BUILDING A SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO ENSURE THE VITALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY OF U.S. ECOSYSTEMS ECOSYSTEM WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL CENR ECOSYSTEM WORKING GROUP List of Representatives Donald Scavia Co-chair, CENR Ecosystem Working Group Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Michael Ruggiero Co-chair, CENR Ecosystem Working Group Department of Interior, National Biological Service Ellen Hawes Executive Secretary, CENR Ecosystem Working Group Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration George Bluhm Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Dale Bucks Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service John Calder Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tom Callahan National Science Foundation Steve Cordle Environmental Protection Agency Roger Dahlman Department of Energy Cliff Dahm National Science Foundation Sidney Draggan Environmental Protection Agency Paul Dresler Department of the Interior Jerry Elwood Department of Energy Mike Fosberg Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Anne Frondorf Department of the Interior, National Biological Service Aleta Hohn Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Susan Huke Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Tony Janetos National Aeronautics and Space Administration Stan Ponce Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Esther Schneider Department of the Interior, National Biological Service Allen Shimada Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dave Shriner Office of Science and Technology Policy Mike Slimak Environmental Protection Agency Jean Snider Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Warren Spaeth U.S. Global Change Research Program Tim Strickland Department of Agriculture Robert Szaro Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Phil Taylor National Science Foundation Donna Wieting Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Don Wilson Smithsonian Institution TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i SECTION I. INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION II. A COMMON CENR FOUNDATION: SUSTAINABILITY OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 3 SECTION III. INTEGRATED CENR ECOLOGICAL R&D PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES 5 SECTION IV. KEY PRODUCTS OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 8 SECTION V. FRAMEWORK FOR FEDERAL ACTION 10 SECTION VI. CONCLUSION 13 APPENDIX: EWG CHARGE LETTERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Administration is committed to protecting environmental quality and diversity while providing communities with information needed to enable sustainable development. Federally-supported research that increases our understanding of how ecological and human systems interact, enhances describing and predicting social and ecological consequences of environmental change, and bridges the gap between the science community and policy-makers is essential for fulfilling this commitment. The CENR Ecosystem Working Group (EWG) reviewed and evaluated Federal ecological R&D priorities and set a goal for the study of ecological systems that recognizes the need to understand the interdependent relationships between human and natural systems at all spatial and temporal scales and at all levels of decision making. This national goal is to adequately understand the role of ecological systems in establishing and influencing local-to-global environments to ensure sustained productivity, vitality, diversity, and societal value of these systems. The EWG emphasized the need to add value to current Federal efforts by building upon and synthesizing existing resource assessments, improve capabilities to conduct syntheses and assessments by broadening our understanding of ecological and social systems, and address critical gaps in ecological studies necessary for improving the productivity and vitality of ecological systems. Specifically, the following Ecological Research Priorities are recommended: Documenting Change -- develop protocols and standards, coordinate use of existing data for ecological syntheses and analyses, develop remote sensing and other tools for observing and monitoring ecological systems. Understanding Natural Processes and Interactions with Human Activities -- identify ecosystem indicators of change, conduct ecosystem-scale studies, study linkages between natural and socioeconomic systems, quantify biogeochemical interactions, identify impacts of multiple stresses. Predicting Consequences -- develop predictive models capable of providing forecasts, hindcasts, and measures of uncertainty that will aid our understanding of the impacts of multiple drivers and the natural evolution of ecosystems. Providing Solutions -- develop and evaluate adaptive management protocols and restoration and mitigation technologies that reflect science-policy partnerships. Bridging the gap between scientists and decision makers can be accomplished by conducting periodic assessments of what is understood and what is uncertain about the state and vulnerability of ecological systems. Federal agencies currently conduct assessments of resources, characterizations of habitats, and other work on specific issues at a variety of scales. A need exists, however, to synthesize this information to increase our understanding of interactions among resources, their linkages to variations in the natural and human environment, and their responses to multiple drivers of change. Gaps currently exist for such syntheses at the national and regional levels where they are needed to guide and track the results of National policy and support international syntheses. National and Regional Integrated Environmental Syntheses should document