Through a process of cooperative community planning, ecosystem indicator development, and ecosystem protection strategies, communities can develop the infrastructure and guidelines for developing ecosystem service improvements…and a Nature Services Exchange. This section provides general information on developing ecosystem indicators and improvements.

Assessing the Conditions of Local Ecosystems and Their Effects on Communities: Tools and Techniques

Assessing Conditions and Trends in Local Ecosystems
Indicators of ecosystem health serve two purposes. First, they help define the environmental problems and ecosystem assets you are trying to address. Second, they track progress over time from a starting point or “baseline”. Collecting consistent data over time and comparing them to the baseline data enables an evaluation of whether the actions taken to protect ecosystems are actually working.

Specific Indicators of Ecosystem Health
Community characteristics (such as urban vs. rural, coastal vs. inland) and environmental problems affect the choice of ecosystem health measures. For example, a community may be interested in determining the degree of biodiversity in local ecosystems. A specific indicator would be the number of bird species found in an annual bird count. This number could be compared to counts from previous years to evaluate the trend in biodiversity.

Most indicators are quantitative: they are numeric data based on actual measurement of the factor being monitored. Qualitative indicators generally attempt to describe a factor of interest, rather than measure it with precision. An example of a qualitative indicator would be a description of a local lakefront as “moderately polluted” or “very polluted”. Qualitative indicators are valuable because they can describe situations that cannot be measured with a single data series. The accuracy and reliability of qualitative indicators depends on the knowledge and biases of the people providing information. Qualitative indicators can be difficult to interpret and may mean different things to different people. In contrast, quantitative indicators are less subject to conflicting interpretations.

We discuss three general kinds of indicators:
Indicators That Characterize Environmental Health— For example, the number and variety of grass species is an indicator of a prairie’s ecological health. Because people are part of the ecosystem too, indicators of their health and safety are also useful.
Indicators That Reflect the State of the Local Economy — These indicators track the economy as it is affected by the quality of ecosystem resources and services; for example, the number of people employed in commercial fishing or in industries that depend on a clean water supply (such as breweries and food processing).
Indicators That Reflect the Community’s Quality of Life —These indicators track quality of life as it depends on ecosystem quality, such as the number of visitors to a public beach or levels of traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled.

Why Use Indicators?
Using indicators is a shorthand method for obtaining representative information on the overall system. Each single indicator reflects only a part of the complex system. When indicators that measure key aspects of the system are looked at as a set, however, they reveal trends and interrelationships that might not otherwise be apparent. For example, declines in bird populations on a lake shoreline in combination with data showing increased boating activity on the lake might suggest a cause for the reduced bird counts. Note, however, that comparing two data series does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between them.

Indicators provide a relatively objective basis for discussion, planning, setting goals, and measuring progress. They help avoid the misdirected effort that might result from simply reacting to the most obvious trends or relying on a few people’s untested opinions about what actions should be taken.

Choosing Indicators
Some indicators address the community as a whole system — ecological, social, and economic. For example, while the amount of fish taken by a commercial or sports fishery may be of interest, this indicator may say little about the health of the aquatic ecosystem. Some more targeted indicators would include information on the presence of tumors in fish, the numbers of fish within age classes in the population, and the availability of their food resources — as overall indicators of the fishery’s health. These indicators help to measure the sustainability of the local fishery, thus measuring both economic security and ecosystem stability and quality. For the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Program (see below), citizens developed a list of potential indicators when evaluating what types of data were needed to create a comprehensive monitoring system for the bay. Their list illustrates the many characteristics different people considered when they thought about the health of one specific ecosystem.

Often, indicators need to be understandable and useful to a range of audiences, including the general public, public officials, and scientists. In communicating with the general public, less technical measures are often preferable. On the other hand, communications with public officials or scientists, perhaps when seeking future funding, often benefit from the use of more technical language. The difference may simply be in the wording of the indicator. For example, scientists wanting to protect water quality might find it useful to know specific bacteria levels in water. The general public, however, may find more useful the percentage and location of rivers and streams considered unsafe for swimming because of high bacteria levels.

One way to select indicators is by brainstorming with all interested parties to identify an appropriate set, keeping in mind what is being measured. Ways to narrow down a list of possible indicators include looking at data sources, investigating sources of help, and deciding what information is most useful. Generally, monitoring a few key indicators well provides more useful information than monitoring a wide variety of indicators poorly. For example, a community may want to measure the recovery of an aquatic ecosystem by sampling the number of different types of benthic organisms (bottomdwelling species such as worms and shellfish). Such a field survey may require a large budget, however. Instead, the community could track fish abundance or water quality as a proxy for ecosystem recovery. Also, data may already be available for developing certain indicators but not others; a less than perfect indicator supported by available data may be more practical than an ideal one that requires extensive data gathering.

In summary, good indicators will reflect stakeholder concerns, be readily understandable to their audience, be responsive to change in the ecosystem or community, and be appropriate for highlighting emerging ecosystem problems before they become irreversible.

The United States Department of Agriculture NRCS Ecosystem Indicators Report is a comprehensive overview of indicator development.

The Sustainable Seattle Program (Example 2) provides a good example of effective community involvement in indicator development and selection.

Example 1
Santa Monica Bay, California
The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Program (SMBRP) proposed a comprehensive monitoring system to measure the ecological effects on the bay and its human, wildlife, and plant populations. In 1988, concerned about the condition of the bay, local citizens joined with state and federal agencies to form the SMBRP. This coalition took on the responsibility of assessing the bay’s problems, developing solutions, and putting them into action. The SMBRP has developed a plan of action that involves a diverse group of citizens and members of the government, scientific, and industrial communities.

