirds, fish, and shellfish similar to that in place for marine mammals. Sea turtle strandings are monitored through NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and local partners, but significant improvements are needed to enhance reporting capabilities. Also needed are guidelines for what constitutes a UME for seabirds, fish, and shellfish, which typically perish in much larger numbers than mammals, and for sea turtles.

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Harmful algal blooms DATA GAP Lack of data in certain geographic areas and lack of aggregation of existing data

Indicator This indicator will report the number of harmful algal blooms of low, medium, and high intensity for estuaries and ocean waters within 200 miles of shore. Harmful algal blooms are defined as an increased abundance of algae species that cause illness in people or marine animals or the actual occurrence of algae-caused illnesses.

98

Indicator This indicator describes the condition of worms, clams, snails, and shrimplike animals in bottom sediments (“benthic communities”) by reporting the percentage of area in which these communities are in “undegraded,” “moderate,” and “degraded” condition. The indicator is calculated by comparing the number and kinds of animals found in a sampling site with those that would be expected in an undisturbed area of similar character (a reference site). The Data Gap Few data are available on benthic community condition in coastal ocean waters (out to 25 miles). Data on benthic community condition and the methods necessary to interpret these data and combine them into community condition indices are available from most estuarine areas of the country, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii. These data were included in the 2002 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report (several regions) and updated (with additional regions—all except Alaska and Hawaii) in the report’s 2003 Web update. However, even though data were reported for this indicator in both the 2002 report and the 2003 Web update, there is considerable uncertainty about EPA’s ability to provide these data in the future. Data for the 2002 report were provided by EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), but it is highly likely that EMAP will not continue to provide these data in the future. EMAP is a research and development program, and according to EPA, production of these data on an ongoing operational basis is dependent upon implementation of a “national coastal assessment,” a program for which the future funding picture is unclear. Thus, while data are available now for the nation’s continental coastline, for the future this entire indicator might be considered a “data gap.”

THE HEINZ CENTER


SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Chlorophyll concentrations DATA GAP Lack of chlorophyll concentration data for estuaries

Indicator The overall indicator reports the chlorophyll concentration in estuaries and ocean waters within 25 miles of shore. For estuaries, the indicator is intended to report the percentage of estuary area in three ranges: below 5 parts per billion (ppb), between 5 and 20 ppb, and above 20 ppb, using data for the season with the highest average concentration. The Data Gap Most estuaries are not sampled frequently enough or thoroughly enough to produce comparable data. Monitoring data do exist for some estuaries but need to be assembled into a uniform, national database, and new programs would be required for the remaining estuaries. A combination of aircraft and satellite remote sensing and in situ measurements will be required to report on the estuarine component of this indicator.

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Status of commercially important fish stocks DATA GAP Current data do not cover all stocks

Indicator This indicator tracks the percentage of commercially important fish species, or “stocks,” that are increasing or decreasing in size. Only stocks whose population increased or decreased by at least 25% are reported. Trends are based on the estimated weight, or “biomass,” of the entire stock. The Data Gap There are 203 “stock groups” under federal fisheries jurisdiction, representing over 950 individual stocks. Of these 203, only 45 stock groups had sufficient information to support calculation of this indicator for the 2002 report. These stocks represent approximately 75% of the weight of fish caught in U.S. waters.

SYSTEM Coasts and Oceans INDICATOR Recreational water quality DATA GAP Lack of consistent data on water quality at beaches used for contact recreation

A “beach-mile-day” is one mile of beach affected for one day—100 miles of beach affected for one day would count the same as 1 mile affected for 100 days. These data would be presented in several categories (35, 35–104, and 104 organisms per milliliter) and as a percentage of total beach-mile-days (e.g., one week at 40 organisms/ml for 10 miles of beach would be 70 beach-mile-days in the 35–104 concentration range). The Data Gap While a great deal of information is collected on coastal recreational water quality (typically by city or country health departments), the data are scattered, incomplete, and inconsistent.