coincident status and trends of multiple resources and related environmental, demographic, and socioeconomic condition. These syntheses should use the best scientific information to develop improved interpretation of human and natural drivers and their effects on ecosystem status and trends, predict future change, assess uncertainty associated with these predictions, and identify data, information, and research needed to reduce uncertainty. These syntheses should also evaluate science-based approaches to ensuring sustained productivity, vitality, use, and enjoyment of ecological systems. To advance both the research agenda and the Nation's ability to use integrated environmental syntheses, the EWG recommends two priorities for Federal action: Support research outlined in this report that improves the scientific basis for assessing the vulnerability of ecological systems to multiple natural and human-induced forces and for assessing the role of ecological systems in influencing environmental change. Conduct periodic national and regional environmental syntheses that integrate resource, issue, and habitat assessments; evaluate ecosystem-level information on extent, status, and trends of ecological systems; and evaluate potential system responses to multiple drivers. The EWG recommends four steps for implementing these two priorities: 1. Establish a standing CENR Ecological Research Task Force to coordinate research efforts and interactions with other ecological syntheses efforts. The task force should be coordinated by the CENR and composed of representatives of agencies with relevant programs. 2. Identify and Support a Core Network of Ecological Research and Monitoring Sites to document change and to improve our predictive ability. This effort should be coordinated by the CENR Ecological Research Task Force with the joint Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)/CENR Ecological Synthesis Task Force (see 3., below). This effort should take advantage of existing sites, networks, and activities. 3. Establish a CEQ/CENR Ecological Synthesis Task Force coordinated jointly by CEQ and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and comprised of representatives responsible for existing thematic assessments and relevant ecological systems studies to support and coordinate regional syntheses and to conduct a first national environmental synthesis. 4. Interact with and Involve Stakeholders to ensure credible and robust efforts by requesting the assistance of the National Research Council to design a framework for conducting national and regional syntheses and to provide review and analysis of the syntheses. I. INTRODUCTION The Administration is committed to protecting environmental quality and diversity while providing communities with the information base to enable sustainable development. Meeting this challenge requires a better understanding of the interactions of ecological and human systems and the social and ecological consequences of change. Policy makers, from local to international levels, must adopt a holistic global view of economic growth, social well-being, and environmental conservation that more fully includes science-based ecological perspectives in their decision-making. Taking this holistic view requires knowledge and understanding of how major ecosystems function, how they can support and tolerate human use, and how decisions affect resource use, environmental impacts, and recovery. Developing and delivering the best science is not only critical for improving the productivity and vitality of our ecological systems but also for understanding and mitigating the ecological effects of environmental change at all scales. Such efforts include improving our understanding of how fundamental processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, growth, succession, migration, biogeochemical cycles, and evolution mitigate change and/or are altered by singular and combined climatic, toxic-contaminant, air-quality, water-quality, ozone-UV, and other forcings. Integration of multiple scientific disciplinary approaches are needed to develop a truly comprehensive understanding of the processes and changes of ecological and social systems that occur on scales ranging from local to global and from days to centuries. For the purposes of this review, ecological systems research is defined as: The scientific study of the processes influencing the distribution and abundance of organisms, the interactions among organisms, and the interactions between organisms and the transformation and flux of energy and matter (Likens 1992). The underlying assumption of this definition views ecological systems as "open" in that they exist as a continuum through space and time through the exchange of water, energy, and materials. Ecological processes and components influence and are influenced by natural and human-induced environmental changes. As a consequence, a holistic systems approach to monitoring, research, and assessment of ecological systems is needed to ensure the consideration of all important system components, processes, and interactions and the cumulative effects of existing and potential future environmental forcings on all temporal and spatial scales. The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) Ecosystem Working Group (EWG) was established as an ad hoc group to review, identify, and evaluate ecological R&D priorities as a whole across the Federal agencies. As a basis for its work, the EWG reviewed the Strategy and Implementation plans developed by five CENR Subcommittees (Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, Global Change, Resource Use and Management, Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Solid Wastes, Water Resources and Coastal and Marine Environments). The EWG identified a national goal for the study of