Upon completion of a review, panel members should make written responses to each guideline. 

 Documentation of the indicator presentation and the panel comments and recommendations will establish a 

 knowledge base for further research and indicator comparisons. Information from ORD indicator reviews will 

 be maintained with public access so that scientists outside of EPA who are applying for grant support can 

 address the most critical weaknesses of an indicator or an indicator area. 



It is important to recognize that the Evaluation Guidelines by themselves do not determine indicator 

 applicability or effectiveness. Users must decide the acceptability of an indicator in relation to their specific 

 needs and objectives. This document was developed to evaluate indicators for ORD-affiliated monitoring 

 programs, but it should be useful for other programs as well. To increase its potential utility, this document 

 avoids labeling individual guidelines as either essential or optional, and does not establish thresholds for 

 acceptable or unacceptable performance. Some users may be willing to accept a weakness in an indicator 

 if it provides vital information. Or, the cost may be too high for the information gained. These decisions should 

 be made on a case-by-case basis and are not prescribed here. 



Example Indicators 



Ecological indicators vary in methodology, type (biological, chemical, physical), resource application (fresh 

 water, forest, etc.), and system scale, among other ways. Because of the diversity and complexity of 

 ecological indicators, three different indicator examples are provided in the following chapters to illustrate 

 application of the guidelines. The examples include a direct measurement (dissolved oxygen concentration), 

 an index (benthic condition) and a multimetric indicator (stream fish assemblages) of ecological condition. All 

 three examples employ data from EMAP studies, but each varies in the type of information and extent of 

 analysis provided for each guideline, as well as the approach and terminology used. The authors of these 

 chapters present their best interpretations of the available information. Even though certain indicator 

 strengths and weaknesses may emerge, the examples are nof evaluations, which should be performed in a 

 peer-review format. Rather, the presentations are intended to illustrate the types of information relevant to 

 each guideline. 



1-6 