Farmlands SYSTEM Farmlands INDICATOR Shape of “natural” patches in the farmland landscape DATA GAP Analysis of existing data

Indicator This indicator describes the shape of patches of “natural” lands in the farmland landscape by reporting on the percentage of the total patch area that is found in “compact” patches (e.g., like a circle), “elongated” patches (e.g., like a long narrow rectangle), and an intermediate class of patch shape. These classes are defined based on the ratio of the perimeter, or edge, of each patch to its area; these perimeterto-area ratios will be divided by patch area for the sake of comparison. “Natural” areas include forest, grasslands and shrublands, wetlands, and lands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program. These data would be presented nationally and by region for the most current year. The Data Gap The land cover data necessary to report this indicator are available but have not been analyzed. Calculating this indicator using existing data will require specialized software designed to analyze landscape spatial patterns. The most commonly used software (Fragstats) for analyzing landscape spatial patterns is not capable of processing the very large file sizes that would be required to calculate this indicator for the nation. There may be simpler approaches with fewer computing demands, but these have not been fully explored. It might be possible to make use of existing remote-sensing data through a procedure involving random sampling.

Indicator This indicator will report the percentage of “beach-miledays” affected by various levels of Enterococcus, a bacterium that indicates contamination with human or animal waste.


99


SYSTEM Farmlands INDICATOR Soil salinity DATA GAP Broad, consistent monitoring of salinity

are often more common than they were before conversion to agriculture. However, this indicator is not sufficiently defined to permit identification of specific data gaps.

Indicator This indicator would report the percentage of cropland with different levels of salt content, measured in decisiemens per meter (dS/m). A map showing the percentage of land in major cropland regions with elevated salt levels would accompany the nationwide data.

SYSTEM Farmlands INDICATOR Recreation on farmlands DATA GAP Type and amount of recreation on farmlands

The Data Gap No unified program of data collection and analysis of soil salinity exists at the national level, and there is no monitoring program to detect changes over time.

Indicator This indicator would report the number of days spent fishing, hunting, viewing wildlife, or engaged in other recreational activities on the nation’s farmlands.

SYSTEM Farmlands INDICATOR Soil biological condition DATA GAP National-level monitoring program of nematodes

Indicator This indicator would report the percentage of croplands in three different ranges on the Nematode Maturity Index (NMI), an index that measures the types of roundworms, or nematodes, in the soil. A map showing the percentage of cropland in each major cropland region with low index values (indicating disturbed soils) would accompany the nationwide data. The Data Gap The NMI has gained broad scientific acceptance and is a promising indicator, but no nationwide monitoring program has yet adopted it.

SYSTEM Farmlands INDICATOR Status of animal species in farmland areas DATA GAP Indicator requires further definition

Indicator This indicator would report on the status of wildlife in farmland areas. Farmlands—including both croplands and the patches of natural lands that are intermingled with them—are home to many kinds of wildlife. Some species would be found in the forests, grasslands, or shrublands from which the farmlands were created. Such species may find fewer habitat opportunities in farmland areas, but may take advantage of remaining patches of habitat and remain in the area, but at low population levels. However, there are many species that favor the kinds of conditions found in areas with extensive farmlands, and these species

100

The Data Gap There are no national data sets that document the type and level of recreation on farmlands. Adequate reporting would require modification of existing surveys to elicit information either on the location of recreational activities or on the amount of recreation on farms.

Forests SYSTEM Forests INDICATOR Forest age DATA GAP Nontimberland forests

Indicator This indicator reports the percentage of forestlands in the West and the East with stands in several age classes (1–19 years, 20–59 years, etc). The Data Gap USDA Forest Service data are currently available only for timberlands. Data on the age class of forest trees are not available for national parks and wilderness areas and other forest land not classified as timberlands. Data on slowgrowing forests and those in parks and wilderness areas are being collected, but they are not yet available.

SYSTEM Forests INDICATOR Fire frequency DATA GAP Historic fire frequency

Indicator This indicator describes the frequency with which grasslands and shrublands are burned by wildfire. It would report the fraction of these lands that experience wildfire much more or less frequently, moderately more or less frequently, or

THE HEINZ CENTER


with about the same frequency as in presettlement times. This indicator requires information on both historic and current fire frequency. The Data Gap Current fire frequency data are generally available, but historic fire frequency data have been measured (from tree ring scars and similar evidence) at a relatively small number of sites across the United States.

SYSTEM Forests INDICATOR Recreation in forests DATA GAP Type and amount of recreation in forests

Indicator This indicator would report the number of days per year that people engage in a variety of recreational activities in forests. Activities such as walking, hiking and backpacking, fishing and hunting, wildlife viewing, cross-country and downhill skiing, and snowmobiling would be included. The Data Gap As of 2002, there were no national data sets that documented the type and amount of recreation in forests. Adequate reporting would require modification of existing surveys to elicit information either on the location of recreational activities or on the amount of recreation in forested areas.