ecological systems, common elements of ecological science, key products of ecological research, and an integrated set of research priorities. The National Goal for the study of ecological systems (including physical, chemical, biological, socioeconomic, and health components) that emerged from the review recognizes the need to understand the interdependent relationships between human and natural systems at all spatial and temporal scales and at all levels of decision-making. The goal is to: Adequately understand the role of ecological systems in establishing and influencing local-to-global environments to ensure the sustained productivity, vitality, diversity, and societal value of these systems. The results of this review and the recommendations that follow provide a framework to focus Federal efforts for developing a holistic systems approach to monitoring, research, and assessment of ecological systems. The EWG recommendations emphasize adding value to current Federal efforts by 1) building upon and synthesizing existing resource assessments, 2) improving the capabilities to conduct syntheses and assessments through focused research and monitoring designed to broaden our understanding and information base of ecological and social systems, and 3) addressing critical gaps in ecological studies necessary for improving the productivity and utility of ecological systems. Typically, a first step in this process is conducting a resource inventory that describes the pattern and distribution of the most important human and ecological components. A second step is determining how ecological resources change through time. These changes or trends can be detected by monitoring in the long term, resources directly or indirectly through indicators. However, to fully understand the ecological consequences of change and to insure the productivity and utility of ecological systems, it is usually not enough to just detect resource trends. We must also understand the natural and social causes of these changes and how systemic processes react to various forms of stress. From this knowledge base, the goal is to forecast future trends and identify possible and appropriate mitigation or restoration methodologies. This is best done by understanding the species and habitats involved, determining the critical parameters and processes that affect their trends (including human interaction), and formulating ecological system models based on these parameters, processes, and trends. The third step of this process should develop models that include a link between biological and physical components of ecological systems and their interactions with socioeconomic driving forces. The models must be tested and refined based on evaluations of their performance in simulating large-scale experimental conditions and in making predictions and assessments for various future scenarios. SECTION II. A COMMON CENR FOUNDATION: SUSTAINABILITY OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Understanding the vulnerability of ecological systems to multiple natural and human-induced environmental forcings and of the role of ecological systems in influencing and modulating environmental changes is fundamental to meeting the challenges articulated in the National Goal. This information is developed through documenting the current and changing state of ecological systems; identifying the social, economic, biological, chemical, and physical forces that influence ecosystem vitality, functioning, and productivity; improving understanding of how systems function naturally and when disrupted as a consequence of human-induced changes; and participating in continuing efforts to summarize the state of scientific understanding for use by public and private decision makers. The common principles and components of ecological systems science advocate improving our ability to integrate and synthesize these assessment and modeling capabilities through interdisciplinary research. This research must be designed to encourage policy-relevant and anticipatory science. Its purpose is to promote implementation of research initiatives that will (1) provide the information needed by stakeholders in adaptive scenarios to ensure ecological system productivity and utility and (2) provide a fundamental understanding of the ecological consequences of environmental change. Review of the relevant CENR Subcommittee strategies demonstrates that the Federal agencies share a common vision of ensuring the sustainability of ecological systems. Meeting this challenge will require common focus on developing the understanding to (1) improve predictions of the social and ecological consequences of environmental change and (2) provide a strong scientific basis for ensuring that ecological systems remain productive and vibrant. It is important to note that this rationale reflects concern both for the continued utility of ecological systems as providers of goods and services, for the unintended consequences of human activities on ecological systems such as effects of pollutants, climate change, atmospheric increases of carbon dioxide, and ozone depletion, and for natural variabilities. It is imperative that we understand and quantify the drivers of change in ecological systems. These drivers include both natural processes, such as weather and interannual climatic variability, and anthropogenic stresses, such as extractive and non-extractive uses, impacts from pollutants, changes in atmospheric composition, physical alterations, and long-term climate change. Review of CENR Subcommittee reports shows that agencies recognize the importance of understanding the influence and magnitude of different drivers of change, the collective influence of multiple stresses, the ecological consequences of the changes, and the feedbacks from changes in systems to changes