One component of the SMBRP’s activities is coordinating and integrating the existing monitoring programs in the bay and its watershed. As part of this program, the SMBRP prepared a “Comprehensive Monitoring Framework” that suggests what types of data should be compiled. The following list groups SMBRP’s potential measurements under headings that correspond to the three main public concerns:

Natural Stressors and Processes
Chlorophyll
Salinity and temperature
Water clarity
Currents and hydrology
Precipitation
Storm duration, location, severity
Regional sediment characteristics
Site-specific sediment characteristics
Human Stressors and Processes
Outfall effluent characteristics
Storm-drain/river effluent characteristics
Contaminant mass loadings
Regional sediment contamination
Site-specific sediment contamination
Regional water quality
Dredging location, timing, characteristics
Shoreline habitat loss and modification
Sport fishing locations and catch
Kelp harvesting
Oil spill location, timing, characteristics
Human swimming patterns
Human seafood consumption patterns
Beach warnings and closings
Sewage spills
Human and Biotic Response Indicators
Catch per unit of effort (by species)
Fish abundance (by species)
Fish egg and larval abundance (by species)
Fish contaminant burdens (by species)
Fish diseases
Benthic invertebrate contaminant burdens
Beached bird survey
Bird survey in coastal habitats
Bird counts and nesting success
Migrant bird counts
Bird birth defects
Return of one-year-old birds and fish
Wetland habitat type maps
Exotic vs. native species
Kelp bed location and extent
Mammal abundance (by species)
Number and cause of mammal beachings

Example 2
Seattle, Washington: Sustainable Seattle
Sustainable Seattle began in 1990 as a multiyear effort to make the greater Seattle region into a more ecologically and economically sustainable community. Project organizers recognized that the well-being of Seattle residents would play a key role in making sound policy choices. Therefore, the organizers placed a major emphasis on development of indicators that could measure community well-being. The Sustainable Seattle group used a multistep process that emphasized community involvement to develop indicators. A core group of 25 trustees defined the scope of the project and served as advisors in the indicator development process. A task team then was formed to generate an initial set of draft indicators in preparation for community participation. A final set of indicators was chosen at a series of civic forums where over 250 members of the community participated. At the first meeting, community members were introduced to the project, reviewed the task team’s initial indicator suggestions, and identified additional indicators. Four more meetings were held over a period of five months, leading to the identification of nearly 100 sustainability indicators. Of these, 40 have been selected for publication in two groups. The first set of 20 indicators, published in Indicators of Sustainable Community (1993), included:

Environment
Wild salmon runs through local streams
Number of good air quality days per year
Percentage of streets meeting “pedestrian-friendly” criteria
Population and Resources
Total population of King County
Gallons of water consumed per capita
Tons of solid waste generated and recycled per capita
Vehicle miles traveled and gasoline consumption per capita
Renewable and nonrenewable energy (Btus) consumed per capita
Economy
Percentage of employment by top 10 employers
Percentage of children living in poverty
Housing affordability for medium- and low-income households
Per capita health expenditures
Culture and Society
Percentage of infants born with low birth weight
Juvenile crime rate
Percent of youths participating in some form of community service
Percent of population voting in local primary elections
Adult literacy rate
Library and community center usage rates
Participation in the arts

Each indicator was classified as moving toward, away from, or neither toward nor away from sustainability. Sustainable Seattle is now using the indicators and the development process to influence urban planning and implement programs that promote sustainable homes and businesses.

Defining Ecosystem Assessment Objectives
To start defining ecosystem assessment objectives, it might be useful to consider the physical, biological, or chemical changes the system has undergone. Relevant questions may include:

Physical Changes to the Ecosystem — How has the structure of the system changed? Has the number and/or kind of habitat types in the area changed? Has the size of a forest area declined? Has the amount of water flowing through a river changed? Are wetland areas shrinking? How much low-density development of “greenfields” (such as farmland, forests, meadows, open space) is occurring? How much development is occurring on parcels of land not adjacent to existing urban areas? How much habitat remains of the original area? Is the remaining habitat fragmented?

Presence of Harmful Chemicals — Are toxic chemicals, excessive nutrients, or other pollutants present in the soil, air, or water, or in the plants and animals living in the ecosystem?

Biological Damage to the Ecosystem — Physical and chemical changes to the ecosystem are likely to produce changes in the plants and animals that are part of the ecosystem. Among the questions these changes raise are: Has the number or type of species inhabiting the ecosystem changed? Are the species present healthy and flourishing? Are the types of species present typical of a healthy ecosystem? Are there any rare or endangered species present and at risk? Are there any invader or exotic species present? The ecosystem survey conducted by the Owl Mountain Partnership in North Park, Colorado is a good example of how resources can be pooled to develop an inventory of species present in a given ecosystem.

Habitat Fragmentation Information
Many species of wildlife require habitat of certain minimum size to survive. Residential or commercial development, forestry, farming, road building, and other land use practices can break up continuous habitat into smaller sections less capable of supporting the species. For example, if patches of unharvested natural forest are small or isolated, some species may disappear, threatening the long-term sustainability of the overall forest ecosystem (Freedman, 1995). Many land conservation efforts attempt to protect large areas, avoiding fragmentation, or to provide corridors connecting separate areas to allow wildlife to move among them.

Developing an Historical Perspective
Analyzing the historical condition of an ecosystem helps assess its current health. Identifying man-made and naturally occurring forces that have affected the ecosystem also can help set sensible project goals, providing reference points for measuring progress. For example, publicizing that a severely degraded local ecosystem once supported a large number and variety of birds and other wildlife can act as an incentive for local officials, business people, environmentalists, and the general public to restore it. Moreover, by understanding the system’s history and the ways in which it was exposed to different stressors, communities can help evaluate the relative impact posed by these stressors.