Indicator This indicator reports the average concentration of phosphorus in lakes, reservoirs, and large rivers. Total phosphorus concentrations are reported in four ranges: below 20 parts per billion (ppb), 20–50 ppb, 50–100 ppb, and 100 ppb or more. The Data Gap There are no data sets that are known to provide representative phosphorus values for the nation’s lakes and reservoirs. Adequate reporting on lake phosphorus requires multiple samples (4–6) over the course of a year, and USGS estimates that at least 2000 lakes would need to be sampled to provide national (and probably regional or state-level) estimates.

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Water clarity in lakes DATA GAP Geographic coverage

Indicator This indicator would report the percentage of lake and reservoir area with low-, medium-, and high-clarity water (ponds are not included because of their shallow depth). A map would show regional patterns of change. The Data Gap Available data do not provide representative coverage at the national level because some areas are heavily sampled, while in other areas few or no lakes are tested.

Fresh Waters SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Extent of freshwater ecosystems DATA GAP Length of streams and rivers by size or flow class

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Animal Deaths and Deformities DATA GAP Nonwaterfowl mortalities, amphibian deformities

Indicator This indicator reports the area of wetlands and lakes, reservoirs, and ponds and the length of small, medium, and large streams and rivers.

Indicator This indicator reports on the number of animals that died during unusual mortality events during five-year periods for waterfowl, fish, amphibians, and mammals, and on deformity events for amphibians.

The Data Gap No standardized method has been adopted and applied that classifies streams and rivers by relevant characteristics such as size or flow rates.

SYSTEM Fresh Waters INDICATOR Phosphorus in lakes, reservoirs, and large rivers DATA GAP Phosphorus in lakes and reservoirs

The Data Gap Mortality data for mammals and amphibians are currently collected by the U.S. Geological Survey, but these data are incomplete and therefore not suitable for national reporting. USGS also collects data on amphibian deformities, but no widespread monitoring program or systematic surveying is conducted. There is also no reporting mechanism for fish die-offs.


101


SYSTEM

Fresh Waters (see also Core National Indicator) INDICATOR Participation in freshwater recreational activities DATA GAP Data on participation in freshwater recreational activities

Indicator The indicator reports on the number of times Americans took part in a variety of water-related activities (e.g., swimming, boating, hunting, fishing). The Data Gap The USDA Forest Service’s National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), which collects data on the public’s participation in outdoor activities, does not distinguish between saltwater or freshwater for the majority of water-related activities (i.e., all those other than fishing), thus making it impossible to report on freshwater related activities.

Grasslands and Shrublands SYSTEM Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR Land use DATA GAP Data on the extent of livestock raising, rural residences, oil/gas/mining, “protected areas,” and high-intensity recreation

Indicator This indicator will describe how many acres of grasslands and shrublands are devoted to six major land uses: livestock raising, rural residences, oil and gas development and mining, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands, “protected areas,” and high-intensity recreation. The Data Gap With the exception of CRP lands, there is no consistent reporting of the acreage in the six major land use categories listed above. A standardized set of definitions and criteria for classifying land uses is needed, along with the development of mechanisms to account for the acreage and changes in each category over time.

SYSTEM Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR Nitrate in grassland and shrubland groundwater DATA GAP Data aggregation

Indicator This indicator reports on the concentration of nitrate in groundwater in grassland and shrubland areas. Specifically,

102

the indicator reports the percentage of groundwater sites with average nitrate concentrations in one of four ranges (less than 0.1 ppm, 0.1–0.5 ppm, 0.5–1 ppm, and greater than 1 ppm), in areas that are primarily grassland or shrubland. The Data Gap Data on nitrate concentrations in groundwater have not been aggregated to enable national reporting. Such data currently available in fragmentary form and are collected by many different agencies and institutions; the coverage, quality and comparability of these measurements is unknown.