in the physical environment (e.g., composition of the atmosphere or ocean, land use, water quality, sediment flux). The identification, quantification, and understanding of these drivers is an inherent part of the following common science components and principles across the CENR Subcommittees. Common research goals and principles identified by the EWG are: Assessing Ecological Systems and Science. It is essential to synthesize the available knowledge and modeling capabilities through an assessment process. In some cases the assessments are evaluations of the past, present, and likely future state of a resource or ecological system. In other cases, the efforts are assessments of the state of the science, modeled along the lines of the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the World Meteorological Organization(WMO)/United National Programme on Environment (UNEP) stratospheric ozone scientific assessments. While important resource, habitat, and issue-specific assessments are done routinely, a framework should be developed to synthesize the knowledge gained from these independent assessments. This integration should include the components, functionality, resiliency, and sustainability of ecosystems in a matrix that also incorporates social choice, tolerance, and economic and perceived value. Thus, there is a clear need for peer-reviewed, end-to-end assessments that incorporate information on how our ecological systems are changing, how ecological system processes and humans interact, the prediction of consequences, and options in resource management. Documenting Change in Ecological Systems. A first step in an assessment is to conduct a resource inventory. There is a need to document the quantity and quality of what is actually present on the landscape and in the oceans and atmosphere. A second step is to identify the factors that drive environmental change in both the near and long term. Long-term monitoring activities must be maintained and should be guided by both scientific and managerial concerns so that the magnitude of effects of changing management strategies, natural stresses and dynamics, and unintended anthropogenic stresses can be determined. Long-term monitoring is also necessary to determine what the consequences of those stresses are both for the structure of ecological systems and the diversity of organisms they contain and for the ecological processes that provide both goods and services for human use. An inherent part of documenting change is sharing data widely through the development of common protocols, standards, and techniques for managing and distributing data of multiple types. Understanding Processes in Ecological Systems. It is crucial to understand the diversity of components and processes that govern the character of ecological systems, control their natural dynamics, and regulate the ways in which they respond to natural or anthropogenic stresses. Processes of concern are exhibited at a variety of levels, including classic ecosystem processes such as primary production, decomposition, and nutrient cycling; population and community-level processes, such as competition, predation, and symbioses; and habitat and landscape-level processes, such as migration, recruitment, and succession. The need to understand processes is important not only as a scientific goal but also as a basis for better predicting how ecological systems will respond to increased and novel stresses. Understanding the Interactions of Ecological and Human Systems. A key to ensuring the productivity of ecological systems is understanding how ecosystem characteristics and management practices interact with social and economic systems. Both management decisions and restoration of ecosystems depend on such information. This common element underscores the need for the ecological research community and other scientific communities concerned with human dimensions of change to come together and form a common research agenda. Improving the Predictability of Ecological Systems. We must develop tools to predict the capability of ecological systems to deliver goods and services or, conversely, to predict the potential for changes in system function in response to multiple stresses. In most cases, our ability to predict ecological system composition, structure, or processes is quite limited. Thus, developing better predictive capabilities is considered a high priority as is quantifying the uncertainty associated with those predictions. Toward this end more research is required on ecological processes as well as on monitoring and measurement programs. Developing Management and Mitigation Technologies. Managing and mitigating change in ecological systems that have already been damaged is one of the most serious issues facing the research and management communities. The methods by which this may be done are still in their infancy. Research should be directed toward a better understanding of how natural, managed, and restored ecosystems operate, developing cost-effective restoration capabilities, and identifying realistic measures against which ecosystem restoration can be evaluated. SECTION III. INTEGRATED CENR ECOLOGICAL R&D PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES Monitoring, research, and modeling are essential for improving the understanding and scientific basis for natural resource, ecosystem, and environmental decision-making. Long-term, high-quality data are essential to accomplish these tasks effectively. Ongoing research and development efforts remain essential because they support required specific assessments. These efforts also form the building blocks for needed new efforts to improve our understanding of the complex ecological consequences of environmental change and enhance our ability to perform syntheses. PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES The common science components described above in Section II, above, outline the scientific elements needed for successfully achieving the national goal of sustainability. The EWG also compared these CENR-based components with research needs identified by regional ecosystem and resource managers through the Federal Interagency Ecosystem Management Initiative (EMI). Comparison of these needs with those identified as CENR priorities provides strong evidence of consensus among local, regional, and Federal managers regarding the research priorities that will provide the predictive and timely information needed to manage resources from an adaptive systems approach. From this comparison, four key R&D priorities emerged as most important. Specific efforts in these areas will help provide resource managers, planners, and policy-makers at all levels with required new information relative to the current abundance, condition, and location of natural resources; the value of these resources in ecological, social, and economic terms; an indication of the future condition of the resources given various management and policy decisions; and an indication of future conditions when various new technologies, management approaches, and policies are applied. The four ecological research priorities are: 1. Documenting Change. The ability to identify ecological system status, trends, and vulnerabilities and drivers of change is fundamental to making effective policy decisions. Specific research needs are to: Identify, integrate, and synthesize existing data and information sets; Develop and apply remote sensing and other methods for observing and monitoring ecological systems; Develop protocols and standards for aggregating existing information and collecting future information to ensure the maintenance of an integrated quality-assured data base that can be used with confidence by managers and scientists; and Document information on the historical composition, condition, and trends of ecosystems. 2. Understanding Natural Processes and Interactions with Human Activities. To relate system trends to the drivers of change, there is an urgent need to improve understanding of controls upon the ecological system components (e.g., water resources), ecological system processes (e.g., production, decomposition, carbon and nutrient cycling), ecological dynamics (e.g., species interactions, communities), and social and economic processes (e.g., use and valuation of ecological goods and services) that influence and are influenced by resource sustainability. Specific research needs are to: Identify and develop indicators of ecological system status; Conduct ecosystem-scale studies to characterize and document structural and functional responses, interactions, biogeochemical processes, and environmental feedbacks; Characterize population and ecological system responses to multiple stress; and Characterize linkages between ecological system components and processes and human (economic, social) activities. 3. Predicting Consequences. It is imperative that we develop and improve our capability to predict responses and consequences of different future scenarios. Specific research, modeling, and monitoring needs are to: Develop, test, and validate physically-based, spatially-explicit partial and whole-system models that predict risk from multiple stressors and the exchange and interactions between atmospheric, terrestrial, and hydrologic components of systems; Apply models to improve understanding of past conditions, future changes, and natural evolution of ecological systems; Predict ecological, social, and economic implications of resource use; and Quantify uncertainty associated with predicted scenarios. 4. Providing Solutions. To be able to provide reasonable solutions and options for natural resource decision-making, there is a need to improve partnerships and communication among scientists, managers, policy-makers, and other stakeholders; to develop cost-effective restoration and mitigation options; and to identify realistic measures that ensure the productivity and vitality of our ecological systems. Specific research and communication needs are to: Identify, develop, and disseminate ecosystem-based decision-making, cost-benefit, and environmental valuation techniques; and Develop and transfer restoration and mitigation technology. IMPLEMENTATION OF R&D PRIORITIES Implementing these research priorities will take a diverse set of approaches ranging from detailed disciplinary research (i.e., laboratory and observational experiments) to comprehensive studies that address the functions and interactions of entire ecological systems and landscapes/seascapes (i.e.., the kinds of studies often most effectively pursued through networks and at centers). The Federal Role. While all parts of the research establishment should contribute to this effort, special emphasis should initially be given to focusing and integrating Federal and Federally-supported efforts. Specifically, a move toward an integrated approach to monitoring, reporting, and assessing the status and trends of ecological conditions will allow the greatest gain in effectiveness from this research and increase our ability to: determine whether the frequency and extent of problems are increasing; characterize the spatial (local, regional, global) and temporal (transient, annual, decadal) scale of effects; determine whether changes in ecological condition are indications of significant long-term improvement in or degradation of ecosystem structure or function; determine whether changes in ecological condition are associated with changes in the sources (local, regional, global), types (management, level of resource removal, chemical exposure, biotic invasion), and/or intensity-duration of stresses; and integrate ecological, economic and