For example, a decline in wildlife populations may be caused more by a dam placed on a major river than by pollution associated with industrial activity. Understanding how events led to the current condition helps communities weigh alternative actions for restoring and protecting the ecosystem. Other communities have found the following information sources useful in seeking out historical information on local ecosystems:

Surveys of the Community and Anecdotal Information — Other communities have found a survey of the community to be very valuable. A survey not only will gather the public’s ideas on how the quality of the ecosystem has declined, but will help publicize your project. In addition, informal conversations with older residents can be an excellent source of anecdotal historical information.
Local Historical Information— Depending on the size and location of the community, a number of institutions may be able to provide information on the community’s history and the evolution of the ecosystem. Possible examples include the local library, town or regional historical societies, colleges and universities, and local non-profit organizations such as land trusts. If useful local histories do not already exist, a local high school or college student may be able to develop a project on ecosystem history. Deeds and maps from the county registry of deeds or municipal offices also may provide historical information.
Newspaper Archives — Old newspaper articles, often accessible through microfiche or online services available at the local library, can provide a great deal of historical information about an ecosystem.
Local, State, and Federal Land Management Agencies — Agriculture, forestry, mining, fish and wildlife, grazing (such as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management), and biological agencies (such as the U.S. Biological Service) may have historical maps or other descriptions of the numbers, types, and range of native flora and fauna for the area. For other sources of information (for example, hunting/fishing records, homestead records), you can contact the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, railroad archives, the Library of Congress, the U.S. National Archives, and the Smithsonian Institution.
Natural Heritage Programs — The Natural Heritage Programs operated by the states may have information on the characteristics of unspoiled natural areas in your region; these areas may serve as useful “reference points” that show the former condition of the ecosystem.
GIS Maps — A geographic information system (GIS) is a computer technology that develops maps of a specific geographic area. These maps can depict a range of both man-made and natural features. The information box on the next page provides information on GIS analysis.

Example 3
North Park, Colorado: The Owl Mountain Partnership’s Ecosystem Survey
The Owl Mountain Partnership in north-central Colorado undertook a comprehensive survey of the area’s natural resources. The inventory is being used to define the desired future condition of the area and to support the establishment of resource management plans in the region.

Local citizens formed the Owl Mountain Partnership to address natural resource management issues in the North Park area of north-central Colorado. The partnership is composed of local citizens, landowners, associations, and federal, state, and local government agencies. Its goal is to serve the economic, cultural, and social needs of the community while developing adaptive longterm landscape management programs, policies, and practices that ensure ecosystem sustainability.

During the first three years of the partnership, the partners conducted a comprehensive inventory of the area. An inventory of vegetation, soils, wildlife (including large mammals and neotropical birds), and aquatic systems began in 1994. Members of the Partnership, including the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and other interested groups and agencies, conducted the inventory. The Partnership relied on grants, in-kind services, and borrowed materials, such as vehicles and equipment, to complete portions of the survey. Before the inventory began, existing information from all agencies in the area was compiled and analyzed for gaps in data. These gaps became the focus of the inventory, so that the result would be a comprehensive inventory of the area.

A major challenge of the project was to have the different agencies adopt a standard method of surveying vegetation. The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management typically use different methods, yet it was important to survey the region employing a common technique so that data would be consistent and easily shared. Several meetings with the involved parties were held and a single vegetation inventory method was developed. The survey provided a comprehensive inventory of federal, state, and private lands. While some land owners remain wary of the project, several ranchers realized a benefit from opening their gates to the survey. As part of their participation, they received assistance from the partnership to improve their land management practices. The survey is now complete, and the partners are using the results to develop individual and small-group management plans that integrate the partnership’s landscape approach to managing the area’s resources on a sustainable basis.

GIS Systems
A geographic information system (GIS) is a technology that stores, analyzes, visually displays, and maps data about a geographic area. GIS can be used to define ecosystem boundaries, assess ecosystem health, and identify sources of ecosystem stress. A GIS analysis can graphically display different types of information, such as soils and habitat types, locations and concentrations of different species, roads, industrial facilities, and other man-made features. For example, a GIS analysis might show where industrial facilities discharging toxic compounds are located relative to contaminated sections of streams and rivers. In this way, a GIS can help link sources of ecosystem stress with observed impacts, and help develop strategies to alleviate those impacts. Some commercial GIS programs are simple enough to run on a personal computer; however, their use often requires special training and expertise. GIS consultants or GIS services available through state or local planning authorities can provide assistance. The most expensive and difficult part of a GIS analysis is obtaining data in “digitized” form so it can be used with GIS software; therefore, it’s helpful to locate data before embarking on an analysis.

For more information, you may want to consult the following sources of GIS information:
– U.S. Geological Survey, National Mapping Program, phone: (800) USAMAPS, Internet Website: http://www-nmd.usgs.gov
– American Planners Association, GIS: Assessing Your Needs and Choosing a System, APA No. 433
– U.S. EPA, National GIS Program, Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov/ngispr/
– Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), Internet Website: http://fgdc.er.usgs.gov
– Your state department of environmental protection or planning agency.

GIS Data Sources

Gathering Technical Data
Once you have a good idea of how the ecosystem arrived at its current state, you can assemble a more detailed and rigorous evaluation of current conditions. This assessment will allow your community to identify those components of local ecosystems that currently are degraded or at risk and evaluate the extent of the problem. This will provide a baseline “snapshot” of ecosystem health against which protection measures can be evaluated.

Local, state, and national agencies collect an enormous amount of environmental data. The information ranges from observations about the general appearance of an ecosystem to detailed analyses of emissions of toxic compounds from industrial sources. Many databases require special technical knowledge and are not especially “user-friendly”. A private consultant or a faculty member or student volunteer from a local college or university can provide expertise needed to help identify, collect, and interpret the desired information.

Many of the information sources will fall into one of several categories: government agencies; non-governmental organizations; local resources; and reports, databases, and computer models.

Government Agencies
State or federal environmental agencies can help locate data to assess ecosystem health. While the workings of the agencies devoted to environmental protection may be unfamiliar, a few strategic phone calls may take you far. State environmental agencies often have published reports on statewide environmental conditions. These “environmental indicators” or “state of the environment” reports provide a useful overview of trends in the state and may point to other data sources. The state agency is also likely to be familiar with the local area and should be able to offer guidance on other regulatory agencies (such as federal organizations or other state and local agencies) that can help further.

