Chapter 10 (Part B): Data Integration and Reporting

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page for more information about getting and using the free Acrobat Reader.

RBP Home | Table of Contents | Download the RBP | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D

This Chapter is divided into two parts: Part A and Part B (this file).

---

Pie charts--used to illustrate proportional representation of the whole by its component parts. Can be sized according to magnitude or density (Figure 10-7)

Figure 10-7. Results of the benthic assessment of streams in the Mattaponi Creek watershed of southern Prince George's County, Maryland. Percent of streams in each ecological condition category. (Taken from Stribling et al. 1996b).

Box-and-whisker plots-- used to illustrate population attributes (via percentile distribution) and provides some sense of variability (Figure 10-8).

Figure 10-8. The population of values of the IBI in reference sites within each of the ecoregions of Ohio. (Contributed by Ohio EPA).

3. Trend monitoring and assessment -- Monitoring over a temporal or spatial scale requires a graphical display depicting trends, which may show improvement, degradation, or no change.

Line graphs--used to illustrate temporal or spatial trends that are contiguous. Assumes that linkage between points is linear (Figure 10-9).

Figure 10-9. Spatial and temporal trend of Ohio's Invertebrate Community Index. The Scioto River - Columbus to Circleville. (Contributed by Ohio EPA).

Cumulative frequency diagram--illustrates an ordered accumulation of observations from lowest to highest value that allows one to determine status of resource at any given level (Figure 10-10).

Figure 10-10. Cumulative distribution of macroinvertebrate index scores. 21% of sites scored at or below 60. The median index score is 75, where the cumulative frequency is 50%.

4. A determination of cause-and-effect -- illustrating the source of impairment may not be a straightforward process. However, certain graphs lend themselves to showing comparative results in diagnosing problems.

Bar charts -- used to display magnitude of values for discrete entities. Can be used to illustrate deviation from a value of central tendency (Figure 10-11).

Figure 10-11. Biological assessment of sites in the Middle Rockies, showing mean and standard deviation of repeated measures and the assessment threshold (dashed line).

Sun Ray plots -- used to compare more than 2 endpoints or data types. Most effective when reference condition is incorporated into axes or comparison (Figure 10-12).

Figure 10-12. Integration of data from habitat, fish, and benthic assemblages.

Box-and-whisker plots-- used to illustrate population attributes (via percentile distribution). Distinction among plots illustrates degree of similarity/differences (Figure 10-13).

Figure 10-13. The response of the benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage (ICI) to various types of impacts (provided by Ohio EPA).

10.2.2

Report Format

Two basic formats are recommended for reporting ecological assessments. Each of these formats is intended to highlight the scientific process, focus on study objectives, and judge the condition of the assessed sites. The first format is a summary report, targeted for use by managers in making decisions regarding the resource. This report format can also be an invaluable public information tool. The second report format is patterned after that of peer-reviewed journals and is primarily designed for informing a more technical audience.

The Ecosummary is an example of the first report format. It has an uncomplicated style and conveys various information including study results. The simplicity of this format quickly and effectively documents results and assists a non-technical audience in making informed decisions. An executive summary format is appropriate. An executive summary format is appropriate to present the "bottom line" assessment for the Ecosummary, which will be read by agency managers and decision-makers. Technical appendices or supplemental documentation should either accompany the report or be available to support the scientific integrity of the study.

These Ecosummaries are generally between 1-4 pages in length and lend themselves to quick and easy dissemination. Color graphics may be added to enhance the presentation or findings. An example of an Ecosummary format used by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is illustrated in Figure 10-14. This 1-page report highlights the purpose of the study as well as the results and significance of the findings. A summary of the ecological data in the form of bar charts and tables may be provided on subsequent pages. Because this study follows prescribed methods and procedures, all of this documentation is not included in the report but is included in agency Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

The second format for reporting is a scientific report, which is structured similarly to a peer-reviewed journal. The report should be peer-reviewed by non-agency scientists to validate its scientific credibility. An abstract or executive summary should be prepared to highlight the essential findings. As in a peer-reviewed journal article, the methods and results are presented succinctly and clearly. The introductory text should outline the objectives and purpose of the study. A discussion of the results should include supporting literature to add credence to the findings, particularly if there is a discussion of suspected cause of impairment. Preparation of a report using this format will require more time than the Ecosummary. However, this report format is more inclusive of supportive information and will be more important in litigious situations.

Figure 10-14. Guidance for Florida Ecosummary — A one-page bioassessment report. (Contributed by Florida DEP).

 

Back to Ch. 10 (Main)