social information to develop predictions of how expected trends in natural resource supported-capacities will affect (and be affected by) the welfare of our people, their demographics, and the development of market opportunities and policy options from local to global scales. Network of Interagency Sites. To provide these capacities, a mechanism must be developed in the near-term to coordinate and integrate this research. The establishment of a national network of research and monitoring sites is an appropriate mechanism. While these sites are not the only locations appropriate for Federal science, the identification and development of such a network is an essential step for reducing inefficiencies and improving the quality of our science. Focus at a network of sites will have many benefits. Information collected at these sites will be made universally available and can be used to: Develop baseline ecological condition profiles against which future changes can be documented with confidence; Provide a continuous data stream that can be used for regional, national, and global comparison, validation, and verification purposes; and Provide a set of regionally-representative sites where research can be conducted to develop improved measures of ecological condition and to test the feasibility of adaptive management scenarios. SECTION IV. KEY PRODUCTS OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH While research in the above priority areas is needed to develop a broad-based scientific understanding of ecological and social systems and their interactions, transferring this information in a usable format is essential to ensuring the sustained productivity and utility of ecological systems. There must be ready access to the most up-to-date scientific information, bridging the information gap between scientists and decision makers. An effective way to accomplish this is through periodic and interactive assessments and syntheses. SYNTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Federal agencies currently conduct assessments of resources, habitats, and specific issues (e.g., climate change, acid rain) at a variety of scales. For example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program is working through the IPCC to develop assessments of climate change and with the WMO/ UNEP to study changes in the stratospheric ozone layer. At regional scales, agencies routinely prepare assessments of the status of resources (e.g., fisheries, forests) and habitats (e.g., water quality, soil type). At local scales, assessments are performed daily in support of permit evaluations and other local-to-state decision-making. These specific assessments are valuable and must be continued to meet current missions and mandates. However, a critical need exists to synthesize this information to increase our understanding of the significance of interactions among resources, their linkages to variations in the natural and human environment, and their responses to multiple drivers of change. These integrated environmental syntheses should draw on data and information from ongoing specific assessments and provide a comprehensive and integrated picture of current and future ecosystem conditions. Significant gaps in the development of such integrated environmental syntheses exist at national and regional levels where they are needed to guide and track the results of national policy and support international syntheses. While there are examples of activities underway to address these gaps (e.g., Columbia River Basin, Southern Appalachia, and Middle Atlantic regional assessments), increased focus and more support for national and additional regional efforts are needed. Therefore, the EWG has identified key new products of ecological systems science as national and regional integrated environmental syntheses that are built upon existing resource assessments. These new products are designed to provide the needed information for ensuring the continued productivity and vitality of our natural resources and to develop an understanding of the consequences of environmental change at all scales. The syntheses should identify ecological system trends, relate these trends to their causes and consequences, and predict outcomes of various alternative future scenarios. These three components should be developed in a coordinated, but fairly autonomous, manner to maintain scientific neutrality. The first component supporting the second and the first two supporting the third as follows: 1. Status of Ecosystems -- document coincident status and trends of multiple resources and related environmental, demographic, and socioeconomic condition. 2. Causes and Consequences of Change -- using the best scientific information available: relate status and trends to human and natural causes and consequences; predict future trajectories and rates of change; assess associated uncertainties; and identify data, information, and research needed to reduce future uncertainties. 