The choice of other governmental agencies to contact depends on the type of ecosystems you are assessing. For example, for investigating pollution effects on waterfowl, state or federal departments of fish and wildlife may be helpful. Likewise, surface water quality issues are addressed by a variety of organizations, including state environmental protection agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Non-Governmental Organizations
In addition to government agencies, a large number of non-government organizations provide information to assess ecosystem quality. For example, conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society and state Audubon societies may be useful in assessing the quantity and quality of local wildlife habitat. Grant programs administered through universities may also be an important source of information.

Local Resources
A variety of local resources also may prove helpful in searching for ecosystem assessment information. For example, local public health agencies may have information on swimming advisories associated with local beaches, and may even keep more detailed water quality data. Data on soil and/or ground-water quality may be available through real estate transaction records that require environmental inspections prior to property sales. The results of such inspections may be available from the local registrar of deeds or real estate board.

Likewise, the local Audubon chapter may conduct bird counts. In addition, the community can gather its own data. Numerous citizen-based monitoring programs exist throughout the United States. For example, some groups gather water samples and submit them to centralized testing facilities operated by the state or federal government. As discussed in the story, Keeping Track in Northern Vermont, citizens there and elsewhere track wildlife populations and other aspects of environmental quality. In addition to formal monitoring organizations, communities have assembled information on ecosystem quality by enlisting the help of local schools or youth programs such as AmeriCorps.

Communities can collect data to evaluate their own ecosystems. Many volunteer organizations monitor physical, biological, or chemical conditions in the environment. Many of these groups also provide assistance to others who want to learn how to conduct their own ecosystem monitoring programs. For example, communities monitor water quality through programs such as the Izaak Walton League of America’s Save Our Streams Program. Likewise, you can contact EPA’s Office of Water and ask for the National Directory of Voluntary Environmental Monitoring Programs. EPA’s Internet home page also lists existing citizen monitoring programs by state.

Example 4
Northern Vermont: A Community Effort to Protect Wildlife Habitat
If you find yourself hiking in northern Vermont, don’t be surprised if you see teams of curious people searching the countryside for clues. They’re citizen volunteers, dispatched by community conservation groups to look for tracks, fecal matter, and other evidence (referred to collectively as “sign”) of wild animals in the area. By gathering data on where animals live and the routes along which they travel, these trackers are helping their communities make informed decisions about ecosystem protection, land-use planning, and development. Trackers report their findings back to local conservation commissions that analyze the data to determine habitat areas that require protection — especially narrow corridors of land through which the animals travel from one large block of habitat to another.

To ensure that the volunteers possess all the required skills and knowledge to do the job, the eight townships involved in the process have called on Keeping Track, a Vermont-based, non-profit organization that provides training and support. Volunteers must complete a training program that consists of six days of instruction in the field and two evening “classroom”sessions. After completing the training program, citizen-volunteers perform track and sign surveys — a scientific observation method that ensures accurate data collection.

Part of the Keeping Track program is helping community groups choose which species to track. In northern Vermont, the program gathers data on five area-sensitive species: bobcat, black bear, fisher, river otter, and mink. Protecting these animals is important because they are particularly susceptible to habitat loss and degradation. Furthermore, safeguarding the habitat of these species ensures that habitat is protected for myriad plant and animal species within the ecosystem.

Citizen involvement in the process has brought together people from diverse backgrounds, including birders, hunters, anglers, farmers, and foresters. The diversity within these volunteer groups has helped to build a broad base of support for ecosystem protection among northern Vermonters.

Keeping Track is active across the United States in consulting and advocating for community-based habitat protection. It currently is working on projects in Arizona, California, and throughout northern New England.

Reports, Databases, and Computer Models
All of the organizations discussed above may have materials that can be of use in a community’s ecosystem assessment effort. These materials may include reports, databases, or computer models that already contain information on the ecosystems you are trying to evaluate. For example, the U.S. EPA requires that each state develop a biannual report on water quality. These reports — referred to as “305(b)” reports for the section of the federal Clean Water Act which mandates them — characterize water quality statewide and classify individual water bodies according various use categories such as “swimmable” and “fishable”. You can obtain your state’s 305(b) report through the water quality office in the state environmental protection agency.

Numerous environmental assessment databases are available on diskette and often via the Internet. The Table provides just a few examples. For instance, environmental agencies have developed numerous databases reporting the results of environmental monitoring for various media (air, water, soil). Likewise, the Natural Heritage Programs have compiled data on the location of rare and endangered species. An Internet search on concepts relevant to your ecosystems (for example, “Alabama wetlands”) may also provide information on databases.

Geographic information may be especially helpful in ecosystem assessment. Many state and county governments collect information and aggregate it by ecosystem or other geographic indicator. In addition, many federal agencies, including the U.S. EPA, U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey, have developed computerized geographic information systems to display various types of information (including ecological information) on electronic maps. The Metropolitan Greenspaces Program in Portland, Oregon used aerial photography and GIS technology to inventory open space in and around the city.

Finally, more sophisticated tools are available for assessing ecosystem health. Government officials and academic researchers have developed computer models that evaluate whether ecosystems are functioning properly. Local university researchers can help in performing these types of analyses. Examples include:

Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) — This model, designed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), allows the user to assess habitat quality based on the habitat’s ability to support a specific species or group of species. The model typically is used to evaluate proposed projects and determine mitigation steps needed following oil spills or other pollution events. For more information, contact FWS’s National Ecology Center, 2627 Redwing Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899.
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) — The WET model provides a broad assessment of ecosystem health and can be applied to a wide variety of wetland assessment needs. It provides replicable, consistent results describing the ecological functions supported by a wetlands area. This information can be used to inform planners about the local, regional, and national significance of the area. For more information, contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Gap Analysis — Gap analysis is a method for identifying high priority areas for conservation efforts. It uses maps to compare ecosystem types with current land ownership and management status. Where important landscape types or species habitats currently are not included in protected areas (such as parks, refuges, or preserves), areas representing those landscapes or species might be selected as targets for conservation efforts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting a large-scale state-by-state Gap Analysis Project using satellite imagery, other data on vegetation, and GIS mapping. This project is describe in Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature’s Legacy, Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, DC, 1994.

