resultant information to meet specific requirements of a decision process 

 (synthesis). (For example, secondary data analyses such as predicting future 

 changes in elk numbers due to increased logging activity and or cattle grazing.) 



b. The process of translating characterization or synthesis into human values, 

 either social or economic (interpretation). (For example, expressing the 

 predicted future elk numbers as changes in harvest success rate or dollars 

 generated by elk hunting.) 



c. The results of (a) and/ or (b). 



These component processes are linked together through what may be termed 

 information muncii^enjent systems: the assessment outputs (specified information) 

 are generally ecological opportunities, constraints, and the prediction of risks.' ^ 

 These outputs, when integrated with the results of other assessment processes, form 

 the basis for program decisionmaking. 1 he resultingdecisions, in a planning context, 

 may trigger repetition of the schemes shown in Figures I and 2, with increasing 

 resolution on smaller subsets of the initial geographical area considered. 



The need for a basic understanding of the relationship of information flow between 

 the four subcomponents of ecological assessment (classification, inventory, 

 characterization, and evaluation) and the two phases (design and application 

 Figure 2) is emphasized. Recent experience in the design phase indicates the need to 

 repeat the obvious logical dictate: analysis requirements (evaluation and 

 characterization) must be the primary driver for data collection and organization 

 specifications (inventory and classification). 



The role of data base development primarily centers on the integration of /fv/.s7/'/7,!,' 

 Data and t'coloi^ical Thcorw as for readily available input into the Chaiacteiizaiion 

 and Evaluation steps in ecological assessment. The requirements and specifications 

 for Classification are inseparable from this step-wise view of ecological assessment, 

 and, hence, data base development. 



WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 



Institutional Perspective 



The convergence of natural resource conservation legislation and broadened 

 mandates to protect public health and welfare began in the late 1950sand 1960s. The 

 earlier conservation ethic placed man and his social activities apart from nature. The 

 evolution of this ethic into the environmental movement of the sixties forced a 

 recognition of man's dependence on his environment. Thus, environmental quality 

 was increasingly considered to be an important attribute of the public welfare. The 

 underlying terms of early federal legislation reinforced this assumed separation 

 between man and nature. The public's concern for the protection of environmental 

 quality, which had previously been applied principally to federal water construction 

 projects, was given universal application throughout the federal establishment by 

 NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 ). NEPA represented a convergence of legislation concerned 

 with natural resource conservation with that involving public health and welfare; 

 NEPA set the tenor and policy basis for subsequent federal and state environmental 

 lesiglation.''* 



In the 1970s. Congress, various federal agencies, and the courts were eager to 

 infuse nearly every facet of federal and private activity with the mandates of NEPA. 

 The NEPA mandate also led to revision and updating of previous environmental 

 legislation, notably the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962) and 

 the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666). The proliferation of 

 federal environmental conservation legislation and regulations during the 1970s was 

 unparalleled. Some of the more prominent mandates were: The Water Resources 

 Council's Principles and Standards (38 FR 24778: 1973), Federal Water Pollution 



10 