SYSTEM Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR Depth to shallow groundwater DATA GAP Data availability/integration

Indicator This indicator will describe the depth to shallow groundwater in grassland and shrubland areas. Specifically, it will report the percentage of grassland and shrubland areas where the depth to groundwater falls within several ranges (less than 5 feet, 5–10 feet, 10–20 feet, and more than 20 feet). The Data Gap Limited data are available on shallow aquifers. Shallow aquifer levels have been mapped in some states, but the data have not been integrated. Because shallow groundwater depth is particularly important for the maintenance of riparian and wetland communities, measuring shallow groundwater depth along rivers and streams should be a higher priority than measuring it in other areas.

SYSTEM Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR Fire frequency DATA GAP Historic fire frequency

Indicator This indicator describes the frequency with which grasslands and shrublands are burned by wildfire. It would report the fraction of these lands that experience wildfire much more or less frequently, moderately more or less frequently, or with about the same frequency as in presettlement times. This indicator requires information on both the historic and current fire frequency. The Data Gap Current fire frequency data are generally available, but historic fire frequency data have been measured (from tree ring scars and similar evidence) at a relatively small number of sites across the United States.

THE HEINZ CENTER


SYSTEM Grasslands and Shrublands INDICATOR Recreation on grasslands and shrublands DATA GAP Type and amount of recreation in grasslands and shrublands

SYSTEM Urban and Suburban Areas INDICATOR Species status DATA GAP Presettlement species lists and current status

Indicator This indicator will report the number of days per year that people engage in a variety of recreational activities on the nation’s grasslands and shrublands. Activities will include hunting and fishing; off-road vehicle driving, motorsports, mountain biking, and snowmobiling; bird watching and nature study; and hiking and camping. (Other categories necessary to describe grassland/shrubland recreation more fully may be added when data become available.)

Indicator This indicator reports the percentage of “original” vertebrate animals and vascular plants that are at risk of displacement or have been displaced from metropolitan areas (i.e., major cities and their suburbs found within the urban/suburban areas defined by this report; this definition does not include smaller towns or broadly dispersed suburbanizing areas). “Original species” are defined as those existing before European settlement in what is now a metropolitan area.

The Data Gap There are no national data sets that document the type and amount of recreation on grasslands and shrublands. Adequate reporting would require modification of existing surveys to elicit information either on the location of recreational activities or on the amount of recreation in grassland/shrubland areas.

The Data Gap The historical data necessary to establish lists of original species are incomplete, and current information on their status, especially within cities and their suburbs, is not systematically collected and reported. When available, the amount, quality, and format of such data are extremely variable.

Urban and Suburban Areas SYSTEM Urban and Suburban Areas INDICATOR Urban heat island DATA GAP Indicator requires further development

Indicator This indicator would describe the difference between urban and rural air temperatures for major U.S. metropolitan areas. Temperatures within urban areas would be compared to those in less-developed surrounding areas. Extremely hot weather is responsible for greater loss of human life in the United States than hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined. Building density and type, amount of road surface, and energy use, as well as local topography and regional weather patterns, all work together to modify a city’s climate. The urban heat island effect is often noticed most at night when buildings and other constructed surfaces radiate the heat they have accumulated during the day. Beyond posing a threat to human health (through heat stroke, for example) and raising air conditioning costs, the heat island effect can cause physiological stress in other animals, change the mix of plants and animals that live in the area, and even lead to changes in the distribution of pathogens. Elevated temperatures also accelerate the formation of ground-level ozone and other air pollutants that adversely affect human health. However, this indicator is not sufficiently defined to permit identification of specific data gaps.

SYSTEM Urban and Suburban Areas INDICATOR Disruptive species DATA GAP Regional species lists; presence/absence by metropolitan area

Indicator This indicator would report the number and type of “disruptive” species found in metropolitan areas. Disruptive species are those that have negative effects on natural areas and native species or cause damage to people and property. Specifically, the indicator will report the number of larger metropolitan areas with 5 or fewer, from 6 to 10, from 11 to 20, and more than 20 disruptive plant and animal species. It would also report the number of disruptive native and non-native plant and animal species on a regional basis, for the most current year. (This indicator is being reviewed by a group of experts working to increase the consistency of indicators of non-native species for the 2007 State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report. While this indicator addresses both non-native and native disruptive species, the review may result in changes to the indicator.) The Data Gap Regional lists of disruptive species do not exist. Creating them requires definition of thresholds that distinguish truly disruptive species from those that cause fewer problems, as well as consistent policies for including species based on their potential to cause damage, as shown by experiences in other locations. Monitoring and reporting programs also


103


need to be put in place to track the occurrence of disruptive species. Many knowledgeable individuals and institutions could participate, but no entity currently has the mandate to coordinate such an activity.