Example 5
Portland, Oregon: Analytical Tools Protect Greenspace
The Metropolitan Greenspaces Program (encompassing the Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, metropolitan region) has a well-defined vision: “To maintain the urban region as a place where nature is valued as an important element of livability.” The program planners (non-profit organizations and local agencies working on greenspace and wildlife protection) joined together to address a critical next step in translating that vision into a visual analytical tool — a single greenspace map covering the fourcounty, bi-state metropolitan region. Making the map required a thorough inventory and analysis of natural areas that could be woven together to form a single greenspace portrayal.

Just what are natural areas? The inventory team had to define “natural areas” before making the maps. They recognized that a natural area may be viewed as a self-sustaining area that would not change dramatically if all human influences were removed. For this inventory, however, they needed a clearer definition and decided on the following: “a landscape unit (a) composed of plant and animal communities, water bodies, soil, and rock, (b) largely devoid of man-made structures, and (c) maintained and managed in such a way as to promote or enhance populations of wildlife.” This eliminated landscapes such as golf courses and agricultural land.

The geography department of Portland State University carried out the inventory, which involved: “The analysis relied heavily on… geographic information system technology… to determine which [lands] are already protected and constitute potential components of a larger interconnected system.” - obtaining aerial photographs at a cost of $109,000, paid for by contributors who received discounts when purchasing aerial photos; using color infrared aerial photographs to identify and map natural areas, and collecting onsite data through field surveys for a sample cross-section of natural areas; digitizing maps and entering field data into a geographic information system (GIS) spatial database.

Once the maps were complete, analysis of the data established criteria for evaluating the ecological functions of, and connections between, these natural areas. Human values (such as access or distance from residential populations), as well as wildlife values (such as the interconnectedness of sites by stream or ridge line corridors), were considered in developing criteria. The analysis relied heavily on the GIS as a tool to relate natural area patterns to land uses, zoning, utility rights-of-way, and soil and slope information. This type of evaluation helped to focus the program on priority land acquisition sites.

Linking Stressors With Impacts
After characterizing the current state of the system and noting areas of concern (such as wetland loss, decline in plant or wildlife species), it is possible to identify the sources of those problems. For example, natural fish populations may be in decline, but why? Is it due to chemicals from industrial dischargers, over-fishing, or the damming or channelization of the river? Stress on an ecosystem can come from a wide range of sources, including industrial and municipal sources discharging toxic chemicals, agriculture and livestock feedlots, petroleum and chemical storage tanks, mining (for instance, acid mine drainage), recreational activities (such as stream bank erosion caused by boats and jet skis), water withdrawal by industry and utilities, septic tanks and other development impacts, and waste management.

Proving precise cause-and-effect relationships can be difficult when identifying stressors and their sources. You can identify stressors using scientific data or even computer modeling techniques, but these options may be beyond your resources or technical capabilities. Often, careful observation of local land-use conditions, and interviews with experts or those in other communities that have faced problems similar to yours, are all that’s needed.

You can then verify your initial hypotheses using more precise data. Both localized sources (e.g., a specific pollution source or local activity) and broader area- or region-wide trends may affect local ecosystems. Some stressors come from outside the local area — such as long-range transport of air pollutants. State officials involved in the voluntary Ozone Transport Assessment Group can provide information about these sources. In addition, data on regional and local trends in population, vehicle use, business activity, home construction, and power generation provide useful background that may point to stressors, which then might be investigated through more direct data sources.

Reviewing the stressors identified by other community efforts gives an idea of what stressors might exist in your community. General publications on environmental protection programs also provide useful lists of potential stressors.

Note: Fertilizers and Eutrofication
Fertilizers used on residential lawns in agriculture, home gardening, and golf course maintenance are often washed by rain to rivers and lakes. Once in the water, the fertilizer can cause algae to grow quickly. This growth can prevent sun from reaching water plants that are an important part of the aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore, the algae can use up the available oxygen in the river or lake, causing unpleasant odors and killing animals that need oxygen to live. Ultimately, the ecosystem will be undermined and the population of fish and other species will dwindle. This entire process is called eutrophication. For example, runoff to Chesapeake Bay has caused eutrophication, damaging shellfish beds and eelgrass meadows that young fish use as nurseries. In turn, commercial fin-fishing and shellfishing revenues have declined.

Two communities that have performed comprehensive stressor evaluations are discussed in the stories on the Upper Great Lakes and West Virginia.

Example 6
Upper Great Lakes: Evaluating Ecosystem Stress in the Kakagon and Bad River Sloughs
The Wisconsin Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians are cooperating on a watershed project funded by the U.S. EPA. The Kakagon and Bad River Sloughs are the largest, healthiest, fully-functioning estuarine systems remaining in the upper Great Lakes Basin. The sloughs (swamps or stagnant waters along the river) are located on the Bad River Reservation in northwestern Wisconsin and are the ancestral home and cultural base of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. The Bad River watershed and its swamp lands are home to rare species such as lake sturgeon, wood turtle, bald eagles, nesting goshawks, ram’s-head lady slippers, and black tern. They also support significant wild rice beds, which produce 20,000 pounds of green rice annually. The tribe is committed to maintaining the nearly pristine nature of these freshwater wetlands.

The health of the area has been affected by environmental stresses throughout the 1,421-square-mile watershed. The stressors include logging, farming, mining, and recreational activities. Effects in the watershed include excessive erosion and sedimentation, hydrologic changes, toxic contamination, habitat loss and fragmentation, excessive nutrient runoff, and displacement of native species by exotic species. The decline in upstream water quality could eventually degrade the downstream wetlands.

The cooperative watershed project focuses on identifying ecological stressors and working with a variety of stakeholders to mitigate and prevent negative impacts. Activities include conducting inventories to determine the current level of knowledge about the ecosystem, setting future research priorities, developing management and protection plans, promoting sustainable economic activity that is compatible with the natural environment through education and public relations, and building partnerships for cooperation on all these activities.