3. Options and Outcomes -- evaluate science-based approaches for ensuring sustained productivity, vitality, use, and enjoyment of ecological systems in response to the findings in Sections II and III. Federal Role in Synthesis Development. Specific Federal action is needed to develop these periodic national and regional environmental syntheses in such a way as to jump-start the interactive and iterative synthesis process. It should serve as the starting point for improving our ability to integrate environmental information, provide a measure of the status of the environment (similar to the way the national census provides a status of the population in the United States), provide policy-relevant information that is responsive to those changes, and help refine efforts to improve the quality of future environmental syntheses on all scales. Specifically, these national and regional integrated environmental synthesis should: Compile data and information from existing monitoring and assessment programs, including the use of remotely sensed data and state and academic sites where possible. This will provide a first comparative look at the products of these programs and indicate the collective status of ecosystems on the basis of this first comprehensive compilation of data regionally and nationally. Integrate and analyze ecological and socioeconomic data, develop summaries and forecasts of ecosystem trends, and place these forecasts in regional, national, and international contexts. Recommend specific actions to prepare for additional national and regional syntheses; identify gaps and redundancies in data, protocols, and other parameters; develop standards; identify criteria for the selection of regional syntheses and research foci; and assign agency roles. SECTION V. FRAMEWORK FOR FEDERAL ACTION Achieving the national goal as stated in Section 1 of this report will require scientifically-based assessments of the consequences of human activities on ecological systems and better informed decisions about their use and conservation. This requires improved scientific understanding of the structure and function of ecological systems and their resources and how they affect and are affected by natural and human-induced forcings. To meet the goal, Federal and Federally-supported efforts are needed for developing this scientific understanding and delivering the information to decision-makers. Review of ecological science needs led to an integrated set of four CENR ecological research priorities listed in Section 3. Key products of this research and an effective mechanism for delivering scientific information to decision makers are the national and regional integrated environmental assessments described in Section 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on its review and analysis, the EWG recommends two key priorities for Federal action: Support the research priorities outlined in Section III, using a holistic systems approach to improve the scientific basis for assessing the vulnerability of ecological systems to multiple natural and human-induced forcings, and the role of ecological systems in regulating environmental change (e.g., climate, water quality). The research must develop sound scientific bases for ensuring the productivity and vitality of ecological systems, including, where appropriate, developing mitigative measures to avoid adverse impacts or adaptive strategies and technologies to remediate or restore damaged systems and resources. Conduct periodic national and regional integrated environmental syntheses, as defined in Section IV, that integrate and evaluate information at the ecosystem level on existing extent, status, and trends of ecological systems, and on potential future consequences of human activities on these systems. These assessments should consider not only the social, economic, and ecological value and benefits of ecological systems but also the possible future consequences of implementing different technological, management, and/or policy options on the sustainability of the components and processes of these systems. These two recommendations are intended to add value to our current understanding of ecological systems, develop new perspectives of the interactions between the physical, chemical, biological, and social components of the environment, and clarify the linkages and interdependent relationships between the condition, availability, and value (ecological and economic) of natural resources. The first recommendation falls within the domain of the R&D agencies; however, continued dialogue with other agencies will be needed to ensure policy-relevance. The second recommendation takes an ecosystem approach and extends beyond the typical programmatic scope of R&D agencies. It requires cooperation across government while maintaining a strong science component. For both recommendations, however, joint state-federal and public-private commitments are needed to broaden our understanding of ecological and social systems and, thereby, improve our synthesis capabilities. This will provide a knowledge base that is both anticipatory and policy-relevant and ensure effective communication and use of the soundest science and approaches for protecting the vitality and productivity of our ecological systems. MECHANISMS FOR IMPLEMENTATION The EWG suggests four specific steps for implementing the two recommendations: 1. Establish a CENR Ecological Research Task Force. To implement the research priorities identified above and to coordinate with and enhance Federal ecological efforts in the synthesis process, the EWG recommends establishment of a CENR task force composed of representatives of agencies with relevant programs and overlapping representation with the joint CEQ/OSTP Ecological Synthesis Task Force (see below). It would continue interactions with the National Research Council and coordinate: Relevant base programs in support of high priority needs and in support of the fundamental work upon which focused ecological research and monitoring depend; Implementation of base, redirected, and new efforts, within an ecosystem perspective, to fill gaps identified by the EWG; Identification, furtherance, and implementation of a network of representative ecological sites for long-term observations and research (see 2., below); and Identification of future data, information, and research needs. 2. Identify and Support a Core Network of Ecological Research and Monitoring Sites. As an augmentation to the existing research and development support structure, there is a need to establish a national network of ecological research and monitoring sites. The network would provide an integrated framework delivering baseline information against which long-term trends in ecological system condition could be evaluated at national and regional scales. The EWG recommends that the CENR, through the Ecological Research Task Force and the joint CEQ/CENR Ecological Synthesis Task Force (see 3, below), identify the components, activities, and structure of such a network. This cooperative effort would: Build upon recent efforts to integrate activities of existing networks; Evaluate the effectiveness of existing networks in identifying trends and underlying causes, supporting comparative ecological analyses, providing ground-based efforts to validate and interpret remotely-sensed information, and improving the transferability of site-specific information to more general applications; Recommend adjustments to individual sites to establish a network representative of regionally-dominant ecosystem types that will promote comparability in the assessment process among ecosystems and regions and will facilitate the integration of ecological, economic, and social information to enable the development of predictive models; Connect larger-scale and broader-based research efforts to these network "benchmark" sites to facilitate development of predictive tools linking ecological system and natural resource trends to the welfare of our people, their demographics, and the development of market opportunities and policy options; Coordinate implementation of research and monitoring efforts defined above at key sites within the network; and Develop data management mechanisms to facilitate data comparisons and to make the data universally available to all interested parties. 3. Establish a CEQ/CENR Ecological Synthesis Task Force. To synthesize the findings of on-going resource, habitat, and issue-specific assessments, the EWG recommends forming a joint CEQ/CENR interagency task force separately or in combination with the recommended Ecological Research Task Force, comprised of representatives responsible for existing thematic assessments and relevant ecological systems studies. The Task Force would support and coordinate regional syntheses, conduct the first National synthesis, and: Identify existing thematic assessments that will be synthesized (e.g., forests, water quantity and quality, agricultural land cover, fisheries, soil characteristics, wetlands, census, social and economic) with a focus on the added value that can be derived from examining interactions among resources and drivers and at appropriate space and time scales; Compile, compare, and integrate these resource and environmental assessments into a preliminary National integrated environmental synthesis by the end of 1996; Provide access to and coordination with regional syntheses that have begun as pilot efforts (e.g., Pacific Northwest, Southern Appalachia), and support the conduct of additional regional syntheses; Identify information and understanding gaps and redundancies based on these national and regional synthesis efforts; and Recommend means to improve comparability of resource assessments and the ability to conduct additional syntheses in the future. 4. Interact with and Involve Stakeholders. To ensure credible and robust efforts, the EWG recommends requesting the assistance of the National Research Council (NRC) to design a framework for conducting national and regional syntheses. Such a framework could include identifying the relative roles of Federal agencies, states, universities, and industry and other private sector groups; identification of appropriate metrics for analysis; the approaches to be used; and the scope of the syntheses. While the synthesis will be performed by the agencies and their external partners, the EWG recommends that the NRC be asked to review the synthesis reports to ensure their quality, help refine the framework and identify new research priorities and future approaches to synthesis. SECTION VI. CONCLUSION Pursuit of an improved quality of life has often produced unintended threats to the sustainability of ecological systems. Continued decreases in the productivity and vitality of our ecological systems, and the processes associated with deterioration of these systems are changing are incompletely understood. What is indisputable, however, is that the basis for economic and human development has been the availability and health of our natural resources and the ecological systems from which they derive. To sustain further human development, we must therefore sustain the ecological base from which it builds. Essential to meeting this challenge is acquiring better scientific information relative to the current abundance, condition, and location of our natural resources; the value of these resources in ecological, social, and economic terms; an indication of the future condition of the resources given various management and policy decisions; and an indication of future environmental and social conditions when various new technologies, management approaches, and policies are applied. Federally-supported scientific research plays an essential role in meeting these challenges. Recognizing this, the CENR charged the EWG to conduct this review and develop an integrated and coordinated Federal ecological systems research plan for improving the predictive understanding of these systems. The next step is securing a strong commitment from the Federal agencies, CENR, and OSTP to implement the recommendations of the EWG. As indicators of ecological degradation are increasing, it is imperative that we take action now. Through the coordinated efforts outlined in this report, the Nation can develop the understanding needed in time to ensure that our ecological systems can sustain further development and advancement of our social and economic well-being. APPENDIX: CHARGE LETTERS TO THE ECOSYSTEM WORKING GROUP