SYSTEM Urban and Suburban Areas INDICATOR Status of animal communities in urban and suburban streams DATA GAP Urban/suburban coverage

Indicator This indicator reports on “biological integrity” in streams in urban and suburban areas. Biological integrity is a measure of the degree to which the suite of fish and bottomdwelling (or benthic) animals (including insects, worms, mollusks, and crustaceans) resembles what one might find in a relatively undisturbed stream in the same region. Tests assess the number of different species, number and condition of individuals, and food chain interactions. High scores indicate close resemblance to “reference” or undisturbed condition.

SYSTEM Urban and Suburban Areas INDICATOR Natural ecosystem services DATA GAP Indicator requires further development

Indicator This indicator is intended to report on the myriad services provided by natural ecosystems in urban and suburban areas. For example, forested areas reduce stormwater runoff, when compared to paved areas, and trees cool streets and buildings, reducing energy consumption; trees also reduce urban noise levels. Natural areas, including forests, grasslands and shrublands, beaches, lakes, streams, and wetlands, also provide recreational opportunities, increase property values and community amenities, and are aesthetically pleasing. A parallel core national indicator would provide these data for the nation as a whole. However, this indicator is not sufficiently defined to permit identification of specific data gaps.

The Data Gap Testing for biological integrity in streams is becoming more common, but these programs are generally implemented by states and appear not to provide adequate coverage, or, in the case of bi- or tri-state metropolitan areas, coordination and consistency between states, to enable statements to be made about metropolitan areas (as contrasted with an entire state or regions within it).

SYSTEM Urban and Suburban Areas INDICATOR Publicly accessible open space per resident DATA GAP Identification of publicly accessible open space

Indicator This indicator would report the amount of open space— land that is dominated by “natural” surfaces, like grass or woods, along with lakes, rivers, beaches, and wetlands— that is accessible to the general public in large metropolitan areas. Specifically, the indicator would report the percentage of metropolitan areas with different amounts of open space per resident. The Data Gap There are no consistent or comprehensive surveys of the amount of publicly accessible open space in cities and suburban areas. A combination of satellite remote sensing and local tax and land records would likely be required to report this indicator fully.

104

THE HEINZ CENTER

Heinz Interim Coverlong

4/25/06

9:05 AM

Page 1

Filling the Gaps: Priority Data Needs and Key Management Challenges for National Reporting on Ecosystem Condition

This report is available in full at www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems. Additional printed copies are available free of charge from The Heinz Center. Printed in the United States of America on recycled paper THE HEINZ CENTER

The H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 735 South Washington, DC 20004 Tel: (202) 737-6307 Fax: (202) 737-6410 e-mail: [email protected] www.heinzctr.org



Priority Data Needs and Key Management ...

Priority Data Needs and Key Management ...

Suggest Documents

Priority Topics and Key Features - CFPC

Hidden Needs: Identifying Key Vulnerable Groups in Data Collections ...

Key Management Infrastructure for Protecting Stored Data

Coastal Management Status and Priority Capacity ...

Integrated Information Life-Cycle, Data Management and Secret Key ...

KEY MANAGEMENT

Priority Topics and Key Features - The College of Family Physicians ...

Priority Topics and Key Features - The College of Family Physicians ...

Data requirements and data sources for biodiversity priority area ...

Poland's Policy towards the Arctic: Key Areas and Priority Actions

Poland's Policy towards the Arctic: Key Areas and Priority ... - PISM.pl

Excellence management practices, knowledge management and key ...

Data and Key Measures

Data Needs for Economic Analysis of Fishery Management Regulations

High-Priority Information Technology Needs for Law Enforcement

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRIORITY NEEDS OF COOPERATIVE ...

priority needs referred by families of rare disease patients ... - SciELO

High-Priority Information Technology Needs for Law ... - NCJRS

Prevention needs to be a priority - Journal of Physiotherapy

High-Priority Criminal Justice Technology Needs - National Criminal ...

High-Priority Information Technology Needs for Law ... - NCJRS

DHS S&T High Priority Technology Needs May ... - Homeland Security

DHS S&T High Priority Technology Needs May ... - Homeland Security

Study on Data Latency Needs and Requirements