The Bad River Band and the Wisconsin Chapter of TNC are cooperating to address the health of the entire Bad River watershed and wetland ecosystem, with help from the Great Lakes National Program Office of the U.S. EPA.

Example 7
Canaan Valley, West Virginia: Identification of Environmental Stressors Helps Preserve Ecosystem
An early inventory of environmental stressors in Canaan Valley jump-started efforts to preserve the integrity of this ecosystem.

Canaan Valley, in West Virginia, is a popular destination for Washington, DC, and Baltimore vacationers. The valley, approximately 14 miles long and five miles wide, is one of the best examples of a northern, coniferous ecosystem in the United States. The Canaan Valley Task Force, a private sector-government partnership created by EPA Region 3 in July 1990, promotes longterm environmental protection of the valley while allowing for reasonable and sustainable economic vitality. As a first step in guiding protection efforts, the partnership produced an inventory of environmental stressors (see the table below) by identifying ecosystem problems and their associated causes, determining whether the problems are getting worse, and developing solutions

The task force identified two priorities: advancing the delineation of wetlands, and developing a geographic information system (GIS) of land use/land cover and property boundaries. As a result of this early identification of stressors, three Department of the Army permits were suspended and the surveillance of illegal wetland fills was increased. The task force also produced and disseminated a series of fact sheets and informational brochures; completed a study of off-road vehicle impacts; studied ground-water, surface-water, and wildlife habitats; and initiated the first phase of an economic impact analysis of a proposed wildlife refuge.

Canaan Valley Environmental Stressors:
AFFECTED FEATURE
Wetlands
Unique vegetation
Brook trout
Woodcock
Aesthetics
EVALUATION TOOL
GIS, Observed landuse change, Photo
GIS, Photo
West Virginia, USGS
GIS, Habitat survey
Observation
TREND
Loss of acreage
Loss of diversity
Decreased population
Decreased population
Loss of natural views
SOURCES OF STRESS
Power generation,
Second home development
Recreation
Highway
Off-road vehicles
Septic
Acid mine drainage

Assessing Links Between Ecosystems and the Local Economy

Local Economies Depend on Ecosystems
The Federal Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force has said that sustaining the health, productivity, and biological diversity of ecosystems, “is essential to maintain the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and to sustain natural resources for future populations.” As this quote indicates, our lives are greatly influenced by the healthy functioning of ecosystems.

Ecosystem Components May Have Direct Commercial Value
Much of our country’s wealth is the result of an abundant supply of natural resources and the ecosystems that sustain them. The link between ecosystems and the economy is clearest in communities that extract renewable resources from the environment. For example, the economy of many communities in southeast Louisiana is highly dependent upon shellfish beds and the larger system of wetlands that surrounds and protects them.

The issue of “jobs versus the environment” often arises when discussing ecosystem protection. Controversies such as limiting forestry to protect endangered species have led many people to believe that black-and-white choices must be made between resource extraction or land development and ecosystem protection. In fact, ecosystem protection is often pursued when a community is looking for ways to manage its resources and sustain local industries. While this may sometimes result in short-term reductions in economic activity (such as limitations on the commercial fishing catch), the resource may be maintained for the long run, making the local economy more sustainable.

Example 8
Northampton County, Virginia: Ecosystem Protection Can Benefit Recreation and Nature-Based Local Economies
Citizens in Northampton County, Virginia, recognize the value of their natural assets to their economic future.

Northampton County is located at the southern tip of the Delmarva peninsula and occupies the southern half of Virginia’s Eastern Shore. The county is bounded by 225 miles of shoreline, enclosing some 134,000 acres of prime cropland, saltmarsh, and forest.

Despite its natural gifts, Northampton has severe problems. Historically, it has been the poorest county in the Commonwealth of Virginia, with a declining population and steep job losses resulting from reversals in its dominant seafood and agricultural industries. In 1993, Northampton County formed a Sustainable Development Task Force composed of Northampton citizens to address these challenges. Development of “heritage tourism” is a direct expression of the community’s collective determination to ensure a more prosperous and hopeful future for all its citizens.

Promising opportunities exist for Northampton County to develop new industries and reinvigorate existing industries, such as heritage tourism, which provide well-paying jobs and a diversified tax base, improve the quality of life of the county’s people, and retain its young people as they enter the work force. Heritage tourism is defined as “recreation travel activities which depend on the appreciation, interpretation and protection of the community’s authentic natural, scenic, recreation, historical, and cultural assets.” Fishing and boating on the Chesapeake Bay are the primary attractions for tourists and recreationists visiting Northampton County.

In the past, Northampton industries have failed when they chose an unsustainable course. In the most notable instance several years ago, Northampton’s fishing and canning industry collapsed as a result of overfishing. Citizens of Northampton recognize that no industry or development activity can be considered sustainable in and of itself. Even heritage tourism must account for long-term preservation goals along with near-term financial reward. Citizens of Northampton are convinced they can achieve both. Ultimately, the community is taking responsibility for wise development and stewardship of its assets. County leaders are committed to sustainable development, but the community’s dedication to active participation through town meetings, community tasks forces, and non-profit grassroots organizations ensure continued success.

Example 9
Southwestern Washington: Innovation in Willapa Bay Helps Community Integrate Ecological and Economic Assets
Willapa Bay, in the southwestern corner of Washington State, has long been considered one of the cleanest coastal ecosystems in the nation. The natural richness of the bay is maintained through the creativity of local businesses, citizens, and government officials. Communities and businesses in Willapa Bay know that their ecological and economic goals are interdependent. Ecosystem management efforts have engaged local and county governments, private non-profit organizations, and regional public agencies.

One collaborative effort, spearheaded by a non-profit conservation organization called Ecotrust, was established to address troubling new issues, including declining timber yields, fish populations, and job opportunities. In a unique partnership, Ecotrust and a development bank in Chicago began to offer capital and technical assistance to environmentally responsible businesses that integrate ecological and economic goals. To begin, Ecotrust went to the local community.

Members convened a small group of residents to discuss environmental protection through economic development. The group — farmers, oyster growers, fishermen, Native Americans, and small business owners — formed the Willapa Alliance. One of the alliance’s activities is to sponsor studies examining the region’s natural resources and economic opportunities. Right away, the group discovered that some of its economic problems were based on a pattern of exporting unprocessed natural resources. In addition, ecologically friendly businesses were not familiar with how to reach expanding and profitable “green markets”. The trick was providing resources and expertise to this community in need.

Ecotrust approached the Shore Bank Corporation of Chicago for help, and the two groups decided to collaborate. The partnership evolved into the locally based ShoreTrust Trading Group, which provides management services, marketing strategies, and financial support to local businesses focusing on sustainable practices such as the following:

Owners of a family-owned lumber mill business knew there was a demand for timber grown from sustainably managed forests. The local North American red alder is a hardwood species that regenerates rapidly on its own and can easily be managed as a renewable resource. Nevertheless, many landowners kill the plants with herbicides to grow conifers instead. The ShoreTrust Trading Group helped the family develop a market for the alder and expand its business.

The Trading Group introduced a local oyster fisherman to a natural foods grocery chain with strict health and environmental standards. These stores are willing to pay a premium for oysters harvested in the clean Willapa Bay. This has provided an incentive to protect the local environment that sustains the oysters. In the fisherman’swords, “It would only be ourselves we would be hurting if we lose the bay.”

A cranberry farmer runs a small business that processes local cranberries into relishes, mustards, and scone mixes. The Trading Group introduced the owner to new markets and helped her redesign her jars to emphasize the products’ natural qualities. By helping resource managers meet their economic goals, local groups are ensuring that ecologically responsible businesses can continue to thrive and protect Willapa Bay. Further analysis of the bay may be needed to monitor environmental change.

In addition, the collaboration with Shore Bank has entered a new phase, with creation of ShoreTrust Bank, the first commercial bank in the country designed to focus primarily on loans to environmentally responsible businesses.

Ecosystems May Influence Property Values and Local Finance
Well-functioning ecosystems also help communities avoid expenditures on projects needed to replace the services that the ecosystems naturally provide. Examples include the following:

Storm Protection — Wetlands may reduce wave action, slow winds, and absorb water. Preservation of wetlands can help communities avoid spending money on such expensive structural protection as levees and sea walls.
Filtration and Purification — Wetlands and forested areas are capable of treating municipal or industrial wastewater and filtering runoff from city streets and farmland. Plants absorb nutrients that might otherwise stimulate algal blooms, while toxic pollutants settle to the bottom of wetland areas where some may decompose. While not a replacement for man-made wastewater treatment capacity, these filtration services may, to a limited degree, reduce the need for towns to build additional treatment capacity. Wetlands and forests may also help protect drinking water supplies.
Many communities have instituted wellhead or watershed protection programs that avoid the costs of additional water treatment and the cost of cleaning up contaminated ground water by protecting the areas around water sources. Finally, open space may create economic benefits in urban and suburban communities. For example, research shows that real estate values increase if property is near open spaces, waterways, and other natural areas. This is illustrated in the story about New York City’s Central Park . These increases bring more property tax revenues to municipalities. In addition, both real estate developers and local governments have found that the costs of clustered housing, including land clearing, road building, providing water and sewer service, and other costs, are significantly less than those of sprawling developments.

Practical Benefits From Open Space Preservation
Economic studies have shown that some kinds of development impose greater costs on local communities than others. An analysis of the costs of sprawl revealed that lower-density developments built on former farms, forests, wetlands, or unoccupied lands away from existing urban areas cost considerably more in local taxes than higher-density developments built within or adjacent to existing urban areas. For instance, each house built in a medium density development (seven to eight residences per acre) will cost an average of $12,000 more in local government expenditures than it will contribute, while each house built in a low-density development (one residence for every four to five acres) will cost $92,000 more in local government expenditures.

In contrast, another study showed that for every dollar of tax revenue collected from residential land, $1.25 is spent on public services. For each dollar generated from an open space tax, 19 cents is spent on services (Vance, 1988).
Of course, these are examples only. Cost and tax differences for low- and high-density development will depend on the unique service costs and tax structure of your community, and on how development is designed.

Evaluating the Links Between Ecosystems and Local Economies
As with ecosystem assessment, specific indicators can track the relationship between ecosystems and the economy. For instance, a local economy may be dependent upon a resource based industry such as commercial fishing. A relevant indicator in this case would be employment in each of these economic sectors as a percentage of employment in all local industries. Alternatively, a community that wants to assess how ecosystems influence tax revenues could investigate total tax collections through park and beach admission fees.

The following sources may be able to provide information on how ecosystems influence the local economy:
State and Community Planning Documents — Many states have published statewide plans or growth strategy documents that address a range of economic and environmental issues. Some states (such as Florida) require that communities prepare comprehensive planning documents, as well. These sources provide useful background on the major economic trends in your area tha may be affecting or affected by local ecosystems.
Local Merchants — Local business owners may be able to provide information on the importance of certain ecosystem-based activities to their business. For example, recreational fishing may be critical to a local boat rental business.
Local Parks and Recreation Departments — These local agencies may have information on the revenue collected from parks, beaches, and other city- or county-operated areas.
Chamber of Commerce — The local Chamber of Commerce may be able to provide information about economic uses of ecosystems, whether for recreation, research, commercial fishing, forestry, or other uses.
Local Realtors — Realtors often understand what people value about a community and can help you understand how healthy ecosystems influence home prices.

Sources of Technical Information
Apart from local sources, more general data sources may prove useful in characterizing how the local economy is tied to ecosystem quality. One set of resources includes economic data gathered by economic research organizations in the federal government, including:

County Business Patterns Data — Compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, these data cover revenues and employment associated with various industries in each county. The data are summarized in a series of documents (one for each state), but also can be obtained in electronic form. Contact the Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns Branch, or check the library at a local university.
Regional Economic Information System — This data system contains county-based employment and income information similar to the County Business Patterns, but at a greater level of detail and across multiple years. Therefore, the data may be useful for assessing trends in various resource-dependent industries. The data are available on CD-ROM and can be obtained through the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the U.S. Department of Commerce.
While technical in nature, these data sources may prove helpful in characterizing the amount of commercial activity dependent upon ecosystem quality. These data are the basis for more sophisticated regional economic modeling that you may explore when you implement ecosystem protection strategies. An economist in the community or at a local university can help acquire and analyze these data. In addition to general economic information, numerous databases and reports exist for assessing the local importance of specific industries. For example, detailed infomation on commercial fishing activity is available from both state and federal agencies.
Typically, state natural resource agencies maintain records on shellfishing in local estuaries. These data may include information on annual shellfish harvests by location as well as information on the number of commercial shellfishing licenses issued to area residents. Similarly, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) maintains data on annual finfish landings by county and by major port.
The economic development agency in your state government may be able to assist you in locating key data, and may also know of regional studies that already have been performed for ecosystem-related sectors of the economy.

Example 10
New York City: Recognizing the Value of Central Park’s Open Space
Developers and city governments have discovered that urban open-space preservation can have a positive effect on property values, urban economies, and the general quality of life. As a result, cities around the country have initiated openspace preservation programs. One of the earliest and most dramatic examples of the economic benefits of urban parks and open space is New York City’s famous Central Park.

An 1860 census of New York City’s population indicated an increase from 4,302 to 814,524 inhabitants in 60 years. In response to this rapid urbanization, Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux prepared a design for Central Park and attached a report which suggested that, “The whole of the island of New York would, but for such a reservation, before many years be occupied by buildings and paved streets…[and] all its inhabitants would assuredly suffer, in greater or less degree, according to their occupations and the degree of their confinement to it, from influences engendered by these conditions.”

Much of the park was purchased by 1859, but the Board of Commissioners, worried about excess valuation, was reluctant to purchase additional acres. Olmsted responded to cost concerns by tracking the increase in the value of properties adjacent to the park. In an 1875 report to the board, he detailed the total cost of Central Park and then calculated the increase in tax revenue from the surrounding properties.

Olmsted’s report noted that property not directly adjacent to the park had appreciated only 100 percent over the previous 20 years. However the three wards adjacent to the park had appreciated 500 percent. While the City had spent $13.9 million to acquire and build the park, the land surrounding the park was worth $180 million more because of the purchase. In 1873 alone, the city’s property tax income was $3,746,880 more than the tax that the city would have received if the park had not been established. In effect, New York City’s Central Park paid for itself just three years after park construction was completed.

Assessing Links Between Ecosystems and Quality of Life
Healthy ecosystems make our communities more rewarding places to live in ways that are unrelated to economic conditions. Many of these benefits are subtle, and different communities may emphasize different aspects of well-functioning ecosystems depending on their values. They include:

Natural Beauty — Natural areas provide a sense of well-being for the community. In particular, protecting habitats in urban areas gives citizens an opportunity to “leave the city behind”, view local animal and plant life without having to travel, and gain a sense of inspiration and renewal.
Protection of Human Health and Safety — Clean air and water and healthy ecosystems ensure that the community is free from health problems associated with pollution. In addition, community members have the peace of mind of knowing that they are safe from these threats.
Sense of Community — A healthy natural environment enhances feelings of civic pride and may instill a stronger sense of kinship among residents. Natural spaces can be used for community gatherings such as annual festivals, picnics, graduation ceremonies, and community gardens. The collective action necessary to protect ecosystems can itself be a bonding force and source of pride to residents who share a common goal and work together to make their community a better place to live.
Spiritual Value— Many people feel spiritually connected with the ecosystems around them. The beauty of nature gives them an opportunity to contemplate their relationship with the world. Many religious denominations have organizations (see Appendix A) that promote environmental stewardship because of the belief that humans have a special responsibility to protect and pass on a healthy world. Many of these groups see the principle of sustaining the health and benefits of the natural world for future generations as a moral obligation. Native American cultures have often been identified as placing a particular spiritual and religious significance on nature and the harmony in natural systems. Many people in the United States share these values.
Educational Value — Rivers, wetlands, forests, and other elements of community ecosystems all provide learning opportunities. Certain areas may be designated public learning centers by the town or by conservation groups. Local colleges and universities also may use ecosystems for teaching and scientific research. For schoolchildren, healthy ecosystems may provide a sense of wonder and encourage further learning. Many parks and forests make learning easy by posting illustrations and names of local plants and animals at park entrances or on placards along trails.
Recreational Opportunities — Healthy ecosystems support wildlife and other natural resources that are often central to outdoor recreational activity. For example, wetlands may provide breeding and spawning areas for fish sought by recreational anglers and may support bird species popular with birdwatchers or hunters. In addition to the commercial value of recreational resources, the intrinsic value of the recreational experience is an important part of life in many communities.

Community Gardens
Community gardens are an effective and sustainable way of building community involvement while at the same time transforming unused space into something productive. More than 300 vacant, and in some cases littered and desolate, spaces in Newark, New Jersey, have been converted into 2,000 lively and productive neighborhood gardens through the Rutgers Urban Gardening Program. The program is a state and federally funded project of Rutgers University Cooperative Extension. Gardeners benefit in many ways, such as improved nutrition, savings on grocery bills, increased sense of self-reliance, and relaxation. Gardens also can become settings for social interaction and discussion of local problems.

References
U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, 11029 Kenwood Road, Cincinnati, OH 45242.
U.S. EPA also has developed outreach and assistance materials designed to help communities learn about and analyze the local environment. In conjunction with Purdue University, EPA Region 5 has developed software packages for use on personal computers. These software packages allow users to analyze a variety of topics. For example, one program helps users understand and assess water pollution risks from local livestock management. Another program discusses how toxic pollutants affect fish and explains fish collection and survey methods. In all, a total of 43 programs are offered on disk from Karen Reshkin, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3590, e-mail: reshkin.karen@epamail.epa.gov, Internet